Template talk:Campaignbox War of the Pacific

This template is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Associated task forces:
/
	South American military history task force

Boundary treaty of 1881 between Chile and Argentina

I put it because the war weren't the same without the Boundary treaty Ch-Ar. --Keysanger (talk) 17:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Treaty of Alliance

Of course the treaty of alliance was one of the cases of the war!. Without the treaty Bolivia never had confronted Chile and probably Peru had never enter into the war without the treaty. --Keysanger (talk) 18:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The treaty was USED as reasoning (from the Chilean side at least) to rationalize a declaration of war but any treaty by it self was not a cause per se.

The dispute of lands, abundant in natural resources is, indeed, the main cause of war. Among historians there's no much debate on that fact.

Likeminas (talk) 19:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree with you about the main cause of the war, but we shouldn't cut the history there and tell also the circumstances of the war.

We, you and me and anyone, know that every serious study of the War of the Pacific must include the alliance pact. If you don't think so, please, show me a book that doesn't include the ominous alliance in the history of the war.

I will wait … --Keysanger (talk) 10:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keysanger, it doesn't work that way. If you claim the treaties were the cause of war then you should be the one getting sources to corroborate that.

The war as you are probably already aware, is also known as the Saltpeter War (Guerra del Salitre) not precisely because Salitre was the name of a treaty but instaed because a territory rich in that natural reasource was been disputed.

Sources corroborating the cause of the war:

http://www.puntofinal.cl/555/chileybolivia.htm

http://www.icarito.cl/medio/articulo/0,0,38035857_152309041_147601895_1,00.html

Finally another source especialized on wars says the following about the causes[1]:

War of the Pacific, Spanish GUERRA DEL PACÍFICO (1879-83), conflict involving Chile, Bolivia, and Peru, which resulted in Chilean annexation of valuable disputed territory on the Pacific coast. It grew out of a dispute between Chile and Bolivia over control of a part of the Atacama Desert that lies between the 23rd and 26th parallels on the Pacific coast of South America. The territory contained valuable mineral resources, particularly sodium nitrate.

Another untoward event was the War of the Pacific with Chile, caused mainly by rivalry over the exploitation of rich nitrate beds in the Atacama Desert (then in Peru, now in Chile). Chile's superior resources and military discipline brought overwhelming defeat to Peru and its ally Bolivia.

In the meantime I will leave your claims, but it's important that you provide sources to back them up.

Likeminas (talk) 13:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Likeminas, I don't like discussions about sources, interpretations, etc.. I told you already, the cause was the nitrate. Chile, Bolivia, UK, USA and Peru wanted the control and benefits of the bussines. Let the readers decide about guilty party. I changed "causes to Circumstances", I think that is enough. --Keysanger (talk) 15:09, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keysanger; once again and please understand this; If you make a claim then you need to provide sources to back up that claim. I didn't mention anything about interpretations. If you can't provide sources that support that "Nitrate" (I thought you said the violations of the treaties was the cause, but anyway) then your claim should be deleted as per WP:V and WP:OR. Simple as that.

Likeminas (talk) 12:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have never seen a navbox with readable prose like "Control of mineral-rich territories". Sorry, you are more imaginative than me. I give up.

As you like it:

Mas aún; en nota de 8 de Febrero de 1879, el

Ministro de Chile exigió contestación inmediata sobre

el arbitraje propuesto, en plazo de veinticuatro horas.

Y como Bolivia se negara á la aceptación del arbi-

traje propuesto por Chile, y se negara igualmente á

suspender la ley de Febrero de 1878, vino la reivin-

dicación del Litoral de Antofagasta por Chile.

page 321,LUIS ORREGO LUCO, "LOS Problemas internacionales de Chile,LA CUESTIÓN BOLIVIANA" (Bold is from Keysanger)

Other source:

Ha resultado de aquí que apesar de lo absoluto i de-

finitivo que parece el principio del uti possidetis de 1810,

cada una de las repúblicas hispano-americanas ha tenido

tantas cuestiones de límites como son los estados que

tocan sus fronteras. La mayor parte de esas cuestiones

no han hallado todavía solución; pero hai algunas que

han producido serias complicaciones i han preparado

verdaderos conflictos.

La cuestión que en Europa se ha denominado día

guerra del Pacífico, tiene su primer oríjen en estas di-

ficultades. Al pretender darla a conocer en sus causas

i en su desarrollo, queremos comenzar por esponer cier-

tos antecedentes que, según creemos, servirán para su

mejor i mas fácil comprensión.

page 2 and 3 of HISTORIA DE LA GUERRA DEL PACIFICO (1879-1880) POR DIEGO BARROS ARANA

Please, change "causes" to "circumstances" and we forget the rest.

--Keysanger (talk) 14:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC) --Keysanger (talk) 14:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]