Talk:List of wars extended by diplomatic irregularity

Further examples

I created this list after considering the Three Hundred and Thirty Five Years' War article and, through a little research, noting several other somewhat dubious claims of this type. This page may serve to explain or debunk them, as the case may be. A couple of other possible alleged "extended wars" that I don't have good enough documentation on (only messageboard comments or the equivalent) are the Dutch-Portuguese War and Liechtenstein still being embroiled in World War I (possibly because of its name being misspelled "Lichtenstein" on the Treaty of Versailles). Another great potential for misunderstanding, that of Delaware being omitted from the Treaty of Paris, surprisingly does not appear to have spawned any diplomatic urban legends.--Pharos 04:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Well done in creating this list. I saw that it is not WP:NEO. So, a really good work. Try to expand the list. There must be many battles/wars which may fit the list. Thanks, --NRS | ^T/_M\^B 04:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks; it did take me a while to come up with an appropriate name. For further examples, I'll be looking for existing semi-serious claims, but it would be WP:NOR I think to go over treaties myself looking for mistakes. I'll keep an eye on the look-out, though.--Pharos 05:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

In a secondhand book shop I once found an old almanac that said Liechtenstein remained at war with Prussia (a state which at the time of the almanac no longer existed) by some unspecified oversight. I doubt this refers to the Treaty of Versailles, to which Prussia was not a party. —Tamfang 05:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The World Almanac and Book of Facts of 1928 says on pg. 248 that "Liechtenstein is still technically at war with Prussia"; this is likely the book you are referring to. Of course "Prussia" was often a synecdoche for the German Empire, so this makes sense historically.--Pharos (talk) 23:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at the Austro-Prussian War of 1866. Also see the entry under Liechtenstein#History for a further explanation. Don't know if any of it is really true, but with Liechtenstein you really never know.--TGC55 (talk) 02:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Swedish speakers?

Can someone have a look at Ulf Sundberg's debunking, and confirm that it agrees with my description. To be honest, I only learned of this reference though this Google Answers question. Thanks.--Pharos 05:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it only states that there is no peace treaty and that normal diplomatic relations are working, there is very little about the original war except that San Marino has been neutral in every conflict since 1463. Being neutral, of course, is not an obstacle for Sweden to declare war on them, so it really doesn't mean much. Basically, it states that, for all practical purposes, there is no war, but that much we already know. The formal state of affairs is still not clear. 88.131.91.2 (talk) 09:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for having a look at this, which is in a language I cannot read. "Neutral", of course, has two meanings — one, a "policy of neutrality", and the other is not being involved in any wars; I presume that the latter is the intended meaning in this article. And I think it remains highly significant that there is no positive evidence at all that such a war ever occurred. The fact that someone has bothered to debunk this is indeed the only reason I would consider the idea notable for this article.--Pharos (talk) 22:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

It might be notable, but it's not true. Sweden has never declared war against San Marino, or vice versa. Reliable sources are unfortunately only in Swedish: [1]. I'll remove it from the list. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Berwick upon Tweed

• "Berwick was in fact legally a part of England by this time." - not until the late 19th century. After the peace. --MacRusgail 19:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• What about the Wales and Berwick Act 1746? What happened in the late 19th century, as I read it, was merely the disincorporation of the county of Berwick and its merger into Northumberland.--Pharos 20:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• OK, looking again, I've come to the conclusion that it would be most accurate to describe Berwick as part of England and Wales and Berwick at this period. I've adjusted the wording accordingly.--Pharos 20:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Korea

Does Korea count, or does calling it a "Police action" actually change anything?

The Korean War was indeed a real war, whether it's considered a "police action" or not. The relevant fact I presume you're referring to is that a peace treaty has never been signed, which in this case is quite a deliberate policy pursued by the two sides of the conflict. That is a very different (and much more serious issue) from the somewhat ridiculous phenomenon discussed here, where the lack of a peace treaty is entirely due to supposed bureaucratic error.--Pharos 03:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The current events page for today suggests that "At the Inter-Korean Summit, South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun (pictured) and North Korean leader Kim Jong-il sign a joint declaration calling for a peace treaty to formally end the Korean War." So, is a peace treaty possible now? Perhaps it would be worth mentioning Korea in the article anyway, even if to say, "The Korean War, which has also been extended beyond 1953 in theory as a result of no formal treaty ending the conflict is not a result of diplomatic irregularity, but of intentional policy." Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I've added the Korean War next to the Kuril Islands dispute in the main paragraph, and mentioned what you pointed out. I think many people who read this article would be wondering about the Korean War, so having it as an example in the opening paragraph like this makes sense. And may I commend Pharos for making a most entertaining article - rst20xx (talk) 01:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I originally included Kuril Islands because that's an unusually clear situation where there is absolutely no chance of fighting resuming. The Korean situation has been considerably more dangerous, but it's the same basic idea, and I'm sure more people would be familiar with this example, so thanks for including it. And I'm glad you appreciate the article.--Pharos (talk) 21:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Native Americans vs. Germany

I remember a history professor of mine stating that certain American Indian tribes with the ability to have treaties partially independent of the U.S., though the would join the U.S. forces if they declared war on the same person, declared war on Germany during WWI and didn't sign a treaty with Germany until after WWII, because they had developed a dislike for the country at the time. no time to research now though.

This appears to refer to the Tuscarora (see below section), but I wonder if it might not somehow be connected to the 18th-century Tuscarora War, which actually had some German participants.--Pharos (talk) 00:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

American Civil War

I'm removing this, because (1) we can't include every war where a peace treaty wasn't signed, (2) it is quite clear in this case that the lack of a peace treaty was a direct result of the US policy of never recognizing that the CSA was a legitimate government and (3) there has been no "ceremonial peace" or any other special recognition of such an idea in the American consciousness.--Pharos (talk) 21:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Quite right. Likely we could find any number of annexations that were not formalized by treaty because the annexed territory did not have a government recognized as competent to submit to it. —Tamfang (talk) 06:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement by scholar on this phenomenon

The Relativity of War and Peace: A Study in Law, History, and Politics

Fritz Grob (1949)

Page xii

Some of the situations arising from a general idea that war begins on the date of a declaration and can only be ended by a formal treaty or political act, so that Liechtenstein is still "technically at war" with Prussia, San Marino with Turkey, Berwick-upon-Tweed with Russia, and the Tuscarora Indians with Germany, are more worthy of a Gilbert and Sullivan opera or of Lewis Carroll's professors than of legal treatises.

Grob's purpose in this book was properly distinguishing between periods of war and periods of peace (most of the book, aside from this brief statement in the preface, I'm sure covers more serious aspects of the question). I hope to integrate this eventually, as it's the only real scholarly comment I've found on this phenomenon.--Pharos (talk) 00:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the article should show more scepticism towards the underlying fallacy that wars begin wiith a declaration and end with a peace treaty. They start when the fighting starts and end when it stops. The idea taht the Ancients used modern-style declarations of war and peace treaties is particularly risible. Cyclopaedic (talk)# —Preceding undated comment added 17:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC).

Roman Republic vs Carthage

I think it is nonsense on the list. There was an agreement of surrender between Hasdrubal and Scipio (polybius and Livy state this). Wandalstouring (talk) 11:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it is nonsense. A country that DOES NO EXIST, cannot, and does not need to, sign a peace treaty. Rome didn't defeat the armies of Carthage and then leave, Rome defeated the armies of Carthage, razed the city to the ground, threw salt on the ruins and then killed off/sold the entire population into slavery. Any city to pop up after that can in no way legitimately claim to be the same entity that existed before the razing. This is especially true for Carthage since when it was "recreated" (technically speaking, they just settled a brand new town over a then nonexistant town and gave it the name of the town that was there before), it was created as a Roman colony and remained under the control of Rome for ~500 years.

Also, going back to how a destroyed country does not need to sign a peace treaty: The point of war is to defeat your enemy. Ultimately you can consider the best possible outcome for a nation declaring war to completely take over/destroy the nation being warred against (evident by the fact that killing is what war is). If CountryA is successful in destroying CountryB, then no treaty needs signed as that was the intent of the declaration of war. If CountryA cannot defeat/conquer CountryB, or vice versa, THEN a treaty is needed to stop the war.

You can't possibly have two complete endings to one start. You can look at war as nations' ways of deciding who gets what land. Like a game. If a nation wants to quit before they lose, they sign a treaty to stop the game (which may declare one side a "winner"). If they lose (are taken over completely), then the game is over.

Mofuggin bob (talk) 11:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Three Hundred and Thirty Five Years' War

Whats wrong with the 335 years war? If, as the article suggests, diplomatic members of those two governments decided to look into it then surely it at least deserves a mention here. At least maybe mention it and say (with references) that it doesn't really count according to some historians or something. Maybe the same deal for Berwick? At least deserves a mention as much as the Spartans vs. the Athenians and the Romans vs. the Carthaginians. We have enough trouble with paperwork from this century, let alone a few centuries into the last Era, those peace treaties could of easily been burned up somewhere and never mentioned because the Spartans didn't care. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.137.207.191 (talk) 11:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Costa Rica vs German Empire

With respect to Costa Rica not being party to the Treaty of Versailles, the article notes:

The technical state of war would have ended with Costa Rica signing a peace treaty with Germany after World War II.

Yet the immediately following section makes it clear that there was no peace treaty with Germany in 1945. The date of 1945 is footnoted with a reference from Inside Latin America, a publication to which I have no easy access... but it hardly seems necessary, since the cited publication date is 1941! Since a 1941 publication clearly cannot be used to substantiate a formal peace treaty in 1945, should it instead say 1990, as per the WWII section? Or should we wait until 1990 is no longer marked "[citation needed]"? -- Perey (talk) 18:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The WWII entry is between the US and Germany, maybe Costa Rica did sign a peace treaty? --OpenFuture (talk) 17:27, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

The 1990 treaty, as I understand it, was signed only by the two German states and the four former occupying powers. I don't believe that any of the other states that declared war on Germany during World War II signed that treaty. Most of them, iirc, would have signed treaties recognizing the end of hostilities with one or the other of the German states (most like the FRG) in the 50s or 60s. john k (talk) 03:07, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

World War II

Such a situation is to be distinguished from that of parties deliberately avoiding a peace treaty when political disputes outlive military conflict

This seems to be precisely the case for the extension of World War II beyond 1945. So why is World War II listed here? The other cases are all curiosities. john k (talk) 14:15, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. WWII should be removed. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:25, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Seminole tribe?

I remember having learned that the Seminoles are the only Native American tribe to never have signed a peace treaty with the US, so they are technically still at war with the US government. Seems like it doesn't matter, considering they're on pretty good terms now, but if it is true that this is the only N.American tribe who is in this situation, it is interesting. Anyone know details? --Elemarth (talk) 23:38, 12 September 2010 (UTC)