Talk:Wars of national liberation

Introduction/article lead

The introduction, while sufficient to describe post-WWII wars of liberation, it focuses too much on a post-colonial academic world view. The American Revolution, Peninsular War, and American civil war are not included in the article lead, which, once again, is concerned only with mid-20th century wars. I know this is a politically charged topic, I'm trying to be the best I can at not being offensive. And I am also sorry if my edit was a breach of protocol or the like. I'm only trying to help. 23.227.207.4 (talk) 20:27, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Kosovo

"The conflict would only count as a war of national liberation if the fact that an Albanian state already exists is excluded and that ethnic-Albanians in Kosovo seek their own separate nationhood."

Why is Albania mentioned? Since when has the fact that an nation with the same ethnicity exists had anything to do with a different territory fighting for it's own independance? Dennis M. Myers (talk) 19:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Tense

Why is the introduction written in past tense? This seems to imply that wars of national liberation are a thing of the past. This needs to be changed. Tuna027 16:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, I would suggest that a war of national liberation is by definition waged against a colonizing power. For that reason I suggest that Chechnya and Iraq be removed from the article. Cripipper 21:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I can see a reason for excluding Iraq, but not Chechnya. I don't even think the Vietnam War belongs here, because the United States wasn't colonizing Vietnam. ----DanTD (talk) 14:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

relationship to article on War of Independence

See discussion at Talk:War of Independence. Joriki 09:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Why is the USA included in this article

The USA should not be included in this article as the particpants were actually traitors to the English crown (colonists who were from England and believed in the freedoms only the English had at the time) and not 'indiginous', thereby invalidating the articles definition of a war of national liberation.

Obviously, many of the colonists were born in the colonies themselves, hence they were indigenous. Or is someone not 'indigenous' if their grandparents aren't born in a certain land? (In which case, no Human is indigenous to any continent other than Africa...) Jkp1187 (talk) 15:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

As someone who had distant relatives arrive in the 1630s and who fought at Concord and Lexington, I do consider all the longtime colonists to have achieved a certain indigenous status. On the other hand obviously, there is the issue of whether the longer time indigenous peoples of North and South America saw much difference between the European colonists who had settled there and the ones trying to contain those settlers. The issue of waves of people replacing other people, either violently or just by greater population growth, obviously is of some importance, though I don't have an idea of how to express that in this article. Or should I say, I haven't don't the research to find reliable sources with an opinion :-) In my spare time. Carol Moore 00:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

Merge colonial war here

Both clearly are about the same subject, but it is a question of Wikipedia:Naming Conventions. I assume that "wars of national liberation" is the most correct title, as right to self-determination was recognized by the United Nations Charter signed on June 26, 1945 at the San Francisco Conference and ratified by all major powers. Tazmaniacs

What about wars before 1945? It might be better to mege the article the other way --Philip Baird Shearer 23:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I see no one has merged it and I removed the notation. I think that is best because a lot of colonial wars were the initial wars of colonization, where the resistance was not really organized or thinking about national liberation.

Carol Moore 03:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

against colonial powers

However, according to Gwynne Dyer, the tactics and strategies used against colonial powers were almost invariably failures when used against indigenous regimes.

• What is a colonial power? What is an "indigenous regime"?
• What is the perioid this article is covering? Is this article just about post World War II?

--Philip Baird Shearer 23:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Colonial Wars/Wars of National Liberation

Colonial wars and wars of national liberation are not the same subject. Colonial or anti-colonial wars refers to wars of independence or self-government, were the economic system remained largely unchanged. Wars of national liberation were Communist sponsored or inspired conflicts, which sought to overthrow not only leadership of a country, but its social and economic systems. --Hughstew 01:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd have to disagree. I say Communists simply misuse the term "war(s) of national liberation" as buzzwords to justify supporting communist terrorist groups. ----DanTD (talk) 07:01, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

India

Shouln't this mention the Indian Rebellion of 1857? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 13:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The Viet Minh were NOT liberators

The Viet Quoc actually fought against France before the Viet Minh did. The Viet Minh stole the revolution from the people of Indochina, and converted the war into a communist war for the former Soviet Union. ----DanTD (talk) 18:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed! Both the then South Vietnamese government and the USA did some pretty unpleasent things at times, but they were not colonialist occupiers. Nor did they start the war, and they can therefore claim provocation (up to a point).

A lot of people claim to fight wars of liberation. Some of these claims (like the above) are completely false, by any reasonable standards. Many more are mixed, e.g. when people fighting for their own freedom are also seeking to subjugate or dispossess others.

It would be really useful to have a table splitting claimed wars of liberation into true, false and mixed (probably the largest group), giving reasons for each classification. I can see this would lead to a lot of arguments, but it should ultimately be informative and elightening.

Wiki needs to be NPV, and it usually does that well. But that is perfectly consistent with pointing out counter-arguments and clear falsehoods - provided you can back it with evidence and arguments.

Finally, hope I got this right. I have very little experience of comments.

J987 (talk) 21:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

about recent edit on PLO

Tiamut wrote for PLO "Described as "the best-known national liberation movement," the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) was granted permanent observer status by the United Nations General Assembly in 1974, also participating in UN Security Council debates, a privilege usually accorded only to states.[11] The PLO is the only non-African national liberation movement to hold observer status in the Organization of African Unity.[12]" Ok, but WHO describes it as "the best known national liberation movement?" OK, but WHO describes it as "the best known national liberation movement?" Anyone can say that, any author. This article itself isn't about what one guy says. Anyone can say something is "the best known." Also, where can we find a reliable link that proves that the PLO was recognized as a NLM?Tallicfan20 (talk) 11:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Who describes it as that is noted in the citation at the end of the sentence.

You already have two high quality sources attesting to its status as a national liberation movement (more than other groups listed on this page) but here is a third source : [1]

The singling out of this entry to inexplicably high standards of substantiation seems inappropriate. Do you have sources explicitly denying the PLO's status as a national liberation movement? Tiamut^talk 12:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you copy and paste for me please explicitly which UN document deems them a "national liberation movement." That is different than recognizing the Palestine Liberation Organization, which I already know they've done. PLO is just a name. does the UN have a defined term for "national liberation movement?" And tell me what it is, and where they explicitly say the PLO is one.Tallicfan20 (talk) 12:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I've given you three secondary sources which discuss this status vis a vis the UN. Asking me to dig through the primary sources of UN docmentation is not called for. You can do that yourself if your WP:V standards are so high.

But here is another secondary source [2] explaining under which resolutions the invitation was made to the PLO to participated in UN affairs; (I can't copy and paste from google books, so please read it). Note the resolutions specifically deal with the invitation of "national liberation movements". This is discussed in all the other sources I linked you to as well. Tiamut^talk 12:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Soviet war in Afghanistan

the Soviet war in Afghanistan could be considered a war of national liberation, in a sense. I mean they were trying to be liberated from Soviet imperialism, and the USSR clearly had a hand in trying to bring communists to power, not to mention the KGB did have people in Afghanistan killed. THats not saying the people who won in the end were good, but still.Tallicfan20 (talk) 19:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the Soviet Union did not "try to bring Communists to power" in Afghanistan. An authentic popular revolution brought a local Communist party to power. Following subsequent ideological splits within the party, the Soviet Union intervened in support of one side. In effect, Soviet intervention contributed to removing Communists from power, not in installing them. RolandR 10:37, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Deletion?

An editor has placed a proposed deletion tag on the article, but does not appear to have actually initiated a deletion proposal. The current tag leads to an archived discussion of a previous unsuccessful proposal. Can the tag be removed? RolandR 10:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I've removed it. If the editor in question does want to open an AfD, he is encouraged to do it correctly and ask for help if he doesn't know how. Tiamut^talk 11:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Cold War

I have marked this article as included in Wikipedia:WikiProject Cold War. I suggest that we limit the scope of this article to national liberation movements inspired by the modern concept of self-determination – as coined by the International Socialist Workers and Trade Union Congress, London 1896 (Selbstbestimmungsrecht) and defined and refined by Vladimir Lenin between 1900 and 1914. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 02:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

This article should expand on the following sections in related articles: Cold War#Worldwide competition and Decolonization#The Soviet Union and anti-colonialism. The relevant content in this article is the introduction and Wars of national liberation#Legal issues. Relevant material can also be found in this 12,405 byte version from 2 September 2008. The 19th century wars should go to War of Independence. The "on-going national liberation conflicts" section should go to to somewhere where controversial subjects are regularly fought over by POV-pushers. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 02:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Chinese Revolution

I would like to ask if the Xinhai Revolution and Taiping Rebellion fit under the category of a war of national liberation? In both conflicts, the Han Chinese revolted against the ruling Qing Dynasty, a Manchu royal house and established (or tried to) a new government ruled primarily by Han Chinese such as themselves. While the Manchus are considered a Chinese ethnic group nowadays, the majority of Chinese people did not consider the Manchus to be "Chinese" back then. The Chinese referred to them as "barbarian", "alien", etc. ZhangYuu (talk) 23:16, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

?

Regarding "More specifically, wars of national liberation refer to the wars fought since the October Revolution of 1917, especially those fought during the decolonization movement, and never those fought against a communist party.", then what about the armed struggle in Tigray and Eritrea against the Derg? --Soman (talk) 18:22, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Will expand later, must include economic aspect

A major aspect to include in the article is that every single country that won its independence developed successfuly into a rich and prosperous nation through violation of basic free market theory (protectionism), while those that remain under the economic control of another power, stagnate, decline and steadily become deeply impoverished (the countries resources are extracted -leeched- for the foreign power). The American War of Independence was a necessity for Americans to develop their country, also here, and liberate it from British control, which would have no doubt impoverished or atleast had some negative effects. Japan is the only other country that escaped colonialism and as such developed successfully, actually-scratch that- we now have the newly independent countries of China and India developing rapidly after breaking off their colonial chains. Still, the most powerful country at the time, Britian in its heyday and now the US preaches free trade for its own goals, backing it up by force, while having themselves developed radically different from any acceptable free market doctrine (precisely because free market theory has not actually ever existed, or if it did, was harsh in its treatment of businesses that failed, precisely why it is necessary to protect them [corporations] i.e. bail them out.)

Russia and Eastern Europe, largely impoverished, developed the same way, through highly monopolised state capitalism, and-once undergoing free market reform in the 90s- are right back in the third world. The treatment of the people in these nations is no doubt a brutality, but yet America and other nations employed their workers in the same manner when they developed.

Free trade has nothing to do with trade in reality, and is a by word to describe practises of breaking down proectionist barriers and flood poor countries with manufactured goods and material from the highly subsidised rich nations -destroying the home industry of that nation- at the same time goverments are installed to reduce wages and induce an economic climate favourable for those businesses.) Well those nations that have tried to shake off this punishment have had a very harsh reaction fromt he already developed nations who need to keep those countries impoverished. Again, not enough time to include all this properly but it should be added in a more prose friendly form. --JTBX (talk) 20:36, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

With a source. Your POV-pushing, refusal to respond on your talk page, and failure to provide edit summaries when deleting sources is troubling, BTW.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:49, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Undiscussed move

• Reiftyr moved page Wars of national liberation to National War: poor article name: an unqualified adjective left floating out of context) (undo | thank)

This is one of several undiscussed problematic moves, unfortunately it has autolocked so cannot manually WP:BRD, putting in a tech move for speedy restore. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:58, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:National liberation (Marxism) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 14:46, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

What is the definition of nationalism and difference with national liberation?

Title says it all. Davidmith (talk) 21:27, 10 December 2018 (UTC)