User:Alexh19740110/Draft RfC Bdow

Invasion of Litoral Department (The War) draft RfC proposals

proposal #1

News of the invasion reached Hilarión Daza, but he postponed mention of it until the end of the carnival festivities. Daza then made a public manifesto informing Bolivians and calling for patriotic support. According to Bruce Farcau, the same day the Bolivian legislature authorized a formal declaration of war upon Chile. Next, Daza issued a decree which prohibited all commerce and communications with Chile "while the state-of-war provoked upon Bolivia lasts", provided Chileans ten days to leave Bolivian territory unless gravely ill or handicapped, embargoed Chilean furniture, property, and mining produce, allowed Chilean mining companies to continue operating under a government-appointed administrator, and provided all embargoes as temporary "unless the hostilities exercised by Chilean forces requires an energetic retaliation from Bolivia". Finally, Bolivia declared war in an announcement to representatives of foreign powers in Lima. Bolivia called on Peru to activate the alliance treaty, arguing that Chile's invasion constituted a casus foederis.

supporting sources

supports the existence of BDoW on March 1 but not March 14 or 18

"Wars and Peace Treaties, 1816-1991", By Erik Goldstein, page 182: As result of this action Bolivia declared war on Chile (1.March) globalsecurity.com: Bolivia, in alliance with Peru, declared war on Chile on March 1,... "Kleine Geschichte Lateinamerikas", by Hans-Joachim König, Philipp Reclam, Stuttgart, 2009, ISBN 978-3-315-017062-5, page 479: Chilenische Einheiten besetzten die bolivianischen Hafenstadt Antofagasta, in der nur 5% der Bevölkerung bolivianisch waren. Daraufhin erklärte Bolivian am 1. März 1879 den Krieg an. Claude Michel Cluny, "Atacama, Ensayo sobre la guerra del Pacifico, 1879-1883", 2008, 480 pages, ISBN 978-968-16-7982-8, Original title of the French book: "Atacama, Essay sur la guerre du Pacifique, 1879-1883": page 441, "1° de Marzo, Bolivia declara la guerra a Chile" (Added by --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 06:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC))

supports the existence of BDoW on March 14 but not March 1

"The geopolitics of security in the Americas: hemispheric denial from Monroe ..." by Martin Sicker here: and Bolivia declared war on 14 March 1879 ... "The Bolivia-Chile-Peru dispute in the Atacama Desert" by Ronald Bruce St. John, Clive H. Schofield here: "Once Bolivia declared war on March 14 1879 ...". "The Ten Cents War", Bruce W. Farcau, Praeger Publishers, 2000, page 42: News of the landings reached La Paz whithin few days, but, for reason never quite made clear, Daza withheld any proclamations for another week, allegedlly to avoid putting a damper on the Carnival celebrations then underway, but on 27 February, the Bolivian legislature issued the authorization for a declaration of war, although the formal declaration would not be forthcomming until 14 March. Further, on Page 43 B.W. Farcau states: Lavalle departed Lima on 22 February, well before the Bolivian declaration of war, but nothing irreversible was to occur for some time... and inpage 44 he continues: ...Word have now reached Santiago of the Bolivian declaration of war, and, ...

supports the existence of BDoW on March 18 but not March 1

William F. Sater in "Andean Tragedy", states: page 28 Two weeks after the Chilean occupation of Antofagasta, he declared that Chile had imposed "a state of war" on Bolivia. Apparently this decree did not constitute a formal declaration of belligerence, which he announced on 18 March. page 39 Thus, Daza's declaration of war was a godsend ..., also page 42in March he suddenly declared war on Chile page 129 Pinto refused, perhaps believing that Daza would accept a return to the "status quo ante". But Daza did not: two weeks after the Chilean occupation of Antofagasta, Bolivia declared war and in "Chile and the War of the Pacific"‎ - Page 9 by William F. Sater - History - 1986 - 343 pages Two weeks after Chile occupied the disputed territory, Daza declared war. "Latin America's Wars: The age of the caudillo, 1791-1899" By Robert L. Scheina, page 376: On March 18 Bolivia declared war and confiscated all Chilean property in Bolivia and under the terms of a secret treaty ..." Jorge Besadre, "Historia de la Republica, La guerra con Chile", Pero las pasiones excitadas no se enfriaron. El dí­a 18 de marzo se abrió un nuevo perí­odo de la misión Lavalle. Ese dí­a fue recibido en Santiago, desde Tacna por correo y desde Caldera por telégrafo el decreto expedido por el Presidente Daza y notificado al cuerpo diplomático el 14 de marzo estableciendo el casus belli con Chile con todos sus efectos y consecuencias, junto con otros decretos de ruptura de relaciones mientras durara la guerra y de expulsión y confiscación de bienes chilenos en Bolivia. Esto ocurrió a pesar de que Quiones y Doria Medina acordaron el 5 de marzo las bases para la mediación peruana. La versión chilena fue que Bolivia quiso impedir que Chile se armara. En realidad, Daza buscó la forma de malograr la misión Lavalle. Una vez más la legación peruana en La Paz había fallado porque, según el tratado secreto, un acto de esta especie debía haberse hecho previo acuerdo de las partes. Al no estar declarada la guerra entre Chile y Bolivia, Chile no podía pedir al Perú que se mantuviera neutral. Porque la había declarado Bolivia, la exigencia chilena de neutralidad peruana era inevitable. La declaración boliviana de guerra era (dice el historiador chileno Bulnes) un palo atravesado en las ruedas del carro empujado por Lavalle. La situación que se habí­a ido agravando mes a mes y semana a semana, se complicaba ahora día a dí­a, hora a hora, minuto a minuto. El Perú se veí­a envuelto con rapidez creciente en un conflicto tremendo, sin tiempo casi para presentar la acción conciliatoria propia y sin haber buscado una acción análoga de Argentina, Estados Unidos o las potencias europeas Tranlation by Keysanger: ...on 18 March was the begin of a new phase in Lavalle's mission. This day was received in Santiago from Tacna by post and from Caldera by telegram Daza's decree that notified on 14 March all diplomats about the casus belli against Chile with all efects and consequences, together with other decrees of rupture of relations as long as the war lasted and of expulsion of Chileans and confiscation of his goods. The Chilean version saw that Bolivia aimed to impede the purchase of weapons to Chile. In reality, Daza intended to eliminate Lavalle's mission. Once again the Peruvian legation in La Paz [Bolivia] failed because in accordance with the treaty such act should have been done in agreement between both [Peru and Bolivia]. As long as no state of war between Chile and Bolivia existed, Chile couldn't require neutrality from Peru. Since Bolivia declared the war on Chile, the Chilean request of Peruvian neutrality was inevitable. The Bolivian declaration of war on Chile was (as stated by Chilean historian Bulnes) a traverse fault through the wheel of Lavalle's handkart. The situation worsened month to month ...

vague (vague) supporting sources

supports the existence of BDoW but date (March 1 or March14/18) is not given

"The history of Chile" By John Lawrence Rector, page 100: Bolivia declared war and attemted to expel all Chileans from its territory onwar.com: Bolivia then declared war on Chile and called upon Peru for help. andrewclem.com: ... , but Bolivia declared war on Chile and made known its “secret” alliance with Peru in March, ... Encarta: Bolivia declared war and was joined by Peru, a partner in a secret alliance. "A history of Chile‎" - Page 326, by Luis Galdames, Isaac Joslin Cox - History - 1941 - 565 pages: The government of Chile refused to accede to this. Meanwhile Peru mobilized its army rapidly, Bolivia declared war against Chile, and the press of those ...

sources contradicting proposal #1 because they say the DoW did not happen

sources against a March 1 DoW

Atilio Sivirichi, "Historia del Perú" (1932), page 193: "[Daza's decree] was skilfully interpreted by the Chilean government as a declaration of war and as a justification for its occupation of the [Bolivian coast]." Tommaso Caivano, "Historia de la guerra de América entre Chile, Perú y Bolivia", pages 61-62 ([1]): "[Daza's decree], as can be clearly read within it, does not do anything more than dictate a few measures relative to true the state of war in which Bolivia and Chile found themselves after the invasion of [Bolivian territory] by [Chile], and, like it textually and carefully states, "while this state of war imposed by Chile upon Bolivia", was interpreted by Chile in an extremely original manner." Valentín Abecia Baldivieso, "The History of Bolivia in International Relations. Vol 2.," page 73: "But in reality no such declaration of war took place. The decree (Hilarión Daza's decree) to which this characteristic [of declaring war] is attributed only alludes that "Chile has indeed invaded the national territory", stipulating that "all commerce and communication with the Republic of Chile is cut for the duration of the war that [Chile] has promoted upon Bolivia." He later states that Chileans should vacate the country given deadlines in cases of emergency and taking action on property belonging to them. Therefore, it is not correct to attribute that Decree the characteristics of a declaration of war, because under the international law of the time, it was not. The steps taken were for security because Chile had taken Antofagasta. On April 3 the declaration of war by the Chilean Congress was approved, and by the 5th it became known throughout the press." William F. Sater in "Andean Tragedy", states: page 28 Two weeks after the Chilean occupation of Antofagasta, he declared that Chile had imposed "a state of war" on Bolivia. Apparently this decree did not constitute a formal declaration of belligerence, which he announced on 18 March. William Spence Robertson, "History of the Latin-American Nations" [2]. Page 324: "On February 14, 1879, which was the date set by Bolivia for the sale of the company's property to ensure the payment of the taxes, Chilean soldiers took possession of Antofagasta. Two weeks later Bolivia announced that in consequence a state of war existed between her and Chile. After the Peruvian government had declined to proclaim its neutrality in the struggle, Chile declared war upon Bolivia and Peru. The conflict which ensued has been designated by South Americans as the War of the Pacific." Page 345: "But the efforts of Peruvian diplomats were fruitless. After Peru had declined to proclaim her neutrality, the Chilean government--which claimed to have ben just informed of the secret treaty of alliance between Bolivia and Peru -- declared war upon the allies on April 5, 1879. Note: Robertson explains that Bolivia announced Chile began the war ("In consequence" to Chilean soldiers taking possession of Antofagasta).

proposal #2

News of the invasion reached Hilarión Daza on February 20, but he decided to postpone mention of it until the end of the carnival festivities. On February 27, Daza made a public manifesto informing Bolivians and calling for patriotic support. According to historian Bruce Farcau, that same day the Bolivian legislature authorized a formal declaration of war upon Chile. On March 1, Daza issued a decree which prohibited all commerce and communications with Chile "while the state-of-war provoked upon Bolivia lasts", provided Chileans ten days to leave Bolivian territory unless gravely ill or handicapped, embargoed Chilean furniture, property, and mining produce, allowed Chilean mining companies to continue operating under a government-appointed administrator, and provided all embargoes as temporary "unless the hostilities exercised by Chilean forces requires an energetic retaliation from Bolivia". On March 14, in a meeting with foreign powers in Lima, Bolivia announced a state of war with Chile. Bolivia called on Peru to activate the alliance treaty, arguing that Chile's invasion constituted a casus foederis.

sources supporting proposal #2

sources that explicitly support this wording

University of Mississippi [3]: On March 14, Bolivia announced that because she had no other honorable recourse, a state of war with Chile existed. University of Iowa [4]: On March 14 Bolivia advised representatives of foreign powers that a state of war existed with Chile. Godoy (Chile's minister in Lima) [5]: Lima, March 14, 1879.--Bolivian minister in Lima sent a circular to the diplomatic team, announcing a state of war between Chile and Bolivia. He asked, without success, for the English, French, Italians, and Americans inform their governments through telegraph. William Spence Robertson, "History of the Latin-American Nations" [6]. Page 324: "On February 14, 1879, which was the date set by Bolivia for the sale of the company's property to ensure the payment of the taxes, Chilean soldiers took possession of Antofagasta. Two weeks later Bolivia announced that in consequence a state of war existed between her and Chile. After the Peruvian government had declined to proclaim its neutrality in the struggle, Chile declared war upon Bolivia and Peru. The conflict which ensued has been designated by South Americans as the War of the Pacific." Page 345: "But the efforts of Peruvian diplomats were fruitless. After Peru had declined to proclaim her neutrality, the Chilean government--which claimed to have ben just informed of the secret treaty of alliance between Bolivia and Peru -- declared war upon the allies on April 5, 1879. Note: Robertson explains that Bolivia announced Chile began the war ("In consequence" to Chilean soldiers taking possession of Antofagasta).

sources that suggest there was in fact no BDoW

William Jefferson Dennis, "Documentary History of the Tacna-Arica dispute, University of Iowa studies in the social sciences, Vol. 8" here, page 69: On March 14 Bolivia advised representatives of foreign powers that a state of war existed with Chile. ... Godoi advised President Pinto that this move was to prevent Chile from securing armaments abroad ... Meanwhile over the Andes at La Paz, and it may be said here parenthetically that a single telegraph line might have prevented this war, Daza issued letters of marque against Chile on March 26, and a formal war circular on March 31. Taken from British State Papers, 1879-80, Vol. LXXI, pp 926-933. Ramiro Prudencio Lizon (Historian and Diplomat) [7]: "In order for Chile to be able to advance further north an official war declaration was necessary. And it wasn't this country but rather Bolivia the one who sent an internal decree which was afterwards interpreted as a true declaration of war. [...] Obviously, Daza had no interest in declaring war, because he knew that Bolivia was not in conditions to affront a campaign against a country much superior in belligerent resources and which counted with a powerful navy." Atilio Sivirichi, "Historia del Perú" (1932), page 193: "[Daza's decree] was skilfully interpreted by the Chilean government as a declaration of war and as a justification for its occupation of the [Bolivian coast]." Tommaso Caivano, "Historia de la guerra de América entre Chile, Perú y Bolivia", pages 61-62 ([8]): "[Daza's decree], as can be clearly read within it, does not do anything more than dictate a few measures relative to true the state of war in which Bolivia and Chile found themselves after the invasion of [Bolivian territory] by [Chile], and, like it textually and carefully states, "while this state of war imposed by Chile upon Bolivia", was interpreted by Chile in an extremely original manner." Valentín Abecia Baldivieso, "The History of Bolivia in International Relations. Vol 2.," page 73: "But in reality no such declaration of war took place. The decree (Hilarión Daza's decree) to which this characteristic [of declaring war] is attributed only alludes that "Chile has indeed invaded the national territory", stipulating that "all commerce and communication with the Republic of Chile is cut for the duration of the war that [Chile] has promoted upon Bolivia." He later states that Chileans should vacate the country given deadlines in cases of emergency and taking action on property belonging to them. Therefore, it is not correct to attribute that Decree the characteristics of a declaration of war, because under the international law of the time, it was not. The steps taken were for security because Chile had taken Antofagasta. On April 3 the declaration of war by the Chilean Congress was approved, and by the 5th it became known throughout the press."

Lead draft RfC proposal

proposal #1

The War of the Pacific (Spanish: Guerra del Pacífico) took place in western South America from 1879 through 1883. Chile fought against Bolivia and Peru. Despite cooperation among Chile, Peru, and Bolivia in the war against Spain, disputes soon arose over the mineral-rich Peruvian provinces of Tarapaca, Tacna, and Arica, and the Bolivian province of Antofagasta. Chilean enterprises, which largely exploited the area, saw their interests at stake when Peru nationalized all nitrate mines in Tarapaca, and Bolivia imposed a 10 cent tax on the Antofagasta Nitrate & Railway Company. The problem primarily focused on Bolivia and Chile due to their controversy over ownership of Atacama, which preceded and laid foundations for their dispute. Chile began the armed conflict by occupying Antofagasta on February 14, 1879, and invading the Bolivian Litoral without a prior declaration of war. Peru notified Bolivia of the situation, and entered the affair as a mediator to the dispute. Nonetheless, Peru's mediation became compromised by Bolivia's announcement of a state of war with Chile and its desire to activate their "Treaty of Mutual Defense." Chile demanded Peru's immediate neutrality, but Peru suggested its congress should first debate the matter. Disatisfied with the response, Chile formally declared war on both countries on April 5, 1879, and the following day Peru activated the alliance.

discussion

After several weeks we have been unable to agree on a compromise and would like three or more uninvolved editors who are not nationalists from Chile, Peru or Bolivia, to vote on the proposal which is most appropriate considering Wikipedia's policies of weight and no original research. Proposal #1 is preferred by a Chilean editor, Keysanger, whereas proposal #2 is preferred by two Peruvian editors. #1 is supported by at least 11 reliable secondary sources. However, Proposal #1 is arguably contradicted by sources specifying that the BDoW occurred on March 1, and by a couple of Peruvian/Bolivian sources which say there was no BDoW. Proposal #2 has the advantage that it is consistent with all sources, but arguably hides the fact of a BDoW from the reader. Alex Harvey (talk) 07:55, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

new draft RFC proposal

• Should this article state that On March 14, Bolivia declared war on Chile or On March 14, Bolivia announced a state of war with Chile?

Discussion

A minority view exists that Bolivia's March 14 announcement was not a declaration of war, but a naive allusion from a reckless president to what he regarded as a "state of war" that had existed since Chile invaded the Bolivian coast. At least 19 reliable sources have been adduced in support of the wording "Bolivia declared war", whereas at least 16 arguably reliable sources support the wording of a "state of war" already existing (and 6 more which support no declaration of war taking place at all). In the course of this discussion we have contacted an expert, Bruce Farcau, who believes that, historically speaking, "announcing that a state of war exists" and "declaring war" are the same thing. Farcau noted that FDR's declaration of war on Japan after Pearl Harbour also simply "announced that a state of war existed" as a result of Japan's attack.

To sum up my point: If the wording used by Bolivia was that of "announcing a state of war" (As noted, Bolivia did not want to be seen as the aggressor, but rather felt that telling the world about its "problem" would prevent Chile from acquiring weapons), then the article should use that same exact wording but wikilink the "declaration of war" article to the text. Wikipedians should not alter historical statements, especially given the ability to "wikify" (inner links) text without manipulating information.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 23:02, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Sources supporting wording "declaration of war"

Extended content

Y William F. Sater in "Andean Tragedy", states: page 28 Two weeks after the Chilean occupation of Antofagasta, he declared that Chile had imposed "a state of war" on Bolivia. Apparently this decree did not constitute a formal declaration of belligerence, which he announced on 18 March. page 39 Thus, Daza's declaration of war was a godsend ..., also page 42in March he suddenly declared war on Chile Y Simon Collier,William F. Sater, "A history of Chile, 1808-2002", [9] page 129 Pinto refused, perhaps believing that Daza would accept a return to the "status quo ante". But Daza did not: two weeks after the Chilean occupation of Antofagasta, Bolivia declared war N "Chile and the War of the Pacific"‎ - Page 9 by William F. Sater - History - 1986 - 343 pages Two weeks after Chile occupied the disputed territory, Daza declared war. N "Documentary History of the Tacna-Arica dispute, University of Iowa studies in the social sciences, Vol. 8", by William Jefferson Dennis, here, page 69: On March 14 Bolivia advised representatives of foreign powers that a state of war existed with Chile. ... Godoi advised President Pinto that this move was to prevent Chile from securing armaments abroad ... Meanwhile over the Andes at La Paz, and it may be said here parenthetically that a single telegraph line might have prevented this war, Daza issued letters of marque against Chile on March 26, and a formal war circular on March 31. Taken from British State Papers, 1879-80, Vol. LXXI, pp 926-933. Y "Latin America's Wars: The age of the caudillo, 1791-1899" By Robert L. Scheina, page 376: On March 18 Bolivia declared war and confiscated all Chilean property in Bolivia and under the terms of a secret treaty ..." Y "Wars and Peace Treaties, 1816-1991", By Erik Goldstein, page 182: As result of this action Bolivia declared war on Chile (1.March) Y "The history of Chile" By John Lawrence Rector, page 100: Bolivia declared war and attemted to expel all Chileans from its territory Y onwar.com: Bolivia then declared war on Chile and called upon Peru for help. Y country-data.com: Bolivia, in alliance with Peru, declared war on Chile on March 1, ...' Y andrewclem.com: ... , but Bolivia declared war on Chile and made known its “secret” alliance with Peru in March, ... N globalsecurity.com: Bolivia, in alliance with Peru, declared war on Chile on March 1,... Y Encarta: Bolivia declared war and was joined by Peru, a partner in a secret alliance. Y "The geopolitics of security in the Americas: hemispheric denial from Monroe ..." by Martin Sicker here: and Bolivia declared war on 14 February 1879 ... Y "A history of Chile‎" - Page 326, by Luis Galdames, Isaac Joslin Cox - History - 1941 - 565 pages: The government of Chile refused to accede to this. Meanwhile Peru mobilized its army rapidly, Bolivia declared war against Chile, and the press of those ... Y "The Bolivia-Chile-Peru dispute in the Atacama Desert" by Ronald Bruce St. John, Clive H. Schofield here: "Once Bolivia declared war on March 14 1879 ...". Y"The Ten Cents War", Bruce W. Farcau, Praeger Publishers, 2000, page 42: News of the landings reached La Paz whithin few days, but, for reason never quite made clear, Daza withheld any proclamations for another week, allegedlly to avoid putting a damper on the Carnival celebrations then underway, but on 27 February, the Bolivian legislature issued the authorization for a declaration of war, although the formal declaration would not be forthcomming until 14 March. Further, on Page 43 B.W. Farcau states: Lavalle departed Lima on 22 February, well before the Bolivian declaration of war, but nothing irreversible was to occur for some time... and inpage 44 he continues: ...Word have now reached Santiago of the Bolivian declaration of war, and, ... Y"Kleine Geschichte Lateinamerikas", by Hans-Joachim König, Philipp Reclam, Stuttgart, 2009, ISBN 978-3-315-017062-5, page 479: Chilenische Einheiten besetzten die bolivianischen Hafenstadt Antofagasta, in der nur 5% der Bevölkerung bolivianisch waren. Daraufhin erklärte Bolivian am 1. März 1879 den Krieg an. NJosé Antonio Lavalle, "Mi mision en Chile en 1879", Edición, prólogo y notas por Félix Denegri Luna , Lima, Peru, 1979, Instituto de Estudios Histórico-Marítimos del Perú. (José Antonio Lavalle was the Peruvian envoy to Chile to mediate during the crisis and Félix Denegri Luna was a well known Peruvian historian [10]) In the Prolog to the book of the Peruvian envoy to Chile to "mediate" during the crisis, Félix Denegri Luna explains in aprox. 65 pages the situation of the three countries. He wrote in: page XLIII El 1° de marzo Bolivia entró en guerra con Chile page LVIII La declaración esta fechada en La Paz el 1° de Marzo. page LXII Lavalle se indignó cuando se enteró que Daza había declarado la guerra a Chile. La noticia llegada a Santiago dos semanas después ... The text of envoy Lavalle is a primary source, but allow me a transgression of this important rule of Wikipedia only in order to get a vivid view of the situation at that time. Lavalle says in page 84: En la mañana del 18 recibí una carta verbal* del señor ministro Fierro [Chilean Minister for Foreign Affairs] pidiéndome que le viese a las 12 del día siguiente, para tener una conferencia relativa al objeto de mi mision, y pocos momentos después llegó a mis manos un suplemento del "Diario Oficial", en el que se anunciaba que el ministro de relaciones exteriores había recibido desde Tacna, por medio de correos, y desde Caldera por el telegráfo, el decreto expedido por el presidente de Bolivia en 1° del mes de marzo, que seguía, en el cual establecíase por parte de esa nación el "casus belli" con Chile, con todos sus efectos y consequencias YJorge Besadre, "Historia de la Republica, La guerra con Chile", Pero las pasiones excitadas no se enfriaron. El dí­a 18 de marzo se abrió un nuevo perí­odo de la misión Lavalle. Ese dí­a fue recibido en Santiago, desde Tacna por correo y desde Caldera por telégrafo el decreto expedido por el Presidente Daza y notificado al cuerpo diplomático el 14 de marzo estableciendo el casus belli con Chile con todos sus efectos y consecuencias, junto con otros decretos de ruptura de relaciones mientras durara la guerra y de expulsión y confiscación de bienes chilenos en Bolivia. Esto ocurrió a pesar de que Quiones y Doria Medina acordaron el 5 de marzo las bases para la mediación peruana. La versión chilena fue que Bolivia quiso impedir que Chile se armara. En realidad, Daza buscó la forma de malograr la misión Lavalle. Una vez más la legación peruana en La Paz había fallado porque, según el tratado secreto, un acto de esta especie debía haberse hecho previo acuerdo de las partes. Al no estar declarada la guerra entre Chile y Bolivia, Chile no podía pedir al Perú que se mantuviera neutral. Porque la había declarado Bolivia, la exigencia chilena de neutralidad peruana era inevitable. La declaración boliviana de guerra era (dice el historiador chileno Bulnes) un palo atravesado en las ruedas del carro empujado por Lavalle. La situación que se habí­a ido agravando mes a mes y semana a semana, se complicaba ahora día a dí­a, hora a hora, minuto a minuto. El Perú se veí­a envuelto con rapidez creciente en un conflicto tremendo, sin tiempo casi para presentar la acción conciliatoria propia y sin haber buscado una acción análoga de Argentina, Estados Unidos o las potencias europeas Tranlation by Keysanger: ...on 18 March was the begin of a new phase in Lavalle's mission. This day was received in Santiago from Tacna by post and from Caldera by telegram Daza's decree that notified on 14 March all diplomats about the casus belli against Chile with all efects and consequences, together with other decrees of rupture of relations as long as the war lasted and of expulsion of Chileans and confiscation of his goods. The Chilean version saw that Bolivia ['s declaration of war] aimed to impede the purchase of weapons to Chile. In reality, Daza intended to eliminate Lavalle's mission. Once again the Peruvian legation in La Paz [Bolivia] failed because in accordance with the treaty such act [declaration of war] should have been done in agreement between both [Peru and Bolivia]. As long as no state of war between Chile and Bolivia existed , Chile couldn't require neutrality from Peru. Since Bolivia declared the war on Chile, the Chilean request of Peruvian neutrality was inevitable. The Bolivian declaration of war on Chile was (as stated by Chilean historian Bulnes) a traverse fault through the wheel of Lavalle's handkart. The situation worsened month to month ... NHerbert Millington, American Diplomacy and the War of the Pacific, Copyright by Columbia University Press, 1948, Published in Great Britain and India by Goeffrey Cumberlege, Oxford University Press, London and Bombay, page 25: "The Bolivian war manifesto was issued on February 27, 1879, …"(added by --Keysanger (what?) 11:48, 4 August 2011 (UTC)) YClaude Michel Cluny, "Atacama, Ensayo sobre la guerra del Pacifico, 1879-1883", 2008, 480 pages, ISBN 978-968-16-7982-8, Original title of the French book: "Atacama, Essay sur la guerre du Pacifique, 1879-1883": page 441, "1° de Marzo, Bolivia declara la guerra a Chile" (Added by --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 06:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)) YGerhard Lang, "Boliviens Streben nach freiem Zugang zum Meer", Hamburger Gesellschaft für Völkerrecht und Auswärtige Politik, Herausgegeben von Prof. Dr. Herbert Krüger, Band 6, Hamburg 1966, Seite 25: Die peruanisch-chilenischen Verhandlungen waren noch im Gange. Da gab der bolivianische Sonderbevollmächtigte in Perú, Außenminister Serapio Reyes Ortiz, der den Auftrag hatte, von der peruanischen Regierung gemäß Artikel 3 des Büdnisvertrages von 1873 die Anerkennung des casus foederis zu erwirken, namens seiner Regierung dem bei der peruanischen Regierung akkreditierten diplomatischen Korps am 14. März durch Zirkularnote die vom 1. März datierte Kriegserklärung Boliviens an Chile(Fußnote 54) bekannt. Diese ungewöhnliche Schritt, eine Kriegserklärung auf diese Weise publik zu machen, erklärt sich daraus, daß zu jener Zeit nur wenige Länder in La Paz vertreten waren und die Nachrichtenübermittlung von dort wesentlich längere Zeit benötigte als von Lima aus. Mit der rechtzeitigen Bekanntgabe der Kriegserklärung aber sollten die Auslieferung von Kriegsschiffen, die bei europäischen Werften im Auftrag gegeben worden waren, und weitere Waffenlieferungen an Chile verhindert werden. Fußnote 54: State papers, Bd. 71, S. 926 Translation: The Peruvian-Chilean negotiations were still in progress when, on his government's behalf, the Bolivian special plenipotentiary in Peru, foreign minister Serapio Reyes Ortiz, who was commissioned to obtain the Peruvian government's recognition of casus foederis according to article 3 of the 1873 treaty of alliance, announced Bolivia's declaration of war on Chile(footnote 54), dated March 1, by circular note to the diplomatic Corps accredited to Peru. This unusual step, to make public a declaration of war in this fashion, can be explained by the fact that only few countries were represented in La Paz at the time, and communications from there took significantly longer than from Lima. The timely announcement of the declaration of war, however, was supposed to impede the deployment of war ships that had been commissioned to European shipyards, as well as the delivery of weapons to Chile. Footnote 54: State papers, Bd. 71, p. 926 (added by --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 12:05, 18 August 2011 (UTC)) YWaldemar Hummer, "Revindikation von historischen Gebietstiteln in Lateinamerika - Die Forderung Boliviens auf Zugang zum Meer", Herausgegeben im Auftrag der "Gesellschaft zur Forderung der Forschungen zur Europäischen und Vergleichende Rechtsgeschichte" an der Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz von o. Univ.-Prof. Dr. Bertold Sutter, Heft 16, Graz, 1983, p. 24: Angesichts dieser Invasion blieb der bolivianischen Regierung nichts anders übrig, als Chile am 1. März 1879 den Krieg zu erklären sowie Peru um Einhaltung des am ... (added by --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 12:05, 18 August 2011 (UTC)) Y William E. Skuban "Lines in the Sand" "President Daza of Bolivia responded by declaring war on Chile on February 27." Y Waltraud Q. Morales, "A Brief History of Bolivia",[11] p 82: On March 14., Bolivia announced FORMAL DECLARATION OF WAR

sources supporting the view that there was no formal declaration of war

Extended content

Y Ramiro Prudencio Lizón, La toma de Antofagasta, 6 July 2011 (Lizón is a historian and diplomat and this opinion piece is published here: [12]). "Para que Chile pudiese avanzar más al norte era necesario que existiese una declaratoria oficial de guerra. Y no fue ese país sino Bolivia la que emitió un decreto interno que posteriormente se lo interpretó como una verdadera declaratoria de guerra. Este se publicó el 1º de marzo de ese año de 1879, donde disponía que "queda cortado todo comercio y comunicación con la República de Chile mientras dure la guerra que ha promovido a Bolivia". [...] Evidentemente, Daza no tenía interés en provocar la guerra, porque sabía que Bolivia no estaba en condiciones de enfrentar una campaña contra un país muy superior en recursos bélicos y que contaba con una poderosa marina. Pero como un aprendiz de brujo, sus bravuconadas desencadenaron el trágico conflicto que arrastró al Perú y que tuvo como resultado que Bolivia quedase encerrada en sus montañas. En nuestro país se ha tratado de paliar la culpabilidad de Daza tanto en el desencadenamiento del conflicto como su actitud en la guerra. Pero sería conveniente que se revalúe nuestra historia para que las nuevas generaciones tengan una comprensión más cabal de ella." Translation: For Chile to advance further north it was necessary that there was an official declaration of war. And it was none other than Bolivia that issued an internal decree, which subsequently was interpreted as a valid declaration of war. This was published on 1 March of that year, 1879. It provided that "all trade and communication with the Republic of Chile will remain cut off for the duration of the war that has been waged against Bolivia." [...] Obviously, Daza had no interest in provoking war, because he knew that Bolivia was unable to face a campaign against a country far superior in military resources and which had a powerful navy. But like a sorcerer's apprentice, his bravado triggered the tragic conflict that dragged in Peru and that left Bolivia landlocked in its mountains. Our country has tried to play down the guilt of Daza both in triggering the conflict and in his attitude in the war. But it would be appropriate to reassess our history so that future generations have a better understanding of it. Y Atilio Sivirichi, (Historia del Perú", 1932, p. 193) "[Daza's decree] was skilfully interpreted by the Chilean government as a declaration of war and as a justification for its occupation of the [Bolivian coast]." Y Tommaso Caivano, "Historia de la guerra de América entre Chile, Perú y Bolivia", 1883, pp. 61-62: "[Daza's decree], as can be clearly read within it, does not do anything more than dictate a few measures relative to true the state of war in which Bolivia and Chile found themselves after the invasion of [Bolivian territory] by [Chile], and, like it textually and carefully states, "while this state of war imposed by Chile upon Bolivia", was interpreted by Chile in an extremely original manner." Y Valentín Abecia Baldivieso (1925-2010), "The History of Bolivia in International Relations. Vol 2", ????, p. 75. But in reality no such declaration of war took place. The decree to which this characteristic [of declaring war] is attributed only alludes that "Chile has indeed invaded the national territory", stipulating that "all commerce and communication with the Republic of Chile is cut for the duration of the war that [Chile] has promoted upon Bolivia." He later states that Chileans should vacate the country given deadlines in cases of emergency and taking action on property belonging to them. Therefore, it is not correct to attribute that Decree the characteristics of a declaration of war, because under the international law of the time, it was not. The steps taken were for security because Chile had taken Antofagasta. On April 3 the declaration of war by the Chilean Congress was approved, and by the 5th it became known throughout the press. N Richard Gibbs, USA Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary, "Message from the President of the United States" [13], pages 198-199 (March 12, 1879): "Up to the present, I have no information of a formal declaration of war having been made either by Chili or Bolivia. Chili has, by force of arms through her vessels of war, taken posession of the coast of Bolivia [...] and holds the whole coast, establishing marine, military, and civil government. [...]The only official action taken by Bolivia is a proclamation by President Daza, which is not a declaration of war. I inclose a copy of it in Spanish, taken from a Lima paper, and a translation from the South Pacific Times, of Callao."

sources supporting the wording of "state of war"

sources that explicitly support this wording

Y University of Mississippi [14]: On March 14, Bolivia announced that because she had no other honorable recourse, a state of war with Chile existed. Y William Jefferson Dennis; University of Iowa [15]: On March 14 Bolivia advised representatives of foreign powers that a state of war existed with Chile. N Godoy (Chile's minister in Lima) [16]: Lima, March 14, 1879.--Bolivian minister in Lima sent a circular to the diplomatic team, announcing a state of war between Chile and Bolivia. He asked, without success, for the English, French, Italians, and Americans inform their governments through telegraph. -- Is this a primary source? Alex Harvey (talk) 14:29, 8 September 2011 (UTC) Y William Spence Robertson, "History of the Latin-American Nations" [17]. Page 324: "On February 14, 1879, which was the date set by Bolivia for the sale of the company's property to ensure the payment of the taxes, Chilean soldiers took possession of Antofagasta. Two weeks later Bolivia announced that in consequence a state of war existed between her and Chile. After the Peruvian government had declined to proclaim its neutrality in the struggle, Chile declared war upon Bolivia and Peru. The conflict which ensued has been designated by South Americans as the War of the Pacific." Page 345: "But the efforts of Peruvian diplomats were fruitless. After Peru had declined to proclaim her neutrality, the Chilean government--which claimed to have ben just informed of the secret treaty of alliance between Bolivia and Peru -- declared war upon the allies on April 5, 1879. Note: Robertson explains that Bolivia announced Chile began the war ("In consequence" to Chilean soldiers taking possession of Antofagasta). Y William F. Sater, "Andean Tragedy," p. 28: Even President Hilarión Daza had to limit himself to symbolic gestures: two weeks after the Chilean occupation of Antofagasta, he declared that Chile had imposed “a state of war” on Bolivia. Y 'Gordon Ireland, "Boundaries, possessions, and conflicts in South America", p. 58: President Daza declared that because of the occupation a state of war existed with Chile. Y William Leonard Langer, James Blaine Hedges, Karl Julius Ploetz; "An encyclopedia of world history, ancient, medieval and modern, chronologically arranged", p. 821: Despite negotiations Bolivia decided temporarily to rescind the contract of the nitrate company. 1879, Feb. 14. Chilean troops occupied Antofagasta and Bolivia proclaimed a state of war. Y Paul Wahl, Donald R. Toppel, "The Gatling Gun", p. 93: On February 14, 1879, Bolivia proclaimed a state of war. N Gonzalo Bulnes, "Chile and Peru: the causes of the war of 1879": [...] the state of war with Chile and close the markets of arms and ships. Godoy, always well informed telegraphed: "March 14 th. The object of the Bolivian circular is to prevent the sailing of new ships for Chile. Y James Trager, "The people's chronology: a year-by-year record of human events from prehistory to the present": Chilean troops occupy Antofagasta. Bolivia proclaims a state of war.