Random

Main War Of The Pacific Discussion

collapse/expand topics
 

JimCambias
Topic
08:08:46 AM Aug 21st 2013
Reading this it seems to take a very strongly partisan anti-Chilean tone. Can someone with knowledge of the topic and a more neutral viewpoint take a look at it?
SilverDrink
01:07:11 PM May 24th 2014
You have a pont, but, let me tell you the most facts exposed in the page are real, except the part of the 6 ironclad pursuing the huascar, was 2 of them, the rest was smaller, whith no iron or steel protection.
willofone
07:25:10 PM Dec 17th 2014
edited by 201.241.11.25
if the chileans wanted so bad to seize control of the lands in the north they wouldnt had give on part of their land on the treaty that caused the war for mutual use. i think that affirmation is highly subjetive and misleading and treaty formalizing the Chilean possession of the province of Antofagasta was on 1904
SeptimusHeap
12:45:54 AM Dec 18th 2014
I am not seeing that ("if the chileans wanted so bad to seize control of the lands in the north they wouldnt had give on part of their land on the treaty that caused the war for mutual use") - it's called a "compromise".