SilverDrink
Since: May, 2014
May 24th 2014 at 1:07:11 PM
•••
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
Since: Jan, 2014
Dec 17th 2014 at 7:25:10 PM
•••
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
Edited by 201.241.11.25 it is hard to see in the dark when your eyes are blinded by the light
SeptimusHeap
MOD
(Edited uphill both ways)
Dec 18th 2014 at 12:45:54 AM
•••
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".
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
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?
Hide / Show Replies