Talk:Armistice

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	National militaries task force

International relations Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Assessment note: Further references are needed, especially for the general concept.—ERcheck (talk) 12:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

White flag

An empty white box is a poor illustration of a white flag. Lumos3 10:32, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. If a suitable image of a white flag is not uploaded, we should remove the empty white image. Webdinger 23:58, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cessation of Hostilities Agreements

The term Cessation of Hostilities Agreement seems to be rather common in the context of a number of recent conflicts in Africa and Asia. I'm wondering does the concept need it's own article, or should it be incorporated into this one? Mostlyharmless 23:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Korean armistice

I'm not sure, because the NYTimes never specifically states that this is a peace treaty, but does this information affect the blurb about North and South Korea?: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/04/world/asia/04korea.html?th&emc=th

If it does, that content should be changed to "armistice which occured in 1953, but did not end in a peace treaty until 2007." 99.245.226.106 13:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

they haven't signed a peace treaty, they've only signed an agreement to work on one.--Jeff 19:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ceasefire?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was no merge. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is Armistice about the same as Ceasefire? Please something about it in the article. TIA.--Hhielscher (talk) 20:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just talking instinct here, but to me there's no difference. It seems unnecessary to have two pages... Nizingur (talk) 14:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)Nizingur[reply]
AFAIK, armistice and ceasefire are in fact two different concepts. An armistice is an agreement of the parties to stop fights in a war, whereas a ceasefire means just a temporary stoppage of an armed conflict for a certain purpose, e.g. rescueing of dead or injured soldiers, securing safe conduct of negotiators etc. A ceasefire may lead into an armistice, but they are not the same thing. Absolutely no merge, but improve the discrimination of the two articles. --FordPrefect42 (talk) 14:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC) -- PS: [1] might give some more information about the precise usage of these terms in public international law.[reply]
No merge: As well as an absence of permanence, a ceasefire may be unilateral, such as the IRA ceasefires of 1972 and 1994. Scolaire (talk) 17:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merge for reasons already stated above by FordPrefect42 and Scolaire.Lumos3 (talk) 18:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Armistice and Surrendering

The surrender (military) article states that a surrender between nations is achieved by the signing of an armistice. The armistice article states that a key aspect of armistice is that "all fighting ends with no one surrendering." Both lack any citations. Obviously one of these statements is wrong. ialsoagree (talk) 18:11, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Important" armistices

What's the metric for determining which armistices are important enough to be included in the "Important armistices in history" section? I can kind of see how the 1918 armistice was a biggie, but why is the Korean one more important than, say, the Peace of Westphalia? Who decided that? Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 00:40, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. As much of WP is US-centric, the KWA is of interest to many readers and important in that regard. Certainly feel free to fix!--S. Rich (talk) 00:47, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not that firm with history, that's why I won't do the changes myself, but IMHO one of the most important armistices of the 20th century would be the one between Nazi-Germany (represented by Großadmiral Dönitz) on one side the allieds (France, Great Britton (PM Winston Churchil), Sowjet Union (Stalin) and the USA) on the other side. The real end of WWII came only with the fall of the »Berliner Mauer« and the following reunification of Germany, since before that it wasn't possible to negotiate any peace treaty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:5C0:1000:B:0:0:0:9A9 (talk) 11:44, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

he German military surrendered but the German government did not. The allies illegally arrested the German government.

When the Germans invaded and occupied other countries they did not seize control of their governments. They did not claim any country permanently unless it had formerly been part of Germany.

The "real end of WWII" will be possible when Germany is no longer an occupied country. The allies remain at war with Finland Hungary and Romania - a state of ceasefire continues but there has been no truce - too embarassing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.144.104.149 (talk) 20:30, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio?

Did this guy basically plagiarize the entire contents of this article for his 2011 book, or is there an older version of his book that somebody stole for this article? Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 16:49, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Armistice. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/mideast/stories/history.maps/armistice.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130602140605/http://userwww.service.emory.edu/~dreiter/LHR%20IO%2008%20codebook.pdf to http://userwww.service.emory.edu/~dreiter/LHR%20IO%2008%20codebook.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:58, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did hear that the Knights Templers and Salindin signed a five year truce in Jeruslum Do canconfliciting Religio.Politcal truces be done?

he article is great! But wonderng if warring groups hose say of conflicting religious views can also sign a armistice? believe this was done(for awhile) inFrance between warring,Catholics and Protests(Heugonauts?) ThanksEddson storms (talk) 06:13, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another Armistice Day

Armistice Day ought to have commemorated the day in 1916 when the German Kaiser made the most generous peace offer in history. He stated that the various armies should take their soldiers back behind their pre-war borders, and that Germany did not want compensation.

If that offer had been accepted then the 'Russian' Revolution, WW2 and numerous other wars would not have occurred. Instead, Zionists convinced the British government to continue the War for their own purpose. They would involve America in the war in return for Britain seizing Palestine from the Turks and giving it to them. How many millions of Germans were killed during the years that followed that decision? Did their survivors receive any compensation? They were the last to enter WW1 but blamed for starting the war, by liars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.144.104.149 (talk) 20:24, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]