Talk:Chaco War

What about the Falkland conflict?
Quote: 'Moreover, Bolivia deployed at least three Vickers 6-Ton armored tanks during the war, in what was the first ever (and to this day the only) case of crossborder armored warfare inside the Western Hemisphere.'

During the Falkland/Malvinas conflict both Argentine and British troops employed APCs and tanks, so this statement doesn't seem entirely correct. It's far beyound my field of competence, so I haven't done any editing (yet). Maybe there's someone in the know who could elaborate? Asav (talk) 20:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Attacks by amphibious warfare, no matter who "owns the land" are NOT crossborder warfare. Crossborder warfare is like the German Army attacking into Luxembourg and thence into France, the Canadian Army attacking from France into Belgium, Holland, and West Germany the U.S. Army attacking from France into Belgium, Luxembourg, West Germany, and western Austria, and the Soviet Army attacking from the Ukraine and Belarussia into Lithuania, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, and Bulgaria, and thence into Yugoslavia, Albania, eastern Austria, and East Germany, gobbling up as much land as the Soviet Union could get.
 * In contrast, the Japanese and the Americans & Australian Army fighting over New Guinea and the Philippines was not crossborder warfare, though tanks were used in amphibious warfare. 98.81.14.72 (talk) 02:54, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Internal links
The term "mate" is coming out without an underline link to show that there is such an article, or a question mark to show that there is no such article. Should the apostrophes be moved outside of the brackets? I know what the word is refering to, but I believe the apostrophes are messing with the proper linking. -- Zoe
 * Yep, the internal apostrophes are preventing link creation. In a previous version of the software you could make such links but they would create pages names that look something like this, < i >mate< /i > - which is the HTML equivalent of mate . So the ability to form such links was disabled. Welcome to Wikiland, mate, BTW, Zoe. --maveric149


 * Use a piped link: this link has internal italics and $m a t h \,\!$stuff, but it still links properly.   &mdash; Phyzome is Tim McCormack 21:03, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)

-- Danny, as repugnant as User:ZOG is, he's actually adding something valid (and accrate) to this article.

What's wrong with these edits?

"The war also had immediate political ramifications for Bolivia, as the (perceived) mismanagement of the war by Salamanca led his own generals to capture him, and force him to step down from the presidency."

"Many middle-class Bolivians were humiliated by Bolivia's quick military defeating during the Chaco War, which led to a mass movement away from the traditional order known as the "Generacion del Chaco", which was epitomized by the MNR-led Revolution of 1952." 172


 * For Martin, have you actually researched the additions to verify that they are accurate, or are you basing your edit on a desire to incorporate Zog's material, whether factual or not. Danny


 * I have not researched the additions to verify that they are accurate.
 * I am not basing my edit on a desire to incorporate Zog's material, whether factual or not.
 * My assessment is that, on the balance of probabilities, the material added by Zog to this entry is probably correct. No reason has been given for its removal, beyond the political beliefs of the person who wrote it. Therefore, I oppose its removal. I would also oppose the removal of content you added if no reason was given beyond "Danny is a Zionist". I hope you would oppose the removal of content I added if no reason was given beyond "Martin is a feminist". Martin


 * I verify that the statements that Zog placed in this article are accurate. Let's keep them in the article, but ban Zog right away regardless. 172


 * I can accept the statements coming from 172. As for you Martin, let me tell you a little something about me. I am not a Zionist. In fact, I disagree with Zionism, but I doubt you could understand that. Yes, I know a lot about Zionism. Yes, I speak Hebrew (so does Chomsky) as well as Arabic and English and French and Yiddish and Esperanto and Akkadian and Aramaic with some Russian, German, Spanish, and Japanese. Unfortunately, your assertion is based on a mistaken premise, like so many other of your assertions, i.e., that all the above is causal. I have probably done more for the cause of an independent Palestine than you ever will. So please, don't base your rhetoric on faulty assumptions. Danny


 * I was unclear - my apologies. I did put quotes around "Danny is a Zionist", but this obviously wasn't clear enough, particularly given the statement "Martin is a feminist" on the same line. With your permission, I'll edit what I wrote appropriately. I'm unclear on what you mean by my assertion that "all the above is causal"?


 * Incidentally, I've done nothing for the cause of an independant Palestine, and I have no particular desire to do so. I'm just learning and writing - not necessarilly in that order. Martin

Zog&#8217;s contributions ideally should be summarily removed, but it&#8217;s far worse to replace a valid contribution by this repugnant scum with something that is completely inaccurate.

He was correct that the mass-based movement reacting against Bolivia&#8217;s humilation in the Chaco War was known as the "Generacion del Chaco", which was the impetus for the 1952 revolution. The latest revisions suggest that the MNR-led revolution opposed the "Generacion del Chaco."

172

Casualties versus deaths
"the war's 100,000 casualties" - usually "casualties" refers to both dead and wounded, but 100,000 is the number of dead, right?? I don't know enough about this subject to edit it myself, but it should be clarified. 220.253.116.234 01:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Absolutely true. In any endeavor, "casualties" include killed, wounded, missing in action, and also seriously sick people, such as with malaria, yellow fever, or driven crazy in combat in such activities as warfare, construction projects (e.g. the Panama Canal). Whoever got the idea that "casualties" only included the killed was sadly mistaken. 98.81.14.72 (talk) 03:10, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

The begining of this war

 * Someone here has a serious problem in that in English, these words and the ones similar to the are always capitalized. Bolivian, Paraguayan, Paraguay, and Argentina. This should be done on automatic pilot! When I write Spanish, I follow the rules of Spanish. When I write German, I follow the rules of German. When you write English, you MUST follow the rules of English concerning capitalization, punctuation, etc. 98.81.14.72 (talk) 03:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

The article says: "Border skirmishes throughout the late 1920s culminated in an all out war in 1932, when the Bolivian Army, following the orders of the President Daniel Salamanca, attacked a Paraguayan garrison at Vanguardia."

"Following the orders of President Salamanca" is not true. Salamanca orders the exploration and fortification of bolivian units in that territory. He was strongly pacifist and looked for a pacific solution of the territorial conflict. In fact, a thing used by his political enemies was that: his pacifism and formalism in diplomatic affaires.

The incident in Vanguardia was not ordered by anything. The bolivian patrol was exploring the lake and found in the oppossite side buildings used by paragayan soldiers. Surprise and nerviosism make the rst...a soldier paraguayan was wounded and the Bolivian government, watching this, tried to anticipate the logical reaction of Paraguayan government. But the Paraguayan Army made its retaliation, killing a bolivian officer and other soldiers.

A second retaliation (occupation of a bolivian fortress) by paraguay forced bolivian government to make similar action, pressed by oppossittors and public oppinion. That forced paraguay to make another moves, and thats the war we had. Curiously, war was not declarated initially, by diplomatic reasons but declared (by Paraguay) for tactical reasons (with that, Argentina was declared "neutral" and closed the door to bolivian imports (military specially) but not to paraguayan ones.

Article do not said anything about the role of argentina (colaborating with military assistance and intelligence information to paraguayan High Commmanders), same work maded by chilean government.

Finally, in the antecedents section we must be clear in the map questions. Bolivia makes clear, from the beggining of the 20th century, what territory it claims (basing its petition in Audiencia de Charcas maps). Paraguay never expressed formaly and clearly the territory it was claiming and fighting for. RedSoldier 02-03-2006

Who won the War?
No one... but I am not talking about the pacifist topic that "everybody loses in a war". The origin of the war was a territory dispute. But, deep inside, the economic interest in petrolitstic regions in the southeast of actual Bolivia.

Formally, Chaco War hasn't a winner. Peace Treaty talk about "Without winners nor losers". Paragay keep the control of the majority territory disputed. That's why something they "win" the war. Bolivia keeps the rich oil resources and keeps a port over Paraguay River. Paraguay keep vast territory, duplicating his initial.


 * This is actually false information. The problem about borders comes from the poor job the Spaniards did during the colonial times to properly draw each nations borders, thus leaving no documents to clearly state them; yet in Paraguay the entire Chaco region has always been considered Paraguayan territory. This can be supported by historical background, such as why did Argentina claim some Chaco territory after the War of the Triple Alliance if it was originally Bolivian territory? And also, why the need of a war if what Bolivia was after was a port on Paraguay River? Veritiel (talk) 21:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

"Please, edit the box info in the article. Paraguay did not won the war. Its ally, Argentina, forced the peace treaty when the war was changing its direction (by obvious reasons, Bolivia was a bigger and more populated country send more soldiers to the field and time was in his favor).    RedSoldier 02-03-2006

Contradiction
See Talk:War of the Triple Alliance. --208.76.104.133 (talk) 08:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Indian Communities and the War
Some mention should be made discussing the unfair treatment of indigenous peoples at the time of this war. Many Indian communities were reduced to exclusively women, children, and the elderly after draft enforcers rounded up Indians to serve the war. In addition, the scarcity of soldiers made it necessary for most indigenous people engaged in the war to serve in the frontline. The largest contingent of the Chaco War army were in fact Indian communities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carleyp (talk • contribs) 03:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Paraguay clearly won, if not, answer this questions
How come the war started in 1932, 500 kms from asuncion, the capital city of Paraguay, and ended formally in mid 1935, 1200 kms from there?

How come the final tally of the war, even by bolivians records, mentioned 60.000 bolivian casualties, to only 35.000 paraguayans?

How come Bolivia supposedly started the war at inferior conditions, yet during the war they mobilized more than 250.000 effectives, against only 130.000 paraguayans mobilized for the same period?

At one point, the bolivian army was commanded by a german mercenary called Hans Kundt, regarded in Bolivia as a military mastermind, genius, while acknowledged as a mere corporal in his country. Bolivia changed the whole military high staff 4 times during the war, not to mention that they staged a coup d´etat to overthrow their own president.During this whole period, paraguay kept the same commander in chief J.F. Estigarribia and president of the nation Eusebio Ayala.

Bolivia had 5 airplanes for every paraguayan plane, yet the final tally of the war showed 9 bolivian planes shot versus 8 paraguayans. Bolivia had armored tanks, flame throwers, machinegunes, sub muchineguns, etc. Basically an army fully prepared against the paraguayasn which at the start of the war wer armed with old spanish mausers, bought as a bargain due to manufacture deffects. This were called "mata-paraguayos (paraguayan killer)" because it was evenly likely to cause an injury to the shooter because of manufacture deffects, as to the victim of the shoot.

The final tally of the war for pows was of 20.000 bolivians, versus only 3.000 paraguayans, according to bolivian sources.

Off course in a war nobody wins, except arm dealers and other vultures. Yet from this statistical perspective, is it difficult to muster a conclusion?

Amilcar Zestogonia, paraguayan. If anybody doubts what I´m proposing, then please answer my questions otherwise... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.16.65.127 (talk) 04:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Unsatisfactory map
The map captions "Bolivia and Paraguay before the war" leaves a lot to be desired. It makes it appear that Bolivia, Paraguay, and Gran Chaco were three different countries. It doesn't show how the border changed as a result of the war.Eregli bob (talk) 16:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * You are grossly mistaken in your argument about the map and your disliking of it. The map is crystal clear about which area were these:
 * 1. The generally recognized area of Paraguay before the war.
 * 2. The disputed region (for whatever reason) in the Gran Chaco.
 * 3. The borders of Bolivia after the war.


 * Well you are spectacularly wrong there ! Where was the border before the war ?  The Gran Chaco was not a separate country before the war,  nor were its boundaries well defined.  Most other maps seem to show Paraguay with a northern border which ran directly from east to west at some point south of the current border.  Your murky, muddy, anything but "crystal clear" map does not show this.  What is the source for the boundaries shown on your beloved map ?Eregli bob (talk) 12:11, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Then it is equally clear that the disputed region was transferred from Bolivia to Paraguay as the result of the war, whether that was de facto or de jure.


 * Dead wrong again. Bolivia was never in control of the southern part of the area you have labelled as "disputed",  so it wasn't transfered from Bolivia to Paraguay at all.Eregli bob (talk) 12:11, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Also, there is a region of the western Gran Chaco that remained with Bolivia after the war and gave it a firm hold on a river port on the Paraguay River.


 * The river port on the Paraguay river is on the eastern, not western, side of the disputed Gran Chaco region.Eregli bob (talk) 12:22, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * So yes, you are agreeing that Paraguay ended up in control of most, but not all, of the region in dispute.Eregli bob (talk) 12:11, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * However, that port on the Paraguay River could not be used by Bolivia for international exports and imports without the permission of Paraguay, Argentina, and Uruguay, but those permissions were obtained peacefully and by international treaty.


 * There is a vastly superior map which is labelled in Spanish as "the history of the borders of Paraguay", or something equivalent to that.Eregli bob (talk) 12:22, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * In contrast, the diplomatic situation between Bolivia and Chile is still very treacherous, and they have been without ambassadors and embassies at all since 1978. Hence, the heavy imports and exports of Bolivia either go vis the Rio de la Plata to the Atlantic, or via Peru to the Pacific. 98.81.14.72 (talk) 03:39, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Extent of Paraguay's prewar boundaries.
Exactly how much territory did Paraguay control before the war? I've seen maps showing the entire Chaco as part of Bolivia, and others with the border between the two countries along the 26th parallel.

208.101.128.57 (talk) 08:38, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Bloodiest conflict in the Americas in the 20th century?
I think that disaster belongs to the Mexican Revolution (of 1910) and its about 1,000,000 deaths. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.87.19.194 (talk) 23:34, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe one can have in mind that of the combined populations of the countries taking part in this thing.....maybe it was two percent of the total populations that died during the Chaco War. Was the Mexican Revolution in 20th century. I thought it was in the 19th century. --83.108.28.69 (talk) 21:28, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * When evaluating the bloodiness of a war, it is important to compare the deaths to the entire population. For example, the United States lost a LOT of soldiers, sailors, and Marines in the war against Japan, but the U.S. has a much larger population that Japan does. The deaths caused by the war in Japan were a much higher percentage than was the percentage in the United States. Also, Japan lost far more buildings, ships, airplanes, and everything else that you can think of. 98.81.14.72 (talk) 03:51, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Mexican Revolution: 1910 - 1919 (don't confuse it with Mexican War of Independence of 1810 - 1820. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.87.19.194 (talk) 22:44, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

A "blitzkrieg" in the Chaco?
I found somehwhat preposterous the use of the term "blitzkrieg" to describe the Paraguayan advances in late 1934, no matter how quickly the Paraguayan Army surrounded and eventually overran its Bolivian counterpart at Yrendagué or El Carmen. The word was coined during World War II, five years after the events the map shows, and implies the use of armoured warfare, something well beyond the reach of Paraguay and its few dust-stricken trucks at the time. Unless a reliable source using the word in a retrospective way can be found, "blitzkrieg" should be removed immediatly.--Darius (talk) 23:24, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No comments in two weeks, I have rephrased the caption accordingly. Please, leave your reasons here before reverting my changes, thank you.--Darius (talk) 21:52, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There was a limited amount of tank warfare in the Chaco War. However, it was nothing like the tank blitzkrieg of the German Army, starting in 1939, in Poland, Holland, Belgium, France, Holland, and the Soviet Union, or the greatest blitzkrieg that there ever was: the blitzkrieg of the U.S. Army over the Wehrmacht in 1944 - 45 in France, Luxembourg, Belgium, southern German, and western Austria. This was carried out by the U.S. 1st, 3rd, and 7th Armies, and the 9th Air Force of the U.S. Army Air Force. Besides having superior and more numerous ground armies in France (especially), the American has far more and better airpower than the Luftwaffe ever did. (Commanded by a USAAF general of Dutch descent - Hoyt S. Vandenberg.) The U.S. Army who commanded the ultimate in the blitzkrieg was General George S. Patton, Jr., in command of the 3rd Army all the way from Normandy to western Czechoslovakia. Patton's troops went nearly all the way to Prague, but that land had to be turned over to the Red Army at the end of the war.
 * You are right - do not call anything by an army armed with peashooters to anything that the Wehrmacht or the U.S. Army could do. 98.81.14.72 (talk) 04:05, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Civilian death toll in the infobox
Huge civilian casualties in a conflict over a largely deserted region sounds very suspicious. I have read dozens of accounts about the Chaco War and I don't remember any instance of civilian deaths, although I guess there could have been a number of these in the course of Bolivian airstrikes along the Paraguay river or in and around the Bolivian cities of Villa Montes and Charagua in the last months of the struggle. A figure in the thousands, however, seems extremely unlikely.--Darius (talk) 16:07, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I thought it seemed unlikely but the source states that and the source is reliable. It may be deaths from starvation and not from direct military action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.213.87 (talk) 16:24, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * If you read the book can you tell the exact page where the civilian toll is mentioned? That the figure of a war of the 1930s is mentioned in a book named World Military and Social Expenditures 1987-88 is to me unlikely (apart from the reasons given by Dagos/Darius). Chiton (talk) 16:34, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

The year 1987-88 is regarding date of issue. It is that years version which. A new version is released every so often like encyclopedia britanicca. This book is a common source on wiki and is reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.213.87 (talk) 19:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Agree with Chiton, you must cite the exact page. On the other hand, I found this comparision of sources regarding the Chaco casualties; the only one focusing on civilian fatalities is Eckhardt. My conclusion is that since the majority of authors specifically mention only combat deaths or at least don't discern between civilians and military personnel, we should refrain from citing Eckhardt per WP:UNDUE.--Darius (talk) 23:37, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Far too much space taken up about a war of little importance
Far too much space and detail was taken up about a war of little importance here. The Chaco War was something along the lines of the Boer War, or the war between Italy and Austria Hungary during 1915 - 18, or the Yom Kippur War. In the big picture, the Chaco War was far less important than the War of the Pacific between Chile, Bolivia, and Peru; the English Civil War, or the Spanish-American War; the Russo-Japanese War; the War of 1812, or the Spanish Civil War. These in turn were far less important than the American Civil War, World War II, World War II, or the Korean War. This article needs to be greatly simplified and shortened. Remember that this version of the Wikipedia needs to be of topics of interest to English-speaking people. 98.81.14.72 (talk) 04:18, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Says who? Besides the American intervention, why was the Korean War more important than say the Russo-Japanese War if it didn't change anything on the ground? Same can be said about the American Civil War as the map before and after the war remained the same. The fact that this is the "English language" wikipedia is irrelevant, as English is de facto lingua franca of the world nowadays.


 * Absolutely disagree on this point. Then you should propose a resizing to the French Revolution page, an event which happened in a non-English speaking country . The goal of Wikipedia is "given free access to the sum of all human knowledge", not just to the knowledge of the English-speaking communities.--Darius (talk) 12:08, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * There is no Wikipedia policy stating that "less important" articles should be shorter than "more important" ones. Perhaps the articles you feel are more important could be expanded or have subarticles developed instead of shortening this one. I remeber you that Wikipedia is to cover encyclopedically relvant topics regardless of popular interests, what English-speaking people like is not relevant to limit a certain article. Chiton (talk) 17:23, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Oil
There's absolutely no mention about the involvement of Standard Oil and Royal Dutch Shell in the conflict and the real reason for this war - discovery of oil in the Gran Chaco region. What a shame. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.105.155.183 (talk) 18:08, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Mention of oil and oil companies in the lead
The following sourced statement appears to be under dispute for its inclusion in the lead:
 * The origin of the war is commonly attributed to a conflict between the oil companies Royal Dutch Shell backing Paraguay and Standard Oil supporting Bolivia.[6] Scholar Rafael Archondo dispute claims that the war would have been caused by interests of these companies and emphasizes the aims of Argentina to import oil from the Chaco.[6]

The reader of the article needs from the begining (the lead) understand that war is usually seen as a conflict over oil with Shell and Standard oil being accused of being behind the conflict. While the importance of oil in the conflict is widely acknowledged the Shell vs. Standard oil thesis is disputed but has such importance to understand the views on the war that it is a must in the lead. Dentren |  Ta lk  00:24, 30 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Dentren, my apologies for reverting one of your edits without reading first, my only concern was the inclusion of the Shell and the Standard oil on the infobox, but their current mention on the lede is fine. Best Regards.--Darius (talk) 15:23, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

List of Chaco War firearms
Could someone try link to this article? or is it a case of WP:LISTCRUFT? Gbawden (talk) 10:03, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

"Historiography" section
The main statement of the "Historiography" section reads: "Almost all of the historical work done in both nations is dominated by the "heroic" interpretation with the war being presented simply as a matter of willpower with neither Bolivian nor Paraguayan historians having any interest in other aspects of the war like logistics as a determinate factor." This line contradicts the rest of the article, where an overwhelming number of Spanish-language sources or English-language authors citing works in Spanish describe the war from different aspects (tactical, strategic, economic and yes, logistic). I think the section gives undue weight to the sloppy introduction of Huges article, whose main topic by the way is logistics, not historiography.

It's worth to mention, however, that Hughes only used the term "heroic" in relation to Estigarribia's memoirs; what he actually pointed out is the lack of a great "theoretical framework" about the Chaco War, and that the Spanish language bibliography is scattered in personal narratives from first-hand witnesses of the battles. The understandable focus of Hughes on the scarse English-language sources also fails WP:WORLDVIEW; even a source written in Greek, if reliable, is welcomed here. Another issue, as I wrote above, is that a section which deals with historiography relies on an article whose main topic is logistics. If this section is to stand, it should be rewritten using a more specific source.

The "marxist" dependence theory deserves a chapter apart. The topic is plainly redundant, since it is analysed in depth in the first paragraph of the "Origins" section. The text should be moved there and merged with.--Darius (talk) 23:56, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

"Dependence theory" paragraph already moved to "Origins" section.--Darius (talk) 01:36, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Chaco War. 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:
 * Added tag to http://www.bvp.org.py/biblio_htm/gonzalez2/001_cap001.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120501085832/http://www.boliviafacts.net:80/economy-in-bolivia.html to http://www.boliviafacts.net/economy-in-bolivia.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:01, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Chaco War. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120330235252/http://www.aviacionboliviana.net/uae/fnb/resena2.htm to http://www.aviacionboliviana.net/uae/fnb/resena2.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.boliviafacts.net/economy-in-bolivia.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:41, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:23, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Parag.629.Chaco Peace.jpeg

Extant indigenous communities
This claim -- "the small nomadic indigenous population of Guaraní-speaking tribes was related to Paraguay's own Guaraní heritage" -- is misleading. The Tapiete and a couple other Chaco communities are speakers of closely related languages, but the vast majority of Chaco indigenous groups who were involved in and affected by the conflict speak unrelated languages. There were attempts by Paraguayan society and academia to assert cultural affiliation with groups like the Maká and Lengua (now Enxet), but Guaranian Chaco groups are and were a small minority. 2803:7D80:A000:8424:5527:3BD5:D470:9B05 (talk) 23:51, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Remove the "supported by" belligerents
Hello everyone, I suggest we get rid of the supporting belligerents in the infobox. First off, there were several more countries involved than the ones currently listed, and mentioning only some seems to give extremely undue weight to them – the Czechoslovak "support" consisted of five volunteers. Meanwhile Russia or Chile, not even mentioned in the infobox, had several dozen military personnel involved! As it stands, the infobox does not reflect the big picture at all in a balanced manner that is to be expected of wikipedia. I would do so myself but I don't know how to handle the refs, as deleting the belligerents from the infobox would orphan the refs or remove them altogeter and they are used elsewhere, it seems? 2A00:1028:8398:9A8E:604F:7C0A:5D63:2784 (talk) 14:05, 19 June 2022 (UTC)