Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2023 December 26

= December 26 =

French Restoration
Who was the commander of all military forces that occupied France until 1818? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.207.140.160 (talk) 16:55, 26 December 2023 (UTC)


 * It was the Duke of Wellington, not mentioned in his article but it is in Waterloo campaign: Waterloo to Paris (2–7 July). Alansplodge (talk) 18:50, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * See also The Duke of Wellington and the army of occupation in France, 1815-1818. Alansplodge (talk) 18:53, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok, but who were the commanders of the respective contingents of Austria, Great Britain, Prussia, and Russia under Wellington's orders? 193.207.140.160 (talk) 19:07, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I've already find them, closed. 79.50.201.123 (talk) 10:04, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It would not hurt, and may interest someone else too, to list them here. —Tamfang (talk) 21:26, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Victory and end of the state of war
World War II says that the state of war between Japan and Soviet Union was terminated by the Soviet-Japanese Joint Declaration of 1956. However, Soviet Medal "For the Victory over Japan" introduced on 30 September 1945 has the date "3 September 1945" on the reverse, seemingly acknowledging the Japanese Instrument of Surrender on 2 September 1945 as the end of Soviet-Japanese War. This paradoxically looks as if the Soviet victory in the war didn't imply termination of the state of war (and, broadly speaking, as if any victory that destroys the enemy doesn't necessarily end the state of war). Is it indeed so under international law? Brandmeistertalk  18:29, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * In World War I, the fighting was ended by the Armistice, but for many countries the state of war was ended by the Treaty of Versailles. Not for the US, though: they didn't ratify the treaty and remained at war until 1921. --142.112.220.136 (talk) 23:57, 26 December 2023 (UTC)


 * The Soviet Union and Japan never signed a full formal peace treaty because of the Kuril Islands dispute, so that step was not taken. AnonMoos (talk) 23:59, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok, but the Japanese Instrument of Surrender lists Soviet Union as one of the Allied accepting parties, with the signature of the USSR representative. Wasn't it sufficient for the termination of state of war? Brandmeistertalk  12:13, 27 December 2023 (UTC)


 * According to this and this, a conference to finalise a treaty that officially ends the war between Russia and Japan was abandoned in March 2022 when the Russians walked out. Yes, it's aii about the Kuril Islands dispute (and now a bit of Ukraine too). Alansplodge (talk) 16:33, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I see. But the common benchmark for the end of WWII are the signings of German and Japanese instruments of surrender rather than peace treaties (in 1945 no peace treaty was concluded with any Axis power, if I remember correctly). Meanwhile, the Soviet-Japanese Joint Declaration says that "The state of war between the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and Japan shall cease on the date on which this Declaration enters into force". This is perplexing for me for two reasons: 1) how Russia and Japan can still remain in the state of war, while WWII has ended? 2) if the Soviet-Japanese Joint Declaration says the state of war between two countries "shall cease" in 1956, why modern sources still say that this state persists? Brandmeistertalk  17:48, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * If the Duchy of Grand Fenwick declares war on the United States, then from that point on the two states are in a state of war. It is the declaration that creates the state of war; no hostilities need to take place. The end to a state of war is brought about by a peace treaty. As long as no peace treaty has taken effect, the state of war will formally persist. --Lambiam 19:39, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I've seen that line of reasoning before, but it leaves more questions than answers. Under that logic World War II continued well past 1945, because no peace treaty was signed in that year. Separating the war itself from the state of war is perplexing at least. Brandmeistertalk  20:11, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Meh, found Paris Peace Treaties, 1947 and the 1951 Congress resolution to terminate the state of war with Germany. It seems that for historiographic purposes at least a peace treaty in that regard isn't always necessary. Brandmeistertalk  21:18, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it's significant that the WW2 Allies insisted on Germany's unconditional surrender. So  the Germany that declared war no longer existed and that could be viewed as automatically ending the state of war. As for the USSR and Japan, I have no comment. --142.112.220.136 (talk) 00:51, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * We have an article that deals with this at peace treaty (particularly the second paragraph). Your question perhaps arises from the assumption that peace and war are binary states, like an electric circuit that is either on or off. While that is a reasonable assumption, in this case it might be more helpful to see them as a spectrum. Around 10 August 1945, there were active hostilities between Japan and the USSR. On 15 August, the Showa Emperor announced the Japanese government's intention to surrender in rather vague terms. But hostilities continued against the USSR, which did only began its invasion of the Kuril Islands on 18 August. Due to General Douglas MacArthur's vain insistence on being personally present, the Japanese surrender was not accepted until 2 September. At that point there was an armistice and hostilities ceased on all fronts. But an armistice is a temporary cessation of hostilities, not a peace settlement, and legally speaking, the state of war remained. Normally you would then have a peace treaty. And normally a peace treaty after a surrender settles the issues that started the war on the victor's terms. The loser has no choice, because the alternative is a renewal of the war. But this did not happen in this case for three reasons. Firstly, it was not possible to sign a comprehensive peace treaty between all the Allies and Japan because of the question of whether victorious China should be represented by the Republic of China in Taipei (recognized by the US) or the People's Republic of China in Beijing (recognized by the UK and USSR). So Japan was able to deal with its enemies one by one. Secondly, the breakdown of relations between the victorious Allied Powers meant that the USSR could not credibly threaten to continue the war against US-occupied Japan, depriving it of a victor's usual leverage. Thirdly, it is arguable that Article 2 of the UN Charter made a unilateral resumption of the war illegal. So the 1956 Joint Declaration was a sort of tertium quid, in between an armistice and a conventional peace treaty. It explicitly declared the end of the state of war and the restoration of diplomatic relations, moving relations one more notch along the spectrum towards peace. But it explicitly said that a final Peace Treaty would require further negotiations. Matt's talk 18:58, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarification. Brandmeistertalk  14:33, 1 January 2024 (UTC)