Talk:Ecuadorian–Peruvian War

Add topic
Active discussions

Talk pages involvedEdit

Japanese mercenaries????Edit

what's the source of this ecuadorian myth? Greetings Rasdar —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC) There is a myth in Rasdar Peruvian government to buy Japanese soldiers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

What they were fighting for...Edit

Wasn't the the patch of land they were fighting for a rich oil supply, which American companies wanted to secure. So they incited a border war with Ecuador and Peru to see would be supplying it to them? (source: Confessions of an Economic Hitman, John Perkins) User:Tetris11 16:59, 9 May 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

Neutral assesment Oct. 14Edit

While it is clear that the critical post below lacks any sort of unbiased foundation, it is also very clear that the article in question is not accurate at all.

The author, presumably editor for both Ecuadorian-Peruvian war and Cenepa war, cites an article on the latter from the US Department of National Security. This article is used to reinforce his point that the military engagement of Cenepa in the 90's was started by both sides. Meanwhile, the same research paper qualifies the 1941 Ecuadorean - Peruvian war as an invasion by the Peruvian forces. This completely refutes the wikipedia entry in which it insinuates a provocation act by forces, that according to the US Dept, consisted of "3,000 poorly led and equipped Ecuadorian soldiers against 15,000." Dragonlord kfb 23:08, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Image SuggestionEdit

Looking at this from a relatively neutral perspective, and with very little knowledge of the conflict in question (though this "stupid Yank" would be happy to be directed to the relavent sources), I believe that a few simple and unbiased images to include in this article would be: a: A map of the disputed border region, and b: pictures of the commanders of the respective sides. This may not be much, but this might get the ball rolling. (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 05:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place to air grievances.

IP User ComplainsEdit

  • This article includes more than one outright lie, and fails to mention a naval skirmish which Ecuador

won against absurd odds. The outright lie is that Ecuador invaded Peru, when it was the other way around, as it has always been, for Ecuador at no time in its history posessed the military means Peru did, and as the info panel at the right of the article shows, in 1941 the Peruvian forces outnumbered the Ecuadorian ones by a ratio of two to one. Peru has long claimed the port city of Guayaquil and its surrounding fertile lands as parts of its territory, going as far as to occupy Guayaquil in 1859 (this time, by ship), and if the Peruvian army had been as good as the article claims it was, it would have gotten to Guayaquil in no time at all. Instead,it was bogged down near Machala, in Ecuador's El Oro province, by token forces of the Ecuadorian army fielding old machine guns.

Meanwhile, in the Gulf of Guayaquil, the Abdón Calderon a 131-foot (40 meters) long coastal steamer built in the 1880's, retrofitted with two puny cannon of less than 100 mm and two 20 mm fast-fire guns, was able to put out of service the Almirante Villar, a 315-foot (96 meters) Peruvian destroyer of WWI vintage, that fielded four 101/60 caliber cannon. If that steamer had been a fast torpedo gunboat, the Peruvians defeat wouldn't appear so outrageous, but the Abdón Calderon's reciprocal steam engines couldn't push more than 8 knots, while the Almirante Villa's steam turbines could easily push its 1300 tons to 30 knots.

The Almirante Villar spent the rest of its life in a Peruvian dry dock, while the Abdón Calderon became the subject of epic poems, books and a monument consisting of itself in a large pool.

Messhermit AnswerEdit

  • Large and Sad proof of Ultra-Nationalistic POV. Messhermit 21:37, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Guayaquil in fact was detached from the Viceroyalty of Peru by Simon Bolivar, and after that, no single Peruvian Government has reclaimed the city as an integral part of the Peruvian Republic.
  • The Naval battle is only proposed in the Ecuadorian POV, since a persecution does not constitute a battle by itself. Messhermit 22:55, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • At the time Simon Bolivar goes to Guayaquil, it already had an independent goverment that had successfully resisted the spanish efforts to reclaim the city as theirs. Guayaquil was an independent province that was forced to join the Gran Colombia.

Impartiality in QuestionEdit

I do believe that the objectivity of this article should be disputed. It is not true, for example, that after independence from Spain Ecuador was left without access to the Amazon. Things weren't so clear back then as they are now with respect to borders. I don't see any mention of the Pedemonte-Mosquera protocol, signed between Colombia and Peru (before Ecuador separated from Colombia) which is rather important. There's a book on the subject (can't recall the title) written by an American which is quite impartial and could be used as reference here. -- Jose

  • The Pedemonte-Mosquera Protocol is not involved here because of a main reason: It's authenticity cannot be proved by the Governments of Colombia and Peru (the two countries that sponsored that Treaty). The Ecuadorian Government has not been able to proof the existence of that document.
  • My understanding is that the original signed document is missing, and hasn't been found in Colombia. To suggest that the treaty never took place is far fetched (see Occam's Razor). Regardless of what you may personally believe, the importance of the Pedemonte-Mosquera protocol (existent or not) to understanding the conflict is paramount. This is the basis, the explanation of it all. This is the original point of disagreement. Ecuadorians give much relevance to the protocol. Peruvians either think it is void or non-existent. Wikipedia articles should be objective, without passion or prejudice. The views of both Peruvians and Ecuadorians should appear in the article. As it stands, it reads as if it was taken right out of a Peruvian elementary school's text boook.
  • Sorry, but the info is not from any school book. You may feel comfortable writing the Ecuadorian one? Also, Neither Colombia and Peru have a copy of a treaty that only Ecuador claim to have existed.
  • Also, Brazil Recognized the Amazon river (and by doing this, invalidate the Ecuadorian claim to the river) as part of its frontier with Peru.
  • I believe you're referring to who discovered the Amazon, which is not that relevant

to this article. You might want to dispute the article Amazon_River#European_exploration.

  • The Amazon River is not the Question. Peru ceded territory allong the Amazonas River and Brazil recognised the rest of the territory as part of the Peruvian Republic.
  • Colombia also recognised borders with Peru even before the signing of the Salomonte-Mozquera Treaty in 1922.
  • Reference?
  • Quite Simple: Why did he settle it's borders with Peru if (according to Ecuador) the hole territory was Ecuadorian? Messhermit 01:52, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Glad to answer some question. Messhermit 02:21, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Peruvian or Ecuadorian POV in Question ?Edit

Readers of this article should be aware that the author(s) of this article belong to one of the two nations involved in the dispute. People interested in this subject are strongly advised to consult other sources for a non-biased description of the War of 1941, preferably taking into account both Ecuadorian and Peruvian POVs. Andres C.

And People should be aware that there is a lot of pro-ecuadorian POV pushing going around. Messhermit 02:48, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

  • And People should be aware that there is a lot of pro-ecuadorian POV pushing....

Naturally so, and it should come as no surprise. Both Ecuador and Peru hold their own POV about the history of the border disputes between the two nations. This contributor does not wish to get involved in an edit war (some of his entries have already been rapidly deleted), and only wants to point out that this Wikipedia article -as well as other articles about this subject both in the English and Spanish versions of Wikipedia, (seeCenepa War)- is written according to the Peruvian POV. In doing so, this article, as it stands now, does not comply -sadly- with Rule 4 of Wikipedia, which calls for a Neutral Point of View.

Taking into account the new era of goodwill between Ecuador and Peru that should have followed the signing of the Peace Treaty of Itamaraty in 1998, this contributor holds the opinion that a NPOV, well-balanced article about the Ecuadorian-Peruvian War of 1941 will only be possible when both POVs are presented to the reader in an impartial and straightforward manner, allowing the reader to know both sides of the story. In that sense, it is important that, besides documenting from credible sources certain parts of the article (Ecuador invading Peruvian territory in 1941 comes to mind), Peruvian contributors allow members of Ecuador or other nationalities to contribute to the article, accepting the inclusion of points of view that may not be in accord with the Peruvian version of the events. Such an article, free of bias, would be an example of goodwill and cooperation between Ecuadorians and Peruvians. This contributor would like to continue to try to include the Ecuadorian POV which, presented along with the Peruvian POV, would make for a Wikipedia article of much better quality.

  • I must remind also that presenting both sides is not NPOV. Actually, the fact that Peruvian an Ecuadorian versions of how the war started shows that at least one of the sides is not telling the truth. Also, credible sources does not means that the dispute will end with that, because there are several documents that show or support one of the other. Messhermit 22:55, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
    • After seeing the way you delete any suggestion that does not agree with your version of truth, presenting both sides of the story looks to me like the best arrangement that can be made for this article to improve its overall quality; at the very least, it would be better than just presenting the Peruvian POV (which implicitly hints that the side not telling "the truth" is the Ecuadorian).

Finally, the inclusion of pictures of Peruvian monuments to victory, while perhaps constituting a source of pride for Peruvians, does not add much to the knowledge of the subject, and may be hurtful to Ecuadorians, who know only too well that their nation suffered a humiliating and costly defeat in a one-sided struggle. This Wikipedian respectfully asks the contributor who posted that image to move it to an article about Lima and its architecture. While being of small importance by itself, that initiative, if accepted, would be a good way to start creating a new and better article about the Ecuadorian-Peruvian War, a non-biased article that would not hurt the feelings of anyone wishing to learn something about this subject on Wikipedia. In case the editor who posted that image is no longer contributing to Wikipedia, this contributor would like to respectfully ask from fellow Peruvian wikipedians their opinions about removing said image from the article, and replacing it perhaps with a map of the zone of dispute, which would help very much international readers in their understanding of the subject.

With very best regards, Andres C. 17:46, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

    • The Peruvian Monument is the only available picture that I was able to found about the War of 1941. I have not been able to found a monument that shows both countries (or at least flags). Also, It will only hurt the memories of those who will continue to claim Tumbes, Jaen and Maynas as part of Ecuador. Messhermit 22:55, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Nobody is telling you to put an image where Tumbes, Jaen and Maynas appear as part of Ecuador. You won't find it. For that, you will have to look at maps of the Presidencia de Quito, available from the CIA Factbook webpage.
    • Hello, I edited the sentence on the Ecuadorian invasion and occupation of Zarumilla, as there is no Peruvian or Ecuadorian primary source mentioning such an event taking place before the outbreak of the war. Even though readers will find it akward that the puny Ecuadorian army had somehow managed to go on the offensive and occupied the Peruvian town of Zarumilla, I will gladly reinstate myself such an event in the article if respectable primary sources are brought forward proving that this event happened at all. Please do not revert this change if such primary sources are not posted in the references section of the article. Thank you.

Regards, Andres C. 17:42, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

      • I'm sorry, but you by no means can create or put a ban on my information. Also, you don;t have enought information to say that Peru invaded Ecuador just for fun or for the pleasure to do it. Messhermit 22:55, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
        • Messhermit: please understand that this is not "your" article anymore, it belongs to the community of Wikipedians. As long as Ecuadorians watch over this page, you will find yourself in an endless edit war over its content until any Peruvian POV is clearly noted as such, and not as objective "truth" The same also applies for Ecuadorian POV. The information about Peru invading Ecuador, which you seem to consider a lie, while at the same time praising the airborne assault on Puerto Bolivar is not put there for the fun of it.

For specific online references where the word "invasion" is used to describe the war between Ecuador and Peru in 1941, please see:

Now I shall ask you to please post references for the Ecuadorian invasion of Zarumilla. Can you do that? Andres C. 17:34, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Page protectedEdit

This page is now protected. Please make an attempt to resolve your differences and reach concensus before moving forward. Once you have reached an agreement that all parties can live with, you can post a messagwe on my talk page or make a request @ WP:RPP to unprotect. Saludos a todos. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t@ 04:12, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Unfortunatelly, the real problem here is how the article is being misleaded, actually blaming for the war to the Republic of Peru. The so-called invasion (by part of the Ecuadorians) is presented as a surprise attack, deleting every reference to previous border skirmish between both countries. Also, the fact that one investigation says that Peru was the agressor, does not make it the law of the land.
  • As a compromise, I'm willing to remove the Peruvian Monument from the Info-box, and upload a map that will show the area in dispute. The Monument picture will be in the article, just in a different location and with a more detailed explanation about his meaning.
  • If this important issues could be solved, We may can work to improve the article. Messhermit 00:17, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I would first like to thank Jossifresco for stepping in and protecting the article, an action that I hope will help to end this edit war and contribute to produce a better article.

Messhermit wrote:

  • Unfortunatelly, the real problem here is how the article is being misleaded, actually blaming for the war to the Republic of Peru.

This is interesting. When I first came in to help with this article, I found the following statement by you, Messhermit:

Attempting to assert its territorial aims in a region near the Río Marañón, Ecuador militarily occupied Zarumilla, a town located in Peruvian territory. The Peruvian Army responded promptly and confronted the Ecuadorian Army.

Hmmm...and yet you accuse me of "misleading" people and doing unjustified blaming. Go figure. About that alleged Ecuadorian military occupation of Zarumilla: I asked you for primary references about such incident ever happening, but no evidence has been brought forward so far, despite the fact that I pledged myself to put that claim back into the article if said evidence was presented. Instead, the same claim has been put back over and over despite my edits. Once again, I would like to ask for some primary evidence about this Ecuadorian invasion of Peruvian territory taking place in 1941. (Incidentally, I have to recognize that, knowing the sorry state of the Armed Forces of my country in 1941, the sole mention that Ecuador actually went on to occupy Zarumilla looks to me a bit preposterous).

  • The so-called "invasion" (by part of the Ecuadorians) is presented as a surprise attack, deleting every reference to previous border skirmish between both countries.

Messhermit, I have not used the term "surprise attack". Regarding the term invasion, this is the definition Wikipedia gives: "An invasion is a military action consisting of troops entering a foreign land (a nation or territory, or part of that), often resulting in the invading power occupying the area, whether briefly or for a long period."

Is Puerto Bolívar not part of a foreign land? Why do you find it so troublesome the concept of an invasion ocurring in 1941, when you yourself mention Peruvian troops in Puerto Bolívar and the province of El Oro? They were not tourists on vacations, you know.

As for border skirmishes before the war, which you claim I have deleted...well, look at the several edits made over the last few days. The article I found on October 12 made no mention whatsoever of border incidents happening before the outbreak of the war. You can confirm it yourself. This accusation is all the more surprising since it was I who went on to mention such incidents. Take a look at my very first edit on this article (marked 18:31, October 12), if you will:

After a series of sporadic border incidents, and claiming that Ecuadorian forces had attempted to occupy the Peruvian town of Zarumilla, Peru unleashed a full-fledged invasion of Ecuadorian territory, advancing on that nation's coastal province of El Oro, and securing also a large part of the disputed border area on the Amazon basin.

Later, I added a date for the beginning of the incidents: 1938. If I was the one who mentioned these incidents in the first place, how can you say I delete "every reference to previous border skirmish(es)"? I don't get it.

  • Also, the fact that one "investigation" says that Peru was the agressor, does not make it the law of the land.

Messhermit: The study that you find unworthy of being mentioned in Wikipedia (to the point of deleting it altogether) is a study presented before the Department of National Security and Strategy, U.S. Army War College, by a person who has done extensive research on Latin American conflicts. If you take the time to read it (it's not that long), you will find that Mr. Marcella actually counted with the collaboration of the Peruvian Embassy in Washington, D.C. Regarding the Cenepa War (which is its main subject), the "investigation" as you refer to it in disdain, goes on to say:

The most serious fighting centered around Cueva de los Tallos, Base Sur, and Tiwintza outposts occupied by Ecuadorean troops located within the Peruvian side of the undemarcated and disputed border.

Note the date the article was written: November 25, 1995. Do you really think he is biased against Peru??

Having responded to your accusations, I look forward to continue this talk, in order to reach some sort of agreement. The first question I would like to pose is: How can we define the presence of Peruvian troops in the province of El Oro without mentioning the word "invasion"? Even if you hold to the position that Ecuador invaded Peru and took Zarumilla, which prompted a surprised Peru to respond with a counterattack (a very fast one, airborne operations included, but never mind...), you would still have to find a word to describe the presence of Peruvian troops in El Oro during the better part of six months.

My position is this: 1. Ecuador and Peru held talks in Washington, D.C., from 1936 to 1938. 2. Following the breakup of the talks, border incidents began to happen with increasing frequency during the period 1938-1941. 3. In July 1941, the Peruvian Army Commander, against the specific orders from the President, launched an invasion of Ecuadorian territory, with the purpose of ending the border disputes once and for all. 4. Ecuador was in no position to defend Guayaquil from a Peruvian advance along the coastline, and it asked for a ceasefire, that went into effect on July 31, leaving Peruvian troops in control of the province of El Oro until a Peace Treaty was signed. 5. Peru was much more prepared for a war in 1941 than Ecuador, which didn't even have an Air Force and whose heaviest equipment then were a couple of machine guns manned by badly trained recruits.

I would like to know your comments. The important thing is to see how can we reach a consensus were both the Ecuadorian and the Peruvian versions are presented in an article free of nationalistic propaganda, be it Ecuadorian or Peruvian. I hope it can be done. If Ecuador and Peru could finally find an agreement and close the border for good, why can't we begin to write a new, better account of these wars?

Cheers, Andres C. 08:21, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


AS for the Battle of Zarumilla

  • On 5 July 1941 there was a clash between an Ecuadorian Army patrol and elements of the Peru Civil Guard. [1]
  • In an effort to assert its territorial claims in a region near the Río Marañón in the Amazon Basin, Ecuador occupied militarily the town of Zarumilla along its southwestern border with Peru. [2]
  • After the battle of Zarumilla the conflict was solved by the signature of the Act of Talara, predecessor of the Protocol of Rio de Janeiro.

The beginning of the fighting happened on July 5, 1941 when Equator Army's soldiers entered in Peru's territory in order to remove the wire-work of a peruvian farm. In the same day equatorian troops attacked the peruvian border posts of Aguas Verdes, Las Palmas and Lechugal.

The battle existed. and YES, you attempted to delete the part about the skirmish in your first modifications.

  • There are several books on College, writed by US militars and with the colaboration of Both Peruvian and Ecuadorian embassies that say different stories. I will make sure to select a few of them in order to suport my claims.
  • About the action in Puerto Bolivar, it is there because is the first time in latin america that an airbone division is used in war. As a matter of fact, if you research about that incident, you will find that it was also one of the first time that this type of warfare was used in the world.
  • The Peruvian Army left El Oro before the signing of the Rio de Janeiro Protocol.
  • The fact that the Peruvian Army was better prepared does not mean that the war was planned. An example of this is the fact that the Brazilian Military is one of the most powerfull armies in latin america and (as far as I know) is not planning to invade any country. The fact that the Ecuadorian Army was not in shape for conflict, does not mean that Peru was preparing an invasion.

Messhermit 12:15, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


The battle existed. and YES, you attempted to delete the part about the skirmish in your first modifications.

Okay. Show me where. My first modification is the one named 22:29, October 12, 2005. Again, there were was mention of skirmishes until I posted them in said edit.

From the webpage you cited: From 1931 to 1936,when the Treaty of Lima was signed, Ecuador had been provoking Peru with continued troop confrontations in the Peruvian Departmento (State) of Amazonas. Even after signing the Treaty, the provocations continued increasing in intensity between 1938 and 1940.

Does it looks to you like a NPOV narration of events??? Messhermit: citing Peruvian Air Force's official history to support your claim of Ecuadorian forces invading Peru will get us nowhere. What do you think the official history of the Ecuadorian Army would say about the conflict? What would you expect?

As a matter of fact, if you research about that incident, you will find that it was also one of the first time that this type of warfare was used in the world.

Perhaps you take pride in that? By the way, by the time of the airborne assault on Puerto Bolivar, the Germans had already conducted extensive airborne operations in the conquest of Norway (April 1940), the assault on Holland and the seizing of the forts of Eben Emael (May 1940), and the successful, if very costly, assault on Crete. Yes, Peru was the first nation to conduct airborne operations in America, and you should very well know that airborne assault are high risk military operations that require a lot of planning and coordination before their execution. That should tell you something about who was planning what.

You are getting nowhere trying to make an article around the idea that the conflict came about as a result of Ecuadorian aggressive, expansionist plans towards Peru...How could Ecuador be planning to, of all things, invade Peru in 1941, when it was well known at the time that the Peruvian Army, Air Force and Navy where some of the strongest military forces in the entire continent? Don't you know that Arroyo del Rio had most of the troops stationed in Quito? Most of the Carabineros, a paramilitary force created by him, refused to go to the frontier to fight, and stayed in Guayaquil. Unless you get familiar with the history of Ecuador, your article will never get past the level of nationalistic propaganda. We should strive for a much better article.

There are several books on College, writed by US militars and with the colaboration of Both Peruvian and Ecuadorian embassies that say different stories. I will make sure to select a few of them in order to suport my claims.


I hope we can get past this and try to reach an agreement. Don't let yourself be fooled by Patriotic propaganda (in Ecuador we can also have that problem, though it's getting less of an issue as of lately) or we won't get anywhere. Let us contribute to make a better article, free of bias.

Regards, Andres C. 17:28, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Something that I'm proud of it's the fact that we didn't have a Borders of the Country subject in school, that gave to ecuadorians a false idea that those territories at some point belong to Ecuador. Unfortunately, that may be clouding your views about the war.
  • And Invasion is not the appropiate name, since the only moment that Peru actually invaded the country was in response to the skirmish and the battle near Zarumilla. Also, Only El Oro was occupy, and at any moment Peru planned to annexed the province or reclaim Guayaquil. The other parts in conflict ( Mainly the Amazonian Jungle - the disputed territories) were not de jure or de facto part of Ecuador.
  • I just wanted to point out that all invasions are in response to something; that's not relevant. Consider the German invasion of Poland, Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, the US invasion of Iraq. They had their reasons; they didn't just go in because they were nuts. Invasion simply means that they went in uninvited. Also, you have claimed that Ecuador occupied Zarumilla, which again, is not citable. The Peruvian army itself claims that Ecuadorian troops had entered Peruvian territory near Zarumilla, which sparked a firefight (which somehow extended throughout much of the border in the area) and as a result Perú quickly improvised a swift invasion with tanks, paratroops and air support that same day (which is remarkable considering how long it takes the US to prepare an invasion). The best you could claim is that Ecuador was trying to go and occupy Zarumilla, but you can't know that. Occupying a city means that forces have gotten rid of the local government and subsequently control the city. It's also unclear to me why Aguas Verdes is never mentioned. Clearly it would've been much more logical for the Huaquillas unit of the Ecuadorian army to take Aguas Verdes first. There are no accounts of civilians getting killed in Peruvian territory that I know of. Also, was that Aguas Verdes-Huaquillas border under dispute at the time? I'd be surprised. I don't doubt that Ecuador was perhaps entering disputed territory and setting up posts from time to time, but why go into territory that's not disputed, unless you're really prepared to win militarily? And why did it all start precisely in a place with a convenient bridge that could be used for crossing into the other country and occupy a populated province, and not in some other place, like the Cenepa region? In essense, the whole thing doesn't sound very believable to me. 15:30, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Just like the 101 Airbone division that landed in Normandy a few days before the D-Day, those operations were mostly theorical, and it's implementation costly in both man and equipment (and just like the Germans, they took a heavy price on human lifes). The fact that a peruvian Airbone division took part in the war and took control of a small port is military seen as a simbolic (but at any moment strategic) tactic. Or was Puerto Bolivar a extremely important port for the Ecuadorian Army?
  • I just wanna say that you are also getting nowhere pretending that Peru was the agressor in the war. The constant skirmish were created by both parts, and the nationalistic and populist rethoric that several Ecuadorian presidents (and politicians) use in his electoral campaing or to gain political support should be blame also.
Messhermit 00:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


  • Something that I'm proud of it's the fact that we didn't have a Borders of the Country subject in school
I never had that subject in school either. Sorry to dissapoint you. Let me tell you a little secret: do not believe everything they told you about those deceitful, sinister, mendacious, war-mongering Ecuadorians and their secret plans to conquer Peru. We are too inept to do that.
  • And Invasion is not the appropiate name, since the only moment that Peru actually invaded the country was in response to the skirmish and the battle near Zarumilla.
So? What there an "invasion" or not? By the way, I see you changed the version from "Ecuador taking Zarumilla" to "skirmishes and battles near Zarumilla".
  • Also, Only El Oro was occupy
Only El Oro; that's good. Was that an invasion? How many provinces do you need before considering an enemy move into foreign territory as invasion? Two? Four?
  • Just like the 101 Airbone division that landed in Normandy a few days before the D-Day
The U.S. 82nd and 101st Airborne Divisions, and the 6th British Airborne Division were dropped on Normandy six hours before the first beach landings on June 6. Had they landed "days before the D-day", they would have been massacred for lack of heavy weapons. Military history is not your forte perhaps?
  • those operations were mostly theorical
What? Feel free to write in Spanish because you are not making any sense here.
  • Or was Puerto Bolivar a extremely important port for the Ecuadorian Army?
I see. Since it was just a tiny unimportant port-city, its taking by airborne assault does not constitute an invasion. They were just doing some live-fire training perhaps?
  • I just wanna say that you are also getting nowhere pretending that Peru was the agressor in the war.
Messerschmitt: you imposed the tone of the discussion.
  • The constant skirmish were created by both parts
The FIRST sensible thing you've said up to this point. So no more Ecuadorian sneaky provocations and treacherous trespassing into a peace-loving Peru? Thanks a lot. From this point on we can start to have some serious discussion about how to improve the article.

regards, Andres C. 02:05, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

It should be clear to any reader of this lengthy discussion that whatever credibility Messerschmitt had as an author is now gone.

''Res ipsa loquitur''

1 Messerschmitt has failed to provide any meaningful source of information to the ongoing conflict. Attempted to compare a US Department of National Security paper with a blog that cannot be verified is hardly reasurring. 2 Continuous attempts by the aforementioned to erase sources of information (against wikipedia philosophy). Information, that in fact, sheds light in the ongoing issue, and 3 Continuous editing without contributing information that cannot be readily verified in order to resolve the controversy,

should lead the reasonable reader to the inevitable conclusion: Messerschmitt is pushing a Peruvian POVDragonlord kfb 04:02, 22 October 2005 (UTC)


I'm Ecuadorian, but I don't have any interest in making the article have an Ecuadorian POV. I admire the NPOV ideal of Wikipedia. But it would be important to present both sides. I had this discussion (organized it actually) over 10 years ago in a mailing list(use Google Groups to search for "charla limitrofe ecuador peru".) I'm not a major expert in the field by any means, but here are some specific additions that would balance the article:

  • Mention the battle of Tarqui, won by Colombia.
  • Mention the Pedemonte-Mosquea protocol, and the Peruvian arguments that suggest it never took place (e.g. only copies have been found, and there are also arguments that both Pedemonte and Mosquera were not available on that date) and the ones that indicate that even if it took place, it wasn't ratified and it was with a country that no longer existed.
  • The proximity of dates between idenpendence from Spain, separation from Colombia and so on are worth noting.
  • Mention some of the treaties that occurred between that time and 1941, e.g. Noboa-Pando, Morales-Estrada, etc.
  • An analysis of how the region up to the Amazon that Ecuador considered its own was basically de facto Peruvian because its inhabitants were mostly Peruvian. (I recall reading it was upwards of 60% in the late 1800s). Nevertheless, I understand there are some towns in the region named after Ecuadorian presidents and politicians.
  • In discussing how the 1941 war started, explore claims made by both Ecuadorians and Peruvians.
  • The challenges to the Rio Protocol of 1941 by Ecuador are likely relevant to this article. The Ecuadorian arguments as to why the protocol should've been considered void are several, and need to be listed.

Heck, unlock the article and I might do this myself, a little bit each day. 22:32, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Hello! As the member who asked for this page to be protected in the first place, I support the request made by user to remove the protection.
I asked for the page to be protected temporarily as a means to "enforce a cool down period to stop an edit war." (See Wikipedia: Protection policy). I don't know if the protection has served its intended purpose, as the senseless confrontation with Messhermit regarding the term "invasion" kept going until it reached a dead-end. Actually, I am afraid the protection turned out to be of little use. Even my request for primary sources documenting the Ecuadorian invasion of Peruvian territory in 1941 (which Messhermit mentions as the cause of the war) went unheeded.
In any case, I guess it is important that both Ecuadorians and Peruvians (or by that matter anyone interested in contributing to this article) reach some sort of consensus regarding the subject of NPOV, in order to produce a better-quality article that takes into consideration both sides of the story, and not just the Peruvian, as has been the case up to this point.
The subjects mentioned by deserve to be dealt with in detail, taking into account both the Ecuadorian and Peruvian versions. In my humble opinion they should be addressed in the article named History of the Ecuadorian-Peruvian territorial dispute, whose author is -you guessed rightly- the same individual who reverts or deletes any modifications or additions made to the articles Ecuadorian-Peruvian War and Cenepa War.
Cheers. Andres C. 02:22, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
It's pretty clear that Messhermit is not interested in contributing information to Wikipedia, but simply a pro-Peruvian POV across various articles. It's intellectually dishonest of him to delete information that I assume is relevant and notable simply because he disagrees with it. How is a problem like this usually resolved in Wikipedia? 14:51, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
I've started to edit History of the Ecuadorian-Peruvian territorial dispute. Please go to the talk page there for feedback on POV and content. 19:02, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Reply to my fellow IP userEdit

Too bad that you already have a terrible opinion about my actions wihout looking at the hole picture, and realicing that my defence against the other user is as valid as your contributions. The fact that you are usgin the talk page to discuss the issue rather than tearing apart the article (fortunately, it was protected) is a good sign. Also, about Pro-nationalistic peruvian POV< I'm terrible sorry to dissapoint the other user. Take a look at my contributions, and you will realice that I'm involved in a broad subject of topics that goes between iraqui, afghani and pakistani history (for naming ones).

Also, in the same way that you accuse me of pushing a peruvian POV, I must say that the other user clearly push a Ecuadorian POV. Most of the article is a clear attemp to lead the reader that is not familiar with the topic to believe that Peru invaded Ecuador, clearly ignoring the fact that skirmish and ecuador's political class were igniting the flames of this conflict.

Also, the fact that some US investigations have some information about the conflict does not close the discussion.

AS you may have realice, I have started an article that can explore in a much more neutral an accurate discussion the real nature behind the conflict. I have see that you are impartial with both sides, and I'm merely correcting some gramatic mistakes. I'm willing to work with you in these effort to settle this dispute.

Cheers!. Messhermit 03:30, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Hello Messerschmitt.

(fortunately, it was protected)

Yes, fortunately. Now go on and find who was the one who requested the protection.

Most of the article is a clear attemp to lead the reader that is not familiar with the topic to believe that Peru invaded Ecuador

Read the article as it was before I started editing it. Was it not "a clear attempt to lead the reader that is not familiar with the topic to believe that "Ecuador invaded Perú"?

Also, the fact that some US investigations have some information about the conflict does not close the discussion.

No it doesn't. Who said that? Now I respectfully ask you to refrain from deleting said source, as it goes against all rules regarding NPOV. You shamelessly deleted the reference, and your action is in the "history" page for everyone to see.

I'm terrible sorry to dissapoint the other user. Take a look at my contributions, and you will realice that I'm involved in a broad subject of topics that goes between iraqui, afghani and pakistani history (for naming ones).

Oh no, you do not disappoint me. Actually, I am having a bit of fun with your ranting. Yes, I have seen your contributions, and from what I gather, you are:
(1) rather careless in the English syntax and spelling departments (remember Wikiquette), and
(2) a troublemaker of sorts, as is evident after a quick glance at your talk page.

AS you may have realice, I have started an article that can explore in a much more neutral an accurate discussion the real nature behind the conflict. I have see that you are impartial with both sides, and I'm merely correcting some gramatic mistakes.

Oh really? Didn't you just mentioned the term wars...impossed on the Peruvian people in another talk page? Good luck then with your "neutral and accurate discussion".

And while you are correcting, I suggest you start right here: use grammar, not gramatic, use realize instead of realice. And another one, which appears in the talk pages of both you and me (remember when you accused me of vandalism?): write considered, not considerated. That one was a real winner.

Cheers to you too! Andres C. 18:07, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I need to pay attention to the dates of posts ^_^ Pvt Mahoney 21:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


This article has been protected for over a week. I'm unprotecting to see if editing can proceed. --Tony SidawayTalk 16:00, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

About the monument imageEdit

It's clear to me the image should be removed. It has been pointed out that it could be hurtful to Ecuadorians. But more relevant to a Wikipedia article is the fact that the monument is not notable in this article. The article is about a historical event, and a picture of a monument is not historically notable. Wikipedia articles are meant to inform, not pay tribute to combatants. The picture perhaps belongs in the Lima article, at best, or in Wikitravel. 15:10, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Hello To fill you in on details about the image.
    • On October 14, 2004, I asked in this page for a third party to consider removing the image of the monument. I didn't do it myself in order to avoid being labelled "an Ecuadorian ultranationalist" by Messhermit (to no avail, as he went on to call me just that). I was a new Wikipedian at the time, and hadn't had the time to getting to know this fellow.
    • The following day, user went on and deleted the image. A little later, Loopy put the image back. I went to Loopy's talk page and asked him (who is neither Ecuadorian nor Peruvian) why did he consider important for the image to appear in the article.
Loopy kindly answered, Hi there. Sorry, I didn't realise you had suggested it - it's starting to get hard to tell what is and isn't POV-motivated in that article! Feel free to remove the image as you wish, it was a mistake on my part. I tried to look myself for an appropiate image to replace it but it isn't easy, is it? Having read through the talk page properly I agree a map of the disputed area would be a very good idea. Cheers for letting me know and sorry for the misunderstanding --Loopy 18:41, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Anyway, the image is still there. Messhermit seems to argue is is there because there are no alternative images. I went on to ask for a Protection of the article, so Messhermit and I could begin to talk about how best to proceed together with the editing. Well, you can see that the measure was useless, as all that came out of it was a senseless flame war. The Protection has been now lifted, but I better refrain from deleting the image myself, as Messhermit would put it back immediately. Perhaps you could remove it, as this fellow seems to hold you in higher esteem than the rest of us Ecuadorian wikipedians around here (at least, as far as I know, he has not attacked you with the usual "Ecuadorian ultranationalist" label he seems to stick to anyone who comes over to add any Ecuadorian information on this articles).
Best Regards, Andres C. 17:30, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
It would not be good to remove the image without replacing it with another one. I'd vote for moving the current image to the Lima article, and perhaps replace this one with a map of the disputed region, or a 1960-1999 map of Ecuador. 22:58, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
I agree. That was the suggestion I made back on October 14.
One possibility could be the "Tufiño map" you included in the article about the border dispute (the one that guy messhermit calls controversial), but I would be against it. Besides, in Rio we never lost the famous 200,000 square km. If we follow the status quo line from '36, it turns out that in Rio we ended up losing around 14,000 square km. All in all, the Tufiño map does not show the reality of what came out of the war of '41, but rather old-fashioned Ecuadorian nostalgic propaganda from the 1970's. What about a picture of soldiers from one side or the other? I guess the Peruvians would have more access to photos taken at the time.
Hope to hear what you think. Regards, Andres C. 02:34, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
I think that's Messhermit's map, don't know where he obtained it. It is a pretty accurate map of Ecuador from that time period as I recall. What you note about the status quo line is true, and it's already mentioned in the dispute article, though the exact figure is not there. The thing about that map is that it's about something that happened about 1960, which is outside the scope of this one article really. If we can't come up with a replacement image, we might as well remove it, per the arguments already stated. 19:02, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
An example of an image that would be more appropriate is this: [3]. However, this particular image is probably not public domain. Neurodivergent 19:48, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Inca empire reference deletionEdit

I don't undestand the necessity of deleting that reference. It's notable and interesting that there was conflict involving Quito and Cuzco really far back. 01:29, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

  • The deletion process has started...good luck with that. Andres C. 02:36, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

What is the status on this matter? Have both sides come to an agreement, or are wikiadmins still heavily involved? Dragonlord kfb 16:50, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

The article titled History of the Ecuadorian-Peruvian territorial dispute has not sparked any significant edit warfare so far. I think that should be our model for the 3 articles involved, i.e. present claims by both sides qualifying them for what they are. Neurodivergent 03:21, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Currently, the articule shows wrong information and it needs to be urgently updated, bysides, why no ecuadorian war hero is mentioned?. Certainly, something as important as the conclution must be out of any POV, as a limited military victory takes place in 1995 in the Cenepa war (at least for ecuadorians).

Vandalism in courseEdit

This article came today under a coordinated attack of vandalism from four different IP addresses (the first two from Miami, the last two from Lima). Extensive amounts of sourced and verifiable information, as well as a list of references, are being deleted from the article.Andrés C. 03:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Note that deleting information & references from articles on a persistent basis, also referred to as blanking, is considered a form of vandalism. See WP:VANDAL. Andrés C. 00:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Did you report the vandal's IP? Dragonlord kfb 16:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

There were like ten IPs involved, all blocked days ago. Most of them were open proxies anyway. Andrés C. 19:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Picture for the articleEdit

This picture [4] that I found in Wiki-Commons would be more appropriate to be in this page (since both the monument and the soldiers were removed), because it shows the main cause of the war: the disputed territories between Peru and Ecuador; and it also has the final border between the two countries as stated by the "Rio Protocol" in 1942. Messhermit 13:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I have my doubts about it. For one, its is fairly obvious that this map carries a strong pro-Peruvian stance and doesn't say a lot about the war. It's all about Ecuadorian postwar reivindications. We need a map which clearly delineates (1) the line of the status-quo of 1936, (2) the line of advance of Peruvian troops both in El Oro and the Oriente in 1941, (3) the border line suggested by Peruvian Foreign Minister Solf y Muro to the Mediators in Rio in January 1942, and (4) the line finally laid down by the Rio Protocol. I'm currently working on it. Still, the article needs a picture; I liked the one I posted but couldn't verify copyright status. Andrés C. 14:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Ignoring the parts that are in Spanish, the map clearly shows Ecuador aspirations (that is, Tumbes, Jaen and Maynas) which were something real, and it shows the boundary that was established by the "Rio Protocol". The only thing that is missing is the supposed 78 Km2 that Ecuador refused to mark in the 60's. After all, several ecuadorian maps also bear a strong bias, depicting (until 1992) Ecuador with the territories involved as integral parts of their republic. Messhermit 18:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

For the introduction, I believe that map its more that enough. More detailed maps can be separately added to each of the topics in this article:
  • Pre-war boundaries and border clashes caused by both sides.
  • Movement of troops (both Peruvian and Ecuadorian) and concentration of Troops (North of Peru and Quito, Ecuador)
  • Final settlement and the Nullification crisis created by Velazco Ibarra. Messhermit 18:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
That's what I'm talking about. It's a postwar map showing the Ecuadorian aspirations. I'd say the article will profit most from a map that shows both the 1936 line and the Ecuadorian and Peruvian aspirations prior to the Rio Protocol (the Solf y Muro line), as well as the line of the Protocol.
I suggest that the Ecuadorian revisionist map that you once posted on another article (and which was official until 1999, not 1992), with the 78km-long unmarked strip, as well as the details on the diplomatic crisis caused by Velasco Ibarra's unilateral rejection of the Protocol in 1960 be included in the Rio Protocol article. Andrés C. 20:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok. I found the "Nullification" map that you are talking about [5]. It does not have a good quality, so If anyone can find a better map, it would be appreciate. Messhermit 04:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Translating from the Spanish versionEdit

I got here from Wikipedia:Translation into English/Spanish. I tried to fix the "war" section for NPOV using both the Spanish and the current English as my only sources, leaving in facts which seemed not to be in dispute (including "Side X claims..."). The text was clearly a battleground, and I believe that it is appropriate for non-knowledgeable outside editors like me to come in and clean it up but that it is NOT desirable to just do a direct translation of the sparser, Spanish version. Please respond if you agree/disagree. --Homunq 13:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi there. Thanks for taking interest in the article. As you can see, the article has had its share of problems in the past, so having more editors involved is a great thing. Besides being incomplete, it needs a major revamping. In any case, you're right: a direct translation of the Spanish version is not a good idea. Most of the articles on the Ecuadorian-Peruvian dispute on the Spanish wikipedia have a strong bias towards one of the countries involved. --Andrés C. 14:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I just read the History of the Ecuadorian-Peruvian territorial dispute and I think it actually does a pretty good job, it's a better source for outside editors than the Spanish version (though the Spanish version of this article, in particular, didn't look too biased to me at a naive reading). I think for the time being it's a good idea to leave the request for translation as a way to attract attention, but the strategy should be primarily to MOVE stuff from the History page to the War page (leaving just a short synopsis - dates and results, no "who started it" claims - on the History page) and replace the History part of the War page with a reference. If I get positive feedback on this I may start to do it, but of course others are welcome to. --Homunq 15:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes. The History section deals with too many details. A shorter Background section would be better. Andrés C. 22:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
It would be better if we can identify what this 2 version of the events have in common and state them here. In this way, the reader would not be confused with details that are only claimed by one of nations involved. Creating a timeline would increase the accuracy and chronological order of the informationMesshermit 22:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Figures for casualties and troops!Edit

Not knowing much about this conflict it still strikes me as ludicrous when I look at the figures of casualties and troops! Considering that the war only lasted 7 weeks, up to 1.5 million dead would most certainly make it the most bloody conflict in human history! Surely, who ever edited this article and added those figures was having a laugh. Any other page concerned with this conflict states the troop strength for this war at about one-thousands of what is stated here, 15.000 at the most! I think it needs some attention from somebody with some proper knowledge.EA210269 (talk) 06:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Quite agree, EA210269. The data for the participating troops look feasible (though I'm no expert on this war) but currently there are no loss data at all. Please, someone who knows about this conflict, add the numbers killed, wounded and PoWs (if any) on each side. If the figures aren't known exactly, then a range. If there's a dispute, then state the losses claimed by each side, and the respective references, so that we can draw our own inferences about the most likely range and accuracy. --Wally Tharg (talk) 20:16, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

200 tanks???Edit

My sources say no more than 24 CKD LTP tanks (Czech Panzer 38). My sources also mention 6 Renault/Latil UE and 95 CKD Praga TH artillery tractors. Considering only the 24 LTP tanks and that 1941 was a time well before US post-WWII aid (M4 Shermans, M3 Stuarts, etc), the number of 200 tanks is a big one, where can this ludicrous number be found? Source? (talk) 21:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

You're right--Stay by me (talk) 18:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

World War IIEdit

How does this border war have anything to do with World War II? Someone please respond or I am liable to make changes. --Az81964444 (talk) 07:15, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes it does(technically) if Nazi Germany was supporting Peru and the Allies supporting Ecuador, right? --Miggy72 (talk)
It clearly does not whichever way you look at it! By the same logic, the United States participated in the Vietnam War (1955-1975) while also participating in the Dominican Civil War (1965) - ergo the Dominican Civil War must have been part of the Vietnam War. This is clearly absurd, although there is room for some ambiguity in other cases (eg the Franco-Thai War of 1941). I have removed the text and we can always reinstate it if someone finds a WP:RS to support the claim. —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:53, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
World War 2 was a myriad of conflicts. The Pacific war was not Part of the European Front, but they were both part of World War 2. Your example is particularly bad because while they are not the same wars, they are both part of the Cold War. The Radioactive Box (talk) 17:38, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
This war has nothing to do with World War II. Any indication whatsoever that Germany "supported" Peru is simply false. We cannot simply link any wars to larger conflicts simply because they were occurring at the same time.--MarshalN20 🕊 20:22, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

not enoughEdit

doesn't tell why is important — Preceding unsigned comment added by StudentBoy (talkcontribs) 19:43, 3 October 2017 (UTC)