Talk:Casus belli

message: Probably the most obvious (and quite clear?) example is WWI Casus belli - assasination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria.
:Yes, that would be appropriate. Also because it shows a casus belli backfiring. The Germans believing a swift declaration of war by Austria against Serbia would make Austria look like the victim defending itself, but the timespace between assassination and war made it look too premeditated. Also, I think the article misses a section on the role of casus belli compared to the many inter-european treaties - how defensive treaties made it necessary for countries to construct a role for themselves as the victim to get help, while constructing the other part as the aggressor, in order to keep them from getting help from their allies. Poulsen 13:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historic uses... 

message: A quick look around suggests that wag the dog came out before the monica lewinsky affair broke.
:this is correct, according to IMDB, Wag the Dog was premiered on 17 Dec 1997 and according to the wikipedia article on the Lewinsky scandal, the scandal broke a month later (17 Jan 1998) on the Drudge Report. Ealdent 13:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "the president uses a pretext to attack Albania"for reference, I don't believe that the US actually attacks ablania in the film, they just pretend to. 62.60.98.133 11:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, that's not quite true... the phrase doesn't show up in synopses, but a couple of the references are for works where casus belli is a primary motif. I'll leave those in. --Sneftel (talk) 17:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  pop culture 

message: "As of October 31st, 2006 the US administration has denied that this is the case" [emphasis added]. What is "this"? Is it that there are WMDs in Iraq? or that the claim that there were WMDs in Iraq was a pretext? Kencomer 12:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, a citation would be useful, particularly if the latter interpretation was intended. Kryptx 08:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever the wording, it's probably worth having a line added that explains that there weren't any, and that, intentionally or otherwise, the claims were incorrect (or false). Sigma-6 03:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2003 United States / Iraq War 

message: Hi I'm lookgin for a source thay supports this statement:
:Despite the apparent age that the use of Latin confers on it, the term did not come into wide usage until the late nineteenth century with the rise of the political doctrine of "jus ad bellum" or "just war theory".
Thanks,
nyenyec ☎ 15:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  It wasn't in wide use until the 19th century 

message: There has been a merge tag on Proschema for eight months. I'm re-proposing the merge with templates on both articles. This merge seems strait forwards and I'll do it in a couple of days if nobody objects. --Selket Talk 05:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge of Proschema 

message: I hardly think so. Lebensraum was not a justification, it was an actual Hitler doctrine, and such an aggressive doctrine could hardly serve as a viable casus belli. I don't know what Hitler's cb for annexation of Czechoslovakia was, assuming he bothered with one, but "lebensraum" seems an unlikely candidate. Gatoclass 06:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I couldn't tolerate the wrongheaded write-up of lebensraum as a casus belli any longer, but it couldn't be fixed without rewriting much of the section, which I've done. As an added advantage I think the cb examples are also much clearer now. Gatoclass 11:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Czechoslovakia wasn't annexed. President Hacha asked Hitler to make it a protectorate. --41.151.53.50 (talk) 10:07, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Lebensraum a casus belli?

message: "Viewed from this perspective, the basis for war was not entirely dependent on the possible presence of weapons of mass destruction. They became a focus of media attention due to the potential risk they posed if they were present. This attention led to may people seeing them as the single justification for military action."
Note the last line, "This attention led many people seeing them as the single justification for military action."
The reason there is controversy is that the term "Weapons of Mass Destruction" was used by the administration as a casus belli to the American people, not the official session in congress which ratified the war. Would congress have voted the same if public opinion had not been swayed by the claim that Iraq had "Weapons of Mass Destruction"? Consider that when noting the NPOV of this section. 209.129.85.4 02:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The entire paragraph was original research anyway. I've deleted it. Gatoclass 21:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  War on Terror Reasons 

message: About the line "It is often misspelled and mispronounced as 'causus belli'"... can Latin be mispronounced? I heard there's no existing means of verifying correct pronunciation of this extinct language. I tend to pronounce it simarly to Spanish, in which case the first syllable of "casus" does indeed sound similar to the English word "cause" (to me, anyway).
No. It is a Turkish Phrase. Not Latin. In Turkish "casus = spy" and "belli = apparent" The whole meaning is "The spy is apparent" Maybe it could be pass the Arabish or Hebrew or English from Ottoman language. But we are, I mean Turks use this phase today. Thx Kızılsungur 20:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here it is: kāˈsəs bělˈī :Alcmaeonid 14:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation 

message: I just rv'ed the following:
:Also, the Bush Administration alleged that Iraq attempted to acquire yellowcake uranium from Niger. Despite the charge that the administration's allegations were dubious and partly based on forged documents, the United States government eventually found 550 metric tons of uranium yellowcake in Iraq. This had previously been kept secret to prevent the theft of the material for use in making weapons.
This was sourced from , but that article says:
:And, in a symbolic way, the mission linked the current attempts to stabilize Iraq with some of the high-profile claims about Saddam's weapons capabilities in the buildup to the 2003 invasion....Israeli warplanes bombed a reactor project at the site in 1981. Later, U.N. inspectors documented and safeguarded the yellowcake, which had been stored in aging drums and containers since before the 1991 Gulf War. There was no evidence of any yellowcake dating from after 1991, the official said.
If I'm reading that right, the link between the two cakes is purely nominal. Worth documenting in WP, certainly, but probably not in such a tangential article, particularly with Rationale for the Iraq War, Iraq and weapons of mass destruction, and Niger uranium forgeries (dear god won't some wiki-juggernaut please fix that article) available for addition. The news story, after all, discusses material which was known well before the war, and not used as a casus belli.
--Sneftel (talk) 22:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yellowcake in Iraq 

message: The exact meaning of "casus belli" appears to be act of war. Is there some reason to explain about "rupture", "incident" or "case"? --Vuo (talk) 20:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not generally possible to give an "exact meaning" of a given foreign-language phrase, let alone one in a language as ambiguous as latin. Certainly "act" doesn't translate "casus" well, as it connotes specific performance rather than occurrence. Dicdef here. On the other hand, "rupture" is a little far-fetched in this context. --Sneftel (talk) 18:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exact meaning 

message: The weapons that New Bern was making were mortars, not motors.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.191.22.133 (talk) 19:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jericho error 

message: I removed the line "Any war for another cause is considered illegal and those who engage in it subject to prosecution for a war crime." as deeply partial (there were, in fact, two tags on it "[by whom?]" and "[citation needed]"). (War may not be preferable, but calling it "illegal" and "war crimes" is beyond mere hyperbole.)152.121.19.13 (talk) 04:26, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed text

message: *2nd Punic War
In order to recover from the debts incurred from the peace terms of the 1st Punic War, Carthage established a stable and wealthy province in Spain as well as a strong army to protect it. Rome, in disapproval towards the economic recovery of Carthage, waited for an excuse to strike back at them and used the Siege of Saguntum as casus belli for the 2nd Punic War.
*3rd Punic War
Rome established a casus belli by imposing a provision on Carthage which denied them the right to make war without their consent and by allowing Numidian encroachments into their territory.
--Arima (talk) 06:47, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casus Belli: Punic Wars 

message: The assertion that Robert McNamara admitted the Tonkin Gulf attack "did not happen" in the film The Fog of War is patently untrue.  The incident involved two alleged attacks, and he admits that one of the two did not occur, but vehemently asserts that the earlier attack did.  I've seen this assertion put forth in a number of internet forums, and there are some nicely edited Youtube clips of McNamara saying "It didn't happen."  Context is important though, and to the day he died, Robert McNamara never said that the Maddox was not attacked - only that it was attacked once rather than twice.  brorlob (talk) 05:42, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casus Belli: Vietnam War 

message: IPA pronunciation is needed. --98.196.232.128 (talk) 06:34, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  IPA Pronunciation 

message: Rockets launched from Gaza (by whom?) into Israel referred to as a casus belli.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.58.246.32 (talk) 21:48, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Israel attacks Gaza  

message: "In August 1939, in order to implement the first phase of this policy, Germany's Nazi government under Hitler's leadership staged the Gleiwitz incident, which was used as a casus belli for the invasion of Poland the following September."<BR>
That simply isn't true. Hitler or for that matter any official outlets did not cite the Gleiwitz incident ever as a reason for the war. The only evidence for that incident is testimony of Naujocks (a defector) and I think of the head of the Gestapo while in captivity. Why would the Gleiwitz incident be needed anyway. There were numerous attacks from Polish territory on Germany and Poland did engage in an Alliance with Britain that was specifically designed against Germany. Poland also had a general mobilization days earlier. --41.150.58.36 (talk) 10:12, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  World War Two 

message: Every example after WW2 gives fairly skimpy examples, concentrated on Israel and the US. I think that this provides a very non-neutral slant to the article. --Agamemnus (talk) 08:21, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Umm ... What other wars have their been that would make better examples that don't involve Israel and the US?  Philg88 ♦talk 09:11, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  There are other problems as well. Some of it is urban legend. --197.228.46.92 (talk) 09:31, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wow, this article sure looks biased and non-neutral. 

message: Per this edit, the usage of the page was established as American English. Kindly maintain it consistently pending a new consensus to the contrary. — LlywelynII 00:46, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: WP:ENGVAR

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Casus belli. 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/20080614065921/http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/episodes/11/interviews/mcnamara/ to http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/episodes/11/interviews/mcnamara/
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) 23:51, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Casus belli. 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/20150306124920/http://vi.uh.edu/pages/buzzmat/world198_4.html to http://vi.uh.edu/pages/buzzmat/world198_4.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081017075722/http://www.milnet.com/public-law-102-1.html to http://www.milnet.com/public-law-102-1.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.state.gov/secretary/former/powell/remarks/2003/17300.htm
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) 01:52, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Page uses sources from vox and gore vidal.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Comfychair219 (talk • contribs) 00:50, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs unbiased sources 

message: If the German term is to be used at all, then it needs a capital L (all German nouns have capital first letters). I'd change this myself, but one of the examples is a link, which I don't want to activate or damage by trying to correct it.89.212.50.177 (talk) 11:15, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Carlstak (talk) 14:16, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lebensraum 

message: This is not supposed to be an article about the causes of wars or specific acts of war. It's an article about the concept of "casus belli." Any examples used should refer to reliable sources which discuss the concept. (Not to the things which are, in your estimation, the causes or acts of war in specific cases. That is Original Research.) As a bare minimum, cited references should use the term "casus belli" to describe the example provided. 214.10.6.112 (talk) 18:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article purpose 

message: In the para on the Spanish American War, removed the links around "Spanish investigation" and "Sampson Board" as they only led to this same page and para, not to additional information or Wiki articles. Random noter (talk) 00:42, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links with no destination removed 

message: There's an internal contradiction on this page: it defines itself as excluding casus foederis, yet it includes at least one example for which the given causes all relate to alliances. Wikipedia is not a dictionary of terms, instead it aims to define a thing (e.g. in its first sentence) and cover that thing in the article. The lede sentence of this article defines Casus Belli (as self-interest) vs. Casus foederis (for an ally's interest). Yet both of these articles include WWI, and with the same explanation (of alliances!)... So I have to assume that this article has either ignored WP:NOTDIC or its own lede defintion. For practical purposes, we probably want to lose the lead definition, for the following three reasons: (a) this topic is too hot to enforce indexing policies around; (b) descriptively, casus belli is in much wider use (for wars of alliance) than the obscure casus foederis term (Civilization VI alone ensures this); and (c) even the officially-announced reasons for war can include both national interest & the support of allies. So a clear distinction is not possible, and will continually run into NPOV problems. For all of these pragmatic reasons (of encyclopedia organization) I suggest removing the introduction stipulation that: casus belli exclude cases where the war is justified by alliance. As things stand, that definition contradicts the inclusion of: 80% of the text on the China-Vietnam War; and most of what appears in the WWI example. Removing those sub-sections to the casus foederis is a technically valid solution, but isn't likely to be a viable plan. That's for the three reasons above, and because readers will navigate here as the natural place to read about any war justification (whether alliance-based or not). --Wragge (talk) 05:25, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casus Belli vs. Casus foederis: a useful distinction?  

message: Opinion needed in Template_talk:Infobox_military_conflict#Cause_or_casus_belli_parameter. fgnievinski (talk) 04:59, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  As a parameter in Infobox military conflict