Talk:List of wars extended by diplomatic irregularity

Further examples

I created this list after considering the Three Hundred and Thirty Five Years' War article and, through a little research, noting several other somewhat dubious claims of this type. This page may serve to explain or debunk them, as the case may be. A couple of other possible alleged "extended wars" that I don't have good enough documentation on (only messageboard comments or the equivalent) are the Dutch-Portuguese War and Liechtenstein still being embroiled in World War I (possibly because of its name being misspelled "Lichtenstein" on the Treaty of Versailles). Another great potential for misunderstanding, that of Delaware being omitted from the Treaty of Paris, surprisingly does not appear to have spawned any diplomatic urban legends.--Pharos 04:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Well done in creating this list. I saw that it is not WP:NEO. So, a really good work. Try to expand the list. There must be many battles/wars which may fit the list. Thanks, --NRS | ^T/_M\^B 04:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks; it did take me a while to come up with an appropriate name. For further examples, I'll be looking for existing semi-serious claims, but it would be WP:NOR I think to go over treaties myself looking for mistakes. I'll keep an eye on the look-out, though.--Pharos 05:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

In a secondhand book shop I once found an old almanac that said Liechtenstein remained at war with Prussia (a state which at the time of the almanac no longer existed) by some unspecified oversight. I doubt this refers to the Treaty of Versailles, to which Prussia was not a party. —Tamfang 05:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The World Almanac and Book of Facts of 1928 says on pg. 248 that "Liechtenstein is still technically at war with Prussia"; this is likely the book you are referring to. Of course "Prussia" was often a synecdoche for the German Empire, so this makes sense historically.--Pharos (talk) 23:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at the Austro-Prussian War of 1866. Also see the entry under Liechtenstein#History for a further explanation. Don't know if any of it is really true, but with Liechtenstein you really never know.--TGC55 (talk) 02:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Swedish speakers?

Can someone have a look at Ulf Sundberg's debunking, and confirm that it agrees with my description. To be honest, I only learned of this reference though this Google Answers question. Thanks.--Pharos 05:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it only states that there is no peace treaty and that normal diplomatic relations are working, there is very little about the original war except that San Marino has been neutral in every conflict since 1463. Being neutral, of course, is not an obstacle for Sweden to declare war on them, so it really doesn't mean much. Basically, it states that, for all practical purposes, there is no war, but that much we already know. The formal state of affairs is still not clear. 88.131.91.2 (talk) 09:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for having a look at this, which is in a language I cannot read. "Neutral", of course, has two meanings — one, a "policy of neutrality", and the other is not being involved in any wars; I presume that the latter is the intended meaning in this article. And I think it remains highly significant that there is no positive evidence at all that such a war ever occurred. The fact that someone has bothered to debunk this is indeed the only reason I would consider the idea notable for this article.--Pharos (talk) 22:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

It might be notable, but it's not true. Sweden has never declared war against San Marino, or vice versa. Reliable sources are unfortunately only in Swedish: [1]. I'll remove it from the list. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Berwick upon Tweed

• "Berwick was in fact legally a part of England by this time." - not until the late 19th century. After the peace. --MacRusgail 19:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• What about the Wales and Berwick Act 1746? What happened in the late 19th century, as I read it, was merely the disincorporation of the county of Berwick and its merger into Northumberland.--Pharos 20:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• OK, looking again, I've come to the conclusion that it would be most accurate to describe Berwick as part of England and Wales and Berwick at this period. I've adjusted the wording accordingly.--Pharos 20:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Korea

Does Korea count, or does calling it a "Police action" actually change anything?

The Korean War was indeed a real war, whether it's considered a "police action" or not. The relevant fact I presume you're referring to is that a peace treaty has never been signed, which in this case is quite a deliberate policy pursued by the two sides of the conflict. That is a very different (and much more serious issue) from the somewhat ridiculous phenomenon discussed here, where the lack of a peace treaty is entirely due to supposed bureaucratic error.--Pharos 03:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The current events page for today suggests that "At the Inter-Korean Summit, South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun (pictured) and North Korean leader Kim Jong-il sign a joint declaration calling for a peace treaty to formally end the Korean War." So, is a peace treaty possible now? Perhaps it would be worth mentioning Korea in the article anyway, even if to say, "The Korean War, which has also been extended beyond 1953 in theory as a result of no formal treaty ending the conflict is not a result of diplomatic irregularity, but of intentional policy." Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I've added the Korean War next to the Kuril Islands dispute in the main paragraph, and mentioned what you pointed out. I think many people who read this article would be wondering about the Korean War, so having it as an example in the opening paragraph like this makes sense. And may I commend Pharos for making a most entertaining article - rst20xx (talk) 01:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I originally included Kuril Islands because that's an unusually clear situation where there is absolutely no chance of fighting resuming. The Korean situation has been considerably more dangerous, but it's the same basic idea, and I'm sure more people would be familiar with this example, so thanks for including it. And I'm glad you appreciate the article.--Pharos (talk) 21:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Rather than saying the Korean War continues in some "technical" sense, we should look at the s:Korean Armistice Agreement signed by NK, PRC, and the UNC. (South Korean Forces were under the operational control and jurisdiction of the UN Command, and did not sign.) In fact, an Armistice is a legal agreement and we have the Armistice which ended the fighting in Korea. For legal authority as to what an Armistice is and does, see [Hague Convention of 1899] specifically, Laws of War: Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague II); July 29, 1899; Chapter V. Note in Hague II, it says "If its [e.g., the armistice's] duration is not fixed," the parties can resume fighting (Article 36). Compare this to a fixed duration armistice, where the parties can renew fighting only at the end of the fixed duration. In a non-fixed duration armistice, the parties can renew fighting at any time. But note if the parties say (in effect), "this armistice completely ends the fighting" without any end date for the Armistice, then duration of the armistice is fixed. Why? Because the fighting is ended completely. When there is no end date for the armistice, then the parties may not resume fighting. In the Korean Armistice Agreement, the parties agreed to completely end the fighting and to work towards a final peace agreement. They also agreed that the Armistice "shall remain in effect until expressly superseded either by mutually acceptable amendments and additions" (paragraph 62). Now, they did not achieve (or have not achieved) a final peace agreement, but they have taken steps in that regard. Now it is true that they have had numerous clashes over the years, but these clashes have been limited and certainly do reach the scale of fighting in the Korean War. So, as the parties have complied with Hague II -- that is, reached an Armistice which ended the fighting in Korea -- this entry of a "war extended by diplomatic irregularity" should be removed. The UNC and NK have complied with diplomatic regularities, even though the process is not complete.--S. Rich (talk) 20:19, 11 December 2010 (UTC)14:50, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I really get this. It seems to me that the Korean War's status as being extended is a lot more like a real continuing war than the vast majorities of entries on this page. john k (talk) 04:33, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Part of this is spill over from other discussions I am working on in other articles regarding the (end of the) Korean War. In light of recent events, various editors want the KW to continue beyond the 1953 end date normally accepted by historians. They say "an armistice is a ceasefire, a ceasefire does not end a war, the belligerents in Korea signed an Armistice, therefore the KW continues." They confusedly use the terms "de jure" and "de facto" to describe the Armistice, and they point to the fact that no peace treaty has been signed between the two Koreas to argue that the war continues. In fact, my discussion (above) provides the International Law which outlines how a war ends "de jure" or "technically". (Not that I endorse usage of these terms.) As stated above, the Korean War ended via regular diplomatic methods and by a legally binding diplomatic agreement (e.g., the Armistice). Sadly, those diplomatic methods have not yet played out to conclusion in the sense the Koreans are at peace with each other. (Sooner or later they will be unified.) So, perhaps a better name for this article would be "List of wars not resolved due to diplomatic mistake". Then Andorra, etc., could be properly included and Korea could be properly omitted from the listing. For my part, I hope I've set the stage for removal of KW from this article. And as far as the recent events are concerned, I intend to develop a template which covers the "Aftermath of the Korean War". --S. Rich (talk) 17:15, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Native Americans vs. Germany

I remember a history professor of mine stating that certain American Indian tribes with the ability to have treaties partially independent of the U.S., though the would join the U.S. forces if they declared war on the same person, declared war on Germany during WWI and didn't sign a treaty with Germany until after WWII, because they had developed a dislike for the country at the time. no time to research now though.

This appears to refer to the Tuscarora (see below section), but I wonder if it might not somehow be connected to the 18th-century Tuscarora War, which actually had some German participants.--Pharos (talk) 00:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

American Civil War

I'm removing this, because (1) we can't include every war where a peace treaty wasn't signed, (2) it is quite clear in this case that the lack of a peace treaty was a direct result of the US policy of never recognizing that the CSA was a legitimate government and (3) there has been no "ceremonial peace" or any other special recognition of such an idea in the American consciousness.--Pharos (talk) 21:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Quite right. Likely we could find any number of annexations that were not formalized by treaty because the annexed territory did not have a government recognized as competent to submit to it. —Tamfang (talk) 06:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement by scholar on this phenomenon

The Relativity of War and Peace: A Study in Law, History, and Politics

Fritz Grob (1949)

Page xii

Some of the situations arising from a general idea that war begins on the date of a declaration and can only be ended by a formal treaty or political act, so that Liechtenstein is still "technically at war" with Prussia, San Marino with Turkey, Berwick-upon-Tweed with Russia, and the Tuscarora Indians with Germany, are more worthy of a Gilbert and Sullivan opera or of Lewis Carroll's professors than of legal treatises.

Grob's purpose in this book was properly distinguishing between periods of war and periods of peace (most of the book, aside from this brief statement in the preface, I'm sure covers more serious aspects of the question). I hope to integrate this eventually, as it's the only real scholarly comment I've found on this phenomenon.--Pharos (talk) 00:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the article should show more scepticism towards the underlying fallacy that wars begin wiith a declaration and end with a peace treaty. They start when the fighting starts and end when it stops. The idea taht the Ancients used modern-style declarations of war and peace treaties is particularly risible. Cyclopaedic (talk)# —Preceding undated comment added 17:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC).

Roman Republic vs Carthage

I think it is nonsense on the list. There was an agreement of surrender between Hasdrubal and Scipio (polybius and Livy state this). Wandalstouring (talk) 11:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it is nonsense. A country that DOES NO EXIST, cannot, and does not need to, sign a peace treaty. Rome didn't defeat the armies of Carthage and then leave, Rome defeated the armies of Carthage, razed the city to the ground, threw salt on the ruins and then killed off/sold the entire population into slavery. Any city to pop up after that can in no way legitimately claim to be the same entity that existed before the razing. This is especially true for Carthage since when it was "recreated" (technically speaking, they just settled a brand new town over a then nonexistant town and gave it the name of the town that was there before), it was created as a Roman colony and remained under the control of Rome for ~500 years.

Also, going back to how a destroyed country does not need to sign a peace treaty: The point of war is to defeat your enemy. Ultimately you can consider the best possible outcome for a nation declaring war to completely take over/destroy the nation being warred against (evident by the fact that killing is what war is). If CountryA is successful in destroying CountryB, then no treaty needs signed as that was the intent of the declaration of war. If CountryA cannot defeat/conquer CountryB, or vice versa, THEN a treaty is needed to stop the war.

You can't possibly have two complete endings to one start. You can look at war as nations' ways of deciding who gets what land. Like a game. If a nation wants to quit before they lose, they sign a treaty to stop the game (which may declare one side a "winner"). If they lose (are taken over completely), then the game is over.

Mofuggin bob (talk) 11:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree. There was no need for a peace treaty in 146 BC as the consequence of the Third Punic War was that the Carthaginian state ceased to exist and its entire territory was annexed by the Roman Republic. The 1985 "treaty" may be a symbolic gesture but has entirely no legal standing because mayors aren't entitled to make binding treaties. It thus doesn't end the war. The mentioning should be deleted. -- fdewaele, 6 February 2013.

Three Hundred and Thirty Five Years' War

Whats wrong with the 335 years war? If, as the article suggests, diplomatic members of those two governments decided to look into it then surely it at least deserves a mention here. At least maybe mention it and say (with references) that it doesn't really count according to some historians or something. Maybe the same deal for Berwick? At least deserves a mention as much as the Spartans vs. the Athenians and the Romans vs. the Carthaginians. We have enough trouble with paperwork from this century, let alone a few centuries into the last Era, those peace treaties could of easily been burned up somewhere and never mentioned because the Spartans didn't care. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.137.207.191 (talk) 11:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Costa Rica vs German Empire

With respect to Costa Rica not being party to the Treaty of Versailles, the article notes:

The technical state of war would have ended with Costa Rica signing a peace treaty with Germany after World War II.

Yet the immediately following section makes it clear that there was no peace treaty with Germany in 1945. The date of 1945 is footnoted with a reference from Inside Latin America, a publication to which I have no easy access... but it hardly seems necessary, since the cited publication date is 1941! Since a 1941 publication clearly cannot be used to substantiate a formal peace treaty in 1945, should it instead say 1990, as per the WWII section? Or should we wait until 1990 is no longer marked "[citation needed]"? -- Perey (talk) 18:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The WWII entry is between the US and Germany, maybe Costa Rica did sign a peace treaty? --OpenFuture (talk) 17:27, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

The 1990 treaty, as I understand it, was signed only by the two German states and the four former occupying powers. I don't believe that any of the other states that declared war on Germany during World War II signed that treaty. Most of them, iirc, would have signed treaties recognizing the end of hostilities with one or the other of the German states (most like the FRG) in the 50s or 60s. john k (talk) 03:07, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

World War II

Such a situation is to be distinguished from that of parties deliberately avoiding a peace treaty when political disputes outlive military conflict

This seems to be precisely the case for the extension of World War II beyond 1945. So why is World War II listed here? The other cases are all curiosities. john k (talk) 14:15, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. WWII should be removed. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:25, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Seminole tribe?

I remember having learned that the Seminoles are the only Native American tribe to never have signed a peace treaty with the US, so they are technically still at war with the US government. Seems like it doesn't matter, considering they're on pretty good terms now, but if it is true that this is the only N.American tribe who is in this situation, it is interesting. Anyone know details? --Elemarth (talk) 23:38, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Knox-Porter

I added the US and German empire in World war I. the Rejection of Versailles extended the war.

--MarcusPearl95 (talk) 20:54, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I removed it. Rejecting a treaty isn't an irregularity. Hot Stop^UTC 17:02, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

This article is pure trivia

This article is pure trivia. All it is dealing with are bureaucratic technicalities and not with any facts on the ground that affect anyone's life. The issues are purely with paperwork and the issues conclude when some more paperwork is piled on top of things.

In fact, the discussions on this very page about what does or does not belong amount to what kind of trivia is sufficiently non-trivial to merit inclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.139.56.146 (talk) 19:30, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Italy at War with Japan

Italy declared war on Japan on 14 July 1945, but was not invited to the San Francisco Peace Conference and, thus, has never formally signed a peace treaty with Japan even though diplomatic relations have resumed. This would legally imply an ongoing state of war. I don't know enough about editing Wikipedia to actually add this to the main page, but I thought I'd bring it up. 72.29.169.211 (talk) 17:22, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Greece-Persia

There is no Greece-Persia entry in the table, despite being the subject of the illustration for the entire page! 150.203.123.132 (talk) 02:56, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Added, found a newspaper from the ceremonial peace in 1902 as a citation. --ERAGON (talk) 15:44, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Somebody removed it again. Boo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.139.157.2 (talk) 19:31, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Japan-Russia

From what I understand, Russia and Japan never signed a peace agreement after WWII because of the Kuril Islands dispute, and that recent attempts to create a peace treaty ended in failure. If someone can find any sources about this and add it to the list? --Stephen C Wells (talk) 02:14, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• That is true (see [2]). However, there are now some renewed efforts to resolve the Kuril Islands dispute (see [3]). The dispute is already mentioned in the header to this article because it's not a diplomatic irregularity, but an actual ongoing territorial dispute. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:35, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

The Koreas and Western Sahara

I removed the Koreas and Western Sahara examples since I don't consider either of these diplomatic irregularities. These are both examples of countries refusing to sign treaties because the political conflict isn't resolved. Diplomatic irregularities means that they fully intended to be officially at peace but something was merely overlooked. An IP added these two entries back, so I wish to see their comments. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:30, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Ancient conflicts

Future Perfect at Sunrise just removed two entries from ancient times as a peace treaty was not normally expected at the time. That said, the symbolic agreements signed thousands of years later clearly show a desire for official peace. I've moved these two entries into a separate section. Future, are you okay with this format? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 18:33, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

That's better, but at least the "Persia"-"Greece" case still doesn't fit your description in the section ("modern governments have signed symbolic peace treaties many years later"). First, neither modern Persia nor modern Greece are in any meaningful sense the same entity as the warring parties in antiquity (in fact, there was no such thing as "Greece" as a political entity then, nor was there one until 1830). Second, the modern states didn't sign a "peace treaty"; what they did was establishing formal diplomatic relations. Third, we have no indication whatsoever that either the decision to do so in 1902, or the decision not to do it during the 70 years before that, was in any way motivated by the memories of the ancient war. That seems to be a jocular connection made only by some outside journalists at the time, for all we know. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:48, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Future Perfect at SunriseI was also thinking of creating a myths and legends section to cover Berwick, and I wonder if the Persia-Greece entry might be more appropriate there? Or best to just get rid of it? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 19:04, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I'd prefer to get rid of it. If we want to keep symbolic publicity stunts like the Rome-Carthage one of 1985, another somewhat similar case would be the "peace treaty" signed between Athens and the country town of Sparta some years ago, to "end" the Peloponesian War. I seem to remember it was under then Athens mayor (and now European Commissioner) D. Avramopoulos, sometime in the 1990s. That one at least got some (amused) media coverage at the time [4]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:15, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

By the way, independently of whether we keep the entry in the table, that Puck image also needs to be removed or get its caption changed. "diplomatic relations […] interrupted after the outbreak of the Greco-Persian Wars"? There was nothing to "interrupt" at the outbreak of the Greco-Persian Wars: neither did states maintain "diplomatic relations" with each other the way they did in 1902, nor was there a state of Greece that could have had maintained any relations at all, diplomatic or otherwise. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:37, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Greco-Persian wars

I recognize that the "Symbolic peace agreements" section of the article is somewhat light-hearted anyway but the inclusion of the Greco-Persian wars is particularly absurd. At least the other two examples were jokes on the part of representatives of the cities in question, but the Greece-Persia example is a joke *on the part of a journalist*. There is no claim in the source that the establishment of diplomatic relations was seen as a formal peace by either Greece or Persia, symbolically or jocularly. It doesn't belong here. I have removed it. 121.45.206.63 (talk) 05:54, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Punic Wars

The Punic Wars example is especially silly given that Carthage was completely destroyed. I'm not confident that it should be removed but I added context so that someone unfamiliar with the Punic Wars would have more of a frame of reference for just how silly the symbolic treaty is. 121.45.206.63 (talk) 06:50, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

It should also be noted that the Punic Wars were not one continuing period of hostility, and in fact after the Second Punic War Rome and Carthage did make a peace, so the example should refer only to the Third Punic War in isolation with the corresponding dates. I can't be bothered editing any more though :^). 121.45.206.63 (talk) 06:53, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Huescar nonsense

The Huescar trivia must be transfered to the symbolic gestures section. Huescar, as a non-sovereign city, could not declare war to anyone, even if the municipal authorities in 1809 had a particular grudge against Danmark. 217.167.255.177 (talk) 14:54, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

The municipality declared war and signed a peace treaty 172 years later. The Isles of Scilly weren't sovereign either, yet we still include the somewhat dubious Three Hundred and Thirty Five Years' War. I'd say it was just serious enough to warrant being in the "Extended wars", although if you really insist, we may move the entry to "Symbolic peace agreements". Koopinator (talk) 19:32, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Nothing in the sources you (re-)added is a reliable source with respect to what actually happened in 1809. We have no serious historian saying that there actually was a declaration of war, let alone an actual war, or even just a war only on paper. We only have some amateur local historian, a bunch of journalists and some local politicians making those claims. We have no idea what the city councillors of that place back in 1808 actually did or intended to do. But whatever it was that they did, the OP above is correct on this point: declaring a state of war always was, and still is, the prerogative of a sovereign state. So even if they did say something like "we declare war", and even if they were foolish enough to believe that this constituted a declaration of war, it just couldn't possibly do – unless they were declaring their secession from Spain the same moment. So, starting that paragraph with an actual claim that "The Spanish town of Huéscar was at war with Denmark" is simply wrong. (The example of Scilly islands isn't much better, but at least here the Scilly islands weren't supposed to be the agent of "declaring" the war.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:58, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany

So, I just read the Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany on Wikisource. It makes no mention of ending any supposed state of war. Furthermore this page says that the United States terminated its state of war with Germany on October 19, 1951. It says that the peace had been stalled by Soviet government, but not that the Soviet state continued in a state of war with Germany afterwards. The notion that WW2 only legally ended in the 1990s was added to this page back in April 2008 by User:Stor stark7 and cited to a game show (and with 1990 as the "end date", instead of 1991, the actual year the treaty went into effect). I've further not been able to find any source on the web saying that World War II legally continued until 1991. This all feels very bogus. I'm smelling a hoax (or unintentional confusion). I'm going to remove this entry and replace the end date with 1951. Maybe this is a good candidate for Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia. Koopinator (talk) 17:35, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

The de jure and de facto dates in the table seem random for this entry. Is there any basis to them or do they need to be replaced with straightforwardly arithmetically correct ones? Monstrelet (talk) 10:09, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

What do you mean with "arithmetically correct"? I did forget to change the de jure duration while only replacing the end date. I have fixed that now. Koopinator (talk) 16:48, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Koopinator. And now that we have clarified beyond doubt that the state of war did actually end, formally, in the early 1950s, we can just as well remove the whole entry. 6 years of not-yet-formalized peace after a war lasting 6 years itself is hardly long enough to call it an instance of "diplomatic irregularity". Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:01, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Just a little extra note here: Although I did correctly deduce yesterday that the Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany did not end WW2, my guess for the actual end was somewhat incorrect. The American-German War ended in 1951, but the Soviet state of war with Germany ended in 1955 and the Soviet war with Japan ended with Soviet–Japanese Joint Declaration of 1956, which I suppose was the actual formal end of World War II. The latter case perhaps warrants inclusion: The Soviet–Japanese War only lasted 3 weeks, but peace was not established until 1956, 11 years later! Now that is diplomatic irregularity. Koopinator (talk) 21:25, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

"have clarified beyond doubt that the state of war did actually end, formally, in the early 1950s" has aged poorly, quite quickly. It was actually the mid-1950s, whoops. I'll admit that I had done a rush job yesterday and had not completed all the relevant fact-finding, only enough to establish that 2+4 didn't end WW2. Koopinator (talk) 21:43, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

As another note, there were a ton of Declarations of war during World War II. Perhaps someone who really cares could weed through all of them and see in which cases peace was formalized. This all goes past the initial point though, which is that the 2+4 agreement was not intended to "legally end World War II". Koopinator (talk) 11:18, 30 October 2022 (UTC)