User blog comment:Saturn120/Have Wars Strained Relations?/@comment-3550280-20140522135801/@comment-32656-20140528092910

The WW1 thing, realistically, wasn't much of an armistice. Far more, it was an attempt by the Allies to starve the Germans into doing whatever they wanted. Blackmail, more or less. The resulting terms had been "agreed" long prior to that, and were never in dispute. The "dates" more or less were irrelevant. That it was in force for good was really not in dispute. That the Allies did that would make a pretty good war crime, in other circumstances.

Actually, no - that prolongation had more or less nothing to do with the scuttling. That, imo, happened because the final terms for Versailles had been agreed on - and the German sailors found out a week prior to it being signed. Not wanting to give up their ships, they destroyed them. Simple, and something they had been planning for months. To say it had to do with anything "expiring" is not true.

Troll, you need to learn about definitions. The former is the actual definition, the latter is how the public interprets it. That does not, in fact, mean it is true. That wikipedia definition is pretty good, though it is very wrong of them to use it later on in an incorrect manner.

Truces are short periods of time, with agreed upon restrictions, timeframes, and normally are only in effect in very small areas.

Armistices, not the case. They are for an end to all fighting, with the intent of a peace treaty.