barrio flores

First, I've great respect for all veterans of any war who served their country w/ devotion & pride in what they thought was a just cause. So don't take any of this the wrong way.

But. In my digging through some of the history of the Chaco War in the last year or so, I've come to the conclusion that some of that history (in Bolivia) wasn't very accurate. That is, the war wasn't so much started by foreign interests (though they played their part) as by the interest of President Salamanca to quiet opponents at home by instigating a war w/ Paraguay. The two countries had a border dispute for some time, and Bolivia was expected to win the war easily (better army, better equipment, better air force, more people, etc).

The first shots in the war were fired by Bolivian troops, who seized a Paraguayan position well beyond the internationally-recognized disputated zone. After a Paraguayan force counter-attacked (both "forces" had maybe a dozen or so men) Salamanca skipped the arbitration/negotiation stage, and publicly declared war w/ Paraguay in defense of the nation. As expected, rallying around the flag worked, the opposition flocked to his banner (he was able to round up or exile hundreds of socialist/communist opponents, such as the founder of POR) and go off to war. Gross mismanagement of the war soon turned a rallying around him into a call for his resignation, and a coup overthrew him & ended the war (although perhaps too soon, since Busch & others were starting to regain lost territory in an offensive the Paraguayans could no longer match). Thus, the war ended.

Since the war was the last nail in the coffin of the criollo ancien regime, it soon became a central element in the emerging national mythology of the 1952 Revolution. So Busch & Villarroel are part of the pantheon of "Chaco generation" heroes. But much of that history has been selectively taught by the post-1952 state (not unlike the War of the Pacific history).

As to the question about poor countries that are resource-rich, that's a whole other argument/debate. But I believe that it isn't resources that make countries rich (how do you explain Singapore, Japan, Switzerland) but rather how those resources are managed. My biggest concern is still that nationalized resources in the third world tend to increase poverty, rather than decrease it.

That's a brilliant writeup, Eduardo, thank you for it.

Perhaps the war wasn't started by the oil companies, but certainly they had a great stake in the outcome.

I wonder whether this is nationalization in the truest sense of the word. The companies will still receive their share of the profit, although at rates much lower than before. It still remains to be seen whether the funds from these new royalties will go to create new jobs, increase the minimum wage and encourage spending, or will it just be wasted as before.

Miguel, regarding the War the first shots were fired by the Paraguayans back in 1929. When they seized Fortin Vanguardia (Wikipedia has a major error in that one)and other Bolivian outposts. With regards to Laguna Chuquisaca, the story is pretty bizarre, it was in the middle of the Chaco but within all previous Bolivian claims and became a focal point of the "linea de fortines" that the army tried to build to solidify the country's de facto position; according to various authors it was occupied by both sides at some point.

In any case I agree with your point about Salamanca and his view of "hay que pisar fuerte en el Chaco" foreign business interests did play a nefarious role though, both oil companies and local groups (the Casado family for instance) had vested interests in supporting each side and even prolonging the war.

Eduardo, I know how you feel about your legacy and I'm glad you also value it as it should.I agree with many of your points about the current situation but we also have some clear differences of thinking. And I hope to be wrong... I hope Evo and his clique haven't invoked the memory of valiant ancestors in vain.

First, I also respect Eduardo's grandfather's legacy. So I hope I wasn't raining on that parade.

Second, as for who started the Chaco War, that's entirely unclear. So it's a debatable point, to be sure. But I wasn't using Wikipedia sources for this, I was using a set of books written in from the 1930s onwards, some as thesis by students at the US Army War College & West Point Military Academy. The war really goes back even further back, w/ the post-independence borders never really clear.

But it's clear that when Salamanca declared war in response to Paraguayan agression in 1932, it was only after Bolivian troops had occupied a Paraguayan military post weeks earlier, which the Paraguayans then re-took. Since Salamanca ignored that major fact in his pronouncement, most historians have suggested that he "manufactured" the reason to go to war as a boost to his sinking political fortunes.

Historians from both countries, of course, argue the matter. That's why I decided to go back to some contemporary accounts by writers who were more "objective" in their analysis.

My grandfather fought in that war, he had to abandon medical school and was never was able to go back once he returned. But he went, as did his brother in law, my great-uncle. Like many veterans he did not talk much about the war, but did write about it in some journals found after his death, but which unfortunately we can not find. He did always say that it was his duty as a Bolivian to go there, and till his death was proud of his service as a Defensor Del Chaco.

But did he just fight there to protect the interests of Standard Oil Company???

No, that would be grossly simplistic. Interestingly enough part of the view, that this was simply a vulgar conflict between rival oil companies, started during the war period in the US.
It was a period of time when Americans and Western Europeans were still trying to make sense of the slaughter of WWI, and the economic collapse of 1929, and the new agressiveness of Germany and Japan. Theories that munitions makers were a cause of the entry into WWI were subject to Congressional inquiries. These theories were popular and were often used as ammunition by neutrality proponents.
And what happened is that the US would not allow sales of weapons to the combatants, despite Bolivia having $$$ due to Patino. One company that did sell weapons, ended up having a very public Court fight that ended up in the US Supreme Court. Certain press and the left in the US and in Europe propagated the idea that it all was a fight between the oil companies, and it stuck.

In Bolivia, it ended up being accepted as gospel of course. But the evidence in reference to Standard is non-convincing, since it was such a marginal operation, and arguably the whole contract was shaky to begin with. The Roosevelt Administration ended up convincing Standard to pretty much accept what amounted to a token payment.

The people of Bolivia go hunger because the leaders of Bolivia place themselves first. No one stands ahead of their self interest. No business stands before them. The question is why do the people of Bolivia continuously elect leaders who will not represent them? Why do the people of Bolivia continuously select ideology over the truth?

Next question, why do you look to create a villian when you can look at yourself in the mirror and see the one who is cheating you. The people of Bolivia can see the villian robbing of them of liberty by stairing into their mirrors.

Respect for private property is a basic human righ that the people of Bolivia do not want to respect. Poverty is the consequence.

Please stop believing in the myth of the conspiracy and accept that we all are responsible for the world we live in.

Martha:

I agree. Bolivian politicians are quick to raise the spectre of some conspiracy (look at Evo's recent statements). They point to Chile, to the US, to some manichean global capitalist conspiracy, etc. Why? Because xenophobia works very well to prop up bad regimes. Until people stop seeing "Chilean agents" behind every person who dares question some of the populist-nationalist rhetoric, Bolivia won't go far, I'm afraid.

Eduardo,
Unfortunately you had to employ Apartheid in an otherwise good overview. Everybody is using it to amplify their theses instead of concentrating on their own arguments. Few people really understand the motive for Apartheid, which was originally not intended to help the wealthy rich British industrialists and bankers in South Africa, but the Afrikaner who had been downtrodden by British occupation. May I remind that most of the Gold, Platinum and other minerals in South Africa used to belong to the Boer Republics, and soon after their discovery Britain invaded these republics in order to wrest these resources from the Afrikaner. 2 Boer Wars later the Afrikaner instituted Apartheid (Separation) in 1948 in order to prevent this from happening in the future again, but alas, they could not prevent it from recurring. Now the British industrialists still own these minerals under the guise of the ANC. At least if the ANC had nationalized these resources the corruption of British mine owners, who are the real political movers in South Africa, would have ended. I hope you do better in Bolivia.

I was happy to see this information on this war and Bolivia in general. My grandfather was a prisoner of the "EL Chaco" war. Unfortunately I know little about it and my grandfather passed away last year. Where can I find more and accurate information about this war? Thank you.