
Hasn't voted | I checked again my source (English guidebook by Footprint), and compared with a French book. It tends to make things unclear... to avoid any problems between communities here on SP, I took off the reason why the war started in the description.
From what I understood by comparing, there was a border dispute between Chile and Bolivia, after the Spaniards withdrew. Chile invaded the Antofagasta region, which was part of Bolivia at the time, because they felt threatened. Peru supported Bolivia, therefore Chile carried on up North and invaded Southern Peru as well (and even managed to reach Lima).
They gave back the Tacna region to Peru in 1929, but never gave back the Antofasta region to Bolivia... most likely because of the presence of mines.
Chilean-British were already extracting minerals when this was Bolivia. But were even happier when it became Chilean.
That's history. It is probably more complicated than what books say. I love Chile and the Chileans (I travelled for 50 days there), as much as I love Bolivia and the Bolivians (I travelled for a month there). People living today in these two countries are not responsible for what happened 120 years ago. And I'm no one to judge what opposes them. Peace & unity !
Thanks for your input and for giving me some perspective. |