4 ms·
It's not exactly like they had to control regions with rubber to have access to it. They could have just paid for it like we do today.
by nitwit005 8y ago
It's not exactly like they had to control regions with rubber to have access to it. They could have just paid for it like we do today.
- bsamuels 8y agoUntil it gets seized by a rival country, at which point the only way you're getting it back is a declaration of war.
- nitwit005 8y agoAssuming there is a single source, and that rival country is completely determined to stop you from getting any of it, instead of selling it to make money as normal? More commonly they'd just put a tariff in place, which is likely cheaper to pay for than a war and occupation.
- erkose 8y agoI provided context for this, WW2. The Allies were cut off from the natural rubber supply of Southeast Asia at the beginning of the war. You can read more about it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_rubber https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_rubber
- nitwit005 8y agoI understood the example, but speaking in generalizations at this point. I would note that the US struggled to produce rubber in the Phillipines, so they didn't exactly get that out of the occupation: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/philippines/1926-07-01/rubber-and-philippines https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/philippines/1926-07-...
- BurningFrog 8y agoThis is also the dumb part of the theories about why the US invaded Iraq for the oil.