AHC: German Kongo

mlp

What if Germany, instead of Belgium, was the first to colonize the Congo basin?
German colonies, i.e. Tanzania, were known to have the highest literacy rate in the whole of Africa, as well as having an effective infrastructural system.
"In regards to schools, the Germans have accomplished marvels. Some time must elapse before education attains the standard it had reached under the Germans."
Click to expand...
How will this change the colonial map of Africa?
I dont care much about PODs. Do whatever you wish, but one of my guesses is a German Kongo that has a higher development rate than the Belgian one.;)
 

Just a Rube

zeppelinair said:
I dont care much about PODs. Do whatever you wish, but one of my guesses is a German Kongo that has a higher development rate than the Belgian one.;)
Click to expand...
That's a pretty safe guess for just about anyone non-Belgian (except maybe Portugal) colonizing the region; Belgian colonial governance, even post-Congo Free State, was a model of incompetence and willful blindness.

As for how to get the Germans to colonize? You have several challenges:

1) The Germans have to want it. The German government was often relatively lukewarm on the whole colonial idea.

2) The other Great Powers (esp. Britain) have to be willing to allow it. One of the reasons that Leopold was allowed to have the Congo was that he was not a threat to the balance of power. The other main claimant, Portugal, had a similar position. No one in OTL late 19th century Europe wants to make their rivals stronger if they can avoid it.
 
phil03

phil03

The thing with Congo is that Belgium got it specificaly because of its weakness. The french and the british do not saw it colonisation by belgium as a threat and letting them do it was seen as a good way to avoid confrontation between them about the possessions of Congo. Germany would have been, needless to say, another business, way more likely to be seen as threat by Paris and London. If you want a german Congo you need either one of these two extremes: a Germany weak enough to not be seen as a threat or strong enough to be able to face France and England. The first one risk to prevent your vision of a more devellopped Congo from happening and second change the whole world beyond recognition.
 

MonAngel

Would Congo being colonized by for example Hanover will allow Germany to inherit the Congo as German colony?
 

mlp

MonAngel said:
Would Congo being colonized by for example Hanover will allow Germany to inherit the Congo as German colony?
Click to expand...
That's quite a good idea. Hanover, which somehow remains independent for some time, becomes occupied by Prussia in the late 1890s, which then occupies Hanoverian Kongo.....
 

Westphalian

MonAngel said:
Would Congo being colonized by for example Hanover will allow Germany to inherit the Congo as German colony?
Click to expand...

Getting Hanover to acquire colonies in the 1837 to 1866 period is really hard. Even the Woermann company in Hamburg started only in the late 1870s in Cameroon. Lüderitz from Bremen did steal Southwest Africa in the early 1880s, and Peters of the DOAG in 1884.
 

altwere

This is a streach,but what about having it a British crown colony started to grow indigo just after the end of the American Revolution. Then have it become part of the Hanover at the time of the split?
 

Wendell

I'm pretty sure that the Germans had the rights to the area along the river before Leopold's endeavor anyway. As for possible PODs, perhaps Germany does not annex A-L from France in 1870, and/or Leopold settles on a different place for his project, such as New Guinea or the Philippines. It would be helpful though to butterfly some of the German interests in East Africa at the very least for Congo to be a realistic German colony.
 

The Sandman

Banned
Have the Germans trade colonies elsewhere for it.

Alternatively, the French got it in the 1860s, and the Germans take it instead of A-L in 1871.

It's still probably going to be pretty nightmarish, though.
 

Simreeve

altwere said:
This is a streach,but what about having it a British crown colony started to grow indigo just after the end of the American Revolution. Then have it become part of the Hanover at the time of the split?
Click to expand...
If it was a British colony rather than a Hanoverian one then, just like all of the other British colonies existing at that date, it would have remained a British colony rather than a Hanoverian one...
... unless you can provide a plausible reason why Parliament would have wanted to give it to the [unpopular] Duke of Cumberland?

(And we wouldn't have needed it as a source of Indigo, anyway: That dye could be & was produced economically enough in India.)
 

Enigmajones

phil03 said:
The thing with Congo is that Belgium got it specificaly because of its weakness. The french and the british do not saw it colonisation by belgium as a threat and letting them do it was seen as a good way to avoid confrontation between them about the possessions of Congo. Germany would have been, needless to say, another business, way more likely to be seen as threat by Paris and London. If you want a german Congo you need either one of these two extremes: a Germany weak enough to not be seen as a threat or strong enough to be able to face France and England. The first one risk to prevent your vision of a more devellopped Congo from happening and second change the whole world beyond recognition.
Click to expand...

I would say it was more to do with the fact that the Congo Free State was a business venture disguised as a civilizing mission. It was led by the King of Belgium, but Belgium didn't get near it for years.
 
Jape

Jape

Congo didn't become Belgian until 1908, King Leopold controlled it effectively as a personal fief and employed people from across Europe and the world at large to run the Free State. The fact he was King of a small neutral state helped his candidacy but he was also quite impressively seen as a philanthropist beyond repute by many into the 20th century.

Its not the same as giving it to Denmark or Portugal (while considered giving to Lisbon was seen as throwing yet more colonial responsibilities onto a dying empire and Britain her nominal ally was particularly uninterested in the idea), Leopold the man was crucial.

Best bet is the Germans don't set up shop in Namibia or Tanganyika, the latter particularly as combined with Congo it would bisect the continent something Britain was very keen to avoid. Or perhaps they trade some colonies with Britain to get support for Deustkongo. I doubt they could have done as badly as Leopold but many of the early German 'pioneers' in Africa were quite happy to get stabby with the locals. Given the terrain and possible wealth I wouldn't expect paradise.
 

mlp

Jape said:
Congo didn't become Belgian until 1908, King Leopold controlled it effectively as a personal fief and employed people from across Europe and the world at large to run the Free State. The fact he was King of a small neutral state helped his candidacy but he was also quite impressively seen as a philanthropist beyond repute by many into the 20th century.

Its not the same as giving it to Denmark or Portugal (while considered giving to Lisbon was seen as throwing yet more colonial responsibilities onto a dying empire and Britain her nominal ally was particularly uninterested in the idea), Leopold the man was crucial.

Best bet is the Germans don't set up shop in Namibia or Tanganyika, the latter particularly as combined with Congo it would bisect the continent something Britain was very keen to avoid. Or perhaps they trade some colonies with Britain to get support for Deustkongo. I doubt they could have done as badly as Leopold but many of the early German 'pioneers' in Africa were quite happy to get stabby with the locals. Given the terrain and possible wealth I wouldn't expect paradise.
Click to expand...
So have the German (Hanoverian?) colonial companies start at the Kongo river basin? Sounds good.
 

mlp

zeppelinair said:
So have the German (Hanoverian?) colonial companies start at the Kongo river basin? Sounds good.
Click to expand...
So, let's say Hanover was able to colonize the Kongo river basin under the aegis of the British Empire, due to their personal connections. Then how is Prussia going to take Hanover??:confused:
 

Iserlohn

zeppelinair said:
So, let's say Hanover was able to colonize the Kongo river basin under the aegis of the British Empire, due to their personal connections. Then how is Prussia going to take Hanover??:confused:
Click to expand...

It's rather simple actually: During the Seven Weeks' War several key Prussian officials and military figures (including Bismarck) suggested that those states which IOTL were annexed by Prussia (because Wilhelm wanted annexations of some sorts) to be made part of the NGC with the two bigger states, Hannover and Saxony, just "replacing" their monarchs with the current heir. Now maybe Prussia ITTL pushes for the annexation of Saxony while Hannover survives (maybe with some minor territorial concessions as well a guarantee for Prussia to inheret Brunswick) and brings its colonies near the Kongo basin into the NGC!
 

imperialaquila

It will still be a massacre-full hellhole. Rubber exploitation was universally pretty terrible. While the Germans might be less murderous than Leopold, it will still be pretty terrible for the locals.
 

mlp

imperialaquila said:
It will still be a massacre-full hellhole. Rubber exploitation was universally pretty terrible. While the Germans might be less murderous than Leopold, it will still be pretty terrible for the locals.
Click to expand...
Then what would be the best outcome for the Congo?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top