A Dutch Congo Free State

What if...King William III of the Netherlands create his own empire in Africa instead of Leopold II of Belgium
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_III_of_the_Netherlands
Why would he? Willem III was an idiot, but he does not seem to me the type who would go looking for some African Empire and I doubt the Dutch government would accept it. The Netherlands already has quite some good colonies. The Netherlands doesn't need the Congo. It recently sold the Dutch African colonies. And I am not certain the Netherlands wouldn't be overstretched if you add the Congo to it. And this is all ignoring the international reaction. I think the British and French would prefer a Belgian Congo.
 
I doubt the British and the French cared that much which 2nd-tier European country got the Congo, as long as it wasn't going to be dominated by Germany/each other.

The Dutch would probably not be overstretched - probably just a question of hiring a few mercenaries/fortune-seekers with guns to supervise the Congo mines.

Wouldn't the Dutch basically have a monopoly on rubber once they acquired the Congo (Brazil being their major competitor)? Could be a massive boost to the Dutch economy at the expense of the world's.
 
I doubt the British and the French cared that much which 2nd-tier European country got the Congo, as long as it wasn't going to be dominated by Germany/each other.
OTL they prefered Belgium over Portugal. I think they would prefer Belgium over the Netherlands and I am not certain if they would prefer the Netherlands over Portugal (although it could be; both weren't terribly important in the 19th century).
The Dutch would probably not be overstretched - probably just a question of hiring a few mercenaries/fortune-seekers with guns to supervise the Congo mines.
Are you sure? It took until the 20th century for the Dutch to control all of Indonesia and some parts took a lot of effort to gain, Aceh, Bali. I don't think the Dutch would be able to control such a large colony as Congo. besides that, the Dutch king was almost broke (which is why he wanted to sell luxemburg), he would be able to afford a bunch of mercenaries. Remember, the Netherlands is small, has a low population and is poor.
 
Are you sure? It took until the 20th century for the Dutch to control all of Indonesia and some parts took a lot of effort to gain, Aceh, Bali. I don't think the Dutch would be able to control such a large colony as Congo.

Because Indonesia had pretty strong local Kingdoms. Congo really lacked those, they werent organised.
 
Because Indonesia had pretty strong local Kingdoms. Congo really lacked those, they werent organised.
True, but in this case they will have to do both. The Netherlands will not ignore Indonesia. It can not ignore Indonesia, so the question is: Does the Netherlands have enough resources to focus both on Indonesia and the Congo.
 
The Dutch might not be happy with places they couldn't use ships in. Unless they manage to find a way to dam the Congo and make some lakes, perhaps. Anyways, since this is supposed to be in comparison to King Leopold, would that mean the Estates-General would have no say in the land? Also, would the Dutch/The King's men start exporting Africans to Dutch Guiana like they did with people in the Dutch East Indies?
 
Well the Congo is pretty navigable up to the first cataract at Matadi, then it's just a question of moving to riverine craft. Critical areas in the interior can be reached through the various tributaries of the Congo (not the Lualaba river to Katanga, though).

Re: pompejus - it's true that the best choice would be Belgium (was UK really OK with Portugal getting the Congo, when doing so would kill their dreams of a Cape to Cairo empire?) but I don't think a Dutch possession would have worried them much if, for example, Leopold II decided not to become a mass murderer and passed on the opportunity. There was no risk of the Dutch Empire competing with the major European powers, at least not militarily.

Also, if we are talking about the Free State of Congo, the actual Dutch government would have very little to do (in fact, barred by the Berlin Conference) with the running of the Congo. Much of the work would be done by mercs such as Henry Morton Stanley, leaving the Dutch government free to concentrate on Indonesia until at least 1908 (assuming the Dutch king was also brutally exploitative and Conrad writes Heart of Darkness).

I mostly agree with you that the Netherlands might be overstretched if Congo were given as a Dutch colony rather than a Free State, but still, I think you overestimate the power of the local Indonesian kingdoms vs. the Dutch colonial authorities. An important reason as to why the Indonesian kingdoms (notably Atjeh) took so long to annex was the implied/explicit desire of the UK/France/even the USA to prevent the Dutch from annexing the whole place (Straits of Malacca/Strait of Lombok are strategic points, after all). Though again, if the Dutch got Congo and thus a large portion of the world's rubber - would the Brits really let the Netherlands get another potential monopoly, this time over the world's spice?
 
Last edited:
I sence a bit misunderstanding regarding the origins of the enterprise of King Leopold and his African Empire.
But already explained above.

Congo Free state as we knew it OTL, was not a question of needing a colony in Africa, but more the desire of Leopold to have his own empire without interference of a parlaiment and to have a money maker for his own.
He achived this almost witout support from Belgium, and sollely with adventurers, merchaneries and investors. Most investors and the hands on in the field were no Belgians but other nationals.
The Belgium state was very reluctant to a colony, since most time colonies did not justify the investments and were mere prestige and colonies could endanger the neutral foreign policy of Belgium which count as well for the Netherlands
Some historians now think that it is likely the creation of the Congo Free State that triggered the scramble of Africa.

An other misunderstanding is that the colonisation of Africa was made on the cheap and mostly by adventurers, merchanaries or rogoue officiers who planted national flags for the glory of the home land. This mean it did not matter if a country had a large population or was poor.
The African posssions were, except South Africa and partly Rhodesia no colonisation colonies but profit teritories. extract as much as possible (raw-) materials as possible.

Now the question is.. what if the, bully, king William III of the Netherlands had the bright idea to invest in a kingdom and money source of his own (and his investors) in the unknown continent of Africa in stead of Leopold II.
 
Also, if we are talking about the Free State of Congo, rather than the Colony of Congo, the actual Dutch government would have very little to do (in fact, barred by the Berlin Conference) with the running of the Congo. Much of the work would be done by mercs such as Henry Morton Stanley, leaving the Dutch government free to concentrate on Indonesia until at least 1908 (assuming the Dutch kings were also brutally exploitative and Conrad writes Heart of Darkness).

There are still a couple of problems. First of all, Willem III does not have the resources to do it. As I said he had serious money problems and he tried to sell Luxemburg to solve it.

Secondly Willem III does not have the intelligence to pull it off. The man was an incompetent idiot and a buffoon. His nickname was king Gorilla.

Thirdly, I don't think the Dutch government would allow it. To be fair, I am uncertain about the exact political situation in the Netherlands and if the king would be able to do it, even if the government disagreed. I know that currently in 2013 if our king wants to do something like this, he wouldn't be able to. Maybe in the late 19th century the king would. Still it would cause a political problem.
 
There are still a couple of problems. First of all, Willem III does not have the resources to do it. As I said he had serious money problems and he tried to sell Luxemburg to solve it.

Secondly Willem III does not have the intelligence to pull it off. The man was an incompetent idiot and a buffoon. His nickname was king Gorilla.


Thirdly, I don't think the Dutch government would allow it. To be fair, I am uncertain about the exact political situation in the Netherlands and if the king would be able to do it, even if the government disagreed. I know that currently in 2013 if our king wants to do something like this, he wouldn't be able to. Maybe in the late 19th century the king would. Still it would cause a political problem.



I am not sure if William III was the ingnator of the attemt to sell Luxemburg to France or that it was solo action of a state secretary. The result was a law that ministers could not handle whitout informing parlement. As what I said, African enterprices can be executed on the cheap, the investments does not have to be larg and William III does not need to be the only financer of the enterprice. Leopold II wasn't either.

The man had a reputation of a very rude man( to put it mild) on the other hand Leopold II had a reputation nearly as bad as William III, although this came later. By the way it is more diplomatic skill or the right persons who do the work rahter than personel intelegence. An other thing, Leopold was one of the first who was interested in Africa so there not much competitors at least in the beginning

Agree but the Belgian constitution was nearly the same and Leopold acted on his own and simply ignored any comments or protest of the goverment. Parlemantarian democracy was in it infant stage in Belgium and Netherlands and a lot of things needed to figured out in the 19th century. As long as the Great Powers didn't protest, which they did not, since they were not interested in Africa for most of the 19th century there would be not much protest. After 1870 the scramble of Africa relay started, mostly driven by France as a kind of regaining glory, whitout nearly any focus on return on investments or actualy need of colonies.
 
UK really OK with Portugal getting the Congo, when doing so would kill their dreams of a Cape to Cairo empire?
What probably turned them off was the fragility of the Portuguese state. If Portugal gets that Congo sold or conquered there goes the balance.
 
There are still a couple of problems. First of all, Willem III does not have the resources to do it. As I said he had serious money problems and he tried to sell Luxemburg to solve it.

Secondly Willem III does not have the intelligence to pull it off. The man was an incompetent idiot and a buffoon. His nickname was king Gorilla.

Thirdly, I don't think the Dutch government would allow it. To be fair, I am uncertain about the exact political situation in the Netherlands and if the king would be able to do it, even if the government disagreed. I know that currently in 2013 if our king wants to do something like this, he wouldn't be able to. Maybe in the late 19th century the king would. Still it would cause a political problem.

Well for 1) he could have set up a stock company for the colonization of the Congo. Obviously, being a King his stock would be implicitly backed by the Dutch government (whether they liked it or not) so that could solve the money problems.

2) As Parma said, it's the underlings who do the work. Sure Willem III would not have the vision to create the Congo Free State by himself... but he needed money, and colonies had the potential to be profitable.

3) It would indeed cause a political problem. But if Willem III colonized the Congo under the name of a stock company, then it technically is a private venture and not a public one, so he/his underlings would argue that the Dutch parliament couldn't interfere. Of course you wouldn't be able to pull this kind of stuff in 2013 but the law wasn't so advanced back in the 19th century.

Re: miguelj - a good reason, though I'm not sure policymakers really expected Portugal to sell one of its few claims to relevance - colonies - because it was out of cash. But basically the UK wouldn't have wanted Portugal to get the Congo.
 
Well for 1) he could have set up a stock company for the colonization of the Congo. Obviously, being a King his stock would be implicitly backed by the Dutch government (whether they liked it or not) so that could solve the money problems.

2) As Parma said, it's the underlings who do the work. Sure Willem III would not have the vision to create the Congo Free State by himself... but he needed money, and colonies had the potential to be profitable.

3) It would indeed cause a political problem. But if Willem III colonized the Congo under the name of a stock company, then it technically is a private venture and not a public one, so he/his underlings would argue that the Dutch parliament couldn't interfere. Of course you wouldn't be able to pull this kind of stuff in 2013 but the law wasn't so advanced back in the 19th century.

Actualy it does not need to be public owned enterprice. Leopold used thiseufemism: the Belgian "Committee for the Study of the Upper Congo" (French: Comité d'études du Haut-Congo), which was part of the Association internationale africaine
so called for humanitarian and philantropic work
 
One bonus, could be a small one, for William III, that there were South Africans ( Dutch speaking Calvinst) who can work for him, the Netherlands had some small possesion in Africa in the 19th century, OTL Ghana(up to 1870) and a lot of entrepeneurs used to deal in DEI.

Any one who like to try a map?
Consider other chain of events, geo-political circumstances although not much different between minor states as Belgium and Netherlands)
 
Top