American Congo effects on Africa as a whole?

[DG Valdron]

An interesting and very thoughtful response, given that this whole topic is out there.

The problem with the Kongo is that it does not fit any strategic American goal as of OTL. In order to change that, you have to make the US fit it into its strategic calculus. And, as I mentioned before, that would be, OTL:

1. North American Dominance
2. Caribbean/Central America
3. Pacific
4. South America

So to make the Congo basin rise so high, you must find a way to even put the Congo on the list at the time.

Good point. I don't think that the Kongo amounts to gateway into the Indian Ocean, to China/Asia. It's not much of a gateway to Africa.

I think that the only key or critical resource that the Kongo might have offered strategically or commercially was Rubber. But in that case Brazil was the world's other major producer of Rubber, so why would the United States pursue Kongo rather than deal with Brazil.

Also, with the ongoing war against the Islamic Afro-Arabs in the eastern part of the Congo (which would see an analogy to OTL Moros rebellion drawn early), any sort of Islamic revivalist movement will be treated very poorly. (Combine that with nearly a century of missionary work which would end up with large portions of the western part of the Congo more resembling the bible belt in religion than anything...)

I don't believe that Nation of Islam is actually all that Islamic. I don't think it would find much common ground with local Islamists. And it dates to 1930, so.... probably wouldn't take off.

Only other point would be that if the South isn't so damaged in TTL Civil War, then its economy would be healthy enough that it could allow better conditions. There is less of a need to artificially cap labor when the region in question is much better off than OTL. (By what I've read, the South had to take 60-100 years to return to prewar prosperity, adjusted for inflation, depending on the measure used). If the dependence on cheap labor is lessened, then the laws are (slightly) more easily changed, though the cultural animus would need to be overcome first.

Well, the Southern Economy, pre-civil war was entirely built around slavery. The post-slavery era, particularly after reconstruction, was a concerted attempt to get as close to slavery as they legally could. So I don't see the dependence on cheap labour being broken or lessened. You'd really need a wholesale transformation of the southern economy. Not even the Boll Weevil, which is arguably a major factor in the travails of the Southern economy actually had much impact.

Overall, good post. Well thought out.

 

[lotrian]

Regardless of how we'd end up in this situation of an American Congo, the outcome that strikes me is that USA wouldn't have any legitimacy to pressure European countries into the decolonisation of Africa (and Asia) at a later time.

 

[Luminous]

Part of the reason I'm elaborating so much is because I've actually considered this for part of a timeline, but hadven't bothered to post anything. But with the topic coming up...

Good point. I don't think that the Kongo amounts to gateway into the Indian Ocean, to China/Asia. It's not much of a gateway to Africa.

I think that the only key or critical resource that the Kongo might have offered strategically or commercially was Rubber. But in that case Brazil was the world's other major producer of Rubber, so why would the United States pursue Kongo rather than deal with Brazil.

Agreed here. That's why I've been focusing, primarily, on the diplomatic maneuvers that end up saddling the US with it... But those require the US to both already be invested in Africa (some sort of alt-Liberia) and have the US be a willing participant in an international congress, both of which are hard to do.

My honest PoD would be something like US annexation of the Marquesas Islands in 1813/1814 (nearly happened OTL; if the British don't break free of the prison, the US won't be expelled from the island by the natives, and it might pass Congress), which lead to earlier and increased US interest in the Pacific (bear with me on this). This leads to greater competition in the Pacific between the US and Britain, meaning relations stay slightly cooler. Perhaps it leads to greater US support of the Canadian Revolution in the 1830s. They don't succeed, but they just hurt relations a bit more.

This happens simultaneously with the American Colonization Society actually failing more than in OTL - the various colonies are sold to the states, with the result being that what is Liberia turns into a series of state-run colonies or counties. They'd run a spectrum along the lines as shown in the map below, and would mostly be an afterthought and a dumping ground. They may even be treated a sa penal colony in some cases.

Earlier western migration leads to the Oregon being more heavily settled than OTL - the Oregon country still is split, but the border favors the US far more favorably, perhaps via arbitration (setting earlier precedence for the "boots on the ground" rule of the Congress of Berlin alternate). Again, increases animus between US and Great Britain some. Perhaps have the North Borneo project (granted, we're so far removed from the PoD that it wouldn't occur as OTL, so this is already a stretch) succeed this time (don't spend all your money to import a bunch of Chinese laborers and go searching for gold. You'll go bankrupt in a year). That produces an additional conflict, with this North Borneo state and Sarawak (if it exists) playing against each other.

The only reason this is important is that the US must be seen as a respectably neutral power and not too much in Great Britain's side. And "all" of these events don't have to happen, and others may I didn't mention. In the end, relations need to be cooler.

Anyway, with other success overseas, and throw in some butterflies, the Civil War actually ends up delayed, say to 1868. And, combined with increased northern economic standing over the south, and perhaps throw in a few butterflies (a state or two doesn't secede that did OTL) and the South ends up beaten within the year. No long, drawn out combat or hundreds of thousands being killed. The country comes out of the war in a much better shape, and doesn't have to spend a generation rebuilding. The only consequence is that the various Liberian counties are consolidated into a single territory after the US forces manage capture the nonexistent garrisons in the various southern counties. Considering their lack of importance, they are considered part of the reparations that the south pays, and no one particularly cares either way.

in the aftermath, manumism is pushed through, on an expedited status. the Liberia territory, as it is, is initially set aside to be a black majority territory (in the same vein that Grant wanted Santo Domingo, at a time), but its hospitability soon becomes quite evident, and any internal immigration to the region peters out. As the North so decisively defeats the South, they have a freer hand in how they treat the south (no lost cause narrative after a relatively rapid trouncing). The 1870 Homestead act (instead of 1866) opens up applications to freed blacks, who slowly begin to emigrate from the South, but not in numbers larger than OTL. In the end, the result is by 1880 or so, there are virtually no more slaves in the US.

End result is that, at the Berlin Conference (or it's equivalent, name used for simplicity's sake), there is the discussion over who manages to get what. The only reason the US even attends is it has a history of dealing with international disputes, at least through the Pacific, for nearly 70 years at this point. Not only this, but it has skin in the game in Liberia, so it at least feels it must attend in order to guard its interests. The US is foisted with the Congo because no European nation wants others to have it, and the only neutrals that could take it are too weak to defend it. (Belgium certainly doesn't exist in its same form TTL). There may have been individual explorers and missionaries that have trekked up the Nile,

This leads into the timeline I discussed on page 4, with the US initially taking a very hands-free approach to the entirety of its treatment early on, which allows the Katanga region to be squirreled away. (I used Rhodes for Expediency's sake. For the sake of the argument, assume there is a similar Cape-to-Cairo drive). This, combined with the reactions of the US to the conditions that appear on the ground (mistreatment and slave-like conditions in some of the more remote plantations) along with continued practice of slavery on US territory - combined with the recent war over slavery and the even-more-recent manumism, would turn to make public opinion turn to proper development of the colony - for eventually independence, not for integration. (well, perhaps economic integration)

-

US desires for self-sourced rubber (rather than relying on firms outside of US control) didn't occur until the 1920s/30s OTL... and in that case, they propped up Liberia and expanded rubber plantations there. If the US ended up with the Congo, I believe they'd develop both region's rubber plantations, but not nearly as quickly as Belgium did, simply because the circumstances that brought the Congo to the US are different than what happened with Belgium.

However, I agree with the sentiment that Brazil is far better for the US and has a higher rate of return.

I don't believe that Nation of Islam is actually all that Islamic. I don't think it would find much common ground with local Islamists. And it dates to 1930, so.... probably wouldn't take off.

Fair enough; I'm not too knowledgeable on the subject myself. Though, the mere appearance of cooperation would create a kneejerk reaction.

Agreed on the butterfly component; a lot must be assumed, regardless.

Well, the Southern Economy, pre-civil war was entirely built around slavery. The post-slavery era, particularly after reconstruction, was a concerted attempt to get as close to slavery as they legally could. So I don't see the dependence on cheap labour being broken or lessened. You'd really need a wholesale transformation of the southern economy. Not even the Boll Weevil, which is arguably a major factor in the travails of the Southern economy actually had much impact.

Overall, good post. Well thought out.

Thanks - and that's a fair enough point. It's more the hope that greater wealth in general would allow some measured and slow correction of their status. Not something that'd be quick or great in scale, either - just some quick fixes.

One thing that might cause a slight change is the slight expansion of the homestead act for those free - and for some more to actually be able to take advantage of that. Not likely, of course. it'd have to be a series of small changes piling up over the decades.

 

[Luminous]

Regardless of how we'd end up in this situation of an American Congo, the outcome that strikes me is that USA wouldn't have any legitimacy to pressure European countries into the decolonisation of Africa (and Asia) at a later time.

A US that attempts to hold onto the Congo probably would be one so different from OTL that it wouldn't bother.

It would agitate for self-determination, of course, if it pursued that route, but it wouldn't nearly be so insistent on the release being so accelerated.

 

[VictorVanBakker]

First, I doubt the viability of native states, especially in the Ohio river, considering the sheer American population that already existed in the region, which would have to be expelled in order to make it a viable native state. Same with the trans-Mississippi; that is a lot of land that the British are outright annexing, and right at the time they really should be doing better things in Europe (considering this Napoleon fellow). The last thing they need is a resource drain from such major conquests.

Well settlement would continue though less than OTL, British North America was also heavily settled by American settlers, who eventually became Canadians. The real issue is that the British public did not particularly care about with the existential threat of Napoleon across the channel, British goals largely amounted to defending Canada, but if there was a massacre of British subjects or something similar and Napoleon stays stuck in Elba it might just do the trick ( I know the situation is unlikely). Alternatively you could get a different power to block the west, but then you need an even earlier POD, otherwise why would the US go to Africa when there's so much land next door?

Part of the issue with a devastating Civil War is that you'll be setting the US back decades in its own economic development - they will be far, far weaker. And, without the Ohio Valley, the South is going to be a lot stronger than the North - which is just limited to Pennsylvania and north, at best. And if the war results in a slave rebellion, the South is going to be blaming the entire thing on the North. But yeah, by the time you get to the 1850s, the US might be returning to the prosperity levels it had in 1812, which means it's barely ahead of its North American neighbours. It makes far more sense for them to compete against neighbouring states, of which one would have a large American majority within it. Or, it might be competing with a larger Mexico for influence over the Caribbean. Being weaker makes the US have to expend much more effort, as a portion of its total capabilities, at home instead of away.

Without the Ohio valley the North would be more Atlantic focused, and a larger proportion of the population might be urbanised and working for the shipping industry and as merchant-sailors. If the United States is competing with Mexico for the Caribbean it might be what induces the U,S to expand South-East-wards to the Antilles and then Africa as the search for markets goes on.

Haiti, conquered, after a slave rebellion? Doesn't strike me as likely. And, for the objective, why wouldn't settlement simply be expanded in Liberia if they are already there? And if settlement is the objective, it'd be better to look at territory far better suited for African-Americans (OTL Namibia is a far better choice). The Congo really isn't suited for heavy settlement until the 20th century, and even then, the native population is far too large. My biggest problem here is that I could see the entire timeline up to this point working decently, until suddenly the US is in the Congo. The why of their being in the Congo isn't addressed (Again, it is a poor choice if your goal is to create settlements).

Weren't there American attempts to send American blacks to Haiti/Santo Domingo in OTL? It may well be that American involvement begins largely with an expansion of Liberia before further conquests in Africa happen later on. Perhaps an earlier invention of the pneumatic tire increases demand for rubber and rivalry with Brazil (over the Caribbean perhaps) pushes then Yanks to look for other sources. No native population is too large if you got a technological advantage unfortunately "we got the maxim gun and they do not"

This sounds more like a divided US scenario, with the South preparing to kick the North out of the union after stabbing the USA in the back at the end of a major war.

And Imperial expansion is just the ticket for internal divisions in any country, everyone is nice and distracted, and politicians promote is a way for providing jobs to all those demobbed veterans.

-

Anywho, my personal thoughts (if anyone could give an opinion on the timeline of events listed above in my previous post, it'd be good) boil down to this:

African colonies are luxuries that the US didn't need OTL. Even with Liberia, it still is a Luxury to the purposes of the mainland. For US colonies of this scale, and not mere outposts on the ocean with ill-defined land boundaries, the US needs to be in a better position than OTL to accomplish its objective.

African colonies are a luxury but one that gives the illusion of prosperity and offer the prospect of captive markets (that never really pan out, and end up being run on a shoe string), the U.S need to be in a worse position necessarily not better, since we need to cut off the west, and far more backward countries than America held colonies in Africa (Italy, Belgium, Spain, Portugal). The New Imperialism/Scramble for Africa in OTL was largely motivated by the long depression of the nineteenth century. A United States that had its expansion blocked or seriously slowed, and is just recovering economically from a devastating war is just the sort of country that would find such a vainglorious project appealing.

Edit: I somehow made a pig's breakfast out of this quotation thing, I'm replying to Luminous in this post.

 

[Padilla]

I don't understand the idea of America taking the Congo and transforming it into a country 10 times richer than it is today.The Phillipines are not in any shape and form better than their neighbors in Asia and Puerto Ricans are emigrating to the US but also the Dominican republic due their awful economic situation.
Leopold's Belgium was pretty brutal and horrible but arguing that the Republic of Congo would have the GDP and population of Brazil due American colonization is just stupid.Only Botswana,Mauritius and in the entirety of Africa only Equatorial Guinea,Lybia,Gabon,Seychelles and Botswana have a similar GDP to that of Brazil and you are expecting the Congo to have a population boom of 1000%.The whole argument seems to be totally unfeasable to me

 

[DG Valdron]

There are numerous collateral factors besides American involvement.

I'll grant though, with sufficient rigour and research, it could be an interesting timeline.

 

[Luminous]

Well settlement would continue though less than OTL, British North America was also heavily settled by American settlers, who eventually became Canadians. The real issue is that the British public did not particularly care about with the existential threat of Napoleon across the channel, British goals largely amounted to defending Canada, but if there was a massacre of British subjects or something similar and Napoleon stays stuck in Elba it might just do the trick ( I know the situation is unlikely). Alternatively you could get a different power to block the west, but then you need an even earlier POD, otherwise why would the US go to Africa when there's so much land next door?

Difference being, of course, American settlers who chose to settle in Canada vs Americans conquered. The British could attempt to force them out, of course, but that would require more troops doing so. Ohio was already a state, and Indiana and Illinois were a few years away from becoming ones. That, and you'd have to weigh the British side rather heavily - the mercantile trade with the US was far more lucrative than whatever fur trade that the natives provided.

Not impossible, but you'll be pressing quite heavily on the scales against US success in the war. I was trying to find a PoD that required less effort. Also, an Independent Buffer State would have to constantly guard against US encroachment before a Texas situation exists - and it already does, with Ohio's population already at 230k as of 1810. I'm not sure what the native population was, but their armies never seemed to have reached the thousands of troops from what I can tell. Essentially, Britain would have to babysit them for years, and the moment they look away...

Without the Ohio valley the North would be more Atlantic focused, and a larger proportion of the population might be urbanised and working for the shipping industry and as merchant-sailors. If the United States is competing with Mexico for the Caribbean it might be what induces the U,S to expand South-East-wards to the Antilles and then Africa as the search for markets goes on.

And just as likely to the Pacific as well, and towards markets that are far richer than Africa. You'd probably see more penetration through South America before reorienting to the Far East.

But without the Ohio valley, the north is far less influential in the halls of Congress, and is far less likely to set policy, especially for the first half of the century. We're also ignoring any reclamation attempts that might be made, especially towards Louisiana et al.

Weren't there American attempts to send American blacks to Haiti/Santo Domingo in OTL? It may well be that American involvement begins largely with an expansion of Liberia before further conquests in Africa happen later on. Perhaps an earlier invention of the pneumatic tire increases demand for rubber and rivalry with Brazil (over the Caribbean perhaps) pushes then Yanks to look for other sources. No native population is too large if you got a technological advantage unfortunately "we got the maxim gun and they do not"

There was an attempted bill for the US to annex Santo Domingo in 1867, which would be butterflied by the PoD. It failed by one vote OTL; however, it was only even offered as a bill due some corruption within the governor's office, with the current government of Santo Domingo wanting to escape its debt. This was a Santo Domingo that had just rebelled against other potential colonizers and did not wish to be added to a colonial empire - which the US would, as the annexation request was even less democratic than the one offered by El Salvador in 1823.

Liberia, OTL, was actually the source for the US's personal rubber production. The Firestone Plantations were spurred by growth in the 1920s, and still exist to this day. If rubber plantations become important, the US already has a colony that is suitable for that. An expansion here is likely.

And it doesn't matter how large the native population is; it's whether you could effectively survive in the aftermath of its elimination. The Congolese interior is intensely hostile to settlement; eventually, attrition becomes too expensive.

And Imperial expansion is just the ticket for internal divisions in any country, everyone is nice and distracted, and politicians promote is a way for providing jobs to all those demobbed veterans.

The other side of the question: why bother conquering Santo Domingo or Congo, etc when the US could be better served retaking neighboring territory? If Louisiana and the Tecumseh Confederacy are set up as independent native states, not for settlement by foreigners, they'll be at a demographic disadvantage as well. (Let's not take into account the Plains Indians and the various raids). They'll become less and less profitable over time. And, with the South's plantation-based agriculture eventually dominating Congress, the urge will be to try and annex/purchase more land suitable for that, which wouldn't drive to the region.

African colonies are a luxury but one that gives the illusion of prosperity and offer the prospect of captive markets (that never really pan out, and end up being run on a shoe string), the U.S need to be in a worse position necessarily not better, since we need to cut off the west, and far more backward countries than America held colonies in Africa (Italy, Belgium, Spain, Portugal). The New Imperialism/Scramble for Africa in OTL was largely motivated by the long depression of the nineteenth century. A United States that had its expansion blocked or seriously slowed, and is just recovering economically from a devastating war is just the sort of country that would find such a vainglorious project appealing.

Edit: I somehow made a pig's breakfast out of this quotation thing, I'm replying to Luminous in this post.

And aside from those, the most successful colonizers were some the most successful nations in Europe - Spain's colonies were practically nominal, Portugal's were historical and both Britain and German schemed division of them, and Italy was a latecomer that was claiming for scraps. The countries that divided the meat of Africa between them, Great Britain and France, took the majority of better colonies, environments, and ports early on. Belgium was an oddity, spurred on by a King with dreams of empire - and he was allowed to keep them because all of his neighbors didn't want others to take it.

What I would do to change this is have a commission set up for interest into looking for more land - for growing sugarcane, tobacco, and etc. No great power is willing to sell (much) in the Caribbean, so this smaller US looks elsewhere. Perhaps landing in what would be Gabon, scouting in that area first. The surveyers are rebuffed and travel further south, and in the process make a series of alliances with the kingdom of the Congolese interior that are practically accidental - they are opposed to Portuguese/British/French etc ambition, and perhaps this new nation can better protect them. The commissioner in charge has dreams of empire and begins to expand the entire claim, practically accidentally.

On top of that, I'm not sure how the vanishing of a massive industrial juggernaut in North America would impact the world economy; I just feel that something would happen in response.

I don't understand the idea of America taking the Congo and transforming it into a country 10 times richer than it is today.The Phillipines are not in any shape and form better than their neighbors in Asia and Puerto Ricans are emigrating to the US but also the Dominican republic due their awful economic situation.
Leopold's Belgium was pretty brutal and horrible but arguing that the Republic of Congo would have the GDP and population of Brazil due American colonization is just stupid.Only Botswana,Mauritius and in the entirety of Africa only Equatorial Guinea,Lybia,Gabon,Seychelles and Botswana have a similar GDP to that of Brazil and you are expecting the Congo to have a population boom of 1000%.The whole argument seems to be totally unfeasable to me

I haven't even speculated of it being better - just different. Avoiding the majority of the early abuses would change quite a bit, but the transformation into a stable country in the long term isn't guaranteed, especially considering the diseases that would travel through the country, merging hundreds of different tribes into a single unit, etc.

Would it be possible for the Congo to be successful just due to American colonialism? Hardly, but considering its state over the decades, and the conditions early on in its treatment, one is inclined to say that it could hardly be worse, either (Tempting fate, I'm quite aware).

For Puerto Rico's point, I'm pretty sure that English language comprehension on the island is actually down in the past 25 years (end of mandatory English language as an option in government documents, if I recall). Younger citizens are leaving the island for the mainland, causing a demographic crisis. Puerto Rico also has more than double the per capita GDP of the Dominican Republic, mind, and is roughly par with the European Union as a whole in terms of GDP per capita. The only North American nations between it and the US are the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, and Canada. (all from CIA World Factbook, 2016) So, Puerto Rico is really far better off than the entire rest of the Caribbean (its nearest competitors are the Bahamas and Trinidad and Tobago, from Wikipedia's list for 2015.) That's without going into the debt issue.

For the Philippines, their population has increased nearly 6 times since the US withdrew from the country. I'm unsure of continued US involvement afterwards, but except for maintenance of the US naval bases, the Philippines were not industrialized (or invested into) to the same amount as other countries. They certainly didn't receive the post-war rebuilding that other nations north of them did.

I expect an actual attempt to develop the Congo (instead of just annexing it for the naval base, keeping it for the baggage) would result in a decidedly meh result, but one that would be somewhere between those two answers.

 

[Padilla]

Difference being, of course, American settlers who chose to settle in Canada vs Americans conquered. The British could attempt to force them out, of course, but that would require more troops doing so. Ohio was already a state, and Indiana and Illinois were a few years away from becoming ones. That, and you'd have to weigh the British side rather heavily - the mercantile trade with the US was far more lucrative than whatever fur trade that the natives provided.

Not impossible, but you'll be pressing quite heavily on the scales against US success in the war. I was trying to find a PoD that required less effort. Also, an Independent Buffer State would have to constantly guard against US encroachment before a Texas situation exists - and it already does, with Ohio's population already at 230k as of 1810. I'm not sure what the native population was, but their armies never seemed to have reached the thousands of troops from what I can tell. Essentially, Britain would have to babysit them for years, and the moment they look away...



And just as likely to the Pacific as well, and towards markets that are far richer than Africa. You'd probably see more penetration through South America before reorienting to the Far East.

But without the Ohio valley, the north is far less influential in the halls of Congress, and is far less likely to set policy, especially for the first half of the century. We're also ignoring any reclamation attempts that might be made, especially towards Louisiana et al.



There was an attempted bill for the US to annex Santo Domingo in 1867, which would be butterflied by the PoD. It failed by one vote OTL; however, it was only even offered as a bill due some corruption within the governor's office, with the current government of Santo Domingo wanting to escape its debt. This was a Santo Domingo that had just rebelled against other potential colonizers and did not wish to be added to a colonial empire - which the US would, as the annexation request was even less democratic than the one offered by El Salvador in 1823.

Liberia, OTL, was actually the source for the US's personal rubber production. The Firestone Plantations were spurred by growth in the 1920s, and still exist to this day. If rubber plantations become important, the US already has a colony that is suitable for that. An expansion here is likely.

And it doesn't matter how large the native population is; it's whether you could effectively survive in the aftermath of its elimination. The Congolese interior is intensely hostile to settlement; eventually, attrition becomes too expensive.



The other side of the question: why bother conquering Santo Domingo or Congo, etc when the US could be better served retaking neighboring territory? If Louisiana and the Tecumseh Confederacy are set up as independent native states, not for settlement by foreigners, they'll be at a demographic disadvantage as well. (Let's not take into account the Plains Indians and the various raids). They'll become less and less profitable over time. And, with the South's plantation-based agriculture eventually dominating Congress, the urge will be to try and annex/purchase more land suitable for that, which wouldn't drive to the region.



And aside from those, the most successful colonizers were some the most successful nations in Europe - Spain's colonies were practically nominal, Portugal's were historical and both Britain and German schemed division of them, and Italy was a latecomer that was claiming for scraps. The countries that divided the meat of Africa between them, Great Britain and France, took the majority of better colonies, environments, and ports early on. Belgium was an oddity, spurred on by a King with dreams of empire - and he was allowed to keep them because all of his neighbors didn't want others to take it.

What I would do to change this is have a commission set up for interest into looking for more land - for growing sugarcane, tobacco, and etc. No great power is willing to sell (much) in the Caribbean, so this smaller US looks elsewhere. Perhaps landing in what would be Gabon, scouting in that area first. The surveyers are rebuffed and travel further south, and in the process make a series of alliances with the kingdom of the Congolese interior that are practically accidental - they are opposed to Portuguese/British/French etc ambition, and perhaps this new nation can better protect them. The commissioner in charge has dreams of empire and begins to expand the entire claim, practically accidentally.

On top of that, I'm not sure how the vanishing of a massive industrial juggernaut in North America would impact the world economy; I just feel that something would happen in response.



I haven't even speculated of it being better - just different. Avoiding the majority of the early abuses would change quite a bit, but the transformation into a stable country in the long term isn't guaranteed, especially considering the diseases that would travel through the country, merging hundreds of different tribes into a single unit, etc.

Would it be possible for the Congo to be successful just due to American colonialism? Hardly, but considering its state over the decades, and the conditions early on in its treatment, one is inclined to say that it could hardly be worse, either (Tempting fate, I'm quite aware).

For Puerto Rico's point, I'm pretty sure that English language comprehension on the island is actually down in the past 25 years (end of mandatory English language as an option in government documents, if I recall). Younger citizens are leaving the island for the mainland, causing a demographic crisis. Puerto Rico also has more than double the per capita GDP of the Dominican Republic, mind, and is roughly par with the European Union as a whole in terms of GDP per capita. The only North American nations between it and the US are the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, and Canada. (all from CIA World Factbook, 2016) So, Puerto Rico is really far better off than the entire rest of the Caribbean (its nearest competitors are the Bahamas and Trinidad and Tobago, from Wikipedia's list for 2015.) That's without going into the debt issue.

For the Philippines, their population has increased nearly 6 times since the US withdrew from the country. I'm unsure of continued US involvement afterwards, but except for maintenance of the US naval bases, the Philippines were not industrialized (or invested into) to the same amount as other countries. They certainly didn't receive the post-war rebuilding that other nations north of them did.

I expect an actual attempt to develop the Congo (instead of just annexing it for the naval base, keeping it for the baggage) would result in a decidedly meh result, but one that would be somewhere between those two answers.

GDP per capita doesn't tell the whole story specially if the prices are so high.The net migration rate of Puerto Rico with the DR is negative and Puerto Rico is losing a lot of population.Population growth happens mostly with the increase of sanitation.Poor countries have way higher birthrates and if you just reduce their child mortality their population balloons.The same thing is happening in Africa.A richer DR would probably have a smaller population than the current one,as it happened in South Africa that has significantly lower birth rates than the poorer countries in Africa.I don't know if it was you but someone mentioned that the Congo would have the population of Brazil or close to it with a similar GDP per capita if not more which is just impossible unless the US heavily invests on it which seems really far fetch.

 

[Luminous]

GDP per capita doesn't tell the whole story specially if the prices are so high.The net migration rate of Puerto Rico with the DR is negative and Puerto Rico is losing a lot of population.Population growth happens mostly with the increase of sanitation.Poor countries have way higher birthrates and if you just reduce their child mortality their population balloons.The same thing is happening in Africa.A richer DR would probably have a smaller population than the current one,as it happened in South Africa that has significantly lower birth rates than the poorer countries in Africa.I don't know if it was you but someone mentioned that the Congo would have the population of Brazil or close to it with a similar GDP per capita if not more which is just impossible unless the US heavily invests on it which seems really far fetch.

Well, if the Congo also starts with a higher population, it could end up roughly at the same position as it is now. The hard part is that no one knows the population of the Congo before the deaths of the Free State. It will be hard to determine the starting point, so numbers can be very wildly diverging.

I did mention that Puerto Rico is having a demographic crisis on top of that - the majority of the younger population is leaving for the mainland, as opportunities are there, not on Puerto Rico itself. And with the debt becoming more and more unsustainable by the year, and with the island's decreasing young & English speaking population, the crisis is being exacerbated, as mainland business opportunities are passing over the island. Do you have exact numbers on the scale of the emigration? I can only find vague references to some leaving for the Dominican Republic, but no actual numbers to demonstrate how many.

The current economic crisis is a recent trend, beginning within the past 21 years. In other words, the current depression is a bad sign, which couples changes in federal policy and local mismanagement and efficiencies that exacerbated issues that were being covered up. It's hardly a good, but it isn't as damning to development potential up to that point. The growth paralleled US growth up until about 2008 (per capita, adjusted for purchasing power); the island just never recovered from the effects of the 2008 recession that the US did.

 

[Arkenfolm]

I don't understand the idea of America taking the Congo and transforming it into a country 10 times richer than it is today.The Phillipines are not in any shape and form better than their neighbors in Asia and Puerto Ricans are emigrating to the US but also the Dominican republic due their awful economic situation.
Leopold's Belgium was pretty brutal and horrible but arguing that the Republic of Congo would have the GDP and population of Brazil due American colonization is just stupid.Only Botswana,Mauritius and in the entirety of Africa only Equatorial Guinea,Lybia,Gabon,Seychelles and Botswana have a similar GDP to that of Brazil and you are expecting the Congo to have a population boom of 1000%.The whole argument seems to be totally unfeasable to me

On the other hand, Puerto Rico IIRC has the highest GDP per capita in Latin America and also has a GDP higher than Spain. Of course, it also has demographic trends comparable to Eastern European countries like Romania and taking away the subsidies and other benefits it gets from the federal government would be disastrous to its economy.

 

[Lenwe]

On the other hand, Puerto Rico IIRC has the highest GDP per capita in Latin America and also has a GDP higher than Spain. Of course, it also has demographic trends comparable to Eastern European countries like Romania and taking away the subsidies and other benefits it gets from the federal government would be disastrous to its economy.

Not true, the GDP nominal of Puerto Rico is $27,939, as 2015 Source(http://www3.weforum.org/docs/GCR2014-15/PuertoRico.pdf) is lower than Spain (28.212) but also have a horrible disparity of income between the rich and more poor, with a Gini coeficent of 53.5 worst than all of latin america even Brasil (the most inequality country in Latin america with Gini of 51,5) and a lot of Povertry 41%-45% Source (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ders-furloughs-governor-defiant-idUSKBN1AK2AG / http://www.noticel.com/economia/las...a-ser-el-quotdetroit-del-caribequot/608835589 / https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/PR/INC910216#viewtop / https://qz.com/125654/puerto-rico-i...re-reminiscent-of-southern-europe-or-detroit/ / https://qz.com/1091341/puerto-ricos-eye-popping-economic-situation-in-charts/ /http://www.estadisticas.gobierno.pr/iepr/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=quFs-6EL4Mg=&tabid=105&mid=590 ) in all in all Puerto Rico have worse indicators of a lot of the most developed Countries in L.A. and even worse than Mississippi, all in all you are better living in Chile, Uruguay, Argentina, Panama, Ecuador, Peru, Colombia,Brasil and Mexico, than Puerto Rico

And before you say the line of poverty is calculated Using USA as references (reference by all L.A are below the poverty line) this is true but is impossible get information of Puerto Rico only that are not calculated using USA data bases

 

[Socrates]

I love the portrayal of glowing benevolence that American would supposedly have to the place. Let's not forget, a century after slavery the US intelligence services took part in various plots to kill Patrice Lumumba because he wasn't sufficiently accommodatory to capitalist resource exploitation interest.

In the closing chapters of King Leopold's Ghost, Hochschild points out that the death rates in the French Republic of Congo and Portuguese Northern Angola were pretty similar to the horrors of the Congo Free State. In one case, a tribe that fled the CFS into the French Congo actually returned after a few years because the brutality was greater. Many of the private rubber companies that inflicted such terror under Leopold got similar concessions in the rubber areas of neighbouring countries.

Let's be honest, an American Congo is going to, first and foremost, be seen by the powers that be in the 19th Century US as a place ripe for resource exploitation. They are going to be very willing to sign up the first rubber companies that come along offering large fees for concessions, and those rubber companies are going to inflict pretty similar levels of human rights abuses as we saw in our timeline. The William Walkers and Erik Princes of our world are going to jump right in.

In terms of differences, I imagine the American government will find it harder to keep out missionaries than Leopold did, which likely means the horrific abuses may be exposed earlier. That could mean earlier independence, when a slightly more liberal president comes to power and wants to wash America's hands of the whole mess. Then the place will fall into warlordism.

 

[Faeelin]

To show the utter implausibility of this, I'll quote an old soc.history.what-if post of mine:

I like how this excellent post has not stopped the consideration.

 

[Luminous]

I like how this excellent post has not stopped the consideration.

Well, my comments have been in light of a PoD 70 years prior to the point in time that he has discussed, and have been trying to address the issues that he raised (at least, the "how" of the issue).

The big problem remains the same as always. the US of OTL would not have been so interested in the Congo, so anything resembling OTL US would not pursue the same path. You have to wildly alter US policy in order to accomplish this.

 

[Faeelin]

I love the portrayal of glowing benevolence that American would supposedly have to the place. Let's not forget, a century after slavery the US intelligence services took part in various plots to kill Patrice Lumumba because he wasn't sufficiently accommodatory to capitalist resource exploitation interest.

So the American Congo would be awful, but it's a different kind of awful. For instance, America would place a much greater emphasis on literacy than the Belgians did, if you go by the history of the Philippines.

 

[DG Valdron]

So the American Congo would be awful, but it's a different kind of awful. For instance, America would place a much greater emphasis on literacy than the Belgians did, if you go by the history of the Philippines.

Nicaragua, Haiti and the Dominican Republic, even Cuba were under extended American occupations. Nicaruagua from 1912 to 1933, Dominican Republic 1916 to 1924, Haiti 1915 to 1934. The results were often mixed. Even Cuba was occupied several times - 1898 to 1902, 1906-1909, 1912, 1917-1922, the 1903 treaty of Relations made Cuba a de facto colony until 1934. So arguably, we have a number of working precedents to evaluate what the United States might have done during this time frame.

On the other hand, the Congo was a far larger territory, geographically, than any of these other places, and with a substantially greater population, and with substantially more different terrain and culture. All of the other occupations, aside from Haiti, involved former Spanish colonies, with at least some infrastructure and cultural correspondence. Even Haiti derived from French roots. The Kongo cultures would be utterly alien. There was also substantial resistance - the Dominican Republic for instance waged a guerilla campaign. The Phillipines had an insurrection.

 

[Luminous]

I love the portrayal of glowing benevolence that American would supposedly have to the place. Let's not forget, a century after slavery the US intelligence services took part in various plots to kill Patrice Lumumba because he wasn't sufficiently accommodatory to capitalist resource exploitation interest.

Of course, one hundred years of divergence between those point, attitudes and temperament will change. There almost certainly wouldn't be a bipolar global conflict between two competing ideologies, and the US may never even become one of those, instead being simply content in its splendid isolation. Speculation, of course.

And I was speculating about a Congo sans Katanga, myself, to avoid those issues about treatment of the Congo as a whole vs treatment of Congo with Katanga. If we're trying to get a rough idea of the effects of such an institution

In terms of differences, I imagine the American government will find it harder to keep out missionaries than Leopold did, which likely means the horrific abuses may be exposed earlier. That could mean earlier independence, when a slightly more liberal president comes to power and wants to wash America's hands of the whole mess. Then the place will fall into warlordism.

Agreed with the point about missionaries, though depending on their terms, they're not as likely to simply drop the colony - it would soon end up under the "protection" of another great power, especially if it as weak as indicated. The abuses will be far more easily exposed and, resultingly, their will be a terrible outcry to do something by the East Coast busybodies (who will actually do very little) and conditions on the ground will eventually be reduced to a plantation culture more familiar to Liberia rubber plantations than elsewhere.

So the American Congo would be awful, but it's a different kind of awful. For instance, America would place a much greater emphasis on literacy than the Belgians did, if you go by the history of the Philippines.

Probably so. African Schools, modeled after Indian Schools, are likely to spring up. The greater prevalence of missionaries will also encourage literacy, at least on the river itself.

Likely to see tribal divisions, with the US going out of its way to ally with many tribes, especially those who had historical animus with the same ones the US is at war with. Expect quite a few punitive expeditions to the east of the territory to combat Tippu Tip and similar warlords. There are also some tribes in the southwest, far from the river, where the US would be fighting for a while.

The US would be dependent upon native auxiliaries because their own troops would be quite a bit more susceptible to the illnesses in the Jungle.

On the other hand, the Congo was a far larger territory, geographically, than any of these other places, and with a substantially greater population, and with substantially more different terrain and culture.

Big key right here, though the riverine areas may see some semblance of control, at least at the major ports. Cultural assimilation would be attempted, and might have some fair success, especially in Bas-Congo. It also would provide an outlet for some cultural ills, with the frontier on the mainland closing off - not that the Congo was sparsely populated, but unexplored and difficult to enter; it would delay the cultural transformation from a developing society with frontiers being expanded constantly to a settled society where there's no more empty land to discover.

The Phillipines had an insurrection.

Which was an extension of their ongoing war for independence, I believe - and there was a concerted Filipino identity already developing by this point. There is no united Congolese identity here, not even the hint of it; You're more likely to get an Indian wars analogue than anything else in terms of relations.

 

[Infinity]

When it was purchased, Seward and other members of the US government believed that, with pressure, British Columbia could be transferred to the US or, better, it would vote to join the US. Even if it didn't, it would increase American dominance over the Pacific coast of the continent, it removed a European power in total from American affairs, it had a low indigenous population and settler population, and it was really cheap. It really was ideal, as it furthered American strategic goals simultaneously with giving another piece of land to settle.

Why should the majority of the population, not located anywhere near the west coast care about any of this? European influence in the Atlantic would have been by far the main concern. A Kongo colony would help defend the Atlantic. Furthermore, Zaire would surely entice more colonists than Alaska. More than Wyoming, Montana, or North Dakota for that matter as well. Lastly, a large number of natives didn't stop European colonization of South Africa or the Philippines.

Not necessarily at all - this is so far removed from the PoD that it is relatively inconsequential. It might even leader to heightened competition between the European powers to snap up the remaining pieces of Africa, as the choosiest part is taken. That isn't particularly guaranteed in any part, so to make such sweeping determinations seems far fetched.

Successful German colonies are not far removed from the timeline. Bismarck had the intelligence to use an American Kongo to his advantage. Now the question is: which country would be the most unhappy about a strong American presence in the Atlantic? Great Britain, since it's their hegemony which is threatened. The next question is: what are the consequences of a timeline where Great Britain and the U.S are not on as good of terms as otl? Germany and France should have the most to gain, especially colonially.

Since American laborers are colonizing Zaire, other European powers are likely to imitate this model. Sort of like what occurred in Philippines and South Africa, but with railroads, telegraph lines, and a greater extraction of natural resources. Since American workers will build faster, they will be sent over. Even some Chinese could help, as they did in California. If relations with Great Britain aren't too bad, they might be able to strike a deal with the U.S to bring Indian laborers.

Although, with worse British and American relations, the next point to consider what wars are like. Maybe the Boer war never happens. Belgium would be wise to colonize South Africa with the Dutch. The rest of Europe could sanction this, preventing Great Britain from ousting the Dutch. Now the British are likely to colonize somewhere else instead. This could result in Germany or France having slightly less territory. Ethiopia is on the table, as are current and former Spanish territory. Alternatively, the British could just simply send more people to Canada, and Oceania instead of acquiring a similar level of mercantile colonies as otl. The later choice will probably lead to the most peaceful scenario in the 20th century.

In this timeline, ocean trade is more important than otl. Germany is stronger in the Pacific in this timeline as well. Not sure how feasible more German colonization of the Pacific would be in the 20th century. Their influence in the region could be restricted to trade. China will fare even worse in this thread. The Boxer rebellion results in more European and American troops sent to China. European powers could even agree to colonize China as thoroughly as Great Britain colonized India. Japan fares worse in this thread as well. Germany, or some other power colonizes Korea. This too could involve more than one European power. Over all, there is more collaboration between European powers and America.

Perhaps even Russia could colonize Korea and part of China in this timeline. They would be vital to harmony between European powers. In the same vein, otl Islamic states don't fare well. Russia, Great Britain, France and Germany colonize their territory more successfully than otl. The Ottoman empire either falls earlier than otl, or if not, then doesn't fall as part of a world war. One option is for Europe and America to open up the Ottoman empire in a similar manner to China and Japan. This could solely be in the interest of trade, or there could be a more thorough settlement by the west.

In light of all these events, then is it not likely that WWI and WWII never happen? Couldn't it also be assumed that nuclear weapons are either not proliferated, or do so much later than otl? If any country were to create them first in this timeline, I would think it's Germany, since they would lead in physics and would not have a mass exodus of physicists as Nazi's don't exist in this time line. Unfortunately, eugenics might still exist in this timeline. I'm a bit reluctant to expound upon this, but this is (awkward as it is to say), one possible solution to the encumbrances to colonizing Kongo.

African Americans have lost whatever resistances they might have once had

Sickle cell anemia provides them with innate resistance to malaria. The CDC states "In 2015 an estimated 212 million cases of malaria occurred worldwide and 429,000 people died, mostly children in the African Region." Malaria has historically been the worst pathogen in Africa. So this challenge is mitigated by sending African Americans, but could pose a problem for other colonists. Although, if those with sickle cell anemia have children with other colonists, then that would increase the chances of a successful colony. Eventually, assuming the colony is successful, there would be a strong economic incentive to create a malaria vaccine with a higher efficacy than the otl one available in 2015.

I think that the only key or critical resource that the Kongo might have offered strategically or commercially was Rubber.

They have gold. More importantly, the Congo river has the second largest quantity of water. Thus industry and agriculture on a scale unknown to North America is possible.

I don't believe that Nation of Islam is actually all that Islamic. I don't think it would find much common ground with local Islamists. And it dates to 1930, so.... probably wouldn't take off.

New converts can be made and The Nation of Islam can be founded earlier. A stronger argument in favor of colonization of Kongo made by prominent African American in the 19th century could inspire a new religion adapted to colonization. Could be something like Mormonism which allows six wives, enabling colonization to take place faster.

Regardless of how we'd end up in this situation of an American Congo, the outcome that strikes me is that USA wouldn't have any legitimacy to pressure European countries into the decolonisation of Africa (and Asia) at a later time.

This is what motivated some of my earlier posts, not American exceptionalism. It wasn't my intention to cause anyone to feel the need to defend the honor of their country.

I don't understand the idea of America taking the Congo and transforming it into a country 10 times richer than it is today.The Phillipines are not in any shape and form better than their neighbors in Asia and Puerto Ricans are emigrating to the US but also the Dominican republic due their awful economic situation.

Philippinos who become nurses seem to be doing fine. Other southeast asians don't have this distinction in such large numbers. Similarly, the best thing Puerto Ricans can do is move to a large city in the mainland. If either one of these countries became a state of the union, their level of prosperity would skyrocket. Brazil is the worst cast scenario. The best case scenario is California or Texas, only with more people and land.

 

[Luminous]

Thanks for the comments; glad to have a critique.

Why should the majority of the population, not located anywhere near the west coast care about any of this? European influence in the Atlantic would have been by far the main concern. A Kongo colony would help defend the Atlantic. Furthermore, Zaire would surely entice more colonists than Alaska. More than Wyoming, Montana, or North Dakota for that matter as well. Lastly, a large number of natives didn't stop European colonization of South Africa or the Philippines.

I hate to say OTL, but that's pretty much the OTL decision behind it. Granted, it was called Sward's Folly for the reasons you're listing: the majority of the population doesn't care about tundra; its benefits were strategic at that time (it allowed the US to deny it to British North America, at the very least) and as I pointed out, it removed a European nation completely from the North American game. Even if it wasn't in the Atlantic, it is one less nation to deal with.

And the Congo basin would acquire more investors and such, but I'm not sure it would attract colonists - at least not until all the final land claims were divided up in North America. (We are talking about a Congo that had a European population in the low thousands after decades of colonization). That, and my premise would be for this Congo to not include Katanga, so the best region for European habitation by climate patterns is out of consideration.

South Africa has a much more hospitable clime, and the Philippines are much more accessible, being an island chain. Most of the Congo is far from the coast and hard to access; that which is easy to access is along the Congo river littoral.

Successful German colonies are not far removed from the timeline. Bismarck had the intelligence to use an American Kongo to his advantage. Now the question is: which country would be the most unhappy about a strong American presence in the Atlantic? Great Britain, since it's their hegemony which is threatened. The next question is: what are the consequences of a timeline where Great Britain and the U.S are not on as good of terms as otl? Germany and France should have the most to gain, especially colonially.

I did posit a cooler US-British relationship being part of what leads to the entire event. Competition in Pacific islands dating back to the 1820s, the US getting the lion's share of the Oregon territory, an on-again-off-again brinksmanship and client war in Borneo with Sarawak on one side, Ambong on the other, and Brunei caught in the middle.

Germany could possibly gain more OTL (assuming it forms relatively on schedule). Italy and Austria-Hungary, even, could do better. Though, I'd imagine more

France could go either way, though I'm currently seeing them actually being rebuffed more in the Pacific.

Since American laborers are colonizing Zaire, other European powers are likely to imitate this model. Sort of like what occurred in Philippines and South Africa, but with railroads, telegraph lines, and a greater extraction of natural resources. Since American workers will build faster, they will be sent over. Even some Chinese could help, as they did in California. If relations with Great Britain aren't too bad, they might be able to strike a deal with the U.S to bring Indian laborers.

Chinese laborers would be interesting, but the territory would fall under a similar model to the Philippines OTL - acquisition, consolidation, and preparation for independence. (Eventually. and after plenty of the territory is exploited). I haven't really gamed this out much into the 20th century - too much changes in the spanners. Still, I'd expect low American population, with most of it concentrated either in mission/education work and around plantation centers.

Though, you might get a situation where the coastal region feels integrated with the US, and the inland doesn't, and the colony is split again.

Although, with worse British and American relations, the next point to consider what wars are like. Maybe the Boer war never happens. Belgium would be wise to colonize South Africa with the Dutch. The rest of Europe could sanction this, preventing Great Britain from ousting the Dutch. Now the British are likely to colonize somewhere else instead. This could result in Germany or France having slightly less territory. Ethiopia is on the table, as are current and former Spanish territory. Alternatively, the British could just simply send more people to Canada, and Oceania instead of acquiring a similar level of mercantile colonies as otl. The later choice will probably lead to the most peaceful scenario in the 20th century.

Belgium may never colonize at all - Leopold, if he lasts so long, may never have the same ambitions, or they may just be thwarted. Belgium may just remain a nation without a colony, and not deal with the investment that such an endeavor would cost.

The success of the Boers is really up in the air, as they are on valuable land that Britain wants. Although, they could potentially be bypassed if the British are in a rush to the interior to create their Cape to Cairo (assuming here, of course, that they get Egypt, which is hardly guaranteed); the Boers could simply ally with the British and possibly delay the wars some time, trading time for the British ability to lay track in their land. Probably isn't preferable without at least one war, though, to show the Boers that they could be in danger otherwise.

And, in the end, the British would need a reason to colonize, just the same as the others, regardless if the impetus is vainglorious or actually economical.

I doubt Ethiopia would be vulnerable to conquest at that point in time - again, we'd have to see how the state developed. But I'm not sure which of the changes would suggest and Ethiopia similar to OTL would be vulnerable 50 years ahead of schedule.

One thing that might happen here is the partition of Portuguese colonies by the Germans and the British, similar to one of the proposals, either 1898 or 1913. It depends of the politics at the time...

In this timeline, ocean trade is more important than otl. Germany is stronger in the Pacific in this timeline as well. Not sure how feasible more German colonization of the Pacific would be in the 20th century. Their influence in the region could be restricted to trade. China will fare even worse in this thread. The Boxer rebellion results in more European and American troops sent to China. European powers could even agree to colonize China as thoroughly as Great Britain colonized India. Japan fares worse in this thread as well. Germany, or some other power colonizes Korea. This too could involve more than one European power. Over all, there is more collaboration between European powers and America.

Don't see how sea trade is more important in general. The US Navy becomes more important than OTL; it may not have the same rot in its internal structure as it did OTL (no institutional decline, less scrapping of the majority of the fleet) and the US merchant marine becomes that much more important to maintain the connection with the overseas territories, but overall trade over the ocean should remain relatively equivalent.

I'd actually argue that there'd be very little German colonization in the Pacific; if the US is actively competing, most of it should be locked up by the time Germany even unites.

I disagree on the ability for the Europeans to actually manage a conquest of China, even then. The colonization of India was something that took centuries, and China is wealthier and more united than India was. That sort of unity in purpose seems very out of character for the squabbling powers. At the same time, I might could see spheres of influence grow and ebb.

That is a good point, though - if the US is that active to attend and be subject to a Congress of Berlin akin to OTL, they likely bother to at least cooperate more and more over time in international accords. Though, I'd point out that none of the US's tendencies toward free trade have actually shifted, and the US would likely still support the Open Door policy into China - the antithesis of the division of China into small chunk that are captive economies. That, and any attack on China that could result in any division would also greatly strengthen Russia's hand, which would be opposed by quite a few members of the Congress. Britain would worry about India, Germany and Austria-Hungary would worry about how much stronger Russia might be after grabbing large chunks of China... Overall, not a good picture for them.

Japan doesn't necessarily fare worse, though. They may not go through a Meiji revolution (or equivalent), but that doesn't mean things will be worse for them; it's more that they wouldn't be so militaristic (possibly). Korea could end up a protectorate in face of a weakening China, yes, but until China becomes weak enough on its own that this becomes possible.

Perhaps even Russia could colonize Korea and part of China in this timeline. They would be vital to harmony between European powers. In the same vein, otl Islamic states don't fare well. Russia, Great Britain, France and Germany colonize their territory more successfully than otl. The Ottoman empire either falls earlier than otl, or if not, then doesn't fall as part of a world war. One option is for Europe and America to open up the Ottoman empire in a similar manner to China and Japan. This could solely be in the interest of trade, or there could be a more thorough settlement by the west.

Really overstretching the capability of the Europeans here, I think. Russia is the one in the best position to nip even more pieces of China, compared to the OTL concessions. The Ottoman Empire and etc will probably last, especially as the Ottomans are a European power up to this point in time. They may have been on the decline, losing territory on occasion, but in that sense it'd be like disqualifying France as a European power due to them losing Alsace-Lorraine to another.

One good thing about having a lot of strong neutral powers is that they act as buffers - once they are removed, the dividing powers start turning their eyes toward each other after a brief period of peace. Britain would hardly desire Persia or the Ottomans to weaken; it weakens their position in India and Arabia, where they've penetrate the markets quite successfully.

And why would the US care about forcing open the Ottoman Empire, which wasn't a closed society to begin with? They would never have as much success trading with the Ottomans simply due to proximity - European nations would have the advantage. There's a difference, I feel, between the US going through the motions and giving some nominal heed to a voluntary international Congress when it is in their direct interest versus the US cooperating with the Europeans in conquering a sovereign empire in a manner that will benefit those very same Europeans the most. This is especially the case, considering the US tendency to skimp on its armed forces up through WW1 or so.

In the end, nations and states (and nation-states) are always self-interested, and rarely do anything out of altruism. There is almost always an angle or a deal that is going on that influences their decisions. It isn't always the right decision, mind, but that is the reason behind it. The relatively united intervention against the Boxer Rebellion, I feel, is more the exception that proves the rule than anything else, not to mention that the European powers at that point in time had a very weak grasp on that China - the consulates could be easily overthrown and expelled, especially when picked off one by one.

In light of all these events, then is it not likely that WWI and WWII never happen? Couldn't it also be assumed that nuclear weapons are either not proliferated, or do so much later than otl? If any country were to create them first in this timeline, I would think it's Germany, since they would lead in physics and would not have a mass exodus of physicists as Nazi's don't exist in this time line. Unfortunately, eugenics might still exist in this timeline. I'm a bit reluctant to expound upon this, but this is (awkward as it is to say), one possible solution to the encumbrances to colonizing Kongo.

A little bit deterministic (though, I know I'm guilty of that myself. Ambong existing at all, with it having formed over 50 years after the PoD?). I'd never assume that it'd be Germany, or any one state; the timeline would have to expand further. Germany, again, may never unite completely, or it may be delayed; they certainly have the recipe for success, either way.

I think we'll get a few European wars at some point, but it might not be a general European war on the scale of the world wars. It's hard to tell, though, as there are so many revanchist tendencies that could arise that some conflict may be impossible to avoid.

There is never a certainty when it comes to nuclear weapons either, but it is noted that, without the taboo, there will also be fewer restrictions against nuclear weapons. That directly implies that more will have them, not fewer.

The problems with colonizing Congo come more from its environment than from the population. And if population were truly the only obstacle, there are far earlier methods that could be conducted by selective breeding. And the Congo will have plenty of issues of its own, and the population will dip some, as it did in every major colony at the time. A large part will be through the introduction of diseases to the interior, and a not-insubstantial chunk will be through violence of various forms.