Italian Congo

What if the Congo Basin is assigned to Italy and not to Belgium in the Berlin Conference? These are my fast speculations on the topic:

That would butterfly the Ethiopian war, because with the Congolese diamonds there is no motivation for war. The Italian Colonial Empire ITTL owns Congo and Eritrea, maybe have a protectorate over Somalia. The WW1 can be butterflied, as the Balkans instability which led to the Sarajevo murder and to the war was generated from the two Balkan Wars, the First erupted when Serbia, Greece and Bulgaria discovered the weakness of the Ottoman Army from the Italo-Turkish War of 1911. But this war was made for the control of Lybia. ITTL, Italy won't attack the Ottoman Empire for a sandbox when owns the rich Congo, so all this war spiral is butterflied away. If the WWI went as OTL, and Wilson take the 14 points at Versailles, Italy will gain the same OTL territories, with Tripolitania instead of Oltregiuba and Licia, and the Fascism will still rise in Italy. But the 1936 Ethiopian War is butterflied, for the same reason of the 1896 one. So there are no SoN sanctions, Italy remain filo-britannic and a German enemy. In 1939 Mussolini declares war to Germany alongside with France and Great Britain, and invade Germany from the south. Alpins conquer Austrian Alps. The German counterattack is left to reach the border, where Mussolini has continued to build the Vallo Littorio, while the Italian invasion troops tight Germans in a vise, making it a Stalingrad battle in the Alps. Giovanni Messe, the greatest Italian military leader of the 20th Century, is the Chief of Staff of Army and with brilliant strategies manage to invade mainland Germany. France ends the Phoney war and invades the Ruhr, because the French government didn't want to leave Germany to the Italians. Hitler calls for total war and begins the Holocaust in 1940, but with a three-front war (France from west, Italy from south and Poland from east, because the compulsory moving of the army to the Western and Southern fronts left Poland alive and free to counterattack). Berlin is caught from Italian troops. At this point the Allied troops can attack the USSR to defend Poland, or make a peace treaty. In the first scenario USSR will be defeated and there will be a cold war between Europe and Japan (if there is no Pacific war) or between USA and Europe (if there is the Pacific war). In the second scenario we'll have a Cold War between Europe and USSR, with the USA supporting European Allies and the Japan forming a third pole, if the Pacific war is avoided. I can't make previsions over decolonization, maybe there are more Commonwealth-like actions from Italy, France, Spain and Portugal.
What do you think about this POD?
 
I'm going to stop you at the part where you hypothesise that there is no Italo-Turkish War.

While I believe it is possible to avoid this war, simply giving the Italians another colony is not the way to do it. Italy didn't view Libya as fruit ripe for the plucking, they viewed it as an integral part of the Italian state that had been lost. They're still going to want it, and kicking the Ottomans out of Africa is, to the Italians, going to earn a bit of prestige, since even at that time the Ottoman Empire was seen as one of the 'great powers'.

Furthermore, why would the Italians want the Congo? They don't know beforehand that there's anything of worth in there. The Congo went to the Belgians because they were a safe-bet neutral party between the competing claims of Germany and France. It wasn't a random decision to toss a minor dog a big bone. Besides which, as far as the Berlin Conference attendees assumed, it wasn't going to Belgium; the entire basin became the personal property of King Leopold as part of his 'civilising mission'. In reality, it became his fiefdom and was used to enrich the royal coffers, until his atrocities came to light and the Belgian government was forced to take on the responsibility lest they lose the territory to France (who was first on the list of buyers).

For a power like Italy, grabbing colonies was less about economics and more about prestige. Britain had them. France had them. Portugal had them. Heck, Germany was getting them. Better get some too, or we'll be left behind.

Now, finally, this won't butterfly a great war in Europe, but it will likely butterly WWI as we know it, which means there almost certainly won't be a USSR, won't be a Woodrow Wilson in the presidency, won't be a WWII as we knew it, there won't be a Pacific War. Every change causes ripples throughout the timeline, so any event that happens after the POD will be altered.
 
"integral part of the Italian state"? Why, because it had been a Roman province? I thought Mussolini had come up with that idea.
 
Furthermore, why would the Italians want the Congo? They don't know beforehand that there's anything of worth in there. The Congo went to the Belgians because they were a safe-bet neutral party between the competing claims of Germany and France. It wasn't a random decision to toss a minor dog a big bone. Besides which, as far as the Berlin Conference attendees assumed, it wasn't going to Belgium; the entire basin became the personal property of King Leopold as part of his 'civilising mission'. In reality, it became his fiefdom and was used to enrich the royal coffers, until his atrocities came to light and the Belgian government was forced to take on the responsibility lest they lose the territory to France (who was first on the list of buyers).

One thing I've never quite understood is why Leopold II (or the French under de Brazza) wanted the Congo to begin with since there was nothing of value known to be there except for ivory, which could also be found in plenty of other places in Africa. His civilizing mission was obviously a ruse (but considering that many of the inhabitants were actually cannibals some of the civilizing that was done by CFS/Belgium was certainly necessary).
 
Last edited:
On a tangent from the OP I am quite in love with the notion of a Congo as a Papal protectorate, but how to pull it off? It is extremely unlikely to be honest.

About an actual Italian Congo, to me it seems difficult, you could have an earlier united Italy employing Brazza as a naval officer, but could his otl claims stand if backed only by a minor power? Claims could be exchanged with France for a different agreement on Tunisia though... a condominium maybe?

Italy is too strong to be given "Belgian" Congo and too weak to force her claims on it, while also gaving a very different strategic focus (Med, Red Sea, Indian Ocean).
 
...while also gaving a very different strategic focus (Med, Red Sea, Indian Ocean).
This is arguably the most important reason why Italy would not be interested in Congo. When it comes to colonial strategy, it looks like their first objective was not to get completely surrounded in the Mediterranean, hence Lybia, the attempt on Tunisia, and the interest in Malta during WWII; their second objective was influence in the Red Sea and Eastern Africa, simply because it was the last area where space for expansion was available.

There was some interest in Aceh and Sarawak, and expeditions were sent there, but nothing much ever came of it. I guess that with no easy access to the Red Sea and the Indian Ocean it could be difficult to project power that far and compete with other established colonial powers.

And Congo lies in a completely different direction.
 
This is arguably the most important reason why Italy would not be interested in Congo. When it comes to colonial strategy, it looks like their first objective was not to get completely surrounded in the Mediterranean, hence Lybia, the attempt on Tunisia, and the interest in Malta during WWII; their second objective was influence in the Red Sea and Eastern Africa, simply because it was the last area where space for expansion was available.

There was some interest in Aceh and Sarawak, and expeditions were sent there, but nothing much ever came of it. I guess that with no easy access to the Red Sea and the Indian Ocean it could be difficult to project power that far and compete with other established colonial powers.

And Congo lies in a completely different direction.
Porsenna, I'm Italian and let me say a thing about pur colonial strategy: there was no colonial strategy. We were a new formed nation which absolutely wanted prestige. We took Eritrea and Somalia because the Suez Canal was opened and no one was there. We took Lybia because it was one of the few not-European owned land in Africa. We was one of the many countries who had a look to Aceh and Sarawak, but we refused. Malta was a lot Italian-inhabited and was in a true strategical position. I don't think that the position of Congo Basin can be a problem. It will be a rich colony of great prestige, so I think Depretis can absolutely try to get it.
 
I'm going to stop you at the part where you hypothesise that there is no Italo-Turkish War.

While I believe it is possible to avoid this war, simply giving the Italians another colony is not the way to do it. Italy didn't view Libya as fruit ripe for the plucking, they viewed it as an integral part of the Italian state that had been lost. They're still going to want it, and kicking the Ottomans out of Africa is, to the Italians, going to earn a bit of prestige, since even at that time the Ottoman Empire was seen as one of the 'great powers'.

Furthermore, why would the Italians want the Congo? They don't know beforehand that there's anything of worth in there. The Congo went to the Belgians because they were a safe-bet neutral party between the competing claims of Germany and France. It wasn't a random decision to toss a minor dog a big bone. Besides which, as far as the Berlin Conference attendees assumed, it wasn't going to Belgium; the entire basin became the personal property of King Leopold as part of his 'civilising mission'. In reality, it became his fiefdom and was used to enrich the royal coffers, until his atrocities came to light and the Belgian government was forced to take on the responsibility lest they lose the territory to France (who was first on the list of buyers).

For a power like Italy, grabbing colonies was less about economics and more about prestige. Britain had them. France had them. Portugal had them. Heck, Germany was getting them. Better get some too, or we'll be left behind.

Now, finally, this won't butterfly a great war in Europe, but it will likely butterly WWI as we know it, which means there almost certainly won't be a USSR, won't be a Woodrow Wilson in the presidency, won't be a WWII as we knew it, there won't be a Pacific War. Every change causes ripples throughout the timeline, so any event that happens after the POD will be altered.
Lybia was part of irredent lands only during Fascism, before that nobody thought that. Maybe Tunisia, where there was an historical great Sicilian community.
 
Oh, and I don't understand as an Italian Congo POD can butterfly away Wilson Presidency and USSR. The cause of the war will probably be always a Balkan crisis, because those were that age Middle East, and all depends from Balkan wars. It's a common view that the Balkan wars was caused from the bad performance of Ottoman Army in the Italo-Turkish War, but they can come also without it.
 

Deleted member 67076

This would be a huge loss for the Italian state budget and probably won't make a net profit until decades after colonization. Would be great for medium sized Italian companies now that they have a captive market of 20 million people. Congo would become a sinkhole of costs as Italy tries to build a rudimentary state out of a place as large as Western Europe.

That said, an Italian Congo would lead to actual settlement of Italians in the Congo unlike with Belgium, particularly around the Katanga mines where IOTL Italians were recruited to work in and lived in the region. Well over 4,000 Italians worked in the Congo by the turn of the century IOTL and they frequently intermarried with the peoples there. Here, there's plenty of land that can be offered and outside of Bas-Congo and Ecuator, its not so bad for white settlement.

Interestingly the Italians had much better relations with the natives compared to the other colonial powers (still rather abusive) given the natives considered the Italians to be much less racist than the British or Belgians, and the Italians were willing to work in the same conditions as the natives. I don't know if this will hold with Italy as the colonial master. At the very least the gross excesses of the Free State won't happen here.
 
One thing I've never quite understood is why Leopold II (or the French under de Brazza) wanted the Congo to begin with since there was nothing of value known to be there except for ivory, which could also be found in plenty of other places in Africa. His civilizing mission was obviously a ruse (but considering that many of the inhabitants were actually cannibals some of the civilizing that was done by CFS/Belgium was certainly necessary).
Tell me about this necessary civilizing work done by the CFS and Belgium.
 
One thing I've never quite understood is why Leopold II (or the French under de Brazza) wanted the Congo to begin
I have seen the suggestion that he wanted some territory that was not located where France, Germany and Britain fight their wars.
It wasn't exactly an independently reliable source, though. I think it was the roleplaying game Space 1889...
 

Deleted member 67076

One thing I've never quite understood is why Leopold II (or the French under de Brazza) wanted the Congo to begin with since there was nothing of value known to be there except for ivory, which could also be found in plenty of other places in Africa. His civilizing mission was obviously a ruse (but considering that many of the inhabitants were actually cannibals some of the civilizing that was done by CFS/Belgium was certainly necessary).
No there had been rumors of gold and other precious minerals for centuries. The real reason he wanted the Congo was his ego more than anything else. (See: David Van Reybrouk Congo: The Epic story of a People)

Very few were actual cannibals, so I don't know what exactly you mean by civilizing was necessary.
 
Argh! The Belgians did not get the Congo at the Berlin Conference, nor did they get it until Leopold was outed as sadistic jerk. It was an sovereign Free State of Congo with Leopold as CEO and ruler separate from his role as King of the Belgians. For instance if Belgium had kicked him out as King and became a republic he would have still had control of the Congo. He manipulated the world into letting him have the field. It wasn't the world letting a minor European nation have it as a neutral party.
 
One thing I've never quite understood is why Leopold II (or the French under de Brazza) wanted the Congo to begin with since there was nothing of value known to be there except for ivory, which could also be found in plenty of other places in Africa. His civilizing mission was obviously a ruse (but considering that many of the inhabitants were actually cannibals some of the civilizing that was done by CFS/Belgium was certainly necessary).

Because Leopold had insecurity issues. And, yes, it really comes down to that. He felt that he came from a minor branch of a Great House and was ruling an uncivilized backwater. The only way to make people take notice of him and gain the prestige he so badly wanted, was by getting a colony. He actually attempted to buy a few colonies earlier in his reign but, when that came to nothing, he launched his dream of getting the Congo. The Congo had the benefit of having no other powers claiming it at the time, and he was sure there would be something in there in order to make money (Ivory was his initial goal since it was present and there was a huge demand for it at the time. It was only after the bicycle craze kicked in that there were efforts to harvest the native rubber), but the biggest draw was that it was simply available at the time.

On a side note: no, very little, if any of the 'civilizing' was necessary. I think its safe to say that what ever net benefit the Congoese people received from being brought into the global market, was more than offset by the barbarism that Leopold unleashed against them.
 
No there had been rumors of gold and other precious minerals for centuries. The real reason he wanted the Congo was his ego more than anything else. (See: David Van Reybrouk Congo: The Epic story of a People)

Very few were actual cannibals, so I don't know what exactly you mean by civilizing was necessary.

Tell me about this necessary civilizing work done by the CFS and Belgium.

Read "Stanley: The Impossible Life of Africa's Greatest Explorer" by Tim Jeal if you want to know a thing or two about cannibals in that area. It was more pervasive than I would personally want to believe, that's for sure.

And how many cannibals were still around by 1960? A lot less % wise I imagine.
 
Last edited:
Read "Stanley: The Impossible Life of Africa's Greatest Explorer" by Tim Jeal if you want to know a thing a two about cannibals in that area. It was more pervasive than I would personally want to believe, that's for sure.

And how many cannibals were still around by 1960? A lot less % wise I imagine.

I'm not entirely sure that getting rid of ritual cannibalism, as appalling as it is to us today, is the best way to justify the horrors that were visited upon the Congo or spin Leopold and (later) Belgium's regime as a positive good for the region.
 
I'm not entirely sure that getting rid of ritual cannibalism, as appalling as it is to us today, is the best way to justify the horrors that were visited upon the Congo or spin Leopold and (later) Belgium's regime as a positive good for the region.

No, one can't justify the horrors. But there were improvements in certain aspects of life that occurred between the late 1870s-1960. These are also described in David Van Reybrouk's book "Congo" mentioned above. It's just like how people bring up the positives that the USSR achieved during its existence from 1917 to 1991, despite the many horrors that happened there also.
 
Last edited:
No, one can't justify the horrors. But there were improvements in certain aspects of life that occurred between the late 1870s-1960. These are also described in David Van Reybrouk's book "Congo" mentioned above. It's just like how people bring up the positives that the USSR achieved during its existence from 1917 to 1991, despite the many horrors that happened there also.

Fair enough. I would still quibble about the term "Civilizing," in our original post (its a pretty emotionally charged term and has a lot of connotations held over from the last two centuries), but I would agree with that statement.
 
Top