Italian Congo?

What if instead of Leopold and eventually Belgium gaining Congo Umberto and eventually Italy gain it as a position instead? What would be the impact of this especially for Italy?
 
Also: how would the Italians handle the Congo? Would they go rubber-mad, just like Leopold did?

I mean, why wouldn't they? They, like the Belgians, were a young nation-state looking to expand on the global industrial market, and (as far as I know) they had no reason to be any more concerned with the well-being of their African subjects than Leopold was. Rapid development of the rubber trade was the whole point of Leopold's project. And in this strictly market-centric framing, showing humanity to the Congolese could hinder the pursuit of profits. Plus, the racialisation would still make the exploitation of Congolese people relatively acceptable to the world at large. I don't know why Italian rule would be any less horrific than Belgian rule over the Congo. It might actually be worse -- Italy had a much larger economy than Belgium, and already wielded some sizeable influence on the world's stage. Italy might grow richer and wealthier from Congolese trade, and that demand for slave-cultivated rubber would be more integrated into the global market.
 
Last edited:
I mean, why wouldn't they? They, like the Belgians, were a young nation-state looking to expand on the global industrial market, and (as far as I know) they had no reason to be any more concerned with the well-being of their African subjects than Leopold was. Rapid development of the rubber trade was the whole point of Leopold's project. And in this strictly market-centric framing, showing humanity to the Congolese could hinder the pursuit of profits. Plus, the racialisation would still make the exploitation of Congolese people relatively acceptable to the world at large. I don't know why Italian rule would be any less horrific than Belgian rule over the Congo. It might actually be worse -- Italy had a much larger economy than Belgium, and already wielded some sizeable influence on the world's stage. Italy might grow richer and wealthier from Congolese trade, and that would be more integrated into the global market.
You are correct I guess - Italy likely goes even farther, especially since no one can realistically punish them for the abuses, seeing as though they'd be more powerful on the international stage than Belgium ever was.
 
I mean, why wouldn't they? They, like the Belgians, were a young nation-state looking to expand on the global industrial market, and (as far as I know) they had no reason to be any more concerned with the well-being of their African subjects than Leopold was. Rapid development of the rubber trade was the whole point of Leopold's project. And in this strictly market-centric framing, showing humanity to the Congolese could hinder the pursuit of profits. Plus, the racialisation would still make the exploitation of Congolese people relatively acceptable to the world at large. I don't know why Italian rule would be any less horrific than Belgian rule over the Congo. It might actually be worse -- Italy had a much larger economy than Belgium, and already wielded some sizeable influence on the world's stage. Italy might grow richer and wealthier from Congolese trade, and that would be more integrated into the global market.
Would Congo help them win their first war with Ethiopia and take over the place? Also Umberto I was very authoritarian and corrupt even at home. They would be brutal but probably in a more traditional way. Loyal locals would probably get treated better by Umberto then Leopold. Racialist thoughts and theories aren’t as dominant in Italy as they were in other European nations especially the not to the extent of Northern Europe. Umberto tolerated mafiosos in southern Italy and even used them as political allies indirectly. He would probably tolerate and even reward local Congolese who support him and pledged loyalty. He likely won’t go around randomly butchering people. He would be the type to slaughter a whole village or tribe if they opposed him in anyway.
 
I mean, why wouldn't they? They, like the Belgians, were a young nation-state looking to expand on the global industrial market, and (as far as I know) they had no reason to be any more concerned with the well-being of their African subjects than Leopold was. Rapid development of the rubber trade was the whole point of Leopold's project. And in this strictly market-centric framing, showing humanity to the Congolese could hinder the pursuit of profits. Plus, the racialisation would still make the exploitation of Congolese people relatively acceptable to the world at large. I don't know why Italian rule would be any less horrific than Belgian rule over the Congo. It might actually be worse -- Italy had a much larger economy than Belgium, and already wielded some sizeable influence on the world's stage. Italy might grow richer and wealthier from Congolese trade, and that would be more integrated into the global market.
One point is that Belgium didn't have the Congo until after the abuses of the Congo Free State were discovered. Up until that point, it was a private venture of King Leopold II, separate from the nation he ruled.

There's also the possibility of greater scrutiny due to Italy's place on the world stage. Leopold got away with the whole Congo and the atrocities of the Free State for as long as he did due to Belgium's relative weakness vis-à-vis the colonial Great Powers (the UK, France, Germany), who were all unwilling to see the others gain such a vast expanse of land but also unwilling to dole out the price of maintenance, and because he managed to disguise it as a humanitarian effort rather than pure exploitation as it was.

An Italian Congo, on the other hand, would not be a private venture and its purposes for the Congo would be very clear from the get-go. The other Great Powers would demand concessions from Italy (free trade in the region being a given) for the rights to the Congo as they did with Portugal and Leopold's offers and, with Italy being a Great Power, there'd likely be greater attention held towards the region to ensure those concessions are in place. And once the rubber boom takes off, any abuses of Leopold's kind would provide ample opportunity for the other Great Powers to intervene in some form or another and disrupt Italian control of the region.

Leopold being a small fish in Europe made it easier to overlook the Free State for a while. Italy, though, is a sizeable player in Europe and the other Great Powers would be watching their action much more closely than they would will Belgium.
 
One point is that Belgium didn't have the Congo until after the abuses of the Congo Free State were discovered. Up until that point, it was a private venture of King Leopold II, separate from the nation he ruled.

There's also the possibility of greater scrutiny due to Italy's place on the world stage. Leopold got away with the whole Congo and the atrocities of the Free State for as long as he did due to Belgium's relative weakness vis-à-vis the colonial Great Powers (the UK, France, Germany), who were all unwilling to see the others gain such a vast expanse of land but also unwilling to dole out the price of maintenance, and because he managed to disguise it as a humanitarian effort rather than pure exploitation as it was.

An Italian Congo, on the other hand, would not be a private venture and its purposes for the Congo would be very clear from the get-go. The other Great Powers would demand concessions from Italy (free trade in the region being a given) for the rights to the Congo as they did with Portugal and Leopold's offers and, with Italy being a Great Power, there'd likely be greater attention held towards the region to ensure those concessions are in place. And once the rubber boom takes off, any abuses of Leopold's kind would provide ample opportunity for the other Great Powers to intervene in some form or another and disrupt Italian control of the region.

Leopold being a small fish in Europe made it easier to overlook the Free State for a while. Italy, though, is a sizeable player in Europe and the other Great Powers would be watching their action much more closely than they would will Belgium.
Italy is the lower bar of the great powers at the time. Many didn’t even consider them a real great power. Them gaining something in Africa isn’t as big of a deal as Germany taking something. Germany likely to be fine with Italy taking Congo. Britain would probably be more neutral or on the fense. France would be the only one to be against but not to the point of pushing it greatly. Umberto I could also gain it like Leopold did before it becomes a colony a bit later.

The main reason Italy didn’t gain more of Africa isn’t due to balance of power or other countries wanting to prevent them from growing but because part of the Berlin conference agreement was to attain land you had to have some presence there and be able to hold the land. Most powers did not think Italy could do that in many places in Africa
 
Italy is the lower bar of the great powers at the time. Many didn’t even consider them a real great power. Them gaining something in Africa isn’t as big of a deal as Germany taking something. Germany likely to be fine with Italy taking Congo. Britain would probably be more neutral or on the fense. France would be the only one to be against but not to the point of pushing it greatly. Umberto I could also gain it like Leopold did before it becomes a colony a bit later.

The main reason Italy didn’t gain more of Africa isn’t due to balance of power or other countries wanting to prevent them from growing but because part of the Berlin conference agreement was to attain land you had to have some presence there and be able to hold the land. Most powers did not think Italy could do that in many places in Africa
Mind, this is a matter of them relative to Belgium and King Leopold in particular, not Germany or someone stronger. Sure, they're weaker than Germany. At the same time, Italy is far more populous than Belgium and not nearly on as good terms with Britain. Belgium being a minor power and neutral made it ideal for allocating colonial lands without upsetting the balance of power. Italy, on the other hand, was a German ally by this point and had territorial disputes in North Africa with France, which would naturally mean France would not just allow Italy taking even more colonial land right by other French claims and would raise red flags for Britain.

And Belgium could project where Italy couldn't? Again, I'm not positing just on 'Italian possession of the Congo,' I'm focusing more on the 'Belgian vs Italian possession of the Congo and the consequences thereof.'
 
Also: how would the Italians handle the Congo? Would they go rubber-mad, just like Leopold did?

There is no reason not to assume that, unfortunately. Colonial powers more often than not viewed their colonial subjects as resources, and not so much as human beings.

Therefore, when it comes to profitability, Italians would plunder the Congo and abuse the natives just as much as the Belgians did IOTL.
 
Mind, this is a matter of them relative to Belgium and King Leopold in particular, not Germany or someone stronger. Sure, they're weaker than Germany. At the same time, Italy is far more populous than Belgium and not nearly on as good terms with Britain. Belgium being a minor power and neutral made it ideal for allocating colonial lands without upsetting the balance of power. Italy, on the other hand, was a German ally by this point and had territorial disputes in North Africa with France, which would naturally mean France would not just allow Italy taking even more colonial land right by other French claims and would raise red flags for Britain.

And Belgium could project where Italy couldn't? Again, I'm not positing just on 'Italian possession of the Congo,' I'm focusing more on the 'Belgian vs Italian possession of the Congo and the consequences thereof.'
Belgium was just smaller then Italy. Italy only outclassed Belgium militarily because of that. Belgium was much more industrialized and stable economically. Belgium navy was also probably more modernize or up to date.
 
I mean, why wouldn't they? They, like the Belgians, were a young nation-state looking to expand on the global industrial market, and (as far as I know) they had no reason to be any more concerned with the well-being of their African subjects than Leopold was. Rapid development of the rubber trade was the whole point of Leopold's project. And in this strictly market-centric framing, showing humanity to the Congolese could hinder the pursuit of profits. Plus, the racialisation would still make the exploitation of Congolese people relatively acceptable to the world at large. I don't know why Italian rule would be any less horrific than Belgian rule over the Congo. It might actually be worse -- Italy had a much larger economy than Belgium, and already wielded some sizeable influence on the world's stage. Italy might grow richer and wealthier from Congolese trade, and that demand for slave-cultivated rubber would be more integrated into the global market.

One thing to consider - in this situation, Congo would fall under the administration of the Italian state and would not be the personal fiefdom of the King. This could well increase oversight and also visibility of what it going on. Also, would the Italians pursue a protectionist policy towards the colony, or would they promise free trade. Leopold used the promise of the later to help secure his acquisition of the territory (the British didn't want the French to have it, the French didn't want Britain to get it, and Leopold said everyone could trade there - and so all the sides agreed that this would be the best for the other powers.)

In any case, I suspect the Congo is still going to be a very bad place to live once rubber is discovered. British and French rubber colonies were not known for being egalitarian utopias either, though they certainly didn't reach the brutality of Leopold's bloodbath, as best as I can tell. To figure out how it would be administered, it would probably be best to look at other Italian colonies during this period and look at how their administrative structure run things.
 
too throw my two cents in this i don't think that the king has enough pull too make the Congo a personal estate completely separate from government i do believe for this too happen it would have too like leopold setup like the kings personal humanitarian effort sponsored by the government too help the "poor Congolese", in our terms that would be "TOO MAKE EVERYTHING AS ITALIAN AS POSSIBLE!!!!!".
as Italy was not really considered a power too worry about yet, however if they do get the congo then that will change once rubber comes around as it is now valued piece of real estate. this will provide the Italian economy a large boost allowing them to do a lot of things they couldn't do before. this makes them much more of a threat. it may even fuel their want for colonies look at what we got out of the Congo lets try it again. and they are more powerful and capable too do so. the state of the Congo i think very much depends on the Congolese and how they react too Italian intervention. if they are basically roll over and work with the Italians early on i don't think you will really see any atrocities like leo. as good old @Modern Imperialism alluded too the
Italians were not as racially motivated as some of the more northern European states. i would say while they were very big in spreading Italian culture too Africans and that belief of savagery was much more too do with culture rather than race. an example is probably the most extreme is the fascist and proto-fascists. this can be seen in the subjugation of their colonies. now here is my main point sorry for the tangent if the Congolese were too submit to Italian rule or assist it. then you will not see the atrocities of OTL however, if they aggressively oppose italian rule then it i think it will give the Belgians a run for their money in terms of brutality. if we look at how they reacted too insurrection in their other colonies another good example is lybia then we get an idea of how brutal the Italians can be.
which one is more likely i can not say i do not know too much about the Congo or its time under Belgian rule
once rubber is found i will expect a lot of exploitation though it does very too how well the previous initialization efforts were. if they were quite successful then seeing Congo as one of the better places in Africa in terms of violence. though if not then your going too see something like the french or English develop. an example from what i have read a lot of Italian explorers were like is Pierre Savorgnan de Brazza. if we see a opposition too Italian rule when rubber is found thing will get very bloody
 
Keep in mind that Italy committed genocidal massacres after they annexed Libya, and were also rather brutal after conquering Ethiopia. There's no guarantee that they would be any kinder to the people of the Congo compared to Belgium.
 

Lusitania

Donor
But for Italy to get Kongo then the great powers would of divided it amongst themselves. The only reason it was given to Leopold was because the great powers Britain, France and Germany could not agree who would get it and it was given to Leopoldo so no nation could get it and gain advantage.

Therefore for Portugal or Italy to receive all or part of it would mean that greater part would of been divided amongst the great powers not given all to Italy.
 
Keep in mind that Italy committed genocidal massacres after they annexed Libya, and were also rather brutal after conquering Ethiopia. There's no guarantee that they would be any kinder to the people of the Congo compared to Belgium.
to my understanding while these massacres certainly did happen but they very were more responses to rebellion and defiance rather for ethnic reasons even during the fascist reign where most of the massacres happened and the brutality turned up too 11. Was mostly too crush the last of the resistance in the country.
and as i mentioned in my own post i certainly would agree with you for the tribes or Congolese in general that stood defiant would be brutalized heavily which does seem like the most likely scenario. though i do not believe you would see such atrocities after the resistance was crushed or if there was resistance too begin with. the same will apply with rubber

But for Italy to get Kongo then the great powers would of divided it amongst themselves. The only reason it was given to Leopold was because the great powers Britain, France and Germany could not agree who would get it and it was given to Leopoldo so no nation could get it and gain advantage.

Therefore for Portugal or Italy to receive all or part of it would mean that greater part would of been divided amongst the great powers not given all to Italy.

i am not so sure about this mainly that before and during the conference Leopold kinda just claimed it and none of the powers really complained too much because of the reasons you gave. we have too remember at this time Italy was viewed in no way as a great power being viewed on a similar level too Belgium however, unlike Belgium had a lot of potential too become one. so if umberto pulled a similar stunt too Leopold i could see him achieving all of Belgium maybe slightly less.
 
If the Italians are able to secure Congo could this help them win their conquest in Ethiopia the first time around? That would be a three front war for Ethiopia. It would also connect all the Italian colonies besides Libya to each other. Italy would have their colonies in Africa connect to both coast. Would that be very useful for Italy?

Also could Italian brutalities in Congo vary on situation? For example, a ethnic group or tribe that works with the Italians and Italianize a bit are treated more fairly or at least no more poorly then how Italy treated Naples and Sicily. On the other hand, Italy has no problem wiping out a whole tribe or ethnic village if they resist. Could loyal local elites be given privileges and benefits by the Italians? I feel like Italian imperialism inspired itself heavily off Rome which made them more assimilationist but at the same time having no issue with breaking down on people hard?
 
Top