Modern Imperialism
Banned
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?
Leopold has a much better reputation ITTL. He's not associated with atrocities in the Congo.
you had one job, Leo. ONE JOB.Plot twist: he gets Somaliland and Eritrea instead, and is still a complete dick to everyone who lives there.
Also: how would the Italians handle the Congo? Would they go rubber-mad, just like Leopold did?
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.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.
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.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.
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.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
Also: how would the Italians handle the Congo? Would they go rubber-mad, just like Leopold did?
Would Italy try for Ethiopia if they had Congo?Would Congo help them win their first war with Ethiopia and take over the place?
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.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.'
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.
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.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.
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.