Italian Congo?

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?
i would assume so in the sense that italy would be more invested in Africa and likely much richer from the rubber and other natural resources of the Congo, however this is also a double edge sword as i doubt the British would support this Italy's ambition as it would likely see another power rivalling it. especially in the colonial game as the Italians influence places like Uganda which were mostly under British influence. if however, they are successful i could see as very possible with the the belief of the potential empire.
for the people of the Congo i would very much agree with your proposal, though i would say that this could lead too a more unified culture as the Italian culture could have a binding effect.
 
i would assume so in the sense that italy would be more invested in Africa and likely much richer from the rubber and other natural resources of the Congo, however this is also a double edge sword as i doubt the British would support this Italy's ambition as it would likely see another power rivalling it. especially in the colonial game as the Italians influence places like Uganda which were mostly under British influence. if however, they are successful i could see as very possible with the the belief of the potential empire.
for the people of the Congo i would very much agree with your proposal, though i would say that this could lead too a more unified culture as the Italian culture could have a binding effect.
How much would racial beliefs impact this? Not so much from the Italians but the British. Didn’t Northern Europeans view Mediterranean Europeans as less threatening and serious? For example, a expanding German state will always be taken more seriously then a Italian one? Isn’t this one reason Italy unified before Germany is because nations like Britain just saw Italy as a nation who would never be a serious problem unlike Germany? Would Italian expansion by the British be seen as nothing to really worry about unless they conflict with ours? France likely doesn’t take Italy seriously unless they somehow beat them single handling in a war. The only issue France would have with Italy is them supporting its rival nations and taking colonies they wanted. Britain might try to use Italy as a counter balance to French expansion while Germany uses them as a ally against France. Maybe, the main powers still viewing Italy as a secondary power could be a useful tool for expansion. I think Italy won’t be considered the same as Germany or Russia until they beat a major power on their own.
 

jocay

Banned
It wouldn't be exactly idyllic. The Italians committed ethnic cleansing against the native Libyans in their tenure of that land; at the same time, the Italians promoted development projects and employed native Eritreans in public service. In Somalia, they paradoxically imposed cultural assimilation while preserving the clan system and Islam's status as the majority religion. I suppose it could be slightly less terrible than the Congo Free State and direct Belgian rule but not much better.
 
It wouldn't be exactly idyllic. The Italians committed ethnic cleansing against the native Libyans in their tenure of that land; at the same time, the Italians promoted development projects and employed native Eritreans in public service. In Somalia, they paradoxically imposed cultural assimilation while preserving the clan system and Islam's status as the majority religion. I suppose it could be slightly less terrible than the Congo Free State and direct Belgian rule but not much better.
That makes Italy seem very by situation approach towards colonization. They do whatever they think is best for that place. Libya was intended as a settler colony that is close to the mainland and had a low population. The Libyans also showed heavy opposition to Italian rule which Italy responded with ethnic cleansing. Italy was probably trying to build up Eritrea so it could take Ethiopia and have a economic center for Italian Eastern Africa. It would be a major port area for Italy especially if Ethiopia is taken and they have Congo too. Somalia sounds like their trying to play both sides and gain time. Retaining local customs is probably a way to temporarily keep the local elites and majorities from getting too rebellious. The cultural assimilation efforts are going to try an appeal to the people who are local outcast or unhappy with the local customs. The goal of this is to eventual over time build up a new loyal Italianized African population to help keep control of the region if the Muslim population rebels. Due to this Italianized Africans backgrounds many are very willing to be brutal to the Muslim Somalians. The Italians might try to sugarcoat it a much of different ways through propaganda but they will be mob boss like with ruling of the colonies. I think many colonial policies had mindsets like this.
 
Last edited:
Didn't Leopold get the Congo mainly due it being a convient buffer zone and his lobbying to make himself seem like a good person and someone who would deal with the place when Belgium itself didn't want the colony? That, and offering open trade to the British, rights to the Portuguese, American and German traders would be let in, plus the French were secretly told they would have first dibs on getting it if Leopold's organization went bankrupt, which was a lot more likely before they got the land and didnsll the robbery and hand chopping.
 
Didn't Leopold get the Congo mainly due it being a convient buffer zone and his lobbying to make himself seem like a good person and someone who would deal with the place when Belgium itself didn't want the colony? That, and offering open trade to the British, rights to the Portuguese, American and German traders would be let in, plus the French were secretly told they would have first dibs on getting it if Leopold's organization went bankrupt, which was a lot more likely before they got the land and didnsll the robbery and hand chopping.
A lot of this is just start business. The king of Italy could do similar things. Italy is probably willing to trade with Britain freely in Congo. They are also on good terms with Germany and likely would have little issue working with Portugal. France is their biggest issue but I think German backing and British support can counter any French opposition. France is still seen as the biggest threat to the “balance of power” on the European mainland to the British until after the Franco-Prussian War. People often forget that. Britain would be more interesting in stopping French expansion into the Congo then Italian. The Americans are only included in this due more to economic interest. America doesn’t care about Congo in anyway. Belgium just probably was hoping to attract American investors by letting them in. American say isn’t needed here. But Italy does have a much better chance at attracting American businesses to Congo then Belgium did especially later on. A lot of wealthy Italians Americans might be more sympathetic or see more opportunity in a larger Italian colonial empire. The Bank of America did use to be the named the Bank of Italy
 
Top