Obviously (almost) nothing is truly inevitable. But how inevitable was the Colonization, and division, of the African Interior by the Europeans?
I think the question needs to be framed a bit differently since Inevitability is absolute in itself; there are no degrees to it. Furthermore, it lends a bit of unnecessary finality to the subject.Obviously (almost) nothing is truly inevitable. But how inevitable was the Colonization, and division, of the African Interior by the Europeans?
I'm talking what was colonized after the congress of BerlinNeed more details. How inevitable is simply the colonization of the interior? The entire interior? Are we taking most of Africa, or all of Africa. Are we including the division as in multiple European powers colonizing the interior, or an agreed upon division as in the Berlin Conference.
For the total division of the continent, I don't think it's too improbable not to happen. The Europeans essentially got what they needed from coastal trade. The reason they went deep into the interior was because it coincided with a relative period of peace and the reason it was divided was to avoid border conflicts. Have Europe become a bit more riddled with conflict and you'll see less resources going onto Africa.
I'd say preventing the British from occupying all of India and the Dutch from occupying the East Indies and you'll see a race for Asia as opposed to Africa.
Having WW1 kick off earlier can also likely prevent the scramble as European nations will be in too poor an economic state to divert resources.
Alternatively, having strong resistance against European invaders could do it. Look at Ethiopia.
When I'm talking about the Interior I'm refering to the areas colonized after the congress of Berlin. And I won't be including Egypt as European, as the thread is most about the European Imperial powers who colonized africa in the 1880'sNeed more details. How inevitable is simply the colonization of the interior? The entire interior? Are we taking most of Africa, or all of Africa. Are we including the division as in multiple European powers colonizing the interior, or an agreed upon division as in the Berlin Conference.
For the total division of the continent, I don't think it's too improbable not to happen. The Europeans essentially got what they needed from coastal trade. The reason they went deep into the interior was because it coincided with a relative period of peace and the reason it was divided was to avoid border conflicts. Have Europe become a bit more riddled with conflict and you'll see less resources going onto Africa.
I'd say preventing the British from occupying all of India and the Dutch from occupying the East Indies and you'll see a race for Asia as opposed to Africa.
Having WW1 kick off earlier can also likely prevent the scramble as European nations will be in too poor an economic state to divert resources.
Alternatively, having strong resistance against European invaders could do it. Look at Ethiopia.
Would the discovery of vulcanization and the increasing use of rubber be a reason for Europeans to try and push into the interior (if only in the Congo)? Rubber was a massively profitable commodity in the late 1800s if I remember correctly, and Britain did go to war with China over opium. Granted, China was much stronger, richer, and more populous than Africa, but it does show that Europeans were willing to invade and occupy territory in support of commercial interests.Need more details. How inevitable is simply the colonization of the interior? The entire interior? Are we taking most of Africa, or all of Africa. Are we including the division as in multiple European powers colonizing the interior, or an agreed upon division as in the Berlin Conference.
For the total division of the continent, I don't think it's too improbable not to happen. The Europeans essentially got what they needed from coastal trade. The reason they went deep into the interior was because it coincided with a relative period of peace and the reason it was divided was to avoid border conflicts. Have Europe become a bit more riddled with conflict and you'll see less resources going onto Africa.
I would expect the Europeans to want to break into the interior for the same reasons they did in OTL to fuel the industrial revolution.Would the discovery of vulcanization and the increasing use of rubber be a reason for Europeans to try and push into the interior (if only in the Congo)? Rubber was a massively profitable commodity in the late 1800s if I remember correctly, and Britain did go to war with China over opium. Granted, China was much stronger, richer, and more populous than Africa, but it does show that Europeans were willing to invade and occupy territory in support of commercial interests.