WI: Sweden-Norway gets the Congo instead of Belgium

[Jürgen]

It would be interesting to see how a neutral Sweden and Norway would evolve psychologically if it were trust into the role of a colonizing power. I mean, in the 19th century they were light-years ahead of the rest of Europe when it came to the treatment of women, and they already had a system of 'ombudsman' to hold the powerful accountable. But how much of it would survive if after 25 years the country/countries realized that the bulk of their wealth came from the sale of Congolese coffee and cocoa and from their access to cheap Congolese ore. Would they have any problem dispatching the military to break up a Congolese miners strike? Or to 'pacify' unruly provinces?

Seeing how Sweden treated it own working class and minorities, I don’t really see Sweden having any trouble upholding their rule in Congo through military means.

My fear is that for all of its progressiveness back home, once in the Congo Sweden or Sweden-Norway would not be much different than any other run-of-the-mill colonizing country and that through some wilful mental gymnastics most of the Swedish and Norwegian population would be okay with it.

Sweden was not really progressive back home. I expect Sweden to be a pretty run of the mill colonial power which is a vast improvement over Belgium. The main difference will be that Swedish administration will be pretty different thanks to the clergy being far more integrated into the state’s bureaucracy than for most colonial powers (Germany being something of a exception), this will mean that Sweden will have far greater control on the ground and be far better able to propagandize to the population. The greater use of native bureaucrats will also allow Sweden a far more dignified exit than Belgium and will keep Swedish companies active in Congo.

 

[JCC the Alt Historian]

I just realized that without Belgium getting the Congo, they most likely won't end up with Ruanda-Urundi following World War 1. It'll probably just being part British-owned Tanganyika (modern day Tanzania) after the take over German East Africa.

 

[AltoRegnant]

Might the wealth and resources allow Sweden-Norway to become a great power again? Could that revive Scandinavinism?

 

[Kellan Sullivan]

Might the wealth and resources allow Sweden-Norway to become a great power again? Could that revive Scandinavinism?

wouldn't it do just the opposite? Stoke resentment from Denmark?

 

[Jürgen]

wouldn't it do just the opposite? Stoke resentment from Denmark?

I don’t see why it would have that effect, but neither do I see why pan-Scandinavianism would be strengthen. But as Denmark was also at Berlin Conference maybe it will push Denmark to also take interest in staking a claim.

 

[Aghasverov]

Not greatly but not anywhere as badly as Leopold II did. Generally European colonialism wasn't nicest moments in African history.

Part of the problem with the "Congo Free State" was precisely that it wasn't a "colony" , not in the conventional sense... it was essentially a private economic venture, farmed out to unscrupulous corporate entities with little or no oversight from the Belgium government, under the rule (and essentially ownership) of one man... Leopold... who never actually set foot in his personal fiefdom...

 

[LuckyLuciano]

IF Sweden or Norway gets its hands on Congo the colony would cease to exist well before OTL. If Norway gets control after 1905 they will try to give it away to anyone else. If Sweden gets it they will not want any part of it after 1921 when the Social democrats took power.

If decolonization occurs in 1921, were there any active independence movements. Only one I can find is Kimbanguism, which tbf was supported by Protestants as a form of Christianity, according to wikipedia. So maybe Sweden relaxes its rule and give more power to the church, culminating in independence as a Christian Republic?

 

[ToasterOven456]

Terrible, but probably not as terrible as they were OTL, but still terrible.

It does not matter who colonises the Congo (or whatever part of the world), weather it is Belgium, Sweden-Norway, England, France, the USA, Japan or Ethiopia, or whoever. In colonisation the natives will be treated terribly.

Ethiopia? They can't afford to hold the Congo because they are a native state. Maybe Egypt at a stretch, but not Ethiopia

 

[pompejus]

Ethiopia? They can't afford to hold the Congo because they are a native state. Maybe Egypt at a stretch, but not Ethiopia

Of course they can't. My point was not that Ethiopia would be a likely coloniser. My point was that every coloniser would treat the natives of a colony terrible, even other African colonisers would.

 

[Strategos' Risk]

Ethiopia mucking about on the other side of the continent is so incredibly ASB for geographical and logistical constraints alone.

Also, I think it’s common to get very map-brained about history just by looking at graphics and assuming that’s how contemporary people at the time saw the world. Just because Abyssinia or Egypt had independence didn’t mean that they were on anyone’s radar except for those looking to snatch up bits of East Africa. No one in Berlin is going to go, “ah those black chappies haven’t been conquered yet, let’s give them this land all the way over here because it’s free real estate.”

 

[AltoRegnant]

Ethiopia mucking about on the other side of the continent is so incredibly ASB for geographical and logistical constraints alone.

Also, I think it’s common to get very map-brained about history just by looking at graphics and assuming that’s how contemporary people at the time saw the world. Just because Abyssinia or Egypt had independence didn’t mean that they were on anyone’s radar except for those looking to snatch up bits of East Africa. No one in Berlin is going to go, “ah those black chappies haven’t been conquered yet, let’s give them this land all the way over here because we it’s free real estate.”

i think Pompejus's point wasn't about ability, but that empires of all sorts kinda suck for the native populations

 

[AsukaEMP]

Terrible, but probably not as terrible as they were OTL, but still terrible.

Honestly, I doubt it would actually be any better. Leopold was, in fact, not a lone wolf and the atrocities carried out in the CFS under his control were not his sole responsibility.

Point in case: In 1899 the French copied Leopold's concession system in their own Congo colony and naturally this also resulted in quasi-slavery working conditions, child kidnappings, rape, torture, mutilation, famines, etc. The only thing that didn't happen was cutting off hands... But this is not an actual improvement since different methods of mutilation still occurred. They also imported soldiers from Senegal and hired veterans from the Congolese Force Publique (knowing well enough what was happening over there) to do the dirty work. And of course, with all the same factors coming into play as in the CFS the population of the French Congo also got decimated by diseases like smallpox and sleeping sickness.

Not to mention that Leopold's Congo always had an international character, while Belgians were always in an advantaged position people from all over Europe were involved... And it doesn't paint a pretty picture for a the prospects of a Congo under Sweden-Norway. As a matter of fact it just so happens to be that most of the people leading those atrocities in the French Congo were Swedes and Norwegians who had previously worked in the CFS. One of them was Gullbrand Schiötz, a Norwegian who had been second-in-command in Leopold's Congo in the area of Lake Mai-Ndombe for roughly half a decade from 1894 to 1900. In 1900 Schiötz and a bunch of other Scandinavians (such as Einar Lund, also a Norwegian) quit in the CFS and instead went to Mpoko in the French Congo. They turned it into one of the most profitable parts of the French Congo, and also one with the most atrocities.

Here's a good article about it https://www.journalbelgianhistory.b.../leopold-ii-concession-system-exported-french​

 

[Jürgen]

Part of the problem with the "Congo Free State" was precisely that it wasn't a "colony" , not in the conventional sense... it was essentially a private economic venture, farmed out to unscrupulous corporate entities with little or no oversight from the Belgium government, under the rule (and essentially ownership) of one man... Leopold... who never actually set foot in his personal fiefdom...

Yes, but even when the Belgians took over from Leopold II, they may have done better than him, but it was still one of the worst run colonies. The Congolese geography is pretty good for export of raw materials and they have access to vast amount of it, they should at the very least do as well per capita as Cameroon.

 

[Lord High Executioner]

As a matter of fact it just so happens to be that most of the people leading those atrocities in the French Congo were Swedes and Norwegians who had previously worked in the CFS. One of them was Gullbrand Schiötz, a Norwegian who had been second-in-command in Leopold's Congo in the area of Lake Mai-Ndombe for roughly half a decade from 1894 to 1900. In 1900 Schiötz and a bunch of other Scandinavians (such as Einar Lund, also a Norwegian) quit in the CFS and instead went to Mpoko in the French Congo. They turned it into one of the most profitable parts of the French Congo, and also one with the most atrocities.​

There is the uncertainty factor of whether the Scandinavians who went to the Congo Free State to work for Leopold would have been
in the same positions of authority in Swedish-Norwegian Congo. From what little google gave me the impression is of first and second
lieutenants who sought positions/commissions/adventure abroad due to perceived lack of opportunities at home rather than the
people who would have ended up in charge if The United Kingdoms of Sweden and Norway had been the direct colonizers.
The Congo Free State had already been around for nearly a decade when Schiötz and Lund arrived and an administration less
inclined toward atrocities might not have accepted them.

Full disclosure of finds:
Schiøtz, Gullbrand Øvergaard (1871 - 1941)
Lund, Einar (1870 - 1907)
Halling, Konstans Bomhoff (1873 - 1938)
Soelberg, Karl Otto (1866 - 1894)
Nergaard, Christian Fredrik Frimann (1877 - 1926)
And a whole list of Scandinavians serving (and often dying) in the Congo Free State

But as Denmark was also at Berlin Conference maybe it will push Denmark to also take interest in staking a claim.

Maybe pestering Britain into giving/selling back Danish Gold Coast, which had been sold as recently as 1850...

 

[Jürgen]

There is the uncertainty factor of whether the Scandinavians who went to the Congo Free State to work for Leopold would have been
in the same positions of authority in Swedish-Norwegian Congo. From what little google gave me the impression is of first and second
lieutenants who sought positions/commissions/adventure abroad due to perceived lack of opportunities at home rather than the
people who would have ended up in charge if The United Kingdoms of Sweden and Norway had been the direct colonizers.
The Congo Free State had already been around for nearly a decade when Schiötz and Lund arrived and an administration less
inclined toward atrocities might not have accepted them.

Full disclosure of finds:
Schiøtz, Gullbrand Øvergaard (1871 - 1941)
Lund, Einar (1870 - 1907)
Halling, Konstans Bomhoff (1873 - 1938)
Soelberg, Karl Otto (1866 - 1894)
Nergaard, Christian Fredrik Frimann (1877 - 1926)
And a whole list of Scandinavians serving (and often dying) in the Congo Free State

From the look of the names, these were not impoverished peasants or fishermen back home and a few names are from recognizable Swedish noble families. My guess is that most of these people were well educated middle- or upper-class people.

But more important these people would not have been as atrocities-prone in a colonial administration which didn't accept that kind of behavior. Rot usually spread from the top and downward in bureaucracies.

 

[AsukaEMP]

From what little google gave me the impression is of first and second
lieutenants who sought positions/commissions/adventure abroad due to perceived lack of opportunities at home rather than the
people who would have ended up in charge if The United Kingdoms of Sweden and Norway had been the direct colonizers.

This seems like an odd statement? The whole premise would make it so that these opportunities would have been even easier for them to pursue, and they'd be the first one to come knocking asking for a commission in S-N Congo. Furthermore they weren't soldiers of fortune, these people were jurists, businessmen, officers (several high-ranking ones at that), administrators, doctors, etc. All of these jobs require a higher form of education and put them in positions of leadership and oversight.

The Congo Free State had already been around for nearly a decade when Schiötz and Lund arrived

Saying the CFS had been around for nearly a decade by 1895 is a major stretch. On paper? Sure. But on the ground? Not even close. The founding date of 1885 marks nothing more than the recognition of Leopold's right to the Congo (and then not even all of it yet). It took until around 1895 before he finally got recognition for all of the Congo and had driven out the dissidents and Arab slave traders. He didn't grant concessions until 1892 and those companies in turn took some years to actually set up their operations.

So people like Lund didn't arrive a decade late, they arrived right as the actual exploitation began. They then helped to push it on, and were there playing an active role when the atrocities reached their peak in the late 1890s and early 1900s. They then went on to go do the exact same thing again in a different colony. Also I have to point out that there's several dozens of names on that list who died in the Congo prior to 1895 already, further proving Scandinavians were already there even in the early years helping to lay the foundations.

and an administration less inclined toward atrocities might not have accepted them.

The chances of a colonial administration emerging that actively opposes exploitation (at least before a massive scandal breaks out) are pretty much non-existent, I certainly haven't heard of one before. And even if it did it would then also need to have the funds and capability to actively oversee the entirety of the Congo, which is just impossible with how bare-bones colonial administrations were.

The French Congo is a good case study that prove this. That was a colony under the national government, with said government not approving of those policies. Furthermore the colonial administration didn't actively encourage them like Leopold's government did... And yet all of it still happened the exact same way. So statements like "it'll be bad but not quite as bad because Leopold wasn't there" just don't hold any ground. All the evidence we have suggests it's gonna be the same shitshow. (With the exception of no pictures of cut off hands, or less of them...)

 

[Lord High Executioner]

From the look of the names, these were not impoverished peasants or fishermen back home and a few names are from recognizable Swedish noble families. My guess is that most of these people were well educated middle- or upper-class people.

I was thinking specifically of the ones with separate links (Schiötz, Lund etc.) whose brief bios ther don't exactly scream
"would have ended up high-ranking civil servants or military commanders if they stayed on", even if Sciötz ended up a consul.
And, yes, well-educated middle class at least people (well, maybe not the ones listed as mechanics and carpenters), but
again, not people who gave up their otherwise inevitable destinies as general or flag officers, county governors and cabinet secretaries
in order to go run the Congo Free State.

This seems like an odd statement? The whole premise would make it so that these opportunities would have been even easier for them to pursue, and they'd be the first one to come knocking asking for a commission in S-N Congo. Furthermore they weren't soldiers of fortune, these people were jurists, businessmen, officers (several high-ranking ones at that), administrators, doctors, etc. All of these jobs require a higher form of education and put them in positions of leadership and oversight.

If it had been S-N Congo the dynamics would have been different and regardless of how quick they may have
been in asking for commission they may not have been at the top of the list of people considered for it, and
in some cases "not working for Sweden-Norway" may have been part of the attraction.
Consider the difference between the people who go into civil service and the people who go to
work for big international corporations.
(Actually, when trying to think of actual examples, people like PewDiePie and Notch popped up.)

So people like Lund didn't arrive a decade late, they arrived right as the actual exploitation began. They then helped to push it on, and were there playing an active role when the atrocities reached their peak in the late 1890s and early 1900s.

But they did not introduce them, correct?
It was not as if the Congo Free State was no different from other colonies and then these Norwegians in their early twenties showed up and
introduced hand-chopping.

The chances of a colonial administration emerging that actively opposes exploitation (at least before a massive scandal breaks out) are pretty much non-existent, I certainly haven't heard of one before. And even if it did it would then also need to have the funds and capability to actively oversee the entirety of the Congo, which is just impossible with how bare-bones colonial administrations were.

Nobody said anything about opposing exploitation.
There are slight differences between a colonial administration that does not actively encourage atrocities, one
that does actively encourage atrocities, one that actively discourages atrocities (hypothetically possible as engaging
in atrocities can interfere with the exploitation) and one that goes "this guys were engaged in atrocities when they
worked for them, but surely they won't when working for us".

 

[oca2073]

there's no reason to assume the same politicians would come to power with a POD 30 years earlier when the country has definitely gotten richer off the exploitation. and progressive parties were rarely against colonialism at this point unless the writing was really on the wall

Ahem, but Congo wasn't profitable at first. In fact, nearly all the African colonies of New Imperialism era weren't making much money. There's a reason why Leopold resorted to extreme measures OTL because Congo was losing bucketloads of money and he spotted an opportunity with rubber.

 

[oca2073]

The French Congo is a good case study that prove this. That was a colony under the national government, with said government not approving of those policies. Furthermore the colonial administration didn't actively encourage them like Leopold's government did... And yet all of it still happened the exact same way. So statements like "it'll be bad but not quite as bad because Leopold wasn't there" just don't hold any ground. All the evidence we have suggests it's gonna be the same shitshow. (With the exception of no pictures of cut off hands, or less of them...)

French definitely didn't go as far as Leopold. French Congo was NOT profitable despite their exploitation while Belgian Congo made Leopold so much money he could fund whatever lavish construction projects he wanted in Belgium. The difference is Leopold went off the deep end.

 

[oca2073]

If Norway-Sweden take Congo, they have two options. Do what Leopold did and make money. Or abstain/don't go as far and lose bucketloads of money and be saddled with a useless colony. If they don't go down the route of Leopold (highly doubtful), they will continue to lose money in Congo and will probably sell it to Leopold who still wants a piece of Africa. In other words, any other colonial power that DOESN'T run Congo like Leopold did will lose money, and SELL Congo to Leopold. No other country wants the money pit so they either sell or do what Leopold did.