I'd actually say the Scandinavians do just the same as Leopold, it was the only way for the colony to get off the ground running and NOT lose money. In other words, either the Scandinavians are willing to have Congo as a money pit or they either have to do what Leopold did or sell the colony.
WI: Sweden-Norway gets the Congo instead of Belgium
- Thread starter JCC the Alt Historian
- Start date
You misunderstand the Congo situation entirely.
Firstly, the vast majority of death victims were from disease brought into the Congo interior. That's unavoidable no matter who the colonisers are.
Secondly, the exploitative policies were needed in order to generate a guaranteed supply of rubber. The idea was to use violence to threaten the natives into producing rubber or the colony is a money pit. So that's exactly what Leopold did.
Thirdly, Congo is filled with tribes that hate each other and are constantly going to war. Thus using native Congolese as enforcers (only realistic option) causes massive brutality, civil war and infighting among the Congolese. Introducing new weapons among them, causing a ton of ppl to die from disease/starvation creates power vacuums. Thus an escalation of war with the arrival of the Europeans is also unavoidable.
In short, changing masters from Leopold to Scandinavians DOESN'T fundamentally change anything. Norway-Sweden is not going to accept Congo as a money pit (they were even poorer than Belgium). Either the colony will be profitable or they have to sell it. A ton of ppl will die inadvertently regardless as a result of their actions.
Last edited:
Schiötz ended up as director of one of the concession companies in French Congo. Lund held the military rank of captain-commandant and just barely missed out on becoming superior adjutant to the commissioner-general. Am I missing something?
I'll just quote the very next sentence I wrote: "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."
Once again proof that we're hyperfixating on Leopold. Chopping off hands is but one of the many atrocities committed, and is no better or worse than any other ways people were mutilated and murdered. What does it matter if they weren't the ones who came up with the specific idea of cutting off hands? If S-N has any plans to turn a profit there's going to be forced labour, there's gonna be quotas, and there's gonna be harsh punishments for not meeting those quotas.
Not to mention that the chopping off hands thing was a rule meant for dead people, the idea was "if you have to shoot someone chop off their hands so you can prove it". It was never intended as a form of punishment, but developed into one (and even an economy of itself) when soldiers realized they got rewarded for "doing their job well" and it eventually became common and accepted as a punishment.
I already pointed out that even if you get the last one (which would be a miracle) you still need them to actually be capable of enforcing it, which not a single otl colonial administration was because of how hollowed-out they were.
Hypothetics don't really matter, as soon as someone does it and proves that it makes results (which it unanimously did in the CFS, Mpoko, Yaka, etc.) that argument goes out the window. The article I linked in my first post even has a whole section detailing the direct and consistent link between the number of guns and bullets available to a sector in French Congo in any given year, and how productive said sector was during the same year. More bullets meant more production, more terror meant more profits.
what even is the point of this argument, we have historical evidence proving time and time again that it does not matter which country is in charge. I don't see how any of this is up for debate?
What if they just didn't do anything with the territory, how could it cost money then?
Then someone else will take it under the effective occupation principle
Not strictly speaking missing as it is something that you appear to be certain of being there - that they would have had similar career trajectories if they
had stayed in Swedish-Norwegian service rather than, say, being lieutenants and eventually captains and majors in provincial garrison towns, while people
with better qualifications or contacts were picked for/by the colonial office. The pool of Scandinavians who were willing to go work for Leopold/Belgium
is not exactly the same as the one that would be willing (or picked) to work in the Swedish-Norwegian colonial office.
It is the one used as... ahem... shorthand... for what went on. (1904 cartoon: Leopold, king of the Congo, in his national dress.)
We don't have historical evidence proving time and time again that it does not matter which country is in charge of the territory
comprising the Congo Free State. Nobody else had a go and regardless of how hypocritical it was of them, people from
other colonial powers did go "That's a bit excessive, don't you think?".
As for why it has been up for debate it is because the arguments put forth until oca2073's posts #40-42
were not very persuasive.
(e.g. "Scandinavians in Leopold's service committed atrocities in the Congo, therefore Scandinavians
in any colonial service in the Congo would have committed atrocities" and "These Scandinavians went
into Leopold's service and reached these positions, so they would have gone/stayed in Swedish-Norwegian
service and reached equivalent positions". Perhaps not the arguments you intended to make, but the ones
that came across as being made.)
Thank you.
I do not feel that is certain that Sweden-Norway would feel a strong need for a stronger navy. Seeing that neutrality would still be pursued by Sweden (who dominated foreign policy). Sweden was more oriented towards Germany than Britain, while Norway was more oriented towards Britain. At most you could see slightly more Anti-British sentiment in Sweden-Norway, but the country perhaps countries would still aim for neutrality.
It would probably be seen as part of the deal. Norway gets full independence, while Sweden gets to keep Congo as a colony. Part of the negotiations would probably relate to Norwegian business interests in Congo. Norwegians with interests in Congo might also be more in favor of continued union with Sweden than the rest of the population.
I'm trying to get the gist of what people are saying what would've happen to the Congo if Sweden-Norway got it instead of Belgium.
If the Swedish and Norwegians got it during the Scramble for Africa, they would still treat the native African tribes living in the region terribly, but probably not as bad as the Belgians did in OTL (though bad stuff would still happen during colonization regardless of what country takes over the Congo).
Once the Swedish-Norwegian Union dissolves in 1905, the Congo's ownership would be transferred over to Sweden, and would remain under Swedish control until the Congo becomes independent unless Sweden decides to sell off the colony to another European power sometime after 1905.
If the Swedish and Norwegians got it during the Scramble for Africa, they would still treat the native African tribes living in the region terribly, but probably not as bad as the Belgians did in OTL (though bad stuff would still happen during colonization regardless of what country takes over the Congo).
Once the Swedish-Norwegian Union dissolves in 1905, the Congo's ownership would be transferred over to Sweden, and would remain under Swedish control until the Congo becomes independent unless Sweden decides to sell off the colony to another European power sometime after 1905.
Why? Why would benign neglect tick off other Europeans? They could just make it a protectorate, let a local ruler worry about it.
Its motto and anthem would not be in French, presumably.
That would be one of the highest HDI in Sub-Saharan Africa. I would be surprised if it were that high.
I didn't see it, my bad.
also HDI is similar to South Africa, Congo would be better off if wasn't for King Leopold II
Last edited:
South Africa is a particular case, in which there was a large European settler population and the colonial government invested in infrastructure for them. That level of investment rarely happened in non-settler areas (including the black areas of South Africa), where the population was viewed as just cheap labor.
TiberiusCaesar
Banned
The Congo was private property of Leopold II who was the main cause of absolute misery and horror the Congolese experienced. The Belgium Government annexed it in 1908 after this brutal rule came to light.
Swedish-Norwegian rule will not be anything utopian. It won't be anything close to what Leopold II did, but there is no reason to think the Swedish-Norwegian rule will be an example how it should be.
The Congo will be a cashcow for Sweden-Norway. The colony is rich in resources and Stockholm will use it to their advantage. If the Norwegian independence isn't butterflied away, I expect Sweden to assumr control over the colony. I have seen some saying that the Social Democrats won't want it. Even if this is the case I don't see them abandoning The Congo in 5 years. At best, I expect them to "Prepare The Congo for Independence". Actual independence will likely take place in the 1940s, maybe early 1950s. Until then ther would be increased local participation in governing the colony.