Leopold's Congo

[JodelDiplom]

ugh, I hate that every time I try to explain that belgium had nothing to say in the congo free state I sound like I'm a pedantic apologist who's trying to weasel out from under "responsibility and fault"

anyway, after belgium apropriated the congo free state (highly illegal move btw, even today) the atrocities were toned down to the level of a normal colony (still not ok though)

Leopold was your king, yes he didn't rule the Congo via the Belgian state institutions but his actions as an individual could have been (and should have been) scrutinized by the Belgians. The Belgian parliament could at any time have required him to put the free state under Belgian state authority, and he would not have had any way to avoid this. He couldn't just lay down his crown and keep the Congo, he knew that and everyone knows that. His ability to be lord of a Congo free state depended on him being head of state of Belgium, as no other colonial power would have respected the free state if it were a private enterprise owned by some nobody or an abdicated ex monarch.
He could not continue this if the Belgians took issue with it. Which they didn't.

Accept the responsibility

 

[Acheron]

ugh, I hate that every time I try to explain that belgium had nothing to say in the congo free state I sound like I'm a pedantic apologist who's trying to weasel out from under "responsibility and fault"

Is this a good time to mention that Hitler was Austrian?

 

[Kurfürst]

ugh, I hate that every time I try to explain that belgium had nothing to say in the congo free state I sound like I'm a pedantic apologist who's trying to weasel out from under "responsibility and fault"

anyway, after belgium apropriated the congo free state (highly illegal move btw, even today) the atrocities were toned down to the level of a normal colony (still not ok though)

While Belgium had nothing to say in the day-to-day business of the Free State, saying that therefore nothing could be done is a bit too evasive, IMO.

The main offices of the Free State were in Antwerp IIRC, the main body of administrators and officers came from francophone Belgian population, and so on, and so forth. The Free State had a very safe haven in Belgium, and some Belgians profitted handsomely. Be it directly from work for the Free State, or from bribes, or indirectly, via Leopold's opulent spending of Free State profits on his royal residences in Belgium. There were a LOT of thing that could have been done. Ousting the company from the country, prohibiting recruitment in Belgium, prohibiting investments into shares and companies tied with the Free State...

Instead, Belgian estabilishment (along with pretty much all the other european governments, to be fair) chose to deliberately ignore the reports about atrocities in Congo for 20 years, until enough bad press leaked and enough embarassment was suffered, that something had to be done.

And what was done wasn't appropriation. Leopold II sold his Free State shares to Belgium for way more than their current market value, in his last act of greedy spite. If he tried to keep the shares, he might have to abdicate the throne and/or the Free State would go bankrupt from boycotts, but there was no appropriation or nationalisation. There was a negotiated sale, where both sides gave some ground and agreed on a compromise. Leopold bled the Congo for everything it was worth and then sold the pillaged desert to Belgium, who wanted to buy it to try to cover up the embarassment of genocidal profiteering slavery of its monarch. I don't see anything illegal with the trade. If we omit the whole private state and slavery and genocide and such, of course.

I can recommend King Leopold's Ghost by Adam Hochschild. Chilling read. Puts the Belgian attempts at proffessing innocence into perspective.

 

[cpreston5]

ugh, I hate that every time I try to explain that belgium had nothing to say in the congo free state I sound like I'm a pedantic apologist who's trying to weasel out from under "responsibility and fault"

anyway, after belgium apropriated the congo free state (highly illegal move btw, even today) the atrocities were toned down to the level of a normal colony (still not ok though)

The problem with this line of reasoning is that it seems like a way for any country to weasel out of any atrocity it committed in a period before full political representation.

For example, why should Britain today - a country which is (on paper) a democratic state with full suffrage - assume any responsibility for actions committed in the 19th century when perhaps less than 10% of the people could vote? 90% of Britons had nothing to do with policy when the Opium Wars or Great Famine happened. The East India Company could also be argued to have conquered India, not Britain. Does that mean that the British state today can just wash its hands of these things?

I don't think so. Nor do I think individual Belgians or Britons need to feel guilty about the Congo or Ireland or India, but in Belgium's case I think it would be healthy to acknowledge that one of the greatest horrors of the 19th century was carried-out by a king who derived his power and status from the Kingdom of Belgium, and that it was enabled and administered by Belgians.

 

[demanvanwezel]

Leopold was your king, yes he didn't rule the Congo via the Belgian state institutions but his actions as an individual could have been (and should have been) scrutinized by the Belgians. The Belgian parliament could at any time have required him to put the free state under Belgian state authority, and he would not have had any way to avoid this. He couldn't just lay down his crown and keep the Congo, he knew that and everyone knows that. His ability to be lord of a Congo free state depended on him being head of state of Belgium, as no other colonial power would have respected the free state if it were a private enterprise owned by some nobody or an abdicated ex monarch.
He could not continue this if the Belgians took issue with it. Which they didn't.

Accept the responsibility

the government can't just take away foreign property of belgian citizens (there are of course ways to do this of domestic property if it's in common and according to the law he ought to have been counted as such
, like I said presuring leopold to sign over the congo was highly illegal

btw no-one who spoke dutch had anything to say in the congo ever, so no even with your reasonings

also this all happened prior to WW1, according to the congress of berlin the division of africa was set in stone (and germany didn't want france to own congo and france didn't want the british to own it and the british didn't want the portugese to own it) so him being king of the belgians had nothing to with it

Is this a good time to mention that Hitler was Austrian?

yes, that's exactly how that sounds

While Belgium had nothing to say in the day-to-day business of the Free State, saying that therefore nothing could be done is a bit too evasive, IMO.

The main offices of the Free State were in Antwerp IIRC, the main body of administrators and officers came from francophone Belgian population, and so on, and so forth. The Free State had a very safe haven in Belgium, and some Belgians profitted handsomely. Be it directly from work for the Free State, or from bribes, or indirectly, via Leopold's opulent spending of Free State profits on his royal residences in Belgium. There were a LOT of thing that could have been done. Ousting the company from the country, prohibiting recruitment in Belgium, prohibiting investments into shares and companies tied with the Free State...

Instead, Belgian estabilishment (along with pretty much all the other european governments, to be fair) chose to deliberately ignore the reports about atrocities in Congo for 20 years, until enough bad press leaked and enough embarassment was suffered, that something had to be done.

And what was done wasn't appropriation. Leopold II sold his Free State shares to Belgium for way more than their current market value, in his last act of greedy spite. If he tried to keep the shares, he might have to abdicate the throne and/or the Free State would go bankrupt from boycotts, but there was no appropriation or nationalisation. There was a negotiated sale, where both sides gave some ground and agreed on a compromise. Leopold bled the Congo for everything it was worth and then sold the pillaged desert to Belgium, who wanted to buy it to try to cover up the embarassment of genocidal profiteering slavery of its monarch. I don't see anything illegal with the trade. If we omit the whole private state and slavery and genocide and such, of course.

I can recommend King Leopold's Ghost by Adam Hochschild. Chilling read. Puts the Belgian attempts at proffessing innocence into perspective.

this is the 19th century mate, politicians don't mess with companies even if they personally dislike those companies
also the catholic church was repressing the reports and you don't drive against the cart of the catholic church in 19th century belgium
and sure, he spend a lot of money in the country, you don't say no to money, that's insane and it's even more insane to insinuate that makes one culpable for how that money was earned, someone selling luxury cars doesn't become guilty of bank robbery if the money used to buy acar was stolen

also plenty of british, americans and scandinavians in the ranks, the congo free state was an international venture

well yes, it was apropriation, under pressure from foreign powers the belgian government forced leopold to sell the colony which he previously didn't want to do, do you think the government should just have the power to take away property for free or dictate the price? remember under belgian law he had done nothing wrong

The problem with this line of reasoning is that it seems like a way for any country to weasel out of any atrocity it committed in a period before full political representation.

For example, why should Britain today - a country which is (on paper) a democratic state with full suffrage - assume any responsibility for actions committed in the 19th century when perhaps less than 10% of the people could vote? 90% of Britons had nothing to do with policy when the Opium Wars or Great Famine happened. The East India Company could also be argued to have conquered India, not Britain. Does that mean that the British state today can just wash its hands of these things?

I don't think so. Nor do I think individual Belgians or Britons need to feel guilty about the Congo or Ireland or India, but in Belgium's case I think it would be healthy to acknowledge that one of the greatest horrors of the 19th century was carried-out by a king who derived his power and status from the Kingdom of Belgium, and that it was enabled and administered by Belgians.

1) yes, what sense does it make to blame someone who could do nothing about it? (also I'm against this "blaming of countries", individuals did those things, iin,dividuals should get the blame)
2) stronger, 100% of britons today didn't have anything to say during the opium wars and indeed india falls square on the shoulders of the east-india company (up untill the buy-out after the sepoy rebelllion)
3) ok, you're a statesman in 19th century belgium, how would you handle the situation without going over the boundaries of the law?
4) also plenty of british, americans and scandinavians, it's a myth that the congo free state was a pure belgian institution

 

[demanvanwezel]

also while I'm going in: the death toll of the free congo is exagerated, the way it was calculated was that someone sailed down the congo river and counted all the villages he found and extrapolated that density to the entire country, that's like sailing down the US coastline and declaring that something terrible must have happened here because kansas exists

also this might be a good time for this: I'm against the congo free state, monarchism, the catholic church and belgium but I'm a big fan of truth, I'd do the same thing if someone were to claim hitler killed 10 million jews, I'm not on hitler's side when I point out it's 6 million, I'm on the side of truth and truth trumps all

 

[Kurfürst]

this is the 19th century mate, politicians don't mess with companies even if they personally dislike those companies
also the catholic church was repressing the reports and you don't drive against the cart of the catholic church in 19th century belgium
and sure, he spend a lot of money in the country, you don't say no to money, that's insane and it's even more insane to insinuate that makes one culpable for how that money was earned, someone selling luxury cars doesn't become guilty of bank robbery if the money used to buy acar was stolen

Excuses, excuses, excuses. Yes, doing something would have been difficult. No, doing nothing wasn't defensible even then. See actual historical outcome, when belgian politicians actually started to care, the matter was wrapped up in a couple years.

As for the money, I don't quite agree. I don't hold the carpenter building a greenhouse in castle Laeken culpable. But the people who sent the munitions over and who actually shot at the locals and took bribes in exchange for favourable press should absolutely get their share of scorn. To go back to your example, selling a luxury car to a suspect gentleman is fine, I think. Helping him legalize his proceeds from a bank robery via creative accounting is not OK anymore.

also plenty of british, americans and scandinavians in the ranks, the congo free state was an international venture

Eh, the language of administration was french, most of the head honchos were francophone Belgians, the profits from international concessions ended up in the Free State coffers. The movers and shakers were francophone Belgians and the moving and shaking was done in Belgium.

well yes, it was apropriation, under pressure from foreign powers the belgian government forced leopold to sell the colony which he previously didn't want to do, do you think the government should just have the power to take away property for free or dictate the price? remember under belgian law he had done nothing wrong

Definition of appropriation. I assume we're talking about the third definition: to take or make use of without authority or right. I disagree that Belgium forced Leopold to sell.

Leopold was free to keep his shares of the Free State. He would have probably been forced to abdicate, for sure. And the Free State was going bankrupt, as he knew, since he had the books at his disposal*. The competition of rubber plantation in Malaya and South America undercut rubber prices, thus killing pretty much the only way how the slave-driven economy of Free State could be profitable in the short term. Any other economic activity would require investments before turning a profit, which was anathema to Leopold. He probably knew the shares were going to be worthless in a short while. So he did the most profitable thing and gouged his country for the last bit of profit he could get from the Congo. By selling the soon-to-be-worthless shares to people who didn't know, and who wanted them for their own reasons badly enough to overpay.

To reiterate, Leopold wasn't forced to sell. He was pressured, that is for sure, but he had a choice. So, no appropriation took place in my book.

*btw, Belgium didn't get to see the books of the Free State before the sale. They didn't know that Free State was losing money and that if they waited for a bit, the whole edifice would probably collapse in a spectacular bankruptcy. Which wouldn't touch Leopold personally, of course, because he had siphoned off all the assets in dividends and share sales and such. The books were kept a state secret in Belgium for some time and then, a majority was burned. To protect the responsible public figures. Details can be foung in King Leopold's Ghost by Adam Hochschild. I'll have a look when I get home, if you're interested

 

[Kurfürst]

also while I'm going in: the death toll of the free congo is exagerated, the way it was calculated was that someone sailed down the congo river and counted all the villages he found and extrapolated that density to the entire country, that's like sailing down the US coastline and declaring that something terrible must have happened here because kansas exists

also this might be a good time for this: I'm against the congo free state, monarchism, the catholic church and belgium but I'm a big fan of truth, I'd do the same thing if someone were to claim hitler killed 10 million jews, I'm not on hitler's side when I point out it's 6 million, I'm on the side of truth and truth trumps all

Yep, truth matters. That's why it's a very bad look to try to relativize and whitewash the complicity of Belgian estabilishment in the Free State crimes

For the death toll, I've seen estimates ranging from 5 to 15 million dead during the 20 year period of Free State rule. The problem is a lack of documentation, because much of the death toll was indirect, from exposure and overwork and hunger and disruption of local economies. Do you have a different estimate?

 

[JodelDiplom]

the government can't just take away foreign property of belgian citizens (there are of course ways to do this of domestic property if it's in common and according to the law he ought to have been counted as such
, like I said presuring leopold to sign over the congo was highly illegal

btw no-one who spoke dutch had anything to say in the congo ever, so no even with your reasonings

also this all happened prior to WW1, according to the congress of berlin the division of africa was set in stone (and germany didn't want france to own congo and france didn't want the british to own it and the british didn't want the portugese to own it) so him being king of the belgians had nothing to with it


yes, that's exactly how that sounds



this is the 19th century mate, politicians don't mess with companies even if they personally dislike those companies
also the catholic church was repressing the reports and you don't drive against the cart of the catholic church in 19th century belgium
and sure, he spend a lot of money in the country, you don't say no to money, that's insane and it's even more insane to insinuate that makes one culpable for how that money was earned, someone selling luxury cars doesn't become guilty of bank robbery if the money used to buy acar was stolen

also plenty of british, americans and scandinavians in the ranks, the congo free state was an international venture

well yes, it was apropriation, under pressure from foreign powers the belgian government forced leopold to sell the colony which he previously didn't want to do, do you think the government should just have the power to take away property for free or dictate the price? remember under belgian law he had done nothing wrong



1) yes, what sense does it make to blame someone who could do nothing about it? (also I'm against this "blaming of countries", individuals did those things, iin,dividuals should get the blame)
2) stronger, 100% of britons today didn't have anything to say during the opium wars and indeed india falls square on the shoulders of the east-india company (up untill the buy-out after the sepoy rebelllion)
3) ok, you're a statesman in 19th century belgium, how would you handle the situation without going over the boundaries of the law?

The king is not a private citizen, his choice of activity, property, publicly voiced opinions, and even whom he are matters of state interest. The law on these matters has to follow state interest, not considerations about what a random private citizen should / could be burdened with.


To pretend otherwise is to play dumb

 

[Yakman]

I can recommend King Leopold's Ghost by Adam Hochschild. Chilling read. Puts the Belgian attempts at proffessing innocence into perspective.

really good book. if i ever have time, i might read it again.

 

[Acheron]

The Wehrmacht's soldier swore an oath to serve Hitler. I would guess that the soldiers of Imperial Germany swore oaths to their respective princes.

Therefor, I would like to argue that Germany should not be held responsible for the actions by the forces almost exclusively compromised of Germans and sustained by Germany (or whatever was robbed locally) and instead attribute all blame to whatever douchey private person the oath was taken for.

For something totally unrelated, did Leauven rebuild its library or did they finally get the hint?

 

[demanvanwezel]

Excuses, excuses, excuses. Yes, doing something would have been difficult. No, doing nothing wasn't defensible even then. See actual historical outcome, when belgian politicians actually started to care, the matter was wrapped up in a couple years.

yes, but what they did was illegal and corrupt, personally I'm better of when people try to at least stick to within the baundaries of the law and only resort to illegal means as a last resort, especially when they're the government

As for the money, I don't quite agree. I don't hold the carpenter building a greenhouse in castle Laeken culpable. But the people who sent the munitions over and who actually shot at the locals and took bribes in exchange for favourable press should absolutely get their share of scorn. To go back to your example, selling a luxury car to a suspect gentleman is fine, I think. Helping him legalize his proceeds from a bank robery via creative accounting is not OK anymore.

then you're still only guilty of fraud, not bankrobbery, you're only guilty of the laws you personally break (or directly order someone to break) and ought to bear the responsibility for only that

Eh, the language of administration was french, most of the head honchos were francophone Belgians, the profits from international concessions ended up in the Free State coffers. The movers and shakers were francophone Belgians and the moving and shaking was done in Belgium.

lingua franca, everyone spoke french in those days, or at least everyone who was someone, hell, the first governor-general there was british
it also doesn't stand up that if the majority of the guys in charge where belgian then belgium was in charge, the belgian government had authority over it's own territory and had nothing to say about what corporations do in other countries
if someone does something that's a crime in belgium in another country where it isn't a crime then belgium doesn't have a leg to stand on

Definition of appropriation. I assume we're talking about the third definition: to take or make use of without authority or right. I disagree that Belgium forced Leopold to sell.

Leopold was free to keep his shares of the Free State. He would have probably been forced to abdicate, for sure. And the Free State was going bankrupt, as he knew, since he had the books at his disposal*. The competition of rubber plantation in Malaya and South America undercut rubber prices, thus killing pretty much the only way how the slave-driven economy of Free State could be profitable in the short term. Any other economic activity would require investments before turning a profit, which was anathema to Leopold. He probably knew the shares were going to be worthless in a short while. So he did the most profitable thing and gouged his country for the last bit of profit he could get from the Congo. By selling the soon-to-be-worthless shares to people who didn't know, and who wanted them for their own reasons badly enough to overpay.

To reiterate, Leopold wasn't forced to sell. He was pressured, that is for sure, but he had a choice. So, no appropriation took place in my book.

*btw, Belgium didn't get to see the books of the Free State before the sale. They didn't know that Free State was losing money and that if they waited for a bit, the whole edifice would probably collapse in a spectacular bankruptcy. Which wouldn't touch Leopold personally, of course, because he had siphoned off all the assets in dividends and share sales and such. The books were kept a state secret in Belgium for some time and then, a majority was burned. To protect the responsible public figures. Details can be foung in King Leopold's Ghost by Adam Hochschild. I'll have a look when I get home, if you're interested

getting someoine to sell you something they don't want to sell or otherwise there will be concequences is forcing someone to sell, everything else is just wordplay, there was no legal precedent for abdication at the time (we'd have to wait for leopold III for that)
also using presure on someone is corruption and heavily frowned upon here

also yes, the fact that the congo free state was in bad papers and leopold was heavily in debt doesn't change anything about that fact

Yep, truth matters. That's why it's a very bad look to try to relativize and whitewash the complicity of Belgian estabilishment in the Free State crimes

For the death toll, I've seen estimates ranging from 5 to 15 million dead during the 20 year period of Free State rule. The problem is a lack of documentation, because much of the death toll was indirect, from exposure and overwork and hunger and disruption of local economies. Do you have a different estimate?

belgians had something to do with it, individuals, the government had no authority over the congo free state, just like they had no authority over luxembourgh or the netherlands
it's the 10 million number that was calculated that way, I don't know how the others were calculated
the truth is that we're never going to find out how many people died in the congo free state because we have no idea how many people lived there prior to the congo free state and no way to find out
but this might be controversial: I don't believe in massacre olympics or "who's the most evil man"-tournaments, from the moment your kill count rises above a certain number you get thrown into the same pot as everyone else above that number (I currently don't know where that number lies somewhere)

The king is not a private citizen, his choice of activity, property, publicly voiced opinions, and even whom he are matters of state interest. The law on these matters has to follow state interest, not considerations about what a random private citizen should / could be burdened with.


To pretend otherwise is to play dumb

in most matters indeed yes but not in the context of foreign property, the king is not lesser then an average citizen beause he's the king

if the president has a house in a foreign country does that mean that the country own that house and can take it away whenever they want?

The Wehrmacht's soldier swore an oath to serve Hitler. I would guess that the soldiers of Imperial Germany swore oaths to their respective princes.

Therefor, I would like to argue that Germany should not be held responsible for the actions by the forces almost exclusively compromised of Germans and sustained by Germany (or whatever was robbed locally) and instead attribute all blame to whatever douchey private person the oath was taken for.

For something totally unrelated, did Leauven rebuild its library or did they finally get the hint?

I don't know exactly what imperial germans swore oaths too (I suspect it was a combnation of country, kaiser and people) but I do know that nazi germany soldiers swearing only on hitler was considered unusual (which is why the current german military oath only mentions germany and the german people but not the government)

well here's the funny thing about orders: if you say to soldiers "go and murder everyone in that town" then you're responsible for that town's destruction, if you only say "secure that town" and your soldiers interpret that as "murder everyone there" then they're responsible for that and not you
you're only ever responsible for what you do, not what somebody else does

also they probably rebuild the library, I don't know, I don't go to leuven, I'm not a student there

 

[JodelDiplom]

in most matters indeed yes but not in the context of foreign property, the king is not lesser then an average citizen beause he's the king

if the president has a house in a foreign country does that mean that the country own that house and can take it away whenever they want?

If the German president tomorrow buys a mansion on Russian occupied Crimea, you bet they'll take away either his mansion, or (more likely) he'll lose his job!! There are a lot of things you just can't do as chief representative of a nation. Or rather: There are things, that any self respecting nation would not tolerate its privileged leadership doing.

But yes, I forgot, we were talking about Belgium, not a real nation

 

[demanvanwezel]

If the German president tomorrow buys a mansion on Russian occupied Crimea, you bet they'll take away either his mansion, or (more likely) he'll lose his job!! There are a lot of things you just can't do as chief representative of a nation. Or rather: There are things, that any self respecting nation would not tolerate its privileged leadership doing.

But yes, I forgot, we were talking about Belgium, not a real nation

would you support them doing the same to any other citizen?
also what would be the legal reason given to force his abdication or is this just a spur of the moment "screw the law, I want him gone"-thing?

edit: also would you allow the russian government to take away property of russian citizens in germany?

 

[Kurfürst]

Leopold the private citizen used the prestige and assets of Leopold the King of Belgium, who was coincidentally the same person, to acquire huge personal wealth. And in the process, an indeterminable amount of somewhere between 5 and 15 million people died. Sounds fair enough?

If Leopold weren't King of Belgium, nobody would entertain his BS about International African Association or International Association of the Congo. He would have been laughed out of any conferences. If you think, that Leopold the genocidal slaveholding private citizen can be completely decoupled from Leopold the King of Belgium, you are deluded.

getting someoine to sell you something they don't want to sell or otherwise there will be concequences is forcing someone to sell, everything else is just wordplay, there was no legal precedent for abdication at the time (we'd have to wait for leopold III for that)
also using presure on someone is corruption and heavily frowned upon here
also yes, the fact that the congo free state was in bad papers and leopold was heavily in debt doesn't change anything about that fact

BS. Selling your distillery, or else you would be removed as the head of local temperance league, is also pressure. The king is a head of state, and if his conduct is found unbecoming in a constitutional monarchy, the parliament is fully within its rights to censure or remove the king. You yourself have said, that exactly that happened with Leopold III later. He did nothing illegal, but his conduct during the Nazi occupation was iffy, so he removed himself under pressure. Leopold II did nothing illegal, but his genocidal greedy profiteering slaver empire was iffy, so if he weren't willing to give it up, he would be removed. Done and done, no nationalisations, no illegal torture squads, just some gentlemen negotiating a deal.

belgians had something to do with it, individuals, the government had no authority over the congo free state, just like they had no authority over luxembourgh or the netherlands

Important Belgians, who were part of the government, were bribed by blood money from the Free State. Others knew and did nothing.

it's the 10 million number that was calculated that way, I don't know how the others were calculated
the truth is that we're never going to find out how many people died in the congo free state because we have no idea how many people lived there prior to the congo free state and no way to find out

What is the standard of evidence you would accept then? Considering that the people who died didn't leave written records and the people who killed didn't give a damn about noting how many have died. If it were 6 891 258 people or 14 755 239 people will, sadly, probably never be known. Leopold nevertheless is, was and always will be a horrible POS.

As you yourself have said, exactly how many have died doesn't really matter for Leopold's status as the worst, scummiest scum of the earth. But his enablers in Belgian estabilishment should be named and shamed as well. Catholic church should be dragged through the mud. All the politicians, that did nothing for 20 years of Free State's reign of terror, and then suddenly found out, that they can do something after all, should have their legacy rewritten to reflect the truth of their actions. All the businessmen, who bought the rubber from the Free State, should be named and shamed. The abuses commited were egregious even by the 19th century standards, as evidenced by the cartoon on the last page.

As for the bits of your post I haven't quoted, I disagree emphatically. But I have already presented my arguments and I don't feel like going in circles.

 

[Jopa79]

Is this a good time to mention that Hitler was Austrian?

Yes, it’s always a good time to remember that.

 

[TheFlemishDuck]

also while I'm going in: the death toll of the free congo is exagerated, the way it was calculated was that someone sailed down the congo river and counted all the villages he found and extrapolated that density to the entire country, that's like sailing down the US coastline and declaring that something terrible must have happened here because kansas exists

I don't think it's nessecarily so exagerated, however i think it's important in that aspect to understand what happened to create such carnage. Someone once claimed this number to be nonsense because "belgian army couldn't logisticly murder (first hand) so many people", but i doubt that it would be nessecarily to do it that way.

As i understand it the crucial issue was this: the congolese people of that time were by the very large majority if not almost exclusivly hunter gatherers or subsistence farmers, which meant that on the whole very few food surplusses were produced by the Congolese people at the time, people were just occupied pretty much to gather or grow the food they needed to have to eat. And then the Congo had plenty of rubber, but where do you get the labour force to gather it in such a situation? I guess there was this alternative to invest in the country so that it would produce sufficient food surpluss to sustain an large rubber gathering workforce but that would have costed a lot i presume in investments and time. The alternative option was to force large amounts of natives at any time to gather rubber thereby not allowing the natives the time they needed to provide for their own food source which could easily cause malnutrition and starvation. Instant profit for leopold though. Heck, why even provide much food to the soldiers if they can plunder the few reserves these natives would have had? Doing it this way, by causing mass famine and starvation, is not nessecarily a very hard way to cause the death of millions even in a relative short time period, something the Brits iirc found out in India aswell.

anyway, after belgium apropriated the congo free state (highly illegal move btw, even today) the atrocities were toned down to the level of a normal colony (still not ok though)

Yes there is that narative that after Leopold II the Belgian state managed the Congo "better", admittingly there was hardly much opportunity to do worse anyway i guess. I kinda dislike that narrative because it quite distracts away from some other episode's where Belgium should imho should be ashamed about if not for a form of neokolonialsm that practicly continue's to this day. Our involvement with the Lumumba affair hardly paints such a nice picture, and while a bloody civil war ensured for decades in more modern times Antwerp was just aswell know as being the "blood diamond capital of the world". Diamonds were traded for guns and the further destabilization for the country likely enriched a lot of Belgian players even further.