King Leopold's Scramble for Africa: Exploring the Dark History of Colonization - Essay Sample

The history of Africa's scramble is drenched in stories of diverse European countries laying plans and game moves to outsmart or rather outplay their rivals. Leopold II, king of Belgium, played a massive role in the colonization of Africa, in particular Congo. He hid behind the shield of stopping slavery in East Africa, buying the trust of most Europeans from whom he received funding. King Leopold held a Geographical conference on Central Arica, which constituted famous explorers with the main agenda of spreading European civilization and terminating the slave trade (Cleary). However, all this was some kind of cover-up, he was brutal and owned the colony of Congo while running it as a harsh business venture. He made the initial bold move into Africa's interior, thus awakening other Europeans in the imperial neighborhoods, thus leading to the scramble of Africa.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

How did he profit from the deaths of ten million Congolese?

Many certifiable atrocities in the Congo Free State were perpetrated under the personal rule of Leopold II. The atrocities were as a result of brutal killings, reduced birth rates, and epidemic diseases. The estimated 10 million deaths led to a sharp decrease in the population. It profited King Leopold II since he could easily control the remaining population, thus instilling forced labor that enabled the cheap production of Rubber while maximizing profits.

How was this case of European imperialism similar to that of the British in the Opium Wars? What was different about it?

This case of European imperialism is similar to that of the British in the two Opium Wars in that both cases aimed at maximizing the profit of their businesses. The killings in Congo and oppressive powers enhanced the cheap production of Rubber since the people worked relentlessly with their lives on the line. On the other hand, opium wars were all about the legalization of opium, thus fetching huge profits. However, these two cases differ since, for imperialism in Congo, it was between unequal partners that is the Congo population had no much say in the matter. While for the Opium wars were between influential Europeans that are British and Chinese.

Why do you think World War I was called by contemporaries the “War to end all Wars," and do you think it was a fitting title for the conflict?

The term "War to end all wars" originated from a title of a book that H.G. Wells wrote in 1914 after the break of the Great War. This phrase caught on, and people used it regularly while referring to World War I. President Woodrow Wilson used it at some point, giving it even more magnitude. I think contemporaries used this phrase to justify their engagement in the war. The Great War resulted in the death of nine million soldiers and wounding twenty-one million others (World War I ends). It also cleared out a million or more lives in the countries involved that is Germany, Russia, France, Great Britain, and Austria-Hungary. Therefore, I think that giving this brutal war this phrase was like attempting to make the fight look like it was worth it.

On the other hand, the contemporaries might have referred to the Great War as the "War to end all wars' because of the enormous damages and deaths that arose from it. Following this massive destruction, they hoped that it was the last war ever, thus calling it the war to end all wars. In my opinion, I do not think that it was a fitting title for the war. I perceive the label as imperialistic propaganda as World War I was not the end of all actions. The Treaty of Versailles forced some punitive terms on Germany in 1919, thus destabilizing Europe and laying the foundation for World War II.

What are a few of the ways that the Treaty of Versailles and the Great Depression planted the seeds for World War II?

The treaty of Versailles signified with Germany in the Paris Peace Conference aimed at enhancing peace after World War I. However, this treaty laid the groundwork in several ways for World War II. This treaty seemed to entirely blame Germany for the war incitation and charging it to compensate al the allied nations. It was unfair since other countries such as Austria-Hungary were also responsible for the war (Pruitt n.p). This treaty allowed for French's demand for Germany to pay a massive price for the Great War, constituting of loss of territory, demilitarization, and other compensation payments. The British perceived this treaty as a threat to the supremacy of Europe. Therefore, these factors led to the destabilizations of Europe.

Moreover, the Treaty of Versailles contributed to the great economic depression. With Germany having so many reparations to pay, it disrupted its economy, affecting the European economy. These reparations also resulted in financial woes and resentment in the general population. The great depression even and the massive drop in international trade gave way for Hitler's power hoping for revitalization.

Works Cited

“Armistice Day: World War I Ends.” History.com, A&E Television Networks, 10 Mar. 2010, www.history.com/this-day-in-history/world-war-i-ends.

Cleary, Vern. “Conquest of the Congo.” King Leopold and the Conquest of the Congo, webs.bcp.org/sites/vcleary/ModernWorldHistoryTextbook/Imperialism/section_6/kingleopold.html.

Pruitt, Sarah. “How the Treaty of Versailles and German Guilt Led to World War II.” History.com, A&E Television Networks, 29 June 2018, www.history.com/news/treaty-of-versailles-world-war-ii-german-guilt-effects.