Why didn't the Dutch get any land in Africa at the conference of berlin?

by I_Make_Crappy_Jokes

Hi. So it's a bit odd to me that the Dutch despite being a colonial power who had Dutch people already living in Africa they got nothing. They were the only western European colonial power that didn't have any colonies in Africa. I am aware the British had the cape colony and wouldn't give it up but they could have got lands in modern day Namibia or Botswana.

xBram

The Dutch already had Indonesia and Surinam and were not interested in colonizing Africa. They were nevertheless present at the conference and signed it but mainly to preserve free trade, especially in Congo where Dutch companies were already very active before Leopold’s claims on Congo. In fact the colorful Rotterdam merchant and fraudster Lodewijk Pincoffs is said to be the one who stirred Leopold’s interest in Congo and helped him with his expeditions (1). The Dutch government supported these commercial interests and Leopolds claim to Congo.

Sources: (1) Interview with historian Robbert Wiggers: https://www.hpdetijd.nl/2010-08-06/holland-in-de-congo/

Kooij, Anne Debora van - master thesis 2019 https://studenttheses.universiteitleiden.nl/handle/1887/75474

More Lodewijk Pincoffs: http://resources.huygens.knaw.nl/bwn1880-2000/lemmata/bwn1/pincoffs

Edited

NY17blue

Just as an added FYI contrary to popular belief the Berlin Conference in no way divided the continent up among the European powers.

You can read more from my own posts about this here and here.