AHC: Congo-wank
- Thread starter mlp
- Start date
Deleted member 14881
maybe a strongman that is less corrupt than OTL's Mobutu could get to a Pakistani levels of Power if he can play his cards right.
What if the country(colony) was more industrialized/modernized than OTL? Would that help much? (my definition of industrialization/modernization: higher literacy rate, better infrastructural development)
Also, if you say "Pakistani" levels of development, does that include developing nuclear weapons?
Basically you need someone that realises as a dictator that skimming say 5-10% of a rapidly growing and developing economy is better than looting 50% of an economic basketcase. The Congo was IIRC stuffed with precious metals and minerals really only lacking decent sized deposits of oil, and that's fortuitously just over the border with Cabinda, which has a nicely murky status for any acquisitive types. It's not as though the US is going to pick a bunch of commies in Luanda over a stalwart ally of the West in Kinshasa.
I may be wrong, but wasn't Congo/Zaire the most industralized country in Sub-Saharan Africa in 1960?
It had certainly quite significant mining and transportation infrastructure, including railways - especially Katanga and South Kasai.
Perhaps a competent enough dictator, who is more interested in heavy industrialization (with USSR help, like in Ethiopia?), militarization and playing boss in the neighbourhood rather than being cleptocrate like Mobutu. While industralized Congo probably won't be able to keep it up for a very long time - like Ethiopia failed to do so - it might be just enough to allow the change of social structure in Congolese demographics and easier transition to post-industrial economy.
Of course you will need this dictator be stable and ruthless enough to squash ethnic dissent which is a challenge in itself.
It had certainly quite significant mining and transportation infrastructure, including railways - especially Katanga and South Kasai.
Perhaps a competent enough dictator, who is more interested in heavy industrialization (with USSR help, like in Ethiopia?), militarization and playing boss in the neighbourhood rather than being cleptocrate like Mobutu. While industralized Congo probably won't be able to keep it up for a very long time - like Ethiopia failed to do so - it might be just enough to allow the change of social structure in Congolese demographics and easier transition to post-industrial economy.
Of course you will need this dictator be stable and ruthless enough to squash ethnic dissent which is a challenge in itself.
yes, it was the most industralized country in central Africa, until Mobutu take over, in 1980 Zaire was merely a shadow of Belgium Congo...
Michael Van - what do you expect if the population of Congo/Zaire in 1960 had twelve people with higher education? Uneducated people are extremely susceptible to populist rhetoric and more keen on supporting cleptocrats who tell them pretty lies.
I think Mobutu can be butterflied away. The question is whether we can find a figure of Syngman Rhee's caliber to put the country in the right direction - perhaps not democratic from the start but at least stable.
Chirios said:
Chirios - That's a start. I don't know much about Lumumba other than a fact he was a bit on a socialist side. From what I remember he was quite a decent guy and a Congolese patriot.
Not trying to criticize. But as a Korean, it is least to say that South Korea under Rhee Syngman's rule was hellish chaos. Both pre-war and post-war. He simply sucked up the economic aid given by the United States to use it for reelection.
For stabilization, Chun Du-hwan would be most certainly a better choice. When Park Chung-hee died, everyone was very sure Kim il-sung would start another war; although in the most brutal ways, Chun Du-hwan stabilized the chaotic situation and kept North Korea in check.
Long story short, Chun is a better analogy than Rhee if stabilization is what matters.
Apologies then. I once heard a thesis that if Diem and junta after him in South Vietnam were at least as competent as Syngman Rhee we would still have South Vietnam today. I just aped the sentiment without really verifying it.
What I meant though is that South Korea emerged from economic agrarian basket case to one of the leading production centres in the 70's and 80's. I was looking for a way for DRC to replicate that success.
Of course Korea is a different beast altogether - it was an important strategic partner to USA, hence the military and financial aid. Also, Koreans hadn't had ethnic issues that DRC had and much more developed sense of nationalism which DRC lacked.
As you know by now I'm not an expert in Korea (I only skimmed Wiki articles about various coup d'etats and constitutional changes about a year ago) so apologies once again. If you have historic figure who would be better compared as a stabiliser and reformists then that is fine by me.
In any case, everything boils down to competent leadership. DRC has much raw potential due to ores and uranium, but lacks the educated population and institutional traditions to make use of them. That is why I think the most helpful would be some sort of visionary dictatorship with strong, influential and charismatic leader - as much as I dislike this type of governance myself. Give me British Civil Service over Conan the Barbarian any day!
GiantMonkeyMan
Banned
Lumumba was never really a socialist although as with all anti-colonialists of the era he ran in the same circles. The Belgians basically let the Congo be 'independent' but then expected everything to continue going on as it was before with some extra black stooges to smooth things over (ie, they basically wanted to keep exploiting the wealth and labour force of the nation without any issues). Lumumba and the MNC had no resources or money to put into practice the reforms they said they were going to do (the Belgians basically withheld any support) and were facing rebellious secessionist movements as well as a mutinous civil service and military. He turned first to the US to try and gain support in maintaining peace and building his vision of a free Congo but the US refused to help him. Then he turned to the Soviets who allowed him to air-lift some of his military to a particularly rebellious region. This pissed off the US and frightened the Belgians (who thought he'd probably go the route of Cuba and nationalise all foreign businesses, ie the mines) who then set about destroying his supporters and securing their interests by having him assassinated.
King Thomas
Banned
Have the Congo stay democratic like Botswana, one of the few African success stories.
But as GiantMonkeyMan said there was too much outside pressure for democratically elected president to stay in power. Basically Belgians want to exploit Congo and they need loyal lackeys who protect the status quo, not reformists. USA doesn't care as long as USSR stays out, but they won't help either.
And you still have secessionist movements who want piece of the pie which get arms and support from abroad.
And you still have secessionist movements who want piece of the pie which get arms and support from abroad.
sorry RosoMC, i have no information about higher education level in Congo or Zaire.
what i know is that Zaire drop very fast on Industrial production levels. although Belgium play a inglorious role in this drama.
Belgium Political and nobility, in combination of interest by heavy industry & union had there plans with Zaire
GiantMonkeyMan
Banned
I plotted out a rough timeline where timely intervention of Mobutu and Victor Lundula (the Chief of Staff at the time) kept the Leopoldville garrison from mutiny and Albert Kalonji died in a riot in Bakwanga, cutting the Kasai successionist movement in its tracks. Katanga then declares itself independent but Lumumba has a far stronger position with which to bargain from and moves to attack the Kantangans with his loyal army. Mobutu dies in the drive south, the Americans prop up the Katangans and the Soviets inevitably prop up Lumumba. A ceasefire is eventually called and then RoC and Katanga become the East and West Germany of Africa (ie, the US and the Soviets support their respective puppets as 'examples' of the success of their particular ideologies) and inevitably the change in politics in the region helps prop up other left-wing governments in africa and other reactionary governments in response.
I saw the Congo as being similar to a mix between the early Soviet Union and Chavez's Venezuela: mass drives for literacy and industrialisation to combat poverty coupled with some oppressive stuff to quell ethnic unrest and give the reactionaries their 'proof' at the ineptitude of the enemy.
I saw the Congo as being similar to a mix between the early Soviet Union and Chavez's Venezuela: mass drives for literacy and industrialisation to combat poverty coupled with some oppressive stuff to quell ethnic unrest and give the reactionaries their 'proof' at the ineptitude of the enemy.
How much positive effects would've there been if the Kongo River basin was colonized by nations other than Belgium? It seemed to be that, because the Congo became more or less King Leopold's personal property, the colony was more brutally exploited. What if the Congo basin had a higher literacy rate and such?
Congo at first wasn't colonised by Belgium at all. Congo Free State was king Leopold's personal property indeed, which he made profitable by ruthless exploitation.
It was actually Casement's Report on living conditions in Congo basin which caused a wave of outrage in Europe and forced Leopold to cede his control of Congo to Belgian state.
It was actually Casement's Report on living conditions in Congo basin which caused a wave of outrage in Europe and forced Leopold to cede his control of Congo to Belgian state.
Botswana had two advantages in this respect that the Congo lacked:
1/ A majority of the population belonged to one single ethnic group.
2/ Until the diamonds started being exploited, which didin't happen until quite a while after independence, there wasn't really anything worth stealing.