Belgian Congo after a Belgian break-up

Kongo is celebrating the 50th anniversary of its independence. And Belgium still hasn't split despite eternal rumours. So I thought it would be fun to switch the facts.

What if Belgium broke up at a time when Belgian Congo still was Belgian? How would it have been divided? Would a Belgian break-up have fastened the independence of their African colony?
 
Hoo boy. Depends on when the split happens. Not only would that determine who the Congo goes to, it also effects just about everything else. Congo became Belgian shortly before WWI, in 1908 (prior to that it was an independent state and personal possession of Leopold); Belgium breaking up before the Great War is, to put it in polite terms, a fucking big deal. Breaking up after the War is a bit harder to do, since the war galvanised common national sentiment beyond simple ethnic lines.
 
I think the British would want some of it at least to connect Rhodesia to East Africa. The Germans would want to take the rest, but maybe the French? Didn't the French have preemption on the purchase of the Congo if Belgium couldn't handle it?
 
Breaking up after the War is a bit harder to do, since the war galvanised common national sentiment beyond simple ethnic lines.
Are you sure about that? I hear the Flemish are still angry about how they (or at least Flemish soldiers) were treated during the first world war.
I heard them quote "Pour les Flamands la même chose" a couple of time with a lot of anger.
 
Hmm, I didn't mention Congo in my last post. In case of a split Congo would probably go with Wallonia, as Belgium more or less was Wallonia up to the second world war. If Belgium is divided, it goes to that part that isn't France (or Germany, although I don't think Germany will end up with a Belgian part). So if Wallonia ends up French Congo goes to Flanders, if it remains independent or else the Netherlands if they annex Flanders.
 
It depends on the exact details really.

If both Flanders and Wallonia end up as independent nations, then it gets rather confusing.
I think though it would go to whichever side claimed it, and if both claimed it it would probably go to whichever one was in better standing with te Great Powers.

If one of the two joined France or the Netherlands while the other remained independent it would remain with the independent one.


Now, that all said, I think, regardless of the exacts of the split Britain and France may well come to a deal and just split it between themselves with the Eastern half going to Britain while France would get the Western half.
Germany might, if it plays its cards right and has a good negotiator, get a small bit of territory along its East African border.
 
In case of a split Congo would probably go with Wallonia, as Belgium more or less was Wallonia up to the second world war.

Wile this would be the logical choice, given Wallonian dominance in Belgium at the time, the problem is that Wallonia would have no domestic harbours at all. Quite a problem at the time.

If Belgium is divided, it goes to that part that isn't France (or Germany, although I don't think Germany will end up with a Belgian part). So if Wallonia ends up French Congo goes to Flanders, if it remains independent or else the Netherlands if they annex Flanders.

I agree alsmot fully. Almost since I believe that a split up of Belgium prior to WWI would imply French schemes to get Wallonia. And that would sooner or later require an international conference of the Great powers. In that conference, the future fate of Wallonia and Flandres will be discussed, including Congo. Obviously, that conference could get rather nasty. French Wallonia adds a substantial population, industrial base and ressources to France, so the Germans will opppose this fiercely.
 
WW1 seems exceedingly early for a Belgian break up, except perhaps in the case of a German victory - and even the Germans during the period of the Flamenpolitik were only lukewarm supporters of Flemish autonomism, even annulling the decision of the collaborationist Council of Flanders to declare Flanders' autonomy. By that time, the large majority of the Flemish movement still hoped for a realisation of its goals within a unitary Belgium - indeed, the complete bilingualism of Belgium remained the goal of most for a couple of more decades. And Walloon nationalism was still in its embryonic stage, still dominated by groups (often within Flanders, hence 'the false Walloon movement') hoping for a complete frenchification of Belgium rather than Walloon autonomy and independence.

The most likely case for a Belgian break during the time when Congo was still a Belgian colony, seems to be around 1950, if the Royal Question intensifies and leads up to Walloon separatism and the plan for a provisional Walloon government (lead by Joseph Merlot?) is put into action. It would still be a far shot, since I doubt that the US and the other western powers would welcome a left wing separatist government, despite the apparent belief of the separatists that they would be welcomed by France and the UK.

In that case, I could see Congo becoming a Flemish colony for a certain amount of time, as strange as it might seem today. Or rather: it could see it remain subjected to a Belgium, reduced (and perhaps renamed) to Flanders (including Brussels). After all, Wallonia separated, why should it take the colonies with in? Furthermore, conservative and clerical Flanders was, at that time, the stronghold of the monarchy and the catholic church, two institutions often credited with more power in Congo than the Ministry of Colonial Affairs.
However, I could also see these events as leading to an earlier intensification of Congolese nationalism, and thus an earlier Congolese indepencence.
 
The Belgian Congo was ran by the French speakers. Its all French down there, no Dutch.
So all the links back to home will be in the French population so...it goes with them.

The big, faulty assumption many are making here is that the two halves would want the Congo. This is iffy, its a big tax drain Belgium found themselves stuck with with due to their king's nasty buisness down there. Especially with a left wing government in power in Belgium they would want rid of it ASAP.

Perhaps a independant Congo could be on the boards from the get go- under joint British-French protection of course, to make sure there's no repeat of what happened last time it was independant.
 
The Belgian Congo was ran by the French speakers. Its all French down there, no Dutch.
So all the links back to home will be in the French population so...it goes with them.

Unless the 'People's Republic of Wallonia' is declared. :p
 
The Belgian Congo was ran by the French speakers. Its all French down there, no Dutch.
So all the links back to home will be in the French population so...it goes with them.

Indeed: it goes with them - them being the French speaking elite (bourgeoisie, monarchy, church) in Flanders, who would still be in charge in Flanders if a break up would occur in 1950. French speakers weren't limited to Wallonia.
 

ninebucks

Banned
Its possible that a new 'Free' State could be established, but obviously not under autocratic royal control, rather under publicly-traded private ownership. The Walloon and Flemmish élites would be able to buy their shares, as would British, French and American citizens.
 
Top