Belgian Congo after CP Victory

[Broz]

so in an alternate WWI Central powers are victorious, most of Belgium is annexed and hundreds of thousands of Belgians, including most of the military command, the royal family, etc, flee to parts of Congo still under Belgian control

what could be expected?
and how would history remember the Belgians, especially since there would probably be no Nazis in this timeline

 

[Riain]

Not too flash I'd imagine, without an industrialised homeland to impose their will onto the Congolese with the Belgians would probably end up like the Rhodesians.

Another possibility is Belgium ceeding the Congo to Germany in exchange for independence.

 

[jacobus]

Very interesting! I admire Belgium a lot. They're a steadfast ally. And the Belgians and my own country have always been friendly (except, I'm sorry to say, during Operation Iraqi Freedom). Regrettably, though, they were very brutal in their treatment of the Congolese people, like all colonialists. There might have been a massive uprising, as soon as the Congolese realized that the great influx of Belgian people meant that the colonists intended to stay and rule the Congo permanently. This revolt would have been bloodily suppressed by superior European military organization and technology. But would this have settled the issue permanently? You can't treat an occupied country the way the Belgians did and not have recurring revolts by the subject population.
I think most of the problem was the contemptuous European attitude towards Africans. If they had treated them with a bit more decency and respect, and allowed them to be educated, things might have gone more smoothly.
The Belgians would have done well to apply the principle of divide and rule. Recruit members of the more martial ethnicities (those who were amenable to military discipline) into the Popular Force, as they did in OTL, and cross-ship them, to deal with rebellion in different parts of the Congo, deploying Lari troops to put down rebellion by the Batetelas, just to illustrate. They would be helped by the fact that nationhood was a foreign idea to the Congolese; they still identified themselves by ethnicity and language.
In OTL, the Belgians eventually gave up and accepted Congolese independence, although they still tried to control the country through local puppets. But if the Belgian colonists had had no homeland to go back to, they would have had to have held on to the Congo at all costs. It would have been a much more bloody and savage fight.

 

[Nietzsche]

Very interesting! I admire Belgium a lot. They're a steadfast ally. And the Belgians and my own country have always been friendly (except, I'm sorry to say, during Operation Iraqi Freedom). Regrettably, though, they were very brutal in their treatment of the Congolese people, like all colonialists. There might have been a massive uprising, as soon as the Congolese realized that the great influx of Belgian people meant that the colonists intended to stay and rule the Congo permanently. This revolt would have been bloodily suppressed by superior European military organization and technology. But would this have settled the issue permanently? You can't treat an occupied country the way the Belgians did and not have recurring revolts by the subject population.
I think most of the problem was the contemptuous European attitude towards Africans. If they had treated them with a bit more decency and respect, and allowed them to be educated, things might have gone more smoothly.
The Belgians would have done well to apply the principle of divide and rule. Recruit members of the more martial ethnicities (those who were amenable to military discipline) into the Popular Force, as they did in OTL, and cross-ship them, to deal with rebellion in different parts of the Congo, deploying Lari troops to put down rebellion by the Batetelas, just to illustrate. They would be helped by the fact that nationhood was a foreign idea to the Congolese; they still identified themselves by ethnicity and language.
In OTL, the Belgians eventually gave up and accepted Congolese independence, although they still tried to control the country through local puppets. But if the Belgian colonists had had no homeland to go back to, they would have had to have held on to the Congo at all costs. It would have been a much more bloody and savage fight.

Er. I doubt that. I'm pretty sure the Congo will be taken by Germany.

 

[yourworstnightmare]

Yup, Germany was much more interrested in Congo than in European Belgium. Germany would have annexed Congo to it's Mittelsafrikan Empire. Belgium would also have lost the Liege area, but been able to hold on to the rest of their nation.

 

[Jarrod]

WELL

Some interesting piece, my great grandparents were from Belgium, they were Flemmish and Wallon, anyway, they went to Congo in the 1930's and at one point there was like 60 000-100 000 White Belgians in Congo and eventualy White Congolese.

My great grandmother said that Leopoldville (Kinshasa) was a beautiful city and it was like Cape Town. Thw whites treated the blacks very badly, but back then that was the norm, So i think that if the Royals and a lot of the white belgians fled to Congo, they would have invested a lot of money into the congo, and it would have become a very wealthy nation, something like South Africa.

Whites would continue to rule the government up until the 1980's 0r 1990's until a black majority government could take over. the Democratic Kingdom of Congo (DKC) would be the most powerful country in Africa, rather than South Africa. Probably with King Albert II as head of State and Laurent Kabila as PM


Belgians are proud people, they would NEVER give up a hard earned colony to Germany.

 

[Nietzsche]

Some interesting piece, my great grandparents were from Belgium, they were Flemmish and Wallon, anyway, they went to Congo in the 1930's and at one point there was like 60 000-100 000 White Belgians in Congo and eventualy White Congolese.

My great grandmother said that Leopoldville (Kinshasa) was a beautiful city and it was like Cape Town. Thw whites treated the blacks very badly, but back then that was the norm, So i think that if the Royals and a lot of the white belgians fled to Congo, they would have invested a lot of money into the congo, and it would have become a very wealthy nation, something like South Africa.

Whites would continue to rule the government up until the 1980's 0r 1990's until a black majority government could take over. the Democratic Kingdom of Congo (DKC) would be the most powerful country in Africa, rather than South Africa. Probably with King Albert II as head of State and Laurent Kabila as PM


Belgians are proud people, they would NEVER give up a hard earned colony to Germany.

Your nationalism appears to be clouding your view. Belgium can't fight the Germans. Once they defeat France, Britain will fork over the Congo to end the war. Belgium will lose Liege and the Congo, and probably gain French Flanders(Nord-de-Calais) in return.

 

[Anneessens]

Nietzsche's right. Belgium can't fight Germany. Even if the entire Belgian regime fled to Congo, I can't see them holding on to it for very long. Why would the victorious Central Powers let them have it? Heck, why would any power allow them to consolidate their regime? My guess is that the defeated allies would drop their support of the Belgian regime in Congo as part of a peace deal with the Central Powers.

Of course, much depends on what kind of victory this is for the CP, but still...

Some interesting piece, my great grandparents were from Belgium, they were Flemmish and Wallon, anyway, they went to Congo in the 1930's and at one point there was like 60 000-100 000 White Belgians in Congo and eventualy White Congolese.

I believe the peak of Belgian presence was in the late fifties, and even then there were 80 000 of them at best. The Belgian government for most of the colonial era strongly discouraged (if not forbade) settlement in Congo. The near totality of Belgians in Congo were either temporary colonial officials, temporary high-skilled labourers (and supervisors, etc...) and clergy. Long-term settlement was mostly out of the question, partly because it was believed that the presence of poorer, unskilled or elderly whites would cause the natives to question white man's superiority.

My great grandmother said that Leopoldville (Kinshasa) was a beautiful city and it was like Cape Town. Thw whites treated the blacks very badly, but back then that was the norm,

Racism may have been more normal back then than it is now, but even during the height of the colonial era the Belgians were known for their unreasonably condescending attitude towards the native Congolese (although it wasn't as bad as under Leopold's personal rule). Their stereotypes also prevented them from seeing what was really going on; even towards the late fifties, when the British and French colonies ware starting to become independent, many still thought colonialism were to stay, and to stay more or less unchanged, and that the Congolese would somehow remain unaffected by these "dangerous foreign ideologies". When, in 1958 (at least I believe it was 1958), independence at last seemed inevitable, they devised a gradual plan, in which Congo was to become independent in... 1988. (It could always have been 1986 or 1989, but you get the point.)

So i think that if the Royals and a lot of the white belgians fled to Congo, they would have invested a lot of money into the congo, and it would have become a very wealthy nation, something like South Africa.

Or: the native Congolese would revolt, causing massive chaos. Or: they could attract the attention of the major powers even more, causing their involvement. Or a combination of both.

Whites would continue to rule the government up until the 1980's 0r 1990's until a black majority government could take over. the Democratic Kingdom of Congo (DKC) would be the most powerful country in Africa, rather than South Africa. Probably with King Albert II as head of State and Laurent Kabila as PM

Who says Kabila wouldn't have been butterflied away?

Belgians are proud people,

We are? Perhaps. Although Belgians seem to think of themselves as the least patriottic nation in Europe.

they would NEVER give up a hard earned colony to Germany.

How the hell was Congo hard earned?

 

[Nietzsche]

Nietzsche's right. Belgium can't fight Germany. Even if the entire Belgian regime fled to Congo, I can't see them holding on to it for very long. Why would the victorious Central Powers let them have it? Heck, why would any power allow them to consolidate their regime? My guess is that the defeated allies would drop their support of the Belgian regime in Congo as part of a peace deal with the Central Powers.

Of course, much depends on what kind of victory this is for the CP, but still...

One of the war aims, atleast for the Kaiser, was to grab the Congo. It was a massively rich colony, and would've been one of the "Gems of the German Empire". Coupled with the stuff it'll take from France and likely Portugal(either during or after the war), we're looking at a strong African resource base.

We are? Perhaps. Although Belgians seem to think of themselves as the least patriottic nation in Europe.

I personally question the use of 'Belgian' in regards to the people. There's Flems and Walloons. Or, if you want to simplify further, Dutch and French.

 

[Anneessens]

I personally question the use of 'Belgian' in regards to the people. There's Flems and Walloons. Or, if you want to simplify further, Dutch and French.

I tend to agree with you. "The Belgian people" can be set when referring to a set of individuals who have ID-card calling them Belgian, but it cannot refer to a nation. Even if they consider themselves Belgian, the reality is that they live in separate worlds.

But you forgot the Germans-we're-not-allowed-to-call-Germans!