Biafra or Katanga?

Which region could have become a country?

  • Biafra

    Votes: 44 51.2%
  • Katanga

    Votes: 42 48.8%

  • Total voters
    86

Ismail

Banned
I'll have to look into Congo, A History for a more clearer picture but the Katangese independence was, as I said before, not because of Katangese nationalism but because of regionalism. When regionalism failed because of boneheaded nationalism from Lumumba and the likes the logical reaction from the Lunda was going for gold: independence.
So there was no nationalism, yet you assert that the Lunda wanted independence. It's worth noting that Lumumba didn't take kindly to regionalism because he feared it would be used as an excuse to undermine the power of the central government to the benefit of mining companies. Katanga and South Kasaï seem to have proven that quite well.

The State of Katanga was an artificial entity. It had as much reason to exist as Manchukuo.

Again, heaven compared to what it ended up being.
Well Lumumba got executed with the blessings of the Katangan regime and the West was generally denouncing him as a drug-abusing communist. The US backed Mobutu, who winded up as being pretty much against regionalism as Lumumba (perhaps even more) while also being incredibly corrupt.
 
Incidentally, anyone knowledgeable of Katanga should check out this nation simulation game!

http://www.revleft.com/vb/katanga-forum-game-t153104/index.html


This is based off of earlier govsim games I've done on the forum. In short you take a position in the game and, well, what you do is up to you.

This time the game is based off of a real-life country: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_Katanga

Only differences are that Lumumba never fell from power in the Congo, so the West currently tolerates the existence of Katanga (which has fought off UN intervention.)

Turns are separated into Early and Late. (E.g. Early 1965, Late 1965, Early 1966, etc.) You either PM me or post in the thread what you wish to do. For instance, "private" matters (intrigue, military assaults) are more appropriate for PMing than, say, being in a legislature and proposing bills. Turns are generally either daily or every two days.

Besides positions marked with "Vacant" next to them, a player can at any time apply for the following:
* Leader of a newly-founded political party.
* Commander in the Army or in a rebellion.
* Legislator or other role that they may suggest.

Cabinet members may block the adoption of budget changes relating to their area of operations (e.g. Minister of Defense can reject cutting military spending.) The head of the legislature has this ability for all bills, and the Minister of Finance can reject/block any budget proposal if he or she chooses to do so. Players may also support or oppose legislation to affect the chances of it passing (which is obviously highly dependent on what position said player occupies.) Rebel commanders may utilize the forces of commanders serving under them if those commanders do not object. Note that budget proposals should also be posted publicly.

KatangaMapEarly1965.png

(Green are roads, blue are railroads. Map made by SocialismOrBarbarism.)
 
Biafra has oil, port access, and possibly better infrastructure too. Thus, it is likelier to survive and is more viable. However, neither will be without some domestic turmoil.
 
Look, people, the question is which had the better chance of securing its independence, not which would have been preferable to live in afterwards. And the answer is obviously Katanga. The fact that the Congo didn't break up in the early '60s is among OTL's more ASB-ish events. Biafra was up against a strong and nearby central government drawing support from the Soviets and British, the odds were against it.
 

HJ Tulp

Donor
So there was no nationalism, yet you assert that the Lunda wanted independence.

No, I assert that the Lunda wanted to have autonomy based on a federal Congo. When it seemed that the Lumubasists were going to try and get a unitary Congo and, even worse, the whole country started to implode within DAYS of independence the logical conclusion was to try and get independence themselves.

Compare it with the 80 years war. The Dutch didn't want independence, it took them years until they were prepared to denounce the Spanish king as their soevereign but it the end they were fed up with the King and decided to go on their own. Was there nationalism in those early days? Ofcourse not.

It's worth noting that Lumumba didn't take kindly to regionalism because he feared it would be used as an excuse to undermine the power of the central government to the benefit of mining companies. Katanga and South Kasaï seem to have proven that quite well.

If you ask me Lumumba didn't take kindly to regionalism because he was a nationalist in a country without nationalists. He fits in the catagory of men like Sukarno, men desperate to forge a country into a single nation where there are many. Sukarno succeeded on the back of cold steel, Congo became a country in name only.

Well Lumumba got executed with the blessings of the Katangan regime and the West was generally denouncing him as a drug-abusing communist. The US backed Mobutu, who winded up as being pretty much against regionalism as Lumumba (perhaps even more) while also being incredibly corrupt.

Lumumba was killed by the Kanganese regime. Like I said, Katangese independence (even if under control of mining corporations) was heaven compared to the alternative.
 
Top