How long can Belgium hold on to Congo?

So how long can Belgium hold on to the Belgian Congo, given the unrest from the late 1950s (there had been an earlier bout of unrest in the 1920s which they successfully suppressed, I might add)? If I'm not mistaken, they formulated a thirty year plan for Congolese independence that would give Congo independence in the mid or late 1980s, but that seems unrealistic. How long can Belgium hold onto Congo realistically if they tell the US government that was pressuring them to shove it?

EDIT: to clarify, the PoD is post-1945.
 
Last edited:
Depends about POD, but if Belgium avoid World Wars or leastly not WW2 it might keep Congo some years longer.
 
Depends on the cirumstances.

If the U.S. is basically telling them to do it or they would'nt provide them any Martial Plan funds or something then, probably not much longer than OTL, however if Belgium manages to stay neutral/not be invaded in WWII then probably until the late 60's if the U.S. starts poking its nose in Belgiums business or the mid to late 70's otherwise.
 
IIRC, Belgium wanted to wait longer before giving the Congo independence but they also didn't want to have to fight to keep it that long like France tried and failed to do with Algeria and Vietnam. So, I reckon once the natives start slaughtering Belgian troops stationed there, they're gonna get the heck outta dodge.
 
it's depends how much money Belgium government can spend in Military operations to control Congo.
Already in begin 1960s Belgium run in financing problem on Budget.

interesting, would Belgium goes bankrupt in end of 1960s. Because they spend to much money in control of Congo ?
 
I concur with the other posters, late sixties at latest. By that time, it would have greatly worsened the country's financial woes. Flemish nationalism was also on the rise in '60, and they wanted to get rid of that 'French-speaking' colony as soon as possible.
In any case, even allowing for unlimited financial resources :)rolleyes:), the Belgian Congo will end as soon as the government has to resort to using conscripts (IOTL the draft existed in Belgium until 1993). The public would never have tolerated sending their sons overseas to fight a colonial war à la Portugal.
 
Some "visionaries" in Brussels decide to reach out to and make common cause with like-minded leaders in Pretoria, Salisbury and Lisbon to hold fast and tell the rest of the world to pound sand.

This coalition ends up controlling a very sizable chunk of Africa, and with their strategic resources et al, they even prosper to some extent...

UCPDSA.JPG
 
With a post-1945 POD, I nonetheless envision colonial rule lasting only until the mid-60s at the very latest. If they really wanted to keep the place they could say to the Americans that the potential post-independence leaders of Congo are likely going to be communists, but a combination of international outrage - particularly in the UN, as more postcolonial Afro-Asian states inevitably join that body - and the lack of will in a democracy for a sustained conflict to hold onto the colony, leads me to think that at best their rule can only be sustained for a few years longer than OTL.

I concur with the other posters, late sixties at latest. By that time, it would have greatly worsened the country's financial woes. Flemish nationalism was also on the rise in '60, and they wanted to get rid of that 'French-speaking' colony as soon as possible.
In any case, even allowing for unlimited financial resources :)rolleyes:), the Belgian Congo will end as soon as the government has to resort to using conscripts (IOTL the draft existed in Belgium until 1993). The public would never have tolerated sending their sons overseas to fight a colonial war à la Portugal.

OK then, if Congolese independence is delayed until the mid or late 1960s, how does this affect what Congo looks like to day? I imagine it would be possible for Congolese civil servants to be trained to replace the 10.000 Belgian ones. I also imagine that there will be several hundred Congolese graduated from Lovanium (the Congolese university founded in 1955 by Belgian Jesuits), rather than a dozen or so like in 1960, and who are able to lead the country.
 
OK then, if Congolese independence is delayed until the mid or late 1960s, how does this affect what Congo looks like to day? I imagine it would be possible for Congolese civil servants to be trained to replace the 10.000 Belgian ones. I also imagine that there will be several hundred Congolese graduated from Lovanium (the Congolese university founded in 1955 by Belgian Jesuits), rather than a dozen or so like in 1960, and who are able to lead the country.

That could have work, but the Company who controlled Free State Congo as Private property of King Leopold II,
commit so much atrocity under the Congolese (kidnapping, rape, hacking hands off, whipping until death) that Belgium Government was force in 1908,
To take Congo out hands of Leopold II and transformed it to Belgium Colony.
But the Congolese remember those atrocity, it beceme the main reason for Independence: get the Belgian out of Congo Fast!


one Question, Onkel willie
must Congo remain in one piece under Belgium control ?
The Belgium Industry try to keep Katanga under there Control, after Patrice Lumumba nationalize there factory, mines in Congo.
what let to Congo crisis and death of Patrice Lumumba and rise of Zaire under Mobutu.

but what if, Katanga remains a Belgian colony while rest Congo is independent ?
 
Some "visionaries" in Brussels decide to reach out to and make common cause with like-minded leaders in Pretoria, Salisbury and Lisbon to hold fast and tell the rest of the world to pound sand.

This coalition ends up controlling a very sizable chunk of Africa, and with their strategic resources et al, they even prosper to some extent...

Umm... and use what for money to hold all the black africans in subjection?
Portugal tried, and ran out of money with a much smaller area.

Or was your post meant as sarcastic?
 
Umm... and use what for money to hold all the black africans in subjection?
Portugal tried, and ran out of money with a much smaller area.

Or was your post meant as sarcastic?

I'd be surprised if they couldn't figure out how to keep themselves in crude weapons. National conscription to send their young men over their to partake in task-mastering, that sort of thing.

My guess is given an opportunity to collaborate and organize, people can dedicate themselves to being real assholes if they put their minds to it.
 
I'd be surprised if they couldn't figure out how to keep themselves in crude weapons. National conscription to send their young men over their to partake in task-mastering, that sort of thing.

My guess is given an opportunity to collaborate and organize, people can dedicate themselves to being real assholes if they put their minds to it.
When theyre outnumbered 10-1 they need more than 'crude weapons'.
And 'being real assholes' is a game two can play.
 
I'd say the Belgians' best option would have been to adopt the thirty-year plan immediately after World War 2, when Congolese national consciousness was still at an early stage. If Belgium had committed to gradual emancipation of the Congo in the 1940s, and had sweetened the deal by removing the more humiliating restrictions on the African population, then the Congolese might have gone along with it for a good while rather than seeing it as too little too late, especially since Belgium would have a chance to groom the first generation of leaders. This is somewhat similar to what the French did during the Fourth Republic, where many French parliamentary deputies from Africa would become the founding leaders of their countries.

I don't see it lasting the full 30 years, because by the 1960s, the Congolese will see other African countries becoming independent and will lose patience, but it might keep the Congo nominally Belgian until 1970 or so. Of course, getting the Belgian government to actually consider such a plan during the 1940s is another matter entirely - maybe if the Congolese battalions had fought in Europe as well as Ethiopia during the war (similar to the Africans in the Free French army), the politicians in Brussels might have been in more of a mood to reward them.
 
I'd say the Belgians' best option would have been to adopt the thirty-year plan immediately after World War 2, when Congolese national consciousness was still at an early stage. If Belgium had committed to gradual emancipation of the Congo in the 1940s, and had sweetened the deal by removing the more humiliating restrictions on the African population, then the Congolese might have gone along with it for a good while rather than seeing it as too little too late, especially since Belgium would have a chance to groom the first generation of leaders. This is somewhat similar to what the French did during the Fourth Republic, where many French parliamentary deputies from Africa would become the founding leaders of their countries.

I don't see it lasting the full 30 years, because by the 1960s, the Congolese will see other African countries becoming independent and will lose patience, but it might keep the Congo nominally Belgian until 1970 or so. Of course, getting the Belgian government to actually consider such a plan during the 1940s is another matter entirely - maybe if the Congolese battalions had fought in Europe as well as Ethiopia during the war (similar to the Africans in the Free French army), the politicians in Brussels might have been in more of a mood to reward them.

What would such a Congo have looked like today then? I assume it'd be better, but by how much?
 
When theyre outnumbered 10-1 they need more than 'crude weapons'.
And 'being real assholes' is a game two can play.


South Africa developed its own nuclear weapons, and, they had a rather impressive industrial base that churned out sophisticated weapons and vehicles.

The resources on tap in that chunk of Africa --including at least one metal that is iirc very hard to find elsewhere-- if aggressively exploited, would pay for the military edge maintained by such a coalition.

Okay, by the middle of the 21st century at the latest, there'd be a rather decisive bloodbath, but nonetheless until then it would be one of those things that could make for memorable reading in a fictional context.
 
It doesn't matter when Belgian implements the 30 year plan, as soon as it was obvious that the Europeans were leaving and couldn't retain their possession of Africa after WWII, independence for any African state was going to happen sooner than later. Britain also tried to implement a long term period of tutelage to "prepare" their colonies for independence, but that was scrapped as well.

The only way to keep Belgian control of Congo longer is if the entire postwar period is different, which means a completely different WWII where the Western European countries didn't end the war completely impoverished and in ruins.

Maybe a scenario where the Franco-Belgium alliance was never ended in 1936. Instead of withdrawing from the treaty, Belgium decides the best way to insure their safety was not neutrality, but a stronger alliance with France. When war breaks out, Beligum is prepared for war and French troops quickly move into Belgium and establish a strong line of defense. The Nazi attack in May 1940 fails to achieve a decisive result and the Allied lines are held in eastern France and Belgium. Italy never declares war, and the Western Allies build up their forces for an invasion of Germany in 1942. Sometime in 1941 or 1942 as Germany faces economic collapse or military defeat, the German military overthrows Hitler and reaches a peace with the Allies that restores Poland and Czechoslovakia to independence.

That will keep European control of their colonies for a significant amount of time. Some kind of independence or autonomy movement for colonies will gain more support so the European powers will need to accomodate them somehow, perhaps with a 30 year tutelage movement that will begin in the 1950s or 1960s. Since it does not appear Europe will abandon their colonies, it's accepted by the colonial populations as a whole.
 
The Belgians were struggling to get their own people to fight for them, to such an extent that they came begging over to the UK. Met a very interesting chap at a UK medieval event and he told me about his varied experiences flying Skyraiders in the Congo for the Belgians. He was ex RAF and specially recruited on a nice big fat juicy bonus that he couldn't refuse. The sort of things his squadron got up to...such as one member of the squadron crashing due to poorly filtered fuel and as a result being hacked to bits. Back at the airbase the sqdn CO shot dead one of the Native ground crew faut encourager les autres. And there was more besides.
They really were best out of there! Kolwezi etc...
 
The Belgians were struggling to get their own people to fight for them, to such an extent that they came begging over to the UK. Met a very interesting chap at a UK medieval event and he told me about his varied experiences flying Skyraiders in the Congo for the Belgians. He was ex RAF and specially recruited on a nice big fat juicy bonus that he couldn't refuse. The sort of things his squadron got up to...such as one member of the squadron crashing due to poorly filtered fuel and as a result being hacked to bits. Back at the airbase the sqdn CO shot dead one of the Native ground crew faut encourager les autres. And there was more besides.
They really were best out of there! Kolwezi etc...

Yes things like this that happen
The Belgium steel industry hired allot of international mercenary they could get. mostly Germans Veterans like Siegfried Müller.
and those air squadrons play role in death of U.N. secretary-general Dag Hammarskjöld
official a aircraft crash, while former kongo mercenary tell another story.
in 1990s and 2007 came claims that Hammarskjöld Aircraft was shot down by Belgium mercenaries.
 
Last edited:
Went round the Brussels army museum with a couple of Flemish chums, the Congo exhibits were rather low key in comparison say to the war of liberation (understandable really). I think Belguims problem was that the Belgian population was too little to effectively sustain the support infrastructure that was really needed in the Congo, plus one hell of a money pit, minerals etc not withstanding. Really to have an empire Belguim would have been better off with colonies the size of Sierra Leone rather than the Congo. Then we could perhaps have seen model colonisation rather than the total heart of darkness that Conrad portrayed so well. IF that had been the case a smaller colony, proper investment on health, education and legal sides as well as money making ventures then yup Belguim still might have a toehold on the continent although probably more akin to their southern cousins and do it a la Francais (ie proxy administrations that can be quickly replaced as and when)(ooh was that a touch cynical?)
 
Went round the Brussels army museum with a couple of Flemish chums, the Congo exhibits were rather low key in comparison say to the war of liberation (understandable really). I think Belguims problem was that the Belgian population was too little to effectively sustain the support infrastructure that was really needed in the Congo, plus one hell of a money pit, minerals etc not withstanding. Really to have an empire Belguim would have been better off with colonies the size of Sierra Leone rather than the Congo. Then we could perhaps have seen model colonisation rather than the total heart of darkness that Conrad portrayed so well. IF that had been the case a smaller colony, proper investment on health, education and legal sides as well as money making ventures then yup Belguim still might have a toehold on the continent although probably more akin to their southern cousins and do it a la Francais (ie proxy administrations that can be quickly replaced as and when)(ooh was that a touch cynical?)

Not at all !
this here is the perfect overview on Belgium Congo problem and good summary of Africa politics during 1970s to 1990s, until the Chinese show interest on Africa.
 
Top