No world war 2 how does Belgian and Dutch decolonization look like

Say World war 2 doesn't happen for whatever reason.

How does decolonization of the DRC and Indonesia look like

What time period would independence be likely

Would the Dutch still fight for Indonesia and would Belgium try to hold on to the Congo by force
 
Say World war 2 doesn't happen for whatever reason.

How does decolonization of the DRC and Indonesia look like

What time period would independence be likely

Would the Dutch still fight for Indonesia and would Belgium try to hold on to the Congo by force
Since the 20th century the Dutch were slowly beginning to develop Indonesia both economically and socially by investing in infrastructure and education.
I think that after a few decades Indonesia would turn into a confederation nominally under the kingdom of the Netherlands, but de facto independent.
Belgian Congo was in a totally different situation, I don't think that the Belgians actually planned to hold the colony forever, but in OTL they planned to control it up to the year 2000, with less pressure I think that the decolonization process would not be as messy as it was in our timeline
 
In general, without the Second World War, we see decolonialization taking longer, the colonial powers being more reluctant to abandon the system and less clear pressures for them to do so. I think any colony will reflect the culture of its colonizer, so the British and Dutch influence will be towards democracy under a monarcial mask, generally liberal and capitalistic. These will foster a local middle class, a local government and economy like that in London or Amsterdam, those also will be the people torn between loyalty to the system and pressing for more autonomy. I except the Belgians because they, despite being another relatively liberal European state, behave as ambiguously as do the French, more neglectful, less investing and ultimately more ineffectual as colonial powers. I think their history in the Congo spells out just how hopelessly unconcerned they were for anything beyond exploiting what they could. All colonies featured some exploitation, but in return there was investment, there was education, technology transfer, development, often more so where the colony offered a good return on investing rather than merely stealing. WW2 brought the anti-colonial forces to the fore, both the USSR and USA had motivation to unravel the closed markets, bottled up peoples and web of relationships that did not flow influence or wealth back to them. I think we underestimate how much those two powers undercut the colonial system. This merely fanned the flames of what Japan began as it tore away the veneer of European power and superiority, the Masters had lost the loyalty, respect or fear, and felt the potential for independence.

Generally I feel the colonial system would have endured, there would be independence movements, there would be revolutions, slowly pieces of Empires would be left on their own, but the valuable or prestigious pieces would be kept. Without the war and the following Cold War, there is more will and more wealth to stay at the counter-insurgency game, this is a world of more brush fire wars, more Vietnam style morasses, a bloodier transition for some, yet for others a soft fall to autonomy and paternalistic vestiges of Empire. The Dutch Indies likely sees some insurgency but otherwise I would predict it gets stamped out enough to have the Indies settle into a benign relationship to Holland, exporting oil, reaping some of that back, gaining development and looking more Dutch. The Congo will look much as it did, exploited, violently rebelling, violently suppressed, the Belgians lose the will, freedom comes in a spasm, power grabbed by local strongmen, they have legitimacy for waging war on the foreign masters and see little else but keeping power through that armed resistance to everything opposing them. Without outside influences this may take another generation, or two.

In my opinion the end of the colonial system is neither boon or bust, messier or better "organized", it is varied process with disparate outcomes for every people touched by it. Much of the former Empires echo the cultures, languages and patterns of their past, some have blossomed, many have wilted, simply removing or retaining the home power does not clearly improve or destroy these places, their legacies and futures I feel are more complex than when the last European sets sail home.
 
Indonesia would turn into a confederation nominally under the kingdom of the Netherlands, but de facto independent.
When would it gain de jure independence and what would be the borders of Indonesia ?

The Dutch Indies likely sees some insurgency but otherwise I would predict it gets stamped out enough to have the Indies settle into a benign relationship to Holland, exporting oil, reaping some of that back, gaining development and looking more Dutch.
Given Indonesia dwarf the Netherlands in size how long would that arrangement last ?

The Congo will look much as it did, exploited, violently rebelling, violently suppressed, the Belgians lose the will, freedom comes in a spasm, power grabbed by local strongmen,
Is it likely for the Congo to Balkanize ?
 
When would it gain de jure independence and what would be the borders of Indonesia ?


Given Indonesia dwarf the Netherlands in size how long would that arrangement last ?


Is it likely for the Congo to Balkanize ?

All good questions. My questions would be when, or even if, an "Indonesian" identity emerges, one that agitates for independence. Would there be enough common ground to oppose Dutch rule? And replace it with what? The backdrop is a continuing presence in Malaysia by Britain, the presence of Imperial Japan, likely still roughly aligned with the UK, the longer range influence of reviving China and the high value of this as an independent oil producer. I suspect that the various local peoples and their leaders fall into a pattern of gaining more under Dutch rule than cooperating towards self-rule dominated by one of them. "Better the enemy you know than the friends you don't" sort of politics. In my own drafting with a multi-polar world, I have Germany playing hard to secure access to oil outside of British control, the warmer relationship with Holland means DWI's oil is a key strategic piece of their puzzle. In this world I do not see the same alienation from Japan so Britain supplies her from the Middle East but she too wants to get an independent option and Japan is closer. Here the British and Japanese are enough threat that "Indonesia" would be facing either swallowing by the British or eating by the Japanese, staying under the Dutch flag offers more security. And this would potentially be the pressure on all colonies to stay aligned, in a world without other big power patrons the threat is getting gobbled up if you go it alone.

My suspicion is that the Dutch West Indies get "federalized" into quasi-independent administrative entities, everything without resources gets loose reign and the oil stays near and dear. I doubt the Dutch are that harsh but if as in my scenario the Far East is a tug of war between the UK and Germany, Japan and China, with meddling USA and Russia on the sidelines, then we can see a lot of meddling, enough to keep the Dutch in place and the locals not decided as to how to go it without some big kid on the playground to fight the big kids looking to steal your lunch money. Without clear cut interventions, little progress might be made of independence, autonomy is about as much as one can get and likely is all that is desired.

I think Belgium certainly would seek to break up the Congo into more not less competing internal divisions, pitting one against the other might be the best they can do on a budget. Again, in my world I toy with Germany returning to SWA and Kamerun, and to add insult the German PR apparatus begins to expose all the sins in Belgian Congo to show the Belgians are not the good guys, by extension the French are just as tainted and maybe do a better job to wash off the wartime propaganda narrative that they are evil overlords, the various massacres notwithstanding. Without the black and white paradigm of Cold war USA versus USSR, the entire map is muddy, each power has reason to defend Empires but undercut its opponents, maybe we see just as much warfare and freedom fighting as OTL, or maybe not. The best I can foresee is a longer process of development to make the colonies better bulwarks, France needs the manpower, Britain needs the resources, Germany needs the markets, etc., at best there will be no hand off to kleptocratic dictators and with a slower disengagement we see more solid foundations for nationhood. At worst you see about the same slow burn with more effort put in by more powers, more Vietnam and Afghanistan like wars that fulfil the last gasp of Empire and sustain the power politics of the Great Game into this century at large.
 
Would there be enough common ground to oppose Dutch rule?
Would you even need a united Independence movement given other locations had divided movements but still gained independence. There also the question of Dutch wellness to retain control over Indonesia and the massive population difference.

towards self-rule dominated by one of them.
They could just gain independence for their respective regions also why would that be a deterrent for the larger islands.
 
Last edited:
Would you even need a united Independence movement given other locations had divided movements but still gained independence. There also the question of Dutch wellness to retain control over Indonesia and the massive population difference.


They could just gain independence for their respective regions also why would that be a deterrent for the larger islands.

In theory no, but what sparks a general burn? Was Dutch rule onerous enough to seed revolt across the whole place? My understanding is that the Indonesian independence movement was fueled by Japan, then the USSR, without a war I do not see the then leaders getting much traction. Perhaps over the next generation as yet more liberal ideals pass from Holland into the local mindset there is widespread call for autonomy or some form of self-rule. And by then why not give it, simply own the oil and exploit it as we saw in the Middle East until nationalization?

Indeed, I think the process is devolution of power, for most colonial powers the last thing they really want is to integrate the natives into the metropole. The better path is to spin them off as friendly and still dependent, at least for finance, trade, military power and diplomacy, "allies," sort of where the Commonwealth sort of got. The bigger the local populace the more the home leadership should be keen to spin them off. Look at India and the UK, ruling India is good, having them demand a vote is not, letting them go free yet tied to the homeland is good for business. Barring some stupidity, always an option, I think the Dutch progress to some framework of autonomy, retaining the external affairs and internal levers needed to benefit them.
 
Top