So, the Germans somehow force the Entente to an armistice in 1918. They get to annex Luxemburg, Brest-Litovsk and Tanganyika (where there were still "german" (mostly askaris) troops still fighting). No reparations, no more gains in Europe for neither the Allies nor the CP. The Allies accept that: after all they've gained the other german colonies and the Ottomans are still going to lose the Middle East (no way to avoid that); both sides can claim victory.
For what I've read, german reparations played an important role in the reconstruction effort in France and Belgium post-war. In this ATL there are no reparations. France maybe could avoid an outright economical collapse thanks to Camerun, Togo and Syria-Lebanon (though I don't know how profitable was the last one), savagely exploiting those colonies' resources (and the ones from their other colonies too) to substitute those reparations.
Belgium on the other hand has won no colonies to exploit to supply for the lack of reparations: she has only the Congo, and as rich as it can be in resources, in the post-war years, with the devastation and instability that would surely follow the Armistice, I don't think that these would be exploited properly. Plus, military spending would be kept high to face an hostile power just on the other side of the border, and to combat the revolts that would surely happen in the Congo, supplied by the germans (eager to see the colony fall in chaos so they can slice something from it) and emboldened by a weakened metropolis almost unable to maintain control over the colony.
So, to sumarize:
Would Belgium be able to get out of the hole? Would the lack of reparations drive them to adopt an (even more) exploitative policy in the Congo to pay for it, and would that policy eventually backfire and generate a revolt? What would Belgium do then? Would they sell the Congo (or part of it, like Katanga, Kivu...) to the British/French/whoever?
For what I've read, german reparations played an important role in the reconstruction effort in France and Belgium post-war. In this ATL there are no reparations. France maybe could avoid an outright economical collapse thanks to Camerun, Togo and Syria-Lebanon (though I don't know how profitable was the last one), savagely exploiting those colonies' resources (and the ones from their other colonies too) to substitute those reparations.
Belgium on the other hand has won no colonies to exploit to supply for the lack of reparations: she has only the Congo, and as rich as it can be in resources, in the post-war years, with the devastation and instability that would surely follow the Armistice, I don't think that these would be exploited properly. Plus, military spending would be kept high to face an hostile power just on the other side of the border, and to combat the revolts that would surely happen in the Congo, supplied by the germans (eager to see the colony fall in chaos so they can slice something from it) and emboldened by a weakened metropolis almost unable to maintain control over the colony.
So, to sumarize:
Would Belgium be able to get out of the hole? Would the lack of reparations drive them to adopt an (even more) exploitative policy in the Congo to pay for it, and would that policy eventually backfire and generate a revolt? What would Belgium do then? Would they sell the Congo (or part of it, like Katanga, Kivu...) to the British/French/whoever?
