TLIAW- A Mamluk Congo

So I've decided (mainly in the interest of keeping thing moving smoothly) on the first phase of the war being Britain/France/Russia/Serbia/Greece vs Germany/Austria/Ottomans with Italy staying neutral for at least up until where we are now (1923).

War begins due to a Balkan Conflict between Russia and the Ottomans which leads to the Turks calling the Germans which leads to Russia calling France and in turn, Germany calls Austria to deal with the Balkans while Germany attempts to focus on the bigger powers.

By 1922, the Congolese decide to take the German's call, and begin to invade French Congo and Portuguese Cabinda while simultaneously giving troops (mainly Zanzibari) to defend German East Africa.

As of 1923, the Balance of Power in Africa has drastically swung back in the favor of the Central Powers. France, Portugal and Britain are bleeding out and losing thousands upon thousands of men and an insane amount of resources they'd otherwise have alongside having to put down small revolts within the colonies are probably being tried and suppressed (not much of an overall impact, but a nuisance). Critically, the lack of Congo's rubber and copper following its entry into the war is both huge and damaging to the Entente. Not crippling, but damaging.

I also imagine that the Middle Eastern Front has been greatly affected. The Gaza line is having a much easier time being held by the Ottomans thanks to drastically better infrastructure and communications alongside simply not being utterly exhausted from the Balkan wars. Meanwhile, Britain has to stretch more and more of her forces alongside calling greater amounts of (white) colonial troops. The Dominions are not happy.

At the same time, the Russians are stuck having to battle the more developed Austrian Empire, the motorized Germans and fight a third front in the Caucus against a better supplied Ottomans (although in turn, the Ottomans are stuck fighting in the Balkans).

I also imagine this probably means Ethiopia would declare war on the Entente given ties with Congo and opportunity to take some coastland via conquering Djibouti and British Somaliland. Yet another headache for the Entente :p. The Ethiopian army here would be stronger than it would historically due to veterans who served Congo, a larger army and economy because of the Congolese trade, and because of more armaments (critically artillery) from Congo.

Would be fun to see them fight against the (relatively) tiny garrisons in Djibouti, Somaliland and Egypt. Although the South Sudan front would not be pretty for anyone.

All in all, its a bigger, bloodier, more widespread and much more destructive conflict that sees the Entente have to put out many small fires alongside focusing on their main targets of Germany and Austria. Very bad news for France, who's going to be taking a battering in this war.

Re: Sudan. I do agree, having what's South Sudan be part of Uganda makes sense, even if those borders are just disgusting (Then again which border in colonial Africa isn't?) and it allows Egypt to control a much easier territory. Darfur is probably de facto independent but no one really cares about some nomads in the desert at this time.

Re: China. A messier dissolution of the Qing would lead to a whole mess of a Warlord era and all sorts of problems that Japan would be eager to exploit. Can't really say anything further. Any suggestions on what a China front in WWI would look like?
Several things I'd like to point out.Britain most likely not join the entente side in this scenario.What might happen is that Britain might issue an ultimatum at Russia asking it to fuck off from the Bosphorus.The Ottomans also don't have a formal alliance with Germany.At this point,it was neutral,with the navy being pro-British and the army pro-German.

As for China and Japan,Britain and the US would be greatly displeased at the Japanese for attacking China.I don't know their exact reactions though.Britain's completely distracted by the events in Europe while the US is still relatively isolationist.Another thing to consider is that even with China being completely overrun with warlords,Japan would be immensely weaker than otl Japan in the 1920s since they wouldn't have profited from WWI.
 

Deleted member 67076

Several things I'd like to point out.Britain most likely not join the entente side in this scenario.What might happen is that Britain might issue an ultimatum at Russia asking it to fuck off from the Bosphorus.The Ottomans also don't have a formal alliance with Germany.At this point,it was neutral,with the navy being pro-British and the army pro-German.
I think they would be here. We delay the Balkan Wars, we prevent the 3 Pashas from coming to power, which stops overt neutrality. Alongside this we got the developments with Germany in Africa, I think Germany's reputation as the "Nice European power" would make the Ottomans friendlier to Germany (alongside the need to counterbalance Russia). I like to think it'd be a formal alliance, as a means to ward off the Russians via diplomacy. Abdulhamid had his shrewd side after all.

Britain at the same time as pointed out by other posters would be friendlier to France, and thus would help keep the geopolitical axis' roughly on schedule.

Here, I think Russia would just ignore the Brits thinking their newly reformed army and industrial advances since the last round of war would allow them to finish the fight, which brings in Austria, and then Germany, and then France. After seeing the Balance of Power getting potentially messed up (especially with Germany doling out tanks early on), Britain goes all in with France.

As for China and Japan,Britain and the US would be greatly displeased at the Japanese for attacking China.I don't know their exact reactions though.Britain's completely distracted by the events in Europe while the US is still relatively isolationist.Another thing to consider is that even with China being completely overrun with warlords,Japan would be immensely weaker than otl Japan in the 1920s since they wouldn't have profited from WWI.
So likely then Japan plays it safe and sticks to I dunno, Manchuria or other easily controlled sectors.
 
I think they would be here. We delay the Balkan Wars, we prevent the 3 Pashas from coming to power, which stops overt neutrality. Alongside this we got the developments with Germany in Africa, I think Germany's reputation as the "Nice European power" would make the Ottomans friendlier to Germany (alongside the need to counterbalance Russia). I like to think it'd be a formal alliance, as a means to ward off the Russians via diplomacy. Abdulhamid had his shrewd side after all.

Britain at the same time as pointed out by other posters would be friendlier to France, and thus would help keep the geopolitical axis' roughly on schedule.

Here, I think Russia would just ignore the Brits thinking their newly reformed army and industrial advances since the last round of war would allow them to finish the fight, which brings in Austria, and then Germany, and then France. After seeing the Balance of Power getting potentially messed up (especially with Germany doling out tanks early on), Britain goes all in with France.


So likely then Japan plays it safe and sticks to I dunno, Manchuria or other easily controlled sectors.
I think you will need another reason for WWI to happen.I don't think France would be in it with Russia on this one as well.They don't seem to be keen with the idea of Russia taking the Bosphorus either.Russia also owes a great deal of money to Britain and France,so they can definitely fuck Russia up if they start demanding the money back--thus having a great deal of leverage over Russia.
 

Deleted member 67076

I think you will need another reason for WWI to happen.I don't think France would be in it with Russia on this one as well.They don't seem to be keen with the idea of Russia taking the Bosphorus either.Russia also owes a great deal of money to Britain and France,so they can definitely fuck Russia up if they start demanding the money back--thus having a great deal of leverage over Russia.

Wasn't the reason Russia had a lot of money given by the two was because they wanted a a counter to Germany? This is basically what they spent decades preparing for.

Why would they go back on this now? Particularly when Germany would continue to keep growing its navy if WWI is delayed and Austria's economy keeps booming.
 
Re: Sudan. I do agree, having what's South Sudan be part of Uganda makes sense, even if those borders are just disgusting (Then again which border in colonial Africa isn't?) and it allows Egypt to control a much easier territory. Darfur is probably de facto independent but no one really cares about some nomads in the desert at this time.

The borders need not to be like those OTL's South Sudan and indeed probably will not.
 
So I've decided (mainly in the interest of keeping thing moving smoothly) on the first phase of the war being Britain/France/Russia/Serbia/Greece vs Germany/Austria/Ottomans with Italy staying neutral for at least up until where we are now (1923).

Hmm. So given more time to develop, odds are the German fleet would be stronger relative to Britain's but, critically, Germany's army could be weaker relative to the continental power, since the 1914 army had been pushed to its high level of readiness by deficit spending, Russia would be much stronger relative to Germany, France is probably weaker, even much weaker if the pacifist movement is as successful as OTL (WW1 started JUST as the French were about to gut their own army), Austria-Hungary would be weaker relative to everyone (the politics were so messed up that the dual monarchy was not going going to translate any amount of economic growth into an increase in military power), the Ottomans would be stronger relative to everyone (since they have more time to recover).

Overall, I'd say the Entente still has a large advantage over the central powers. The stronger Russia probably even means the Entente have an even larger margin of superiority. Particularly since as long as Britain is on the Entente side, it is close to inevitable that Italy and the US enter on the Entente side if they enter at all (and it is very likely that both would enter).

That said, all the powers could be barely stronger than in 1914. All the economic indicators in 1914 were that a major economic crash was about to happen and I doubt the independence of Congo would change that... Depending on how long and deep that was, it could derail things

I think they would be here. We delay the Balkan Wars, we prevent the 3 Pashas from coming to power, which stops overt neutrality. Alongside this we got the developments with Germany in Africa, I think Germany's reputation as the "Nice European power" would make the Ottomans friendlier to Germany (alongside the need to counterbalance Russia). I like to think it'd be a formal alliance, as a means to ward off the Russians via diplomacy. Abdulhamid had his shrewd side after all.

Without Enver Pasha, it is very possible that the Ottoman Empire opts to stay neutral. The man really was key in pushing for war.

fasquardon
 
Last edited:
Wasn't the reason Russia had a lot of money given by the two was because they wanted a a counter to Germany? This is basically what they spent decades preparing for.

Why would they go back on this now? Particularly when Germany would continue to keep growing its navy if WWI is delayed and Austria's economy keeps booming.

They've loaned them a buck load of money to counter Germany,but not necessarily because they want to fight Germany.There's a difference.The British also saw the Russians as a threat.Taking the Bosphorus definitely makes the threat even more real.Also,the German navy won't grow as much as you think it would.They've lost the naval arms race even before WWI started.Even the Germans themselves know this and tried to arrange a compromise with the British in 1912.
 
They've loaned them a buck load of money to counter Germany,but not necessarily because they want to fight Germany.There's a difference.The British also saw the Russians as a threat.Taking the Bosphorus definitely makes the threat even more real.Also,the German navy won't grow as much as you think it would.They've lost the naval arms race even before WWI started.Even the Germans themselves know this and tried to arrange a compromise with the British in 1912.

The British were relatively fine with Russia having the Bosphorus by 1915 IOTL. Not happy about it, of course, but willing to entertain the possibility.
Of course, a stronger Russia would make Britain even less enthusiastic at the prospect.
However, if the Ottomans are firmly in the German camp, as suggested (and it is at least plausible), Britain would be Very Angry at them.

However, I think that in the scenario described here Britain is unlikely to intervene immediately (certainly not for the sake of a Russian Tsargrad), since the German plan would almost certainly be a "Russia first" one (counting on the Austrians) that sticks to defense in the West and thus does not involve infringing Belgian neutrality.
Britain might be brought in by the German Navy doing something like entering the Channel, or some incident with German ships, or if it looks like France is about to fall. The latter seems unlikely, since at first the war in the West is likely to be something like: Germans entrenched in defense, France tries something akin to historical Plan XVII and get crushed (possibly worse than IOTL) but, due to the sheer firepower/space ratio, manage to regroup along a defensive line somewhere in Lorraine and stop any German counterattack. Then the front stabilizes in a way that leaves little hope for either side to breakthrough. Germany has crude tanks by authorial fiat, but these are unlikely to be decisive by themselves.
I had argued above that this war was going to be more mobile than WWI, but I was not taking into account the narrowness of the front if Belgium is not invaded and the likely defensive German strategy.
Events in China or elsewhere might induce Britain to enter perhaps? Or the Ottomans doing something stupid?


Italy would be strongly tempted to enter on the Entente side, especially if they don't already have Libya, but it might be hard sell domestically if Germany and allies are not clearly regarded as aggressors (they more or less were seen that way in Italian opinion in 1914). Italian involvement will clearly put any notion of Ethiopian intervention on the CP side to rest, since the country would be utterly surrounded.
 

Deleted member 67076

They've loaned them a buck load of money to counter Germany,but not necessarily because they want to fight Germany.There's a difference.The British also saw the Russians as a threat.Taking the Bosphorus definitely makes the threat even more real.Also,the German navy won't grow as much as you think it would.They've lost the naval arms race even before WWI started.Even the Germans themselves know this and tried to arrange a compromise with the British in 1912.

None of this changes though that Germany provided a perceived threat to the balance of power, and that countries are not immune to being stubborn and/or irrational. Russia would still want to do something to make up for the loss against Japan, and an incident on the Turks presents an excellent opportunity, which in turn causes a string of mobilizations and the alliance system kicking in. Hence, the Great War.

As for the lack of Enver Pasha, I'm just going to justify it with Abdulhamid's successor being much more war happy due to the extended peace and development.
 
None of this changes though that Germany provided a perceived threat to the balance of power, and that countries are not immune to being stubborn and/or irrational. Russia would still want to do something to make up for the loss against Japan, and an incident on the Turks presents an excellent opportunity, which in turn causes a string of mobilizations and the alliance system kicking in. Hence, the Great War.

As for the lack of Enver Pasha, I'm just going to justify it with Abdulhamid's successor being much more war happy due to the extended peace and development.
Except you should realize that Russia might be the one that's seen as the threat to the balance of power as well with an extra six years of development.I don't think they will grow much economically,but they most likely will militarize quite a bit than otl.The British also tried to prevent the outbreak of war in OTL,chances are that they might try to calm Russia down through economic leverage.Another thing is that the Russo-French alliance is strictly defensive.There might not be that much interest on the French side to fight a war purely because Russia wants to gain some dirt.Even if the Ottomans are in the German camp,it doesn't mean France automatically wants to fight a war because Russia wants to fight.For example,Britain would have never accepted Soviet hegemony over Eastern Europe in 1938 whereas they clearly accepted it grudgingly by 1945.

As for the British being fine with the Russians taking the Bosphorus in 1915,there's really not much they can stop the Russians if the Russians won given WWI has already started and they are more or less forced on the same side.In 1915,Germany was clearly the larger threat out of the two given they are already at war with them!
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 67076

Except you should realize that Russia might be the one that's seen as the threat to the balance of power as well with an extra six years of development.I don't think they will grow much economically,but they most likely will militarize quite a bit than otl.
Might, but that isn't the case here.

The British also tried to prevent the outbreak of war in OTL,chances are that they might try to calm Russia down through economic leverage.
And it'll fail here. Russia has quite a lot to gain, little to lose if they pull this off. Besides, they've lost in Japan and have to rectify that indignity somehow. Attacking the Ottomans with the guise of freeing the Christians there is a perfect way to do that.

Another thing is that the Russo-French alliance is strictly defensive.There might not be that much interest on the French side to fight a war purely because Russia wants to gain some dirt.
This is defensive. Russia is being attacked by the two big Central Powers in a containment attempt.

Even if the Ottomans are in the German camp,it doesn't mean France automatically wants to fight a war because Russia wants to fight.For example,Britain would have never accepted Soviet hegemony over Eastern Europe in 1938 whereas they clearly accepted it grudgingly by 1945.
States are not entirely rational actors and this also is the perfect attempt to avenge 1870 for the French. Being that historically it was a series of blunders and rash decisions led to World War I anyway, I dunno why you're being so adamant to deny that things would continue to be resolved calmly and peacefully. People always mess up. Here, its just later.

Besides, this Great War is basically a framing device to bring about massive changes into Congo that lead it on the path of becoming a modern state anyway, rather than an all important focus in this timeline. Hence why I'm kinda flippant on how the war happens, merely that it does and with the Entente remaining the same.

And all this arguing is kinda preventing the story from moving along.

As for the British being fine with the Russians taking the Bosphorus in 1915,there's really not much they can stop the Russians if the Russians won given WWI has already started and they are more or less forced on the same side.In 1915,Germany was clearly the larger threat out of the two given they are already at war with them!
I dunno how here this is different to be honest.
 
Might, but that isn't the case here.


And it'll fail here. Russia has quite a lot to gain, little to lose if they pull this off. Besides, they've lost in Japan and have to rectify that indignity somehow. Attacking the Ottomans with the guise of freeing the Christians there is a perfect way to do that.


This is defensive. Russia is being attacked by the two big Central Powers in a containment attempt.


States are not entirely rational actors and this also is the perfect attempt to avenge 1870 for the French. Being that historically it was a series of blunders and rash decisions led to World War I anyway, I dunno why you're being so adamant to deny that things would continue to be resolved calmly and peacefully. People always mess up. Here, its just later.

Besides, this Great War is basically a framing device to bring about massive changes into Congo that lead it on the path of becoming a modern state anyway, rather than an all important focus in this timeline. Hence why I'm kinda flippant on how the war happens, merely that it does and with the Entente remaining the same.

And all this arguing is kinda preventing the story from moving along.


I dunno how here this is different to be honest.



All I am saying here is that I just think you need a different reason for a war,that's what I think,not that I don't think a war couldn't happen.

States aren't rational actors,but it would be clearly against Britain's interest to start a war under the circumstances you have listed.The pro-war faction was by no means dominant when war first broke out in otl.

I do think that Russia will be extremely hawkish however,given the economic slump would have certainly stimulated revolutionary movements and the government would need to somehow distract the public with a victory,just not outright attacking Turkey.

I am thinking maybe it would be better if a fight between proxy states(e.g. Bulgaria and other Balkan states)with ambiguous right or wrong in the Balkans degenerates into a massive all out war with the great powers would be much better.As for British entry into the war,I recommend something to do with Egypt,like Ottoman ships pursuing French or Russian ships into Egyptian waters which were technically Ottoman waters as well.
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 67076

I am thinking maybe it would be better if a fight between proxy states(e.g. Bulgaria and other Balkan states)with ambiguous right or wrong in the Balkans degenerates into a massive all out war with the great powers would be much better.As for British entry into the war,I recommend something to do with Egypt,like Ottoman ships pursuing French or Russian ships into Egyptian waters which were technically Ottoman waters as well.
That a good way to kick it off.

-----

1923 was a year of crisis for Congo. Congo, like all other nations, was not immune to the ravages of Total Warfare on the economy and with the shift toward domestic consumption unable to make up for the British blockading of the ports, had its economy go through a tailspin.

At the same time the warfronts were undergoing the greatest performance of a Central Power's state. On the battlefield, the Congolese were unmatched- their sheer numbers, equipment, discipline and knowledge of terrain made them as unstoppable as the flow of lava on a Pacific island.

The story back home could be no different. By late 1923 shortages were becoming rampant as international trade slowed to a crawl yet the army's vast demand kept rising. Domestic markets were simply unable to replace demand, even after the shift to total war. Local tribes and autonomous states within the Republic of Congo were getting increasingly upset as the state upped its tribute in response to the shortages.

Increase in tribute was present since the entry of the ware, yet as the year went on it be drastically more harsh. The state's response was equally draconian. To replace the troops sent abroad for state purposes, new ones had to be levied from the countryside and hastily trained. These new troops lacked the discipline of before and thus were often little more than semi-literate thugs in uniform. Tribute became work time conscription, with many local peoples often to mines and plantations far away from home. Price controls ruined local merchants.

Local major towns in Katanga and Oriental were hastily expanded into factory towns to feed the war effort, particularly with regards to stemming the tide of British incursions into the area. Entire uprooted villages were settled in these new areas, causing conflict amongst peoples with little familiarity with each other, both linguistically and culturally.

The response to this was two fold. Domestically, the state resorted to crude propaganda and heavy handed methods of control, but on the war front the Army resorted to more offensive tactics in an effort to score victories and prove the end of the war was near, thus the people need only to endure this hardship for some time. A major offensive move was an invasion of Angola, where the Congolese made a bee line straight to Luanda. And most daringly of all, in the east, the state called on their border march of the Great Lakes Sultanate to do something unbelievably bold: to invade British Sudan from the south and if possible, stir up a second Mahdist War. The successors of Tippu Tip, in no small part descended from Sudanese migrants fleeing the chaos of British invasion, were no part.

Never mind the insanity of the logistics. They still did it, managing to get past the Sudd and into the Sahel at no small cost and forcing Egypt to scramble in an attempt to put them down, which was good for the Ottomans. But one digresses.

By September of 1923, grumblings became protests. By January of 1924, Protests became Riots. And by April, riots became War. Congo spiraled into a multitude of small scale rebel movements (often led by many of the initially autonomous states) as whole factory towns rebelled for better treatment and an end to a pointless war. This proved another headache for Boma to deal with. Now, Bas-Congo had a quarter of Congo's population and was the most 'state like' of all the provinces, so it was little difficulty for Bas-Congo to simply just raise another army and suppress them, but the loss of the factory towns meant yet another economic and military shockwave that could simply not be ignored. And of course, to pay for these troops, reckless printing of money was done, causing inflation.

The coming turmoil would not be denied.

As such, Congo began to reorganize. Plans to invade South Africa (Yes the Congolese were that drunk on victory) were put on hold, and troops from German East Africa (and their campaign in Mozambique) were brought back to deal with the threat. All but the most needed troops from the Western Front were called back. Kamerun fell as the Congolese retreated and Portuguese Angola was given enough breathing room as to prevent the fall of Luanda (although their armies were brutally mauled and in no shape for a counterattack)

Thankfully for the Central Powers, the Congolese were very keen on using native auxiliaries and training them, so the Germans were tentatively able to hold the east, although these troops were of dubious quality. Furthermore unlike the Colonial Powers, the Congolese had no qualms on using anti colonial propaganda whipping up occupied territories into insurgency. Wherever Congolese troops were engaged, they frequently attempted to convinced dissidents to take unleash their anger the fight back to the colonials just as they did. And the people (or at least a marginalized fraction of them) did. From the bushes of Rhodesia, Uganda and Kenya, new revolts erupted.

Of course, we must not underestimate the scale and problems of these revolts. Most were simply no more of a nuisance, yet one that took time and effort from the British (South Africans) to deal with, delaying any potential advancements while Congo attempted to hastily sort things out.

As the months continued, the Congolese were increasingly desperate and the British increasingly bolder. Though many of these kingdoms were absolute jokes on the battlefield, they still presented time and effort could be otherwise used elsewhere, and able bodied soldiers who could otherwise be fighting abroad were now stuck policing regions. More and more manpower had to be brought from the fronts to keep the police state running, which meant losses in occupied territories. Angola was once more reclaimed by the Portuguese (except for a small line of northern Angola ruthlessly defended by the Congolese)

Running scarer on manpower in Africa, the Brits resorted to recruiting more and more from the Raj, and unlike before, were not hesitant to throw waves upon waves of men at the situation. Furthermore, the need for improved logistics had seen new railways and roads being built in Rhodesia and the surrounding colonies, meaning attacks were both larger in number and growing more and more frequent.

Congo was under siege and in turmoil, and all she could do was wait. Delay the inevitable and pray events in Europe to change their fortune.

Fortunately once September of 1923 rolled around, good news started to creep in. The Balkan front was more or less over with, with Serbia crushed and Bulgaria deciding to cut her losses and switch sides, meaning Greece was swiftly knocked out and the Ottomans able to turn their attention from holding the Caucus to invading it. At the same time, the Romanian oil fields were secured by the Germans who in conjunction with their improved tanks and air force were giving the Russians a bloody nose. And like the Congolese, the strains of total war had brought Russia into chaos.

At the same time, the narrow front of the French-German border was held, and Austria began to shift troops to invade Italy (it didn't work out well for the Austrians, who did not seem to realize economies can't handle constant strain of total war, but kept Italy occupied)

Come spring of 1924, the war was winding down. Russia was knocked out, following France and soon Britain was alone. The Great War has ended, Germany and her allies have won.

Meanwhile in Congo, as news comes to Boma, the government can breath a sigh of relief. The battle is far from over, but now the state is no longer collapsing. Little comfort for the common man, impoverished and unhappy, but for the higher ups (both in Congo and else wear), it means that things can go back to normal.
The remainder of the 1920s will prove them oh so wrong.
 
I'm sorry, for a war happening in the 1920s, I think this is utterly ASB. Particularly since it mostly looks like OTL's great war only better for the Central Powers side in every major detail for no particularly good reason.

Also, IMO, if Congo fights to the end, then whether or not the Germans win in Europe, Congo will lose. In OTL, the Germans were, before the end of WW1, planning to partition the Ottoman Empire (their ally), the idea that Germany would treat a country of black Africans any better than the Ottomans is rather hard for me to believe. I suspect it would be more likely that Germany sells Congo (and any other non-white allies) out to the British in order to get a peace treaty a few weeks or months earlier. (Not that this necessarily means total defeat for Congo - Congo could still spend another 2-4 years fighting like the Turks did OTL in order to defeat the exhausted powers claiming their land.)

fasquardon
 

Deleted member 67076

I'm sorry, for a war happening in the 1920s, I think this is utterly ASB. Particularly since it mostly looks like OTL's great war only better for the Central Powers side in every major detail for no particularly good reason.
I openly admit I'm skipping things over because frankly it'd take too much time and the focus here is Central Africa, not really the rest of the world. Besides, we're not even at the negotiations yet. :p Realistically, Austria is done for, Germany would be battered (might be close to civil war soon) and so would the Ottomans. Meaning any total peace is unlikely.

I imagined a Central Powers victory here due to no US interference. As for things getting better for the CP in every detail, I'll jokingly justify that by chocking it up to simply there being more distractions for the Entente to deal with along with better technology. :p

Also, IMO, if Congo fights to the end, then whether or not the Germans win in Europe, Congo will lose. In OTL, the Germans were, before the end of WW1, planning to partition the Ottoman Empire (their ally), the idea that Germany would treat a country of black Africans any better than the Ottomans is rather hard for me to believe.
Huh, really? I didn't know that. (regarding the Ottomans)

I don't think or want to say the Germans were treating the Congolese better than the Ottomans, (given that again, at this point in the story the war isn't over yet, just the fighting) but merely that with war in Europe winding down, a ceasefire would be agreed to and the fighting winds down. (inside the Congo however...)

I suspect it would be more likely that Germany sells Congo (and any other non-white allies) out to the British in order to get a peace treaty a few weeks or months earlier.
That's reasonable.

(Not that this necessarily means total defeat for Congo - Congo could still spend another 2-4 years fighting like the Turks did OTL in order to defeat the exhausted powers claiming their land.)

fasquardon
That too, although I'd guess the Brits would pull out soon after an armistice is declared, just taking whatever bits of Katanga they managed to hold on because this is too much work, and things end in an exhausted, unhappy peace. They'd be entirely reliant on South Africa here to secure their areas of interest, primarily Katanga and most of South Africa's army was tied up in taking Namibia and granting additional pressure in the western front.
 
Nationalism along with financial problems will still see the Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian Empires break to pieces. German Kaizer will likely be reduced to a figurehead a la UK. Congo will become slightly more representative, they are not ready for any kind of democracy.
 
I am afraid the implausibility of a 1920 Central Powers win with essentially the same cast of characters sort of spoils this for me, too. You get only so many gimmes on the basis of "well, I want it that way" before you need to move to ASB. :)

Re people in this TL remarking on how it failed to live up to it's potential: they of course will not know about OTL, which was so bad that everyone grumbling about how this will fail disastrously seem to be missing the point a little. It's a poor place even by _African_ standards. It's the second or third lowest GDP/cap in the world. An Indonesian GDP per capita increases it's GDP (not counting population growth) almost fifteen times, but just making it rich as the Other Congo multiplies GDP by almost nine. Increase it's population by 50%, increase its GDP per cap that much and the Congo has an economy roughly as large as South Africa.
 

Deleted member 67076

I am afraid the implausibility of a 1920 Central Powers win with essentially the same cast of characters sort of spoils this for me, too. You get only so many gimmes on the basis of "well, I want it that way" before you need to move to ASB. :)
Tough crowd eh? :D

So, can I somewhat rectify this by making the peace as bad as the war due to no side being strong enough to enforce harsh terms on the other? :p

Say, Austria collapses, Germany ends up with the Kaiser reduced to virtually nill/ends up in a revolution, France getting away with little more than a slap on the wrist in reparations. Fun stuff like that.

Until at least I can go back and focus on Congo's terrible twenties.

Re people in this TL remarking on how it failed to live up to it's potential: they of course will not know about OTL, which was so bad that everyone grumbling about how this will fail disastrously seem to be missing the point a little. It's a poor place even by _African_ standards. It's the second or third lowest GDP/cap in the world. An Indonesian GDP per capita increases it's GDP (not counting population growth) almost fifteen times, but just making it rich as the Other Congo multiplies GDP by almost nine. Increase it's population by 50%, increase its GDP per cap that much and the Congo has an economy roughly as large as South Africa.
Oh, this so much. Its amazing how little you need to do for the Congo to look so much better, which is really just a testament to how terrible the history of the place has been. (Although to be fair, my Congo isn't nice either. At all.)
 
Really great work, keep it up!

I myself am fascinated at the developing Congo nation ITTL. Hope to see the next update soon.
 
Top