The Congo Civil War, or Congo Crisis, was a complex political tumult that began just days following Belgium’s granting of Congolese independence in 1960. Lasting four years, the associated violence claimed an estimated 100,000 lives including the nation’s first Prime Minister, Patrice Lumumba, and UN Secretary Dag Hammarskjöld, who was killed in a plane crash as he attempted to mediate the crisis. Escalating with the secession of the southernmost province of Katanga, the conflict concluded five years later with a united Congo emerging under the dictatorship of Joseph-Désiré Mobutu.

On June 30, 1960, Belgium negotiated post-colonial mining rights in declaring an independent Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). Yet within days, soldiers of the Congolese army mutinied, demanding increased pay and the removal of white officers from their ranks. When Belgium intervened militarily, more soldiers rebelled. Many of these soldiers gravitated toward the radical nationalist Prime Minister Patrice Emery Lumumba.

Then, dominated by Belgian business interests, the mineral-rich Katanga province under the leadership of Moïse Kapenda Tshombe seceded from the DRC with Belgian support. Congolese President Joseph Kasavubu and Prime Minister Lumumba asked and received a peacekeeping force from the United Nations (UN).

The conflict also became the site of a dangerous Cold War “proxy” contest between western powers led by the United States and the Soviet Union-led Communist bloc. Under pressure from western nations and in exchange for UN support, President Kasavubu purged his government of radical elements including Prime Minister Lumumba. The ultra-nationalist Lumumba, though supported by the Congolese, was viewed by Western business leaders as an obstacle to their continued investments in Congolese diamond mines. Fearing Lumumba was secretly a Communist, the United States was particularly adamant about his removal from power.

Lumumba responded by firing Kasavubu as both leaders claimed control over the country, and Army Chief of Staff Joseph Mobutu in turn orchestrated a military coup d’état which ousted the two leaders. Mobutu’s government was supported by western governments. The Soviet Union and other Communist nations supported Lumumba who ultimately was killed by Katangan rebels.

With his chief rival removed, Mobutu pledged nominal support to President Kasavubu and the two led the successful effort to end the Katanga secession. UN forces eventually recaptured all of Katanga province. In 1964, a new rebellion began in the Eastern Congo when armed fighters (“Simbas”) began to spread across the region. Ironically, Moïse Tshombe, who had led the secessionist Katanga province, was made prime minister with the mandate to defeat these rebels and end other regional revolts. The Simbas were defeated in November 1964.

One year later, Mobutu seized power from President Kasavubu after having persuaded Western leaders that he was the most effective leader in the fight against communism. Kasavubu and Tshombe were exiled as Mobutu set up a one-party dictatorship, controlling the nation until 1997. Nonetheless, for the first time since independence, all of the country was ruled by one government.

Megathreads and spaces to hang out:

reminders:

  • 💚 You nerds can join specific comms to see posts about all sorts of topics
  • 💙 Hexbear’s algorithm prioritizes comments over upbears
  • 💜 Sorting by new you nerd
  • 🌈 If you ever want to make your own megathread, you can reserve a spot here nerd
  • 🐶 Join the unofficial Hexbear-adjacent Mastodon instance toots.matapacos.dog

Links To Resources (Aid and Theory):

Aid:

Theory:

  • FunkyStuff [he/him]
    ·
    5 days ago

    I don't entirely disgree with you because the invasion obviously didn't go the way Putin wanted, but it's also a question of what Russia was supposed to do about every treaty and every agreement to limit NATO's expansion being ignored. Ukraine had been couped and had a puppet government in place, and was massacring ethnic Russians near the Russian border. Should Russia have held on for longer to find a better moment to attack, get allies on board, whatever? Maybe, but I don't think anyone knows more than Russian intelligence what factors went into launching the SMO in the moment they did. They got NATO to more or less permanently close the doors to Ukraine, and destroyed confidence in Western military might. They also lost their gas line, made Europe side with America much more than before, lost thousands of people, and attracted a domestic anti-war movement that hates Putin. Is that such a dumb decision? What would the situation be for Russia if they hadn't invaded? It's a question that I don't think you could confidently give a positive answer to, it wasn't an undeniably stupid move to take a shot when faced with the situation as it was in 2022.

    I also wouldn't go as far as to say it was a fluke that Ukraine survived the initial stage of the operation, but it wasn't guaranteed either; there definitely was a world where this whole thing would've been wrapped up in 2022. And even as things shook out, judging by the mass of artillery each side has fired Russia is still coming out miles ahead. I'd call it a stupid decision if NATO had actually "weakened Russia" like they wanted, but Russia being able to produce far more ammunition than all of NATO combined means that it's been the opposite, NATO has been the one getting relatively weaker as the ammunition and material reserves dry up. All that's left is overengineered military hardware, openly corrupt MIC contracts for the Space Force or whatever, and aircraft carriers that would turn into billion dollar Titanic replicas around hypersonic missiles. So, in any case, maybe the stupid move was when NATO poked the bear?

    • Tomboymoder [she/her, it/its]
      ·
      5 days ago

      I think massively escalating the conflict in Ukraine was bad actually and has done very little to advance the cause or ability of revolution globally and has only resulted in the immiseration of the Ukranian working class.

      • Antiwork [none/use name]
        ·
        5 days ago

        You're a sovereign nation. All the top imperialist nations agree that they should start fortifying at your borders. They're allowing Nazis to grow as well and murdering Russians at an alarming rate with no punishment. What's the best plan of action?

        • Tomboymoder [she/her, it/its]
          ·
          5 days ago

          The civilian casualties in the Donbas War were around 3400 between 2014-2021 (this is for all sides mind and the majority of it in the first two years) Meanwhile the civilian casualties in the area controlled by the DPR in last two years since Russia invaded are as high as 4000, not even accounting for areas controlled by Ukraine and other Oblasts with Ethnic Russians.

      • FunkyStuff [he/him]
        ·
        5 days ago

        In a vacuum, yes, but what was the alternative? What was the best case scenario for the Ukrainian working class Jews and ethnic Russians if Russia hadn't stepped in? What's the best case scenario for a country that isn't allowed to have self determination because of its position between NATO and Russia? And NATO ultimately bears the blame for expanding eastward for decades, knowingly provoking a Russia retaliation.

        • Tomboymoder [she/her, it/its]
          ·
          5 days ago

          Exactly, Ukraine is not allowed self-determination and the working class is forced to choose between a government that supports one master over the other because of this intra-nationalist conflict, so why support a side?

          • FunkyStuff [he/him]
            ·
            edit-2
            5 days ago

            Because one side is going to win, and if NATO wins there is no counter to American hegemony. If Russia wins, AES states have someone to trade with beside China, and the world is multipolar. I get what you mean though, it's not morally uncomplicated and it's not like Russia is motivated by anti-imperialism either. If it troubles you a lot, I guess I just have to ask: why does it matter that we believe Russia is in the right? We don't have any ICBMs to sell them. I mean, hell, if I did I'd give them to Hamas. But ultimately our beliefs don't matter, and we don't have any revolutionary praxis we can do to affect the situation one way or the other except agitation and (if the moment is right) sabotage, which socialists should always be doing regardless. Should we suddenly not agitate or sabotage because Russia is harming working class Ukrainians? Does the course of action of building the left change in any way based on the conclusion of this discussion? Or is it just wrecker style behavior to decide to quit or split a movement because they disagree on the moral character of a military conflict they have no influence over?

              • FunkyStuff [he/him]
                ·
                5 days ago

                No disrespect but that's very myopic. What was the plan otherwise? Go to Biden and show him a copy of Minsk and do the finger-wag nerd face? Ukraine becoming a NATO proxy is much more of a threat for Russia than what they've lost in a war that turned into a quagmire for both sides.