Had a conversation earlier about the Belgian Congo (as you do), specifically about who'd end up owning it if there wasn't a Belgium.
Except that even if there was a Belgium, there'd be no guarantee of it being Belgian, because the Belgian government didn't want it - hence why King Leopold, who very much did want it (or indeed any colony) had the Congo Free State, having backed Stanley to the hilt after the latter returned from his crossing of the Congo.
But if, for whatever reason, Leopold wasn't able or willing to do so, and thus there isn't a Belgian Congo - who'd get it?
Except that even if there was a Belgium, there'd be no guarantee of it being Belgian, because the Belgian government didn't want it - hence why King Leopold, who very much did want it (or indeed any colony) had the Congo Free State, having backed Stanley to the hilt after the latter returned from his crossing of the Congo.
But if, for whatever reason, Leopold wasn't able or willing to do so, and thus there isn't a Belgian Congo - who'd get it?