I know very little about the colonisation of the pacific islands, but often I mention in threads about a Dutch Belgium of Flanders that a potential place for the Netherlands for colonial expansion would be the pacific. So i was recently wondering if this was actualy correct. So with a POD around 1815 could the Netherlands gain some pacific islands as colonies and which ones. Also could the Netherlands potentialy keep them after decolonizing, like they did with the Dutch Antilles?
Which pacific islands could the Netherlands colonise?
- Thread starter pompejus
- Start date
By 1815 it's almost first-come, first-served, you can pick virtually any. The tricky part is finding a reason for the Dutch to start colonizing islands in the Pacific...
Sure, look at France.
TFSmith121
Banned
BY 1815, they had possession or at least a claim to most
By 1815, they had possession or at least a claim to most of what became the NEI/Indonesia, and then some, actually; not sure that their economy could have sustained a whole lot more, but as has been said, at that point in the Nineteenth Century, most of the Pacific was up for grabs - the British didn't really make a stong claim of New Zealand, for example, for another couple of decades, and same for the French in Polynesia.
A "Dutch" New Zealand would be interesting, since it would actually become (presumably) a temperate "settler" colony, as opposed to a tropical "imperial" colony.
That opens some questions as to how well or poorly the Dutch would get along with the Maori, and if it becomes a "settler" colony, where the European settlers come from - the Netherlands, obviously, but presumably they'd recruit in various German states, maybe Belgium, and possibly Scandinavia. Dunno if such a colony would get some attention from Afrikaans-speakers from the Cape, looking to get away from British control, but it is possible. A significant "Indo" population of mixed-ancestry people, mostly Christian but possibly also Muslim, might emerge as well - which presumably wpould lead to issues with the Maoris, like the Indian population in Fiji...
The Australian continent and/or Tasmania/Van Dieman's Land is another possibility, but the British would presumably object to sharing the continent with another European power, even an ally...
The ramifications into Pacific history in the remainder of the Nineteenth and the Twentieth centuries would be interesting.
Best,
By 1815, they had possession or at least a claim to most of what became the NEI/Indonesia, and then some, actually; not sure that their economy could have sustained a whole lot more, but as has been said, at that point in the Nineteenth Century, most of the Pacific was up for grabs - the British didn't really make a stong claim of New Zealand, for example, for another couple of decades, and same for the French in Polynesia.
A "Dutch" New Zealand would be interesting, since it would actually become (presumably) a temperate "settler" colony, as opposed to a tropical "imperial" colony.
That opens some questions as to how well or poorly the Dutch would get along with the Maori, and if it becomes a "settler" colony, where the European settlers come from - the Netherlands, obviously, but presumably they'd recruit in various German states, maybe Belgium, and possibly Scandinavia. Dunno if such a colony would get some attention from Afrikaans-speakers from the Cape, looking to get away from British control, but it is possible. A significant "Indo" population of mixed-ancestry people, mostly Christian but possibly also Muslim, might emerge as well - which presumably wpould lead to issues with the Maoris, like the Indian population in Fiji...
The Australian continent and/or Tasmania/Van Dieman's Land is another possibility, but the British would presumably object to sharing the continent with another European power, even an ally...
The ramifications into Pacific history in the remainder of the Nineteenth and the Twentieth centuries would be interesting.
Best,
Well, I was thinking about a netherlands that includes Belgium, or at least Flanders (or possibly some German parts, like East-Frisia or Cleves).
Mind you, I do think that New Zealand or Australia would be too much to ask.
I think the Solomon Islands would still be up for grabs, for instance, and they are not that far from the Dutch East Indies. Note that in the latter, there was a rather energetic Dutch drive for expansion of their control exactly in the 1820-40s. Push a little bit more and they can take the Solomons too. Note that the drive continued through to the 1920s!
To the North of those, you'd enter areas claimed by Spain, and in 1815 the Spaniards are allies of the British. I wouldn't go there.
You could go South-East, though, to the Fiji for instance.
As to keeping any of that, it's down to whoever the locals are at the time of decolonization, and how well the central government is prepared to treat them. If they freely choose to stay in, why not. If they want to have their own state, better let them go. That's the way it works with Martinique and Guadeloupe, for instance.
To the North of those, you'd enter areas claimed by Spain, and in 1815 the Spaniards are allies of the British. I wouldn't go there.
You could go South-East, though, to the Fiji for instance.
As to keeping any of that, it's down to whoever the locals are at the time of decolonization, and how well the central government is prepared to treat them. If they freely choose to stay in, why not. If they want to have their own state, better let them go. That's the way it works with Martinique and Guadeloupe, for instance.
This. The nearest to the DEI the better. For rationality sake, it would make sense to extend the claims to the whole New Guinea and then start claiming islands to its East.
New Zealand would be interesting but I think by 1815, given Britain being in Australia/New South Wales, they will need to be considered.
That being said, if something can be sorted you could have all sorts of fun with New Zealand and the Maori.
Remember, New Zealand is two large islands, of about 110-150,000 square km size, arranged in a narrow fashion. So the northern part of the North Island is considered sub tropical and the southern part of the South Island is more like the South of England, climatewise.
Now, for Maori, this has implications, as their crop package, so far as they could adapt it to NZ in the 700 (or so, this figure is still a bit uncertain), works best in the Upper North Island, then progressively worsens till about mid-way through the South Island at which point it is very hard work. Which meant that their population was principally in the North Island and northern tip of the South Island (Nelson Bays). In the rest of the South Island they had settlements on the coast near river mouths or fertile fisheries, usually small in size.
So in essence this means most of the South Island is reasonably open to substantial settlement by the Dutch, if they so want to do so. Whether they want to do so is of course the rub.
Large parts of the North Island also proved open to coastal settlement. Many of the NI harbour towns and cities of modern day NZ are based on pre Treaty of Waitangi settlements
That being said, if something can be sorted you could have all sorts of fun with New Zealand and the Maori.
Remember, New Zealand is two large islands, of about 110-150,000 square km size, arranged in a narrow fashion. So the northern part of the North Island is considered sub tropical and the southern part of the South Island is more like the South of England, climatewise.
Now, for Maori, this has implications, as their crop package, so far as they could adapt it to NZ in the 700 (or so, this figure is still a bit uncertain), works best in the Upper North Island, then progressively worsens till about mid-way through the South Island at which point it is very hard work. Which meant that their population was principally in the North Island and northern tip of the South Island (Nelson Bays). In the rest of the South Island they had settlements on the coast near river mouths or fertile fisheries, usually small in size.
So in essence this means most of the South Island is reasonably open to substantial settlement by the Dutch, if they so want to do so. Whether they want to do so is of course the rub.
Large parts of the North Island also proved open to coastal settlement. Many of the NI harbour towns and cities of modern day NZ are based on pre Treaty of Waitangi settlements
TFSmith121
Banned
If the Dutch are willing to trade something in the West Indies?
New Zealand was not "British" until the 1840s, essentially; be interesting to see a "Dutch" settler colony in the Pacific.
Nieue Nieue Netherlands?
Best,
New Zealand was not "British" until the 1840s, essentially; be interesting to see a "Dutch" settler colony in the Pacific.
Nieue Nieue Netherlands?
Best,
So this very rough timeline is generally possible?
POD around 1815-1830 (maybe future Willem II dies at Waterloo). Because of a better/different treatment of the Southern Netherlands the Belgian revolution is avoided/contained, so Belgium remains part of the Netherlands. In the 1840's Walloon* traders are looking towards trading oppertunities in the Bismarch archipellago (which obviously needs a different name), the Solomons islands and Fiji (and other islands, but they are mainly focussed around these).
Because the increased manpower and wealth (the Walloon industry) of the Netherlands, the Netherlands is able to claim these islands for their colonial empire, which also includes all of Borneo and the Dutch gold Coast in Africa (no not a Dutch Congo). In the middle of the 20th century decolonialsim starts, just like OTL. Indonesia and the Dutch Gold coast become independent. Surinam, the Dutch antilles and the Dutch pacific are also on course for independence, but in the end decide against it, as the prefer Dutch money and they already have quite some autonomy (compare the Dutch Antilles OTL).
So, assuming this is reasonable, are there any obvious colonial (thus ignoring the situation in Europe) butterflies?
*could be anyone in the Netherlands, but I used Walloon because I wanted to use the Belgian revolution as obvious POD. In this case they are interested in the Pacific islands partly to avoid the Dutch East Indies, which are already filled with Dutch speaking Dutch and looking for oppertunities a bit further away.
PS I love the idea of a Dutch New Zealand/Nieuw Zeeland, but I think that even with Belgium and Luxemburg the Dutch simply don't have the population for a settler colony, like the British. Also it doesn't realy fit the colonial style of the Netherlands (making money over sea).
POD around 1815-1830 (maybe future Willem II dies at Waterloo). Because of a better/different treatment of the Southern Netherlands the Belgian revolution is avoided/contained, so Belgium remains part of the Netherlands. In the 1840's Walloon* traders are looking towards trading oppertunities in the Bismarch archipellago (which obviously needs a different name), the Solomons islands and Fiji (and other islands, but they are mainly focussed around these).
Because the increased manpower and wealth (the Walloon industry) of the Netherlands, the Netherlands is able to claim these islands for their colonial empire, which also includes all of Borneo and the Dutch gold Coast in Africa (no not a Dutch Congo). In the middle of the 20th century decolonialsim starts, just like OTL. Indonesia and the Dutch Gold coast become independent. Surinam, the Dutch antilles and the Dutch pacific are also on course for independence, but in the end decide against it, as the prefer Dutch money and they already have quite some autonomy (compare the Dutch Antilles OTL).
So, assuming this is reasonable, are there any obvious colonial (thus ignoring the situation in Europe) butterflies?
*could be anyone in the Netherlands, but I used Walloon because I wanted to use the Belgian revolution as obvious POD. In this case they are interested in the Pacific islands partly to avoid the Dutch East Indies, which are already filled with Dutch speaking Dutch and looking for oppertunities a bit further away.
PS I love the idea of a Dutch New Zealand/Nieuw Zeeland, but I think that even with Belgium and Luxemburg the Dutch simply don't have the population for a settler colony, like the British. Also it doesn't realy fit the colonial style of the Netherlands (making money over sea).
I don't quite agree.
The Treaty of Waitangi was developed and signed in 1840, by the British Resident, reporting to Sydney (New South Wales colony) and London. This treaty is deemed by the current New Zealand government to be the foundation point of the country. At this point Britain assumes sovereignty.
Prior to this however, Britain had government agents in New Zealand, directing and guiding Maori and non Maori as best they could. They organised the formation of the United Tribes in the early 1830s, which was an organisation that purported to assert Maori control under a British protectorate.
Alongside this, the various non Maori settlements (ranging from whaling stations to small towns) along the coasts of both islands were largely economically integrated into the British Australian colonies. The markets of Sydney and Melbourne especially relied on NZ produce, from Maori and non Maori alike. The people of the Australian colonies very much saw New Zealand as being part of their economic hinterland and were jealous of any foreign traders or visitors. Principally the French. Most of the early British settlers of NZ, pre Treaty, were either from Australia or had lived there (convicts especially).
Now it may be that the government or people of the Netherlands didn't really need to or want to care what Britain though about New Zealand pre 1840, but it would seem unlikely that they would not seek to come to some arrangement if they were planning a serious settlement in New Zealand.
Alex Richards
Donor
Not to mention you're all vastly overestimating the amount of control the Dutch had over the DEI in the 19th Century. We're talking little more than Java and some trading posts up until the 1850s, then it took about 40 years to take over Dutch Borneo, most of Sumatra and the Moluccas, with New Guinea not even coming under partial Dutch Control until 1898, largely in response to Britain and Germany claiming the other half of the island.
Essentially, the main reason the Dutch missed out on Pacific Islands was because they were far more interested and busy in securing the more lucrative prize of the East Indies.
Essentially, the main reason the Dutch missed out on Pacific Islands was because they were far more interested and busy in securing the more lucrative prize of the East Indies.
True. Although it wouldn't take much to establish a colony in the lower South Island. The initial British settlements were usually very small to start with, several hundred settlers at most, in late 1840s-1852, then once established and once the NZ government established in 1852-4, tens of thousands of settlers arrived. But it was not really till the Gold Rushes and sheep meat/wool booms that settlement started substantive infilling of the regions.
So even a small Dutch village of a couple of hundred would be a substantial settlement.
Some of the early, pre Treaty whaling stations could have grown slightly faster than they did too.
Alex Richards
Donor
Oh indeed, but the Dutch are unlikely to really be all that interested in the area. Nothing obviously worth trading after all.
This is the reason why I want this in a the Netherlands keeps Belgium/Flanders scenario. This would mean that the Netherlands has a larger population and is more wealthy. They would still need to partly focus on the Dutch East Indies (mind you I believe the Moluccas was already firmly under Dutch control, but the smaller Sunda islands, like Bali weren't), but if there would be some Dutch interest in some pacific Islands, like Dutch traders, it could mean that some agreement could be made with other European nations (and the USA and possibly Japan) that would add the pacific islands to the Dutch sphere of influence and true colonisation (or at least colonial subjugation) would happen late in the 19th, early 20th century.
Basicly I am brainstorming what would be the best case scenario for the Netherlands post-Vienna congress, while still remaing reasonable (so no Dutch Cape or Congo or New Zealand).
Alex Richards
Donor
Moluccas was complicated. Ternate and Tidore had treaties with the Dutch and nominally controlled the whole of the archipelago, but that was pretty nominal control and required a few expeditions in the 1860s early 1900s.
Can you show me some information about that? It sounds interesting. The Dutch wikipedia mentions only some expeditions to Borneo, Celebes, Sumatra, Bali and Lombok. It looks like the Moluku islands where generaly one of the more stable parts of the Dutch East indies.
It looks like it is more of a case of the Dutch letting other people govern it, as long as they do exactly what the Dutch want. There where other parts in the Dutch East indies where that happened, like (I think) Yogtakarta on java.
TFSmith121
Banned
True enough, but the Netherlands is the closest thing to a formal ally
True enough, but the Netherlands is the closest thing to a formal ally the British have on the Continent in the early Nineteenth Century, certainly after the connections with Hannover, etc. are no longer in place. May actually be the UK's interest to strengthen their ties with the Netherlands...
And as has been pointed out, the Dutch have a huge project in what became the NEI, as do the British in Australia; conversely, a "Dutch" settler colony in the Pacific might actually make the NEI "easier" in terms of a European population in the region to draw on for personnel and supllies - think of "Nieuw Zealand" as the Cape or Natal to Indonesia as the Transvaal, ZAR, Rhodesia, etc.
Another possibility, I suppose, simply from a point of geographic continuity and defensibility, might be to trade Dutch Borneo to the British in return for a free hand in all of New Guinea, at least before the Germans show up. Probably not much a trade in terms of economics (have to be before the oil industry develops, obviously) but it does make some sense in terms of geography.
Best,
True enough, but the Netherlands is the closest thing to a formal ally the British have on the Continent in the early Nineteenth Century, certainly after the connections with Hannover, etc. are no longer in place. May actually be the UK's interest to strengthen their ties with the Netherlands...
And as has been pointed out, the Dutch have a huge project in what became the NEI, as do the British in Australia; conversely, a "Dutch" settler colony in the Pacific might actually make the NEI "easier" in terms of a European population in the region to draw on for personnel and supllies - think of "Nieuw Zealand" as the Cape or Natal to Indonesia as the Transvaal, ZAR, Rhodesia, etc.
Another possibility, I suppose, simply from a point of geographic continuity and defensibility, might be to trade Dutch Borneo to the British in return for a free hand in all of New Guinea, at least before the Germans show up. Probably not much a trade in terms of economics (have to be before the oil industry develops, obviously) but it does make some sense in terms of geography.
Best,