How would our world be different if the Dutch had never colonized either South Africa or Australia? I know that with Australia they almost turned it down, thinking that it might have been unprofitable.
DBWI: No Dutch Australia and South Africa
- Thread starter pattontank12
- Start date
Zachariah
Banned
Well, to be fair, it wasn't particularly profitable, not at first. But the penal colonies there did prove to be an extremely useful dumping ground for rebels and dissidents from Dutch India and the Dutch East Indies. Without those penal colonies, would the Dutch have been able to consolidate their holdings in Ceylon, Bengal and Coromandel, and expand them to secure Malabar and Arakan (with the latter effectively turning the Bay of Bengal into a Dutch lake, just like the Java Sea)? You never know. And of course, Australia in particular would be far, far less populated. Don't know nearly as much about how much of a difference no Dutch colonization of South Africa would make though- given the critical strategic importance of controlling the Cape, it was always going to be priority colony #1 for the colonial powers, and the key to securing colonial dominance over the Far East. So that particular one depends on who else colonizes SA instead. Portugal? Spain? France?
I wonder how the Shun Dynasty might have been affected by this as the Shun and the Dutch forged an alliance in the mid-17th century which helped with Shun China's rise to power as the main Asian powerhouse.
There was also the development of the mutual trade agreement between Nippon and the Dutch, turned formal alliance. Which helped the Nipponese become on par with the western European powers. They colonized California!
Really? Another Nipponese apologist? For the last time, they didn't colonize California, no matter what their propaganda says. Mexicans, Americans, and independence-minded Californios may have been fighting over that land at the time, but the Japanese intervention, invasion, and occupation of the LA region was NOT colonization. They didn't even officially annex it until decades later! The Mexican claim to the region is entirely legitimate.
But, I digress. Back to the OP. Without South Africa, the Dutch wouldn't have been able to hold such power in India or Australia, that's for sure. In addition to what's already been said, I think the Dutch would easily lose the East Indies, too, to whichever power takes South Africa instead. It's *that* vital for Eastern colonization.
Well at the time Japanese already made up nearly a third of California's total population.
It was still sovereign Mexican territory (or Californian, depending on who you ask), and the Nipponese invaded. Plain and simple. Also, I didn't know you were Californian! The use of "Japanese" instead of Nipponese gave it away.
Last edited:
If you ask me it's Mexican, and the demographics agree with me. Or, well, the demographics of southern California do anyway.
B-29_Bomber
Banned
If you ask me it's Mexican, and the demographics agree with me. Or, well, the demographics of southern California do anyway.
KARIFORNIA A PROPERTY OF THE EMPEROR, DIRTY SAVAGE!
BANZAI!
OoC:
Well the demographics in northern and central California or mainly Japanese. With the bulk of the rest being actually a mix of Mexican, Anglo-Saxon and Japanese. There's actually some pretty interesting cultural hybridization in California, once you get past the upper and upper middle class.If you ask me it's Mexican, and the demographics agree with me. Or, well, the demographics of southern California do anyway.
Well South Africa might not have such a large population. Considering the rush of Dutch and North German immigrants. Following the discovery of diamonds by that missionary. That went out and tried to spread Christianity to the local tribes.