I doubt that, given that if we look at the Western Hemisphere, it is striking how the most nutrient-rich regions of that hemisphere were colonised by the Spanish, and Australia is by far the most oligroptrophic (nutrient-poor) extant continent (though likely the closest to most continents over geological time). Thus, although Spain is ecologically less different from Australia than any other part of Europe – relatively arid with variable runoff – I do not see the Spanish settling Australia.Now let me flip it & ask one I came across some years ago: WI Spain had settled *Oz? IIRC, the argument went, it was a lot like Spain, so settlers would adapt easily, & TTL Oz would end up with a much larger population.
Once Australia is controlled even from an extremity, it is very difficult to dislodge the “owner” from this control, and because Australia is a land of extreme “connectedness” (much higher than that of China) if the Dutch established permanent settlements they would likely hold the country permanently.However, what if the Dutch do settle southern Australia? Why would not they suffer the same New Amsterdam/New York/South Africa/Boer Republic outcome?
There was some such possibility in the era of King Saud in Saudi Arabia. If for some reason the Wahhabi clerics had been more resistant to the importation of foreign labour, it is certainly possible that the House of Saud could have been overthrown around the time the monarchy in Libya was. There are certainly risks of such an overthrow whether it attempted to modernise Saudi Arabia or not, given the history of Gaddhafi’s Libya and of Osama bin Laden.Anything involving Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf States. A Gaddafi-esque figure coming to power there would reek havoc in world politics.
Once Australia is controlled even from an extremity, it is very difficult to dislodge the “owner” from this control, and because Australia is a land of extreme “connectedness” (much higher than that of China) if the Dutch established permanent settlements they would likely hold the country permanently.
Given the history of the Boers’ relationships with native peoples in colonial Africa whereby they excluded them much more fully from public life than even British-colonised America did with free people of color, I have thought a Dutch Australia would have evolved – à la Kuwait, Qatar or the United Arab Emirates – into a nation with a very small and rigidly restricted citizen population and a much larger expatriate population divided into skilled and unskilled subgroups and with rigid laws against acquiring citizenship. How such a system would have evolved is not clear, but I might say that Australia would have demanded independence once demands for democratisation in the Netherlands itself became overwhelming, and would not likely have modernised such a system of labour control.
Likely a Dutch-colonised Australia would have not been that different from actual Australia when it came to the major wars fought over the globe in the twentieth century. In World War I, I imagine Australia might not have been involved if they had been granted independence by this time. With a Dutch base in Indonesia as well as Australia, they would have certainly resisted Japanese expansion and having both lands controlled by the same power could certainly mean a more rapid withdrawal by Japan.
I doubt that, given that if we look at the Western Hemisphere, it is striking how the most nutrient-rich regions of that hemisphere were colonised by the Spanish, and Australia is by far the most oligroptrophic (nutrient-poor) extant continent (though likely the closest to most continents over geological time). Thus, although Spain is ecologically less different from Australia than any other part of Europe – relatively arid with variable runoff – I do not see the Spanish settling Australia.
You definitively are missing something. Most decisively, how those with any experience working with Australian soils know “Soil Taxonomy” as utterly inadequate to deal with the unique characteristics of Australian soils vis-à-vis any other Quaternary landmass. Irrespective of classification by “Soil Taxonomy”’s unsuitable criteria, Australian soils are:Perhaps I am missing something?
However, as Jared Diamond noted, the “Han core” – which was what I meant by “China” in this context – has had a tendency for consistent unity ever since the formation of the first imperial Chinese state. This is due to the ease of movement along the hypereutrophic alluvial plains of the Han core region.One might more accurately describe it as a top down controlled orthogonal oligarchic gerontocracy with an imposed ideology and identity that is a temporary state of equilibrium outside the Han core. Even at the Han core, just as the Mason Dixon line (or Ohio River, it depends on the anthropologist) is a cultural cleave line in the United States, so there are the "Northern Chinese" and "Southern Chinese" with a similar cleave line at roughly the Yellow River that changes over the centuries north or south a few hundred kilometers north or south of that river valley; depending on who conquers whom in the 300 year yo-yo.
Australia is much more extreme in its natural unity than even the Han core. Away from the small section occupied by coastal rivers, Australia is, in essence – read Mary E. White’s Running Down: Water in a Changing Land – one single extremely flat floodplain. Because rainfall over Australia is extremely variable and – excluding the “south-facing” coastal areas from North West Cape around to Fraser Island – exceptionally spatially coherent, almost all the continent’s land area experiences its rare extreme floods almost simultaneously, with lag times of no more than five months. Such conditions naturally produce human societies that cooperate to an exceptional degree over the whole continent, even though the above-mentioned “south-facing” areas hold most of Australia’s present population. A dramatic example can be seen when Aborigines offered food relief to neighboring groups affected by the long droughts that dominate Australia’s climate.
isn't that basically the Inevitablid Caliphate, though?A successful United Arab Republic that spans the Arab world. That’s a concept I don’t see enough of.
isn't that basically the Inevitablid Caliphate, though?
What If the Hominid Red Deer Cave people in China survive even longer ?There are plenty of TLs which begin with a premise which has been used by many, or have ideas in the TL which again aren't that creative. But are there AH ideas which are plausible, but aren't commonly used (or in some cases, not used at all)?
What If the remaining Irish out of gratitude for Ottoman shipments convert to Islam to some degree after the famine ?There are plenty of TLs which begin with a premise which has been used by many, or have ideas in the TL which again aren't that creative. But are there AH ideas which are plausible, but aren't commonly used (or in some cases, not used at all)?
Given that the Boers were even more opposed than (at least early) American settlers to citizenship for non-Whites, what I have to happen if the Dutch did colonise Australia imagined is that, in point form:Boer Africa is a much closer comparison to Australia after the British take over. Consider Canadian history (Quebec) as another startling parallel... But let us stick with the Boer example. Notice the British incursions and operations?
Not so far as I know, but it is an extremely logical alternate possibility given Italy “changed sides” less than a decade before World War I broke out. The result of such an occurrence could potentially be a stalled or slowed democratisation of Europe, especially if there was no Bolshevik Revolution (although I cannot rule out the first Communist revolution occurring in China or even India). The continent might have been in a more stable state under such conditions, as might Africa if it where wholly under Central Powers rule and less money was diverted by Europe’s vast welfare states. Larger-scale land ownership in Africa by European landlords might even have become a possibility after an Italy-supported Central Powers triumph, whilst Britain and France would have become more and more tied to the Scandinavian nations and New Zealand.Have we ever had Italy as part of victorious central powers in WWI?
I'm sure you could have said that in 1913 Russia. Not many there were communists, but a lost war, disruption of the economy. Lack of food as well, makes many people seek out radicals for a chance of a future. I'm sure the Chinese peasants and Russians would have suffered in common wayMany who joined the Taiping Rebellion where not Christians, or cared for Christianity, or for Hong Xiuquan madness. They all wanted 3 things: The Qing to be gone, land to farm, and rice to eat.
You still run the strong chance of China fragmenting. ( Xinjiang and Mongolia, Guizhou.)
Or even have the British help the anti-Qing rebellion.
Given that the Boers were even more opposed than (at least early) American settlers to citizenship for non-Whites, what I have to happen if the Dutch did colonise Australia imagined is that, in point form:
Regarding your point about Australia in World War Two, I am sorry to say I have never fully grasped your point and how it would be different with a Dutch-colonised Australia.
- the Dutch would take control of the whole of Australia once they establish permanent settlement
- at least once the first minerals are discovered, they would be short of labour
- they would have much less labour back home to export than did the British, and much less native labour than in South Africa
- the Dutch would find the use of non-White labour cheaper than White labour, but as noted above would be absolutely and intransigently opposed to giving these labourers citizenship rights or even the possibility of obtaining citizenship
- if the British did take over, they could still continue a policy of expatriate (non-White) labour if they thought it cheaper than importing potentially-citizen labour from Europe
- ultimately Australia’s unique abundance of mineral resources would make a system of a largely expatriate population with extremely restricted citizenship self-sustaining as it is in today’s Gulf States