Long Term Effects on the British Empire of No British Australia

  • Thread starter Deleted member 148213
  • Start date

Deleted member 148213

For the sake of the discussion, assume that, through neglect or failure, the British Empire never colonized Australia.

What are the effects on the empire's politics, economics, and international situation over the next century or so given that they never colonized Australia?

Part of the reason why I ask is that I'd assume that not having Australia would change very little for them, but I'd love to be proven wrong about its significance.

Thanks
 
Umbric Man

Umbric Man

It was a useful dumping ground for convicts they used to dump into the now-independent American colonies, and was a useful forward base for Indian and Pacific Ocean trade and colonization. Even if I'm sure most Britons still migrated to Canada and America, having an entire continent for a safety valve for more poor or discontented settlers was also useful if at least as a placebo for them to start fresh than stew in Britain and potentially cause issues.
 
Unkown00

Unkown00

Sunny said:
Who is the likeliest colonizer of Australia if the British don't do so? The French or the Dutch?
Click to expand...
Yeah, I say both the French and Dutch would probably split the continent for their colonization. I don't know how the border would look like.
 

Deleted member 148213

Umbric Man said:
... was a useful forward base for Indian and Pacific Ocean trade and colonization.
Click to expand...
I wondered about this- is there any concrete example of how they used Australia to their advantage strategically or economically in the Indian Ocean? India is the most important part of their empire, correct, and I don't think they would face any difficulties there because they lacked Australia.
If the British can control the Suez and Malacca as OTL, access to the Pacific via Australia seems a bit unecessary- who cares if the French have some tiny atolls, Britain still holds the truly important locations, and Australia shouldn't affect that, I don't think. Did the British ever use Australia as a headquarters for some Indian Ocean affairs?
 

Deleted member 148213

Unkown00 said:
Yeah, I say both the French and Dutch would probably split the continent for their colonization. I don't know how the border would look like.
Click to expand...
I think French Australia or Dutch Australia are likely to have far lower populations than OTL Australia.
The Netherlands are tiny, and France is not growing fast; its government has little incentive to encourage immigration and there will be less population pressure.
I think that if they do settle Australia, it may even happen much later than 1788 because after the British fail, it might discourage other powers. I don't know too much about French attitudes towards Australia in the late 18th C, but I imagine the revolution and napoleonic wars will occupy them for at least 3 more decades before they even care to try.
Either way, I think Australia ITTL has a much lower white population in 1900.
 
Unkown00

Unkown00

Antarctica99 said:
I think French Australia or Dutch Australia are likely to have far lower populations than OTL Australia.
The Netherlands are tiny, and France is not growing fast; its government has little incentive to encourage immigration and there will be less population pressure.
I think that if they do settle Australia, it may even happen much later than 1788 because after the British fail, it might discourage other powers. I don't know too much about French attitudes towards Australia in the late 18th C, but I imagine the revolution and napoleonic wars will occupy them for at least 3 more decades before they even care to try.
Either way, I think Australia ITTL has a much lower white population in 1900.
Click to expand...
Could it be possible Australia would not become a White Settler Colony at all?

Also wouldn't the french and Dutch allow Immigrants into the Colonies?
 

Deleted member 148213

Unkown00 said:
Could it be possible Australia would not become a White Settler Colony at all?

Also wouldn't the french and Dutch allow Immigrants into the Colonies?
Click to expand...
I don't think they'd feel comfortable with non-french, non-dutch outnumbering their own nationals, and I think OTL British australia required people speak English to enter, excluding lots of foreigners.

Also, who would they be? British and Germans are the largest potential immogrant groups- do the French want them of all people in their colonies?

The prompt isn't about Australia directly- its about Britain, so I'm kind of going off topic, but I think there is a decent shot Australia becomes a non-white country, mostly aboriginals, a smattering of Europeans owning large land areas and maybe some imported workers from the Indies, Africa, or China.
 
Gabingston

Gabingston

Antarctica99 said:
Also, who would they be? British and Germans are the largest potential immogrant groups- do the French want them of all people in their colonies?
Click to expand...
The French may not want a bunch of Germans in their Australian colony, but I'm assuming the Dutch would be fine with it, being cultural and linguistic cousins and all that. Heck, Germans made up a fair deal of the VOC and the settlers in OTL's Dutch colonies IIRC.
 

Deleted member 148213

Gabingston said:
The French may not want a bunch of Germans in their Australian colony, but I'm assuming the Dutch would be fine with it, being cultural and linguistic cousins and all that. Heck, Germans made up a fair deal of the VOC and the settlers in OTL's Dutch colonies IIRC.
Click to expand...
I think it is more likely the Dutch would just import indonesian laborers and attempt only a very small settler colony. One kmteresting possibility though would be some kind of Afrikaner exodus to Australia since the British aren't giving up the cape.
But I also dont think that is all too likely as the Afrikaners have all of South Africa to expand into.
 

HARRY

Antarctica99 said:
Was there some reason why Canada did not suffice?
Click to expand...
I think it was the same reason that they decided against South Africa there was a significant population non-British that having convicts there could agitate or worst work with to rebel against the colonial government. In South Africa it was the Dutch Boers in Canada the French Quebecois add in the native population resisting colonization and it was a risky proposition.
 

Admiral Brown

Antarctica99 said:
I don't think they'd feel comfortable with non-french, non-dutch outnumbering their own nationals, and I think OTL British australia required people speak English to enter, excluding lots of foreigners.

Also, who would they be? British and Germans are the largest potential immogrant groups- do the French want them of all people in their colonies?

The prompt isn't about Australia directly- its about Britain, so I'm kind of going off topic, but I think there is a decent shot Australia becomes a non-white country, mostly aboriginals, a smattering of Europeans owning large land areas and maybe some imported workers from the Indies, Africa, or China.
Click to expand...
France acepted non French European immigrants in Argelia. I think the number of Spanish and Italian immigrants was closed or even surpassed the number of French immigrants. They might do the same in Australia. They may even let Germans in, Germany wasn't seen as a threat before 1870.
 

Frrf

With Australia in other hands, Britain is going to be paranoid about attacks on the Straits Settlements, and unable to dominate the Pacific like they want. They'd probably start a war over it eventually, because giving up on Australia means giving up on the South Pacific and its resources, and a potential base for an attack on Singapore or even India. French Indochina could be tolerated because the UK controlled the straits of Mallacca and thus access, and Siam acted as a buffer, while Dutch Indonesia was tolerable because the British surrounded it, it was difficult to govern, and the Dutch had already been there a long time. Australia however can't be surrounded, is (to their eyes) practically empty, accessable directly from the Cape or French colonies in Africa, or from South America, and is long-term a threat to British dominance in the region.
Basically they'd be twitchy and take the first opportunity to seize it.
 

Socrates

Frrf said:
With Australia in other hands, Britain is going to be paranoid about attacks on the Straits Settlements, and unable to dominate the Pacific like they want. They'd probably start a war over it eventually, because giving up on Australia means giving up on the South Pacific and its resources, and a potential base for an attack on Singapore or even India. French Indochina could be tolerated because the UK controlled the straits of Mallacca and thus access, and Siam acted as a buffer, while Dutch Indonesia was tolerable because the British surrounded it, it was difficult to govern, and the Dutch had already been there a long time. Australia however can't be surrounded, is (to their eyes) practically empty, accessable directly from the Cape or French colonies in Africa, or from South America, and is long-term a threat to British dominance in the region.
Basically they'd be twitchy and take the first opportunity to seize it.
Click to expand...
The closest settler colony to Singapore is going to be OTL Perth, and that's 2400 miles from Singapore. Even Darwin is 2000 miles away. It's the equivalent of staging an attack on Canada from Ireland.
 

Frrf

Socrates said:
The closest settler colony to Singapore is going to be OTL Perth, and that's 2400 miles from Singapore. Even Darwin is 2000 miles away. It's the equivalent of staging an attack on Canada from Ireland.
Click to expand...
The British were also paranoid about Russia reaching the Aegean. Doesn't mean it was rational.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top