Some questions about Papua ?

While western part had been administrated by the Dutch, eastern part of the island was only to be colonized when the Queenslanders annex the southeastern part of the island in 1883, against the wishes of the British government. Later the Germans occupied the remaining rest as to respond this. This has made me thought about several things :
-Had the Dutch never intended to occupy all of the Papua island ? Is it possible to see Dutch occupying also the eastern part of the island before 1880s ?
-Why did the British government oppose the colonization by Queensland ?
-Did the Germans already have plans for the remaining eastern part ? Would the Germans have advanced there anyway even if Queensland didn't do anything ?

Having been so curious about the history of PNG recently. Please, somebody teach me everything about it ! :)
 
Holland only effectuated control over the outlying regions of Indonesia in the later half of the 19th century, so it's hard to imagine there ever being an interest in Eastern Papua.

And why would the colonial authorities in Batavia be interested in an area whose main natural resource was man-eating cannibals?
 
I shall not let this thread drowning !:eek: Summoning the Ozzian and Dutch hordes !!!

Oh, sorry. I didn't know I had to reply to every thread in which the Netherlands was mentioned. Anyway, I think that New Guinea wasn't relevant enough for the netherlands. Too little gains for too much effort. Looking at the 19th century it looks like the Netherlands decided to concentrate on Indonesia and there was still too much to do to control all of Indonesia before looking at other projects. That is probably the reason it traded away all of its other colonies, Malacca, the outposts in Ghana and India. I think to get the netherlands interested in eastern New Guinea (and perhaps northern Borneo) the Netherlands needs more resources (including more people). So maybe you might get a Dutch New Guinea if Belgium remains part of the Netherlands.
 
Oh, sorry. I didn't know I had to reply to every thread in which the Netherlands was mentioned.

I didn't know about that as well, actually... :confused:

I see. Thanks for clearing out about the Netherlands PoV on the matter. But eastern Papua only began to be occupied by foreign powers when Queensland decided to move there, and even that was against London's opinion. But why did they ? Was it to anticipate the Germans ? But had the Germans actually planned to land there first ? I want to confirm whether both the Germans and British actually eagered to colonize the region. My current stand is that they actually didn't, and its division by Germany and Australia wasn't inevitable.
 
I see. Thanks for clearing out about the Netherlands PoV on the matter. But eastern Papua only began to be occupied by foreign powers when Queensland decided to move there, and even that was against London's opinion. But why did they ? Was it to anticipate the Germans ? But had the Germans actually planned to land there first ? I want to confirm whether both the Germans and British actually eagered to colonize the region. My current stand is that they actually didn't, and its division by Germany and Australia wasn't inevitable.

I believe that Germany only wanted part of New Guinea (or Papua, if you prefer that term) because of the prestige of having colonies. If they had decided that they didn't want colonies and spend their money on something more useful, they would never have gotten their part of New Guinea. They got it because that was one of the few places left. If the Germans hadn't colonized north-east New Guinea, all of Eastern New Guinea would have ended up Australian/British or maybe Dutch if the Australians decided they didn't want it (not that the Dutch would have invested a lot in it, I guess).
 
I believe that Germany only wanted part of New Guinea (or Papua, if you prefer that term) because of the prestige of having colonies. If they had decided that they didn't want colonies and spend their money on something more useful, they would never have gotten their part of New Guinea. They got it because that was one of the few places left. If the Germans hadn't colonized north-east New Guinea, all of Eastern New Guinea would have ended up Australian/British or maybe Dutch if the Australians decided they didn't want it (not that the Dutch would have invested a lot in it, I guess).

To my knowledge it was Australia (or to be precise, Queensland), who made the first move into the region, and then later the Germans followed, actually to respond the earlier move made by that of Queensland. What I want to make sure is that had Queensland didn't make the first move, then the Germans wouldn't going to do anything either. Oil discovery was only made because of the occupation, IIRC, so without the occupation by other foreign powers, I think the region will eventually be recognized by others as de jure part of DEI. Correction ?
 
The way I see it is this (and I could easily be wrong):
All land around Indonesia was considered Dutch, until someone else decided that they wanted it before the Dutch had showed any interested in it. So if Germany or Australia do not colonize eastern papua, it becomes Dutch.

The Germans wanted part of New Guinea because it was one of the few places left that could be colonized. If the germans decided that colonizing uninteresting pieces of land isn't worth spending money on or that german Africa is good enough, they won't colonize new Guinea.
 
The Germans wanted part of New Guinea because it was one of the few places left that could be colonized. If the germans decided that colonizing uninteresting pieces of land isn't worth spending money on or that german Africa is good enough, they won't colonize new Guinea.

But did the Germans really have a plan or two for the region ? You're saying that like the Germans had been intending to colonize the region prior to Queensland's initiation into Papua. Is it true ? THAT is what I want to confirm about !
 

Susano

Banned
Well, I dunno if you speak of a German "plan" in the Pacific, but it certainly was a focus of German colonial activities for a time. Bismarcks line that his "South Sea is in Europe" shows that - its noteworthy how he didnt choose Africa but the South Sea as typical colonial world region. Certainly teh Germans wer eatcive there - Samoa, New Guinea, Marshall islands/Mirconesia/Marianes, Philipines (okay, that didnt work out)...

As for chronological order, Australians and Germans came more or less at the same time. I mean, yes, as per wiki the Australians were in 1883 and the Germans in 1884, but consider New Guinea - its mostly jungle and mountains. Very inpenetrable land. So when the Australians "took possession" 1883, they de facto maybe ruled over some coastal forts and settlements at the southern coast - same for the Germans in 1884 at the northern coast. The Germans were simply opportunists there - nobody was on the North Coast yet.
 
Well, I dunno if you speak of a German "plan" in the Pacific, but it certainly was a focus of German colonial activities for a time. Bismarcks line that his "South Sea is in Europe" shows that - its noteworthy how he didnt choose Africa but the South Sea as typical colonial world region. Certainly teh Germans wer eatcive there - Samoa, New Guinea, Marshall islands/Mirconesia/Marianes, Philipines (okay, that didnt work out)...

As for chronological order, Australians and Germans came more or less at the same time. I mean, yes, as per wiki the Australians were in 1883 and the Germans in 1884, but consider New Guinea - its mostly jungle and mountains. Very inpenetrable land. So when the Australians "took possession" 1883, they de facto maybe ruled over some coastal forts and settlements at the southern coast - same for the Germans in 1884 at the northern coast. The Germans were simply opportunists there - nobody was on the North Coast yet.

So, that Germans did have been wanting to acquire a colony there, but they just didn't want to be the first to set one up ?
 

Susano

Banned
So, that Germans did have been wanting to acquire a colony there, but they just didn't want to be the first to set one up ?

No, they simply took what was left. If the Aussies hadnt set up a colony in South East NG, Germany would still have planted a colony on NG.
 
No, they simply took what was left. If the Aussies hadnt set up a colony in South East NG, Germany would still have planted a colony on NG.

Ah I see, it's clear now... :)

EDIT : Forget about one more question. Is it possible to make eastern Papua fully German with a PoD no earlier then 1878 ?
 
Last edited:
Ah I see, it's clear now... :)

EDIT : Forget about one more question. Is it possible to make eastern Papua fully German with a PoD no earlier then 1878 ?

Well, Queensland took south-east Papua because of fears of foreign, especially German, interest in the region. From The Australian Century, it was disallowed because Queensland, just a colony at the time, hadn't consulted Britain at all about the annexation, and hence it had no legal weight; but more importantly, Britain didn't want to prejudice its relations with Germany by the actions of a hick colony on the wrong side of the planet.

I don't see any real impediments to Germany annexing the whole eastern half. It might help if Thomas McIllwraith, an arrogant and grandiose man, was not Premier of Queensland at the time -- give the turbulent nature of colonial politics, that could be easily arranged. Replace him with a more mild-mannered figure and Germany could have the lot.
 
Blackmage has summed it up more or less completely. But I'll stress the point that the Queenslanders only really moved into south-east NG because the Germans "unofficially" has already set up shop in Papua, Rabul, etc, & were sniffing around elsewhere. Overall, it goes back to the foreign invader paranoia, that's been a major component behind Australia foreign policy since the First Fleet arrived in 1788. So if it wasn't the French coming to invade, it was the Chinese, the Russians, the Dutch, the Germans, the Americans, & the Japanese. At least they got the last one right...
 
Top