The British Empire Abandons Its Claim On Australia?

Partly motivated by the India thread I made here,another thing that I found odd..was the British situation with Australia. Here was land claimed by the Empire,but was never really colonized by England. It sort of just was the place where British prisoners were sent after the American Colonies won their independence. Australia was still mostly empty well into the 20th century,and we all know that the British..now calling themselves Australians living there were afraid of a Japanese invasion and possible annexation during World War 2. After World War 2,many British would choose to move to Australia.

Unlike America,or Canada..which were fruitful and beneficial to the British Empire..Australia just..was there. I'm not saying it's bad..but I remember a recent YouTube video I saw that remarked that even now Australia's population is low when compared to Britain's other colonies..America and Canada. But then again,Australia is mostly desert..

Here's the question,let us discuss what would have to happen to let Britain abandon its claim on Australia..or leave it a bit less populated than it is now in our time line. I remember reading a really good theory that if the American Revolution failed..Britain would not need a excuse to ship its prisoners else ware..due to the massive interior of the American midwest and Pacific coast.

I think there were some tiny British establishments in Australia before the American Revolution..would these be expanded..abandoned..or just left there? I would think that no matter what..Britain would colonize the eastern coast of Australia..the central part of the country and western part..might be taken by another country.

Lastly..what about New Zealand?
 

Keenir

Banned
I think there were some tiny British establishments in Australia before the American Revolution..would these be expanded..abandoned..or just left there? I would think that no matter what..Britain would colonize the eastern coast of Australia..the central part of the country and western part..might be taken by another country.

isn't the center where all the gold and opals are?

nobody might want Central&Western Australia, but whomever ends up with it, stands to get very rich from it.
 
If I am not mistaken, then the British only colonized Western Australia because the French were looking there. Western Australia does have a lot of natural resources though. It produces lots of gold and iron ore, and it accounts for 35% of Australia's export income while being only 10% of the population, and that's with a relatively late development of the mining sector. Its large deposits of iron ore and gold would contribute to any colonizer, if they could be bothered to get it out. WA also has limited deposits of coal, but it can only supply itself, and doesn't export any, unlike the rest of Australia.
 
Convicts were a very small part of our initial population, immigration from the British Isles was more important before the gold ruches and the population boomed after that.
 
Well so far as NZ goes, if Australia isn't settled as in OTL it might well be that NZ isn't either, as a lot of the initial interest/work came via the NSW settlers/establishment. It would depend on your POD though
 
Lastly..what about New Zealand?

New Zealand proved to be very bountiful to the empire. Agricultural lands were plentiful; the wool and lamb industry was and still is huge because of New Zealand largely. Whaling stations near the Southern Ocean were also needed, and again the British colonised the South Island because of the French attempting to settle Akaroa.

They probably regretted it when the Land Wars with the Maori came along, and even today that whole debate is still hot because of some ridiculous mistranslations with the Treaty of Waitangi, which is irrelevent today anyway.

But I think the Brits would not have abandoned their claims to New Zealand if they had Australia. Especially seeing as New Zealanders would one day spearhead the invasion of Italy and Montevideo :D
 
New Zealand proved to be very bountiful to the empire. Agricultural lands were plentiful; the wool and lamb industry was and still is huge because of New Zealand largely. Whaling stations near the Southern Ocean were also needed, and again the British colonised the South Island because of the French attempting to settle Akaroa.

They probably regretted it when the Land Wars with the Maori came along, and even today that whole debate is still hot because of some ridiculous mistranslations with the Treaty of Waitangi, which is irrelevent today anyway.

But I think the Brits would not have abandoned their claims to New Zealand if they had Australia. Especially seeing as New Zealanders would one day spearhead the invasion of Italy and Montevideo :D

I don't think the economic potential of colonial agriculture in NZ as a supplier to the UK or Empire would have been apparent to anyone of note in the late 18th century, so that would have not formed any sort of attraction to would be colonisers. So far as I know, the agricultural sector developed rather slowly from the 1850s onwards, with no real impact on British domestic markets for a couple of decades past that point.
 
I remember reading something like the French were eying New Zealand,and the British annexed the island to prevent the French from doing just that. But even if Australia and New Zealand had resources,could they compaire to the American resources that would have been avalable to the British if the American colonies had not revolted?
 
Top