When is the latest the Dutch could colonize Australia.

I know that IOTL the British left part of the continent open in case of eventual Dutch interest in it. What I dont know is the point where the British would have not been okay with the Dutch colonizing their half. When is the last possible point that the Dutch could have colonized New Holland then?
 
The question would be why would the Dutch want to colonise it? Historically, the Netherlands was the most prosperous place in Europe attracting people from other regions, and by the time the Netherlands was poorer in relative terms to Britain (after 1840), Britain had already claimed Australia. Fundamentally speaking, I cannot see the VOC being interested in establishing a settler colony in an area with relatively few natural resources, as the short-term profits would be nill. As things were, they were always stingy with regards to the Cape, sponsoring few assisted settlers, and attempting to control the commerce of that colony. By the late 18th century, there was a bit of a liquidity crisis in Batavia, rising in the issuance of paper currency, this was symptomatic of the decline of the company in general. Also, I imagine that any Dutch settlement might be taken if the French occupy the republic as IOTL.
 
Swan River region would be considerably closer to East Indies than the Cape. And can grow temperate climate crops which do not thrive in the wet tropics of Java. As well as have healthier climate for the Dutch troubled by tropical diseases in Java.
 
I was thinking about colonization post Napoleonic wars. Possibly a colony is founded by people seeking to get away from any possible future war in Europe.
Could the Netherlands colonize Australia after say 1815?
 
The window between 1816 and 1825 would be the best to establish a colony in Western Australia, but the issue during that time was the Dutch were trying to reestablish their authority over Java, and were faced with uprisings and it were attempting to make the colony profitable once more. Unfortunately, the French occupation of the mother country and the British occupation of Batavia had destroyed much of the pre-1795 trade.
 
The window between 1816 and 1825 would be the best to establish a colony in Western Australia, but the issue during that time was the Dutch were trying to reestablish their authority over Java, and were faced with uprisings and it were attempting to make the colony profitable once more. Unfortunately, the French occupation of the mother country and the British occupation of Batavia had destroyed much of the pre-1795 trade.
I know why 1825 is the cutoff, because of the founding of Albany and declarations that if the French attempted colonies they would be kicked out. But if the Dutch attempted earlier, wouldnt it just cause the British go that route earlier? Or are the Dutch not seen as much as a threat in the late 1810s as France was in mid-1820s?
 
I know why 1825 is the cutoff, because of the founding of Albany and declarations that if the French attempted colonies they would be kicked out. But if the Dutch attempted earlier, wouldnt it just cause the British go that route earlier? Or are the Dutch not seen as much as a threat in the late 1810s as France was in mid-1820s?
I don't think so, no. The period saw a series of Dutch-British treaties hammering out who got what in the Indies. While it might end up in some treaty cutting the Dutch out from (still relatively irrelevant) Australia, I think the British were secure enough in their superiority that they might allow a Dutch colony in Australia in exchange for some other concession.
 
The latest that the Dutch could colonise Australia is 1788, i.e. once the British are established on the continent. After this, for one thing the Dutch are rather busy with the Napoleonic Wars until 1815, and the British are fairly entrenched by then.

For another and probably more important thing, history showed that post-1788, whenever anyone else showed an interest in Australia, the British would stop them. This happened in the context of the French in particular - whenever the French looked like establishing a presence anywhere on the continent, the British would set up a settlement in the threatened area to ensure that no-one else got a foothold. To be sure, the British government did not view the Dutch as the same kind of threat as the French. However, regardless of what the attitude in London was, to the people on the ground in Australia, it's clear that they viewed the whole continent as theirs, and did not want to have any other Europeans there. If the Dutch look like setting up a colony - and this is not the sort of venture which will be done overnight - expect some convenient land grants and/or forts to be set up in *Fremantle or *Albany or wherever the Dutch are looking like they might appear.

Of course, as has been pointed out upthread, the Dutch had had over 150 years to colonise Australia if they wanted to, but they really didn't see any point.
 
Top