File talk:Colonization 1945.png

(I have pasted in the content of the discussion page for this image on the English Wikipedia, since I feel it is of relevance.)

It would probably be more correct to say that the map represents the time prior to the end of WWII, as parts of Asia, which were stripped from imperial Japan are shown to be colonies of Japan.

although in that case it should show more parts of china which were japanese occupied, as well as indochina and the east indies. It might be better to remove japan completely and say the map was at the period following ww2. but then there is the problem of how to show the US occupied territories - japan itself could be coloured in the US colour. In a World at War programme I saw recently at the end of the war the British employed the Japanese army in the dutch east indies to control the population - havent got a clue how you would show that on a map like this - 1945 really is a confusing year to try and show colonialism --Astrokey44 13:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

inaccurate

Ok Ethiopia was never an italian colony. Not after, during or before World War 2. It was never colonized, actually. If you consider that it was, then France should be under German rule. Why is this error so frequent, yet NEVER have I ever seen anything that even starts to say that France was colonized by Germany, seeing how it was occupied? Just, of course, as Ethiopia was occupied by Italy. Wikipedia deserves more credibility then that because I know it just lost serious points from me.

Seconded. I will change the map. — Yom 21:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Further inaccuracies:

1. The colouring of Libya as a British colony which it never was. Since 1911 it had been under Italian control and administered as a colony by them. It was the Italians who gave the country its present name in 1934. The British may have controlled Libya at the end of WWII, but that was an occupation consequent on the out come of the battle for North Africa not colonisation.
2. The colouring of Newfoundland and Labrador as a British colony is inaccurate. Like Canada, Australia, South Africa and New Zealand, the nation had self-ruling Dominion status until 1949 when it confederated with Canada. For consistency, either it should be considered independent like the others of that status and not shaded red, or Canada, Australia, South Africa and New Zealand should also be shaded red.
3. The British Mandated Territories of Palestine & Transjordan and the French Mandated Territory of Syria were not formal colonies as such but Class A mandate areas placed under the administrative control of those nations by the League of Nations during their transitions to formal statehood. It is debatable, therefore, whether they should be coloured red and blue, particulary as Namibia (South-West Africa as it then was) was a Class B mandate under greater formal adminstrative control from South Africa, and it is shown shaded as independent which it was not. - DavidCane 10:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

How about we scrap this image and change it to one pre-WWII (perhaps pre-1931 to avoid the necessity of a second coloring for occupation for Ethiopia and Japanese expansionism?) - maybe immediately post-WWI. All of the administrations not related to Colonialism can be sorted out that way. We'll just take this image and upload it under a different name with the required corrections.

ዮም(Yom)^{Leave a message} 02:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

just to reply to some points you have made: 1)Libya should probably be colored partly French to show that they controlled Fezzan as said on History of Libya as Italian Colony. 2)Newfoundland is shown correctly here, as on Dominion of Newfoundland, the dominion was suspended in 1934. 3)I dont think it means that Namibia is independent here, just not controlled by the major powers listed. it makes sense that syria and palestine are shown as french and british, perhaps note the description that it also includes occupied/mandates whatever as well as colonies. Also for immediately post-ww1 there is a 1920 map now --Astrokey44 12:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually the map is not inaccurate as far as Libya and the Mandates go. The simple reason is summed up in one territory: Tanganyika (now part of Tanzania). Tanganyika was also a Mandate that was turned into a Trust Territory, but no map (and nobody) ever attempts to distinguish between Tanganyika and the colonies of Uganda and so forth (unless the map makes a colour distinction between colonies and mandates/trust territories). Some would argue that Trust Territories and Mandates don't actually count in imperialism or colonialism but such arguments cannot hold water in light of the fact that Tanganyika achieved independence and became a part of the Commonwealth with absolutely no controversy about its constitutional link with the United Kingdom or another Commonwealth country. The main criteria for Commonwealth membership is of course a history of British rule (or rule by another Commonwealth member). The only country that was ever allowed membership without fulfilling this criteria was Mozambique and those were special circumstances. So as Tanganyika was pretty indisputably "British" then Libya (which was a Trust Territory under Britain and France), Cameroon (ditto) and the Mandates (as the legal predecessors of Trust Territories) can and should be shown on the map.72.27.59.131 22:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Date

1945 isn't a good date to show colonization. I propose we use 1942 or 1935-6 (before the Second Italo-Abyssinian war) instead, as it will better show the effects of colonization, before things switched hands in WWII. — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk 16:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

how about this for 1936? A different type of image Image:World War II 1942 06.png could show 1942 though that doesnt show who owns what --Astrokey44 12:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Australian, South African and Danish colonies

This does not include Australia's mandates over New Guinea (including Bougainville, New Britain etc) and Nauru. Grant65 | Talk 03:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

See also South West Africa (Namibia) which was controlled by South Africa and Greenland, which is still controlled by Denmark. Grant65 | Talk 03:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The current amendment is still wrong. It appears to show that Namibia, Papua and New Guinea were controlled in part by the UK and part by a Dominion. Namibia and New Guinea, as Trust Territories, could potentially be shown as neutral/Dominion - even if in practice their independence at the time was negligible. The previous colour choice (as Dominion) is more accurate.120.159.80.100 04:28, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

updated

FYI: This map is incorrect, Newfoundland cessed to be a British colony in 1907. Please update. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 152.1.111.242 (talk • contribs)

Updated to fix status of Newfoundland. Deltabeignet 01:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I think this should be reverted. See w:Dominion of Newfoundland: "In 1934, Newfoundland voluntarily gave up self-government and reverted to direct control from London" --Astrokey44 13:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

USA?

Why is the USA coloured in here? It stopped being a colony long before 1945. This goes for many preceding maps too. - 52 Pickup 16:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

It means as a separate power, the US still controlled the Phillipines in 1945. --Astrokey44 13:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Libya, Eritrea, Somalia

That map is wrong in showing Libya, Eritrea and Somalia as British and French possessions in 1945. Technically, those territories remained Italian colonies at the end of WWII. They were temporarily placed under British (Tripolitania, Cyrenaica, Somalia) and French (Fezzan) military administration, nothing more.--Lubiesque (talk) 22:55, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Canada is not British anymore

Canada is fully independent since the Westminster Status in 1931. Can someone fix this? 70.82.127.4 16:12, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

USSR Empire 1945 ?

Hi! What about USSR ? It's in purple in every other map on Colonisation, should be the same for 1945, no? --46.193.1.106 15:57, 3 December 2017 (UTC)