User blog comment:Leonhard Bosch/The Claims of the Netherlands (May 2017)/@comment-3112181-20170603140659/@comment-3112181-20170603225059

In regards to the West African colonies: very good, I had not looked at the map, but was merely addressing their absence on this blog.

In regards to Malacca: you can't possibly call that a claim? I wrote that story five years ago, when my knowledge of history was a fraction of what it was today. By that logic any and all historical error or fallacy ever committed on this site would have to be put up to debate. Furthermore, the sentence you underlined doesn't even come close to stating that Malacca is British. You'll have to find sufficient proof.

In regards to Ceylon: Read the sentence right before the one mentioning Ceylon. ' [Dutch India] is only used as a geographical definition, as there has never been a political authority ruling all Dutch India.' Each Dutch colony on the Indian subcontinent and the island of modern Sri Lanka were governed independently from one another. As the article states, 'Dutch India' never actually existed as a political entity. So doesn't that leave Mr Hookwallace's surrender of '[Dutch] India' up to some mad interpretation??