Along the hitory tangent, Oz, with all due respect, an assertion such as:
Apart from the USA, Australia has the shortest European colonised history of any of the major countries.
is so muddled as to render it meaningless.
By "shortest European colonised history" do you mean that it was colonized for the shortest duration or that it was colonized most recently????
Australia 1788-1901 (113 years, ending 99 years ago).
USA 1607-1776 (169 years, ending 224 years ago).
But the British Raj in India from 1858 - 1947 (89 years, ending 53 years ago) is "shorter" by either meaning.
(please do not confuse the influence of the East India Company with "colonisation" [your word and the Queen's spelling]. Academic consensus (such as it is) marks 1857 as the delineation between "influence" and "colonization." And please do not insult the largest democracy in the world by saying it is not a "major country."
The Belgian "colonisation" of the Congo Free State/Belgian Congo from 1885-1960 (75 years, ending 40 years ago) and French Indochina 1861-1954 (93 years ending 46 years ago) also makes claims for "shorter" colonization by either term, but depending on your definitions could reasonably not be considered a "major" country.
Was the Nazi occupation of France "colonisation"? Certainly in the minds of the Nazis Poland (1939-1945; 6 years ending 55 years ago) was a colony; it was often referred to as the "eastern colonies" by Nazis.
I could go on an on, but you get the point (time for another "edit?").