Jump to content

Talk:Indonesian National Revolution/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Old question

How can one have a "National" revolution before there is a nation? I think this article has the wrong title. Where is the verification for the first paragraph? And I agree that the history of "Indonesian Independence" must start much earlier. --- Jody Diamond

The Indonesian National Revolution's origins with collaboration with the Japanese occupiers forms the first section of this entry. Without it, the entry is non-historical and opaque. --Wetman 17:51, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

On October 28, 1928, during second all Indonesia Youth congres in Batavia, several youth groups from all over Dutch East Indies pledged allegiance to:

One native land, Indonesia One nation, the Indonesian nation One unifying language, the Indonesian language.

I'm not sure how to even begin to try improving this article. For starters, what is the appropriate scope of this article? I honestly think that it's not fair to focus on only on events following WW2. The issue of an Indonesian national identity first came about at least as far back as 1928, when the youth conggress adopted the name and the national language. The nationalist, pro-independence leaders and their organizations started becoming active around this time. Any thoughts, ideas? Julius.kusuma 21:07, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree that a longer timeframe would improve this article. for example, George Kahin's Nationalism and revolution in Indonesia (which is now rather dated, but was/is an influential English-language work on the subject) starts its narrative with the Ethical Policy of the early 20th century. Following his lead on framing might be reasonable. According to History of Indonesia#Colonial era, several nationalist organizations were formed just before World War I.
More immediately, I think the article would benefit from the complete removal of the last two paragraphs, unless someone can fix them up so they are a not speculative apology for colonialism. CDC (talk) 21:45, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC) (edit: I meant not a speculative apology... CDC (talk) 18:23, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC))
CDC, I propose the following: there should be an article Indonesian Nationalism or Indonesian Independence Movement which covers the rise of the Indonesian national identity, starting perhaps with the Ethnical Policy. The term Revolution to me suggests the leaps and bounds perhaps more fairly should describe only the independence war part, from 1945 to 1949. I concur with removing the last 2 paragraphs due to their speculative nature. Julius.kusuma 17:15, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. I would go with Indonesian independence movement (consistent with Latvian independence movement and Indian independence movement, for example) for the longer timeframe. "Nationalism" is more vague, because it could refer to present-day nationalism or patriotism. The new article can discuss the political background and longer struggle for independence, and the current article can discuss the actual shooting war. I may have time to make a start on all this in a few days. CDC (talk) 18:23, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I tried to make a few improvements to this article, especially giving it a structure. Most information is based on the Dutch version of this and related pages. I also tried to make it slicker and to take out some of the more controversial statements and formulations. emilio 18:24, 15 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Nice work, emilio, thanks! Julius.kusuma 21:43, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Accoring to Intetnational Herald Tribun, the comment of Dutch Foreign Minister on 16 August 2005 was not an apology. The article says, "The[Dutch] embassy said his comments were not to be construed as an apology, ... ..." http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/08/16/news/Indo.php So, I changed a bit to conform to the speech by the Dutch minister.

NPOV tag

I've tagged this with {npov}, mostly due to this recent edit - I think there's some useful content here, but it badly needs to be summarized in bits and made more neutral - it's frankly offensive to me in places right now. I'll try to get to it eventually if someone doesn't beat me to it. CDC (talk) 18:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

The edit was certainly {npov}, and should have been rewritten, however, by deleting it, or rather, by the revertion to an earlier version, the article does not reflect the brutality of the conflict. The horrendous behaviour of the Indonesian National insurgents may be offensive to you (and me for that matter) but their brutalities, instigated and incited by radio Soerabaja, are well documented and established fact, and should therefore be mentioned. As it reads now, the National Revolution seems like a rather bloodless affair in which the Dutch did most of the killing and the poor Indonesian insurgents were the victims. As such, the article as it stands now does not represent a neutral point of view, since it represents the view that the insurgents would like to have represented. Furthermore, although there (may, in almost all cases this is still disputed) have been Dutch participations in atrocities and violations of human rights, for the insurgents this was not only common practice and widespread but encouraged from the leadership down. What is also not represented in the article is the fact that Sukarno and his 'nationalists' were collaborators with the Japanese and that he and his group did not represent the majority of the Indonesian people at the time. It seems to me that the article leans to much to representing the Indonesian National Revolution as a freedom fight of the united Indonesian people to get rid of the oppressive emperialistic Dutch while the other viewpoint was that it was a powergrab by a corrupt collaborating elitist group of populists reverting to mob-violence and human rights violations. Bcraenen 21:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Anyway, I tagged the article {npov} again, I'll find some time sometime to edit the text, I just have to find some good references. Bcraenen 21:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
That's fine. I didn't revert the section myself, because, as I said, there might have been some useful details in the edit and I didn't get around to incorporating them in an encyclopedic manner. I expressed myself poorly in my December comment - "frankly offensive" isn't very informative, and the question here of course, isn't what's offensive, but what's a neutral, encyclopedic way of describing the revolution. If I recall correctly, my comment was made out of frustration at a lack of effort to be neutral in the edit I was responding to.
A minor nitpick - the current version, while not as graphic as the edits I tagged in December, are hardly "bloodless", both in its description of the Surabaya battle, and later that "There were atrocities and violations of human rights in many forms by both sides in the conflict. Some 6,000 Dutch and 150,000 Indonesians are estimated to have been killed.". All it is, really, is that this is currently a pretty short article for a complex series of events.
Anyway, I welcome your contributions. I've been reading Benedict Anderson's classic Java in a time of revolution recently, so maybe I'll throw in some too. I'd like to get to the work I discussed with Julius.kusuma above as well at some point... CDC (talk) 00:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm having some problem in finding neutral documentation about the conflict. Neutral analysis from Indonesia itself was actively suppressed it seems and Dutch analysis doesn't really stand out as neutral either, and because the matter was close to 'undiscussable' is rather scarce as well. I never read Benedict Anderson's work because I'm somewhat suspicious of his Marxist-approach to nationalism. That may be a mistake though. At any rate, the article is pretty short for a complex series like this. When I work out some discrepancies from my notes, I'll enlarge it somewhat. Bcraenen 10:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
How about some casulty numbers? It would give an idea of how bloody the war was.--Dr.Worm 19:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Rebellion against RI

What about addtional data about rebellion against RI?

  • Laskar Hitam (extreme moslem), kidnapping and murder of RI's minister of defence.
  • DI/TII in West Java vs RI's Siliwangi troops.
  • Three regions affair and anti feudalistic rebellion in East Sumatra (1946). Commonly known as 'Social Revolution in East Sumatra' - not necessarily against RI Wongjerang
  • July 3, 1946 affair (kidnapping of PM Syahrir).

Other Significant Events

What about other events such as:

  • The great Bandung fire and Mohammad Toha suicide bomb attack.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Bandung

  • The Westerling massacre (there's a wiki article about Westerling himself that talks a little bit about it)

http://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pembantaian_Westerling

to name a few that came off top of my head Wongjerang 16:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Good thoughts. I'd like to help out but have 2 problems: I don't know much about these, and second I am working hard on improving Indonesia which is providing at least another few weeks worth of work assuming i can get away from real life every now and then. How about you go ahead and make the edits and myself and others can review. regards --Merbabu 22:54, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll give it a shot if and when I have some spare time. Meanwhile I just noticed that some of the content are already available in wiki/id. However I am a newbie. Not sure what's the rules/guidelines in translating all/some portion of it to the wiki/en. Would you please enlighten me on this matter? --Wongjerang

I don't know either but i suspect it is not an problem. I will ask someone. --Merbabu 02:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
(response to Wongjerang), Yes, you can use content from ID wiki, as I assume that they have the same wikipedia licenses. (hmm.. otherwise they wouldn't be in wikimedia foundation ;-)). However, the problem I see in ID wiki is the lack of sources/references. As long as you supply the translation with reliable sources with the style conforms with WP:CITE, then I think everything is all right. This English wiki is now going to more strict on citation. Becareful to use their images, as many images from ID wiki have no license tags. Cheers. — Indon (reply) — 02:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
In addition, for translating guideline, be bold :-). If grammars and syntax give you a problem, don't worry. Others will correct it for you. — Indon (reply) — 03:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. As for the referencing question, if you really believe that your additions are accurate, but cannot find references to back it up despite searching, that is OK. But, make sure to add {{fact}} or {{citation required}}. THis way, people are less likely to delete it, and they might even add the reference for you. Check Indonesia - a few months back it had no references, now we are touching 80!. Don't worry too much about reference format. Just get it in there. :-) Sorry if you know all this already. --Merbabu 03:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your helpful responses, Merbabu and Indon. I think in most cases I can work from wiki/id as my starting point. So I'd take is as I could freely translate it, put references here and there as necessary, and don't need to source the rest (that are simply original words/flow-structures from wiki/id authors) as coming from wiki/id, is that correct? or should I put some sort of tag underneath to reference to the wiki/id? the problem with that is I believe after some time both articles are going to look much different from each other anyway, content-wise.--Wongjerang

You don't need to put any tag that the source comes from other languages' wiki. BTW, if you have interest on making a new article about Bandung Ocean of Flame (Lautan Api), I have some good sources you can read. I can also help you there. Cheers. — Indon (reply) — 11:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Surabaya, Bandung, PDRI, Makassar, General Attacks

Why the Surabaya flag affair / "Hotel Yamato", PDRI, Makassar are deleted? This is important events during Indonesian Revolution. http://www.surabaya.go.id/sejarah.php?page=periode_perang_kemerdekaan See other links above.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.210.145.7 (talk • contribs)

To Merbabu: I have provided the references see the article and other links on this talk page. WHY YOU KEEP DELETING IT?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.210.145.9 (talk • contribs)
  • Firstly, even if you dont want to create an account, why at least can't you sign? All you need to do is place ~~~~. How easy is that? At least then we can see WHO and WHEN. If you at least do this, you will find we will take your work more seriously. But don't just take my word for it Wikipedia:Sign_your_posts_on_talk_pages. If you create an account, people will take your work more seriously again. If you create an account, we cannot see your IPs and hence we won't know your address in Jakarta (as we do now - but i won't print it here of course).
  • Secondly, you still do not provide appropriate references - you cannot just provide references to other wikipedia articles. One can't reference one's self.
  • Thirdly, and please don't be offended, I often feel that the quality of the wording is poor. For example, it doesn't flow well, and why do you need so many small 1-sentence paragraphs?
  • Again, please don't be offended - I write this to improve the article, not to criticise you. The sectioning (headings) you provide are clumbsy and make the article awkward in flow.
  • Proposed Solution - why not add parts slowly and then we can all work on them together? ie, we can all add GOOD references, improve the wording, etc. THe problem now is that when you add such a large amount (of poorer quality) people are not able to cope with so much. Give us smaller additions and we will be glad to help improve it. But BIT BY BIT, please.
  • PLease realise, that some of your information appears GOOD, but there is too much at once. We are all only trying to improve the quality. regards --Merbabu 03:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Split article?

OK, I am not saying this has to be done immediately, rather I am looking for the opinions of others. Reading through the text of the Surabaya section, the detail is such that it suggests to me that it should be another seperate article. any thoughts? --Merbabu 06:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Page move?

I think the page name should be changed to Indonesian War of Independence. "revolution" can refer to many things, but this is the only war of Independence in Indonesia. In Indonesia it is called perang kemerdekaan means war of independence. Peace. --Nielswik(talk) 14:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree? Disagree? Peace. --Nielswik(talk) 14:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
I think we should we wait to get the opinion of a few others on this. Personally, I am a bit too tired tonight to give it the consideration and research it needs. BUT, your suggestion doesn't seem unreasonable and is probably good, but lets get other opinion first. --Merbabu 15:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah that's why I ask other's opinion. Peace. --Nielswik(talk) 15:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support conditionally - that if we are to give any article about an era of Indonesian history a label - that the title is recognisable by Indonesian participants (if it is recent) - and not outsiders labels or misconceptions - it must connect with what the popular conceptions and labels that existed in Indonesia at that time. SatuSuro 12:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Collaboration of the Fortnight Effort

Hi guys, here are my thoughts on what would help this article:

A graphical timeline, if someone is able to design something. At the moment, it talks about discrete events, without placing them into context with each other, and I feel that something visual would help.
Introductory section, taking a brief look at the events leading up to the revolution.
do you mean the events say in Indonesian National Revival? that's a good idea.--Merbabu 13:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I've just written the section. I feel the paragraph about the development of nationalism during the war could be expanded, but the relevant article is a stub at the moment, so I don't have any more info.--Sepa 13:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Concluding section, looking at the effect of the revolution and the declaration of Independence, perhaps mentioning Dutch reactions, and some of the areas that later wanted to break-away eg South Maluku.

Cheers, --Sepa 13:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, all good suggestions. I inserted a comment. Ok, so let us know when you have finished, Sepa. ;-) --Merbabu 13:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

There was discussion previously about NPOV on this page. I think that should be explored. --Merbabu 13:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Structuring

The whole structure of this article is a bit poor. Let's re-structure the article. First, the subject of this article starts from 1945 until 1949. Thus, I suggest the following structure:

1. Casus Belli (as an intro, until 17 August 1945, but please find more appropriate name) → I have a good material of this
2. Armed conflicts
2.1. Battle of Surabaya
2.3. Bandung Sea of Fire
2.4. Massacre in Makassar
3. Dutch and its allies reactions
4. Politionele Aktie
5. Operation Kraai
6. Transfer of Sovereignity
6.1. International Reactions
6.2. Challenges - a section acknowledging that not all parts of the country were fully behind Independence eg South Maluku, also the ambigous status of West Irian.

Any idea? — Indon (reply) — 16:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Indo, this looks like a much better structure. I have added a 6th section to your list, so let me know what you think. I have written something relating to the Rise of Nationalism in Indonesia, but please feel free to completely rewrite it if you want, as I don't have any sources available to me and was relying on the equivelent main article. --Sepa 17:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I think the new structure is an improvement. Um, Ocean of Flame or Sea of Fire? I always thought it was Sea of Fire. Ocean of Flame sounds a little clumsy. Are there any sources for your change? --Merbabu 11:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Concur. I have made the new structure (see above). — Indon (reply) — 11:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Removed section - pending reference

I removed this section. Normally i wouldn't support removing stuff without first putting in cite tag, but since this article is largely all unreferenced, I don’t think we can afford to have any more. But, I do think it is valuable info although it probably needs to be explained a bit better. Furthermore, is this the righ article for it? Maybe it needs to go into Indonesian National Revival? Can we can an in-line citation for this in the meantime? Sepa?

The first Indonesian political parties were formed in 1912, and in 1918 proto-parliament, the Volksraad, consisting of 39% native Indonesians, was formed. During this year the Dutch agreed to the principle of self-rule for Indonesia, but did nothing to further this aim despite the existence of a growing national movement Regards Merbabu 00:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Conflict infobox

This seems to be causing some problems - ie, the lead section has been pushed right down below it. can anyone fix it? Also, do people agree that it is actually necessary? It is certainly too big IMO for such a small amount of information. I don't see the need for a box with little information simply because other pages might have one. --Merbabu 00:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Political situation?

I just wondered whether a political situation can be included on the article. For example 'Maklumat No. X' or Sjahrir cabinets or how some leader of army such as S M Kartosoewirjo disagreed with government and rebel. Kunderemp 12:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that is a good idea. Gives complete context. There is already quite a bit description of the political aspects behind the fighting. --Merbabu 12:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Clean Up tag

I think this can be removed now - anyone disagree?--Bwmodular 15:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC) Just do it SatuSuro 15:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Casus Belli

Regarding this new section (the longest), i think we need to agree on the purpose of this article. Is it not the armed conflict from 1945 to 1949? The new section conflicts with the article's new title. I think the new section belongs in Indonesian National Revival. --Merbabu 11:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

eh? I thought this war is about the independence war 1945-1949? The first section was an intro for the war. Currently, it is the longest, but other sections should be longer. However, I wouldn't mind to trim that section, but we need an intro before the war. — Indon (reply) — 11:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
hmmm - OK. lol. --Merbabu 11:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Let's see first other sections expand. We can always trim off something. ;-) — Indon (reply) — 11:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Maybe someone needs to sit back and and look at all the 1940's articles in the Indon Hist box - and give a sense for where even possible offshoot articles might be better than trying to get into the sequential. And someone should do a separate timeline of Indonesian history for the 1940's - I suspecctt people who dont know much about the era need a guide like that. In some old books - the 1st of this and the 2nd of that do leave the uninitiated a bit at a loss as to what was happening. Part of why I put up Sudirman for a possible workable item - that is some work on articles of the participants might bring out things that could help the sequential articles, I hope you get th drift. SatuSuro 11:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the articles don't necessarily have to be perfectly chronological. Being based on themes they can overlap in dates. --Merbabu 11:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
(edit conflic) Hmm.. it was just an intro of the war when somebody directly jump into this article. Anyway, if somebody wants to read the source, I'd be glad to send it via email. It's an article written on 5 Dec 1945, during the war we're writing about. Just use my Special:Emailuser. — Indon (reply) — 11:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Indon, i think it is fine. :-) re, sending the article - yes please! (and any others that are of interest). --Merbabu 12:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I love the new introduction, and agree that it can be trimmed at a later date if it seems appropriate. I also think it would be fantastic if elements of this section could be included in the National Revival article, as there is a lot of information that I just didn't have when I wrote it. There is one sentence which needs a citation - the bit about the division between cooperators and non-cooperators. Lastly, I disagree with the final sentence... "The Indonesia people had one simple demand, to defend their independence." sorry guys, but that comes across as a very Java-centric statement - how does that square with the tensions created by imposing a unitary state on such a varied set of cultures - which led to the RMS rebellion, the problems in Aceh and the problems in West Irian to name a few of the many internal conflicts that have plagued Indonesia since Independence!! I'd like to delete that last sentence, if that's OK. --Sepa 13:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Did you say, "comes across as a very Java-centric statement"? FYI, Sjahrir, Yamin, Hatta, Sjafruddin Prawiranegara, Agus Salim, and numerous central figures were from Minang (West Sumatra). Sam Ratulangi was from Sulawesi (Borneo).
You were right about RMS rebellion but you were wrong about Aceh and West Irian. Indonesian didn't look at West Papua before 50s (or 60s). And the claim of OPM (Organisasi Papua Merdeka / Freedom of Papua Organization) is Papua had their independence in 1961 (after the Indonesian Independence War finished).
Aceh joined Indonesia at the war led by PUSA (Persatuan Ulama Seluruh Aceh / United Ulama of Aceh) which leading figure was Tengku Daud Bereuh. They even donate their money to Indonesian Government, which then used for buying an DC3 aeroplane called as Seulawah.
Aceh rebelled and joined Darul Islam under Daud Bereuh in September 1953 after they felt betrayed by the revocation of province status of Aceh and the Acquisition of Aceh to North Sumatera Province. (again... after the Indonesian Independece War finished). The Movement of Aceh Freedom (GAM / Gerakan Aceh Merdeka) began in 70s with different issue.
Thus, Indonesian never imposed its unitary stated in Indonesian Independence War era. Most of rebellion came from the disappointment because the felt betrayed by Indonesian Central Government after Indonesian regain its freedom (with the exception Kartosoewirjo and that was also because he believed he was betrayed). The claim of Papua came in 1961 (and most of Indonesian --not only Java-- believed the independence was nothing more than Dutch strategy).. again, after the Dutch agreed Papua was part of Indonesia in 1949 (blamed the Dutch, not the Indonesia).
While historically some Ambonese was popular of helping Dutch (and hated by most of Indonesian in Indonesian Independence War era), not all of Maluku supporters of Dutch. Banda Neira didn't support the Dutch. Kunderemp 18:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I added the citation you asked, that you had removed it before. I don't know why did you remove that source and then asked again. Re: Indonesian simple demand, (1) it was taken from the source, and (2) it was the first reason of the war. The rebellion reasons were developed in the process during the war where individual/regional interests appear. I disagree to remove the last line. That is the casus belli, not the result of the war. — Indon (reply) — 14:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
No, it wasn't me who so extensively edited that first paragraph, it was someone else in between. Thanks for putting the citation back.
Perhaps we can rephrase the final sentence to something like this: "The newly formed Indonesian government entered the war with one simple aim, to defend their newly declared Independence." --Sepa 22:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Hmm.. I guess it's a bit redundant word of "newly". Trim it off, I think it is better with: "The Indonesians entered the war with a simple aim, to defend independence they had declared." — Indon (reply) — 12:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh, didn't realise I'd used newly twice... so how does "The Indonesians entered the war with a simple aim, to defend their newly declared independence" sound? --Sepa 13:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
.... good :-) I agree. — Indon (reply) — 16:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

What does the term 'Casus Belli' actually refer to? And is it appropriate as the section header? --Merbabu 10:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

It was just an idea from me. Casus belli is the reason to wage a war. I don't know what is the appropriate term for the section header. Perhaps, 'Prelude ? ;-) — Indon (reply) — 11:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
How about Background? Merbabu 11:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
It's good enough for me. — Indon (reply) — 12:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Indonesia was not Java-Centric!

I was suprised when someone wrote "sorry guys, but that comes across as a very Java-centric statement". Indeed there were some of Dutch loyalist but it didn't mean Indonesia = Java at the time. For example, I quote some sentences from Ricklef's book (the original was English but I have the Indonesian version, so I retranslate to English)

"... However, in South Sumatra, King of Bone (Arumpone) La Mappanjuki, who still remember the fights against Dutch in the beginning of the century, declared his support. Most of kings from tribe Makassar and Bugis followed his moved and acknowledged the rule G.S.S.J. Ratulangie (1890-1949), A christian Manado which was appointed by Jakarta as Governor from Republic in Sulawesi. Kings of Bali also acknowledged the sovereignity of Republic. However in other regions, the local kings chose to against revolusion which mostly made them became the victim as we will see in the following..."

Hence, I totally disagree with the 'Java' part of "The newly formed government, although enthusiastic, was fragile and only known in Java" in Armed Conflict section. I will also changed a little bit of "fragile" part. Kunderemp 18:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


Okay.. I confess. I edited it too far. It's more like political situation instead of Army Conflicts now.. However, it explained some of rebellion in Indonesian Independence War era (some of them mentioned by Wongjerang above). Should it be separated to different section (i.e "Rebellion against Republic of Indonesia")? So Negara Islam Indonesia and Madiun Affair can be its subsection. I think it could be put after Dutch Reaction. Kunderemp 19:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


Read the article again and.. Indonesia was not Java-Centric but the most of writing of Indonesian history is. The article was still Java-Centric. The only non-Java / non-Javanese event was Massacre at Makassar and Indonesian Government in Exile. Some ideas: Puputan of I Gusti Ngurah Rai; Republik Maluku Selatan (Republic of South Moluccas) -- errr.. was it found after transfer of sovereignity of before the transfer?; Aceh Donation ( buy aeroplanes which latter known as RI-001 Seulawah Agam and RI-002 Seulawah Inong; The blockade from Dutch ( Hey.. we have Indonesian Chinese Hero here.. ); Kunderemp 20:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Please expand the main article

I was a bit surprised that the collaboration worked only on the background. The main war theater, however, did not get expanded properly. Now, the Background section is a bit too far and too detailed. So, I'd like to ask other editors to expand the main arm conflicts: the battle of Surabaya, the Bandung sea of fire, the Makassar massacre, the Politionelle Actie, the 2nd Aggression, the diplomatic struggles, KMB, etc. There are a lot more. It's too bad that the collaboration has ended, but we can still continue, but don't get too much expansion in the background section, please. — Indon (reply) — 19:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Conflict infobox removed

I removed the info box. I felt it was obtrusive, was far too big and only really had a small amount of information for its size. Also, the info is firstly not that reliable it seems, and troop numbers is fairly hard to measure over four years. Merbabu 14:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Indonesian National Revolution
DateAugust 17, 1945 - December 27, 1949
Location
Indonesia
Result Netherlands recognized Indonesian Independence
Belligerents
 Indonesia  Netherlands
 United Kingdom
Commanders and leaders
Soekarno
Gen. Sudirman		 Simon Spoor, Hubertus van Mook, Sir Philip Christison, EC Mansergh
Strength
? Dutch:
20,000(initial)-150,000(peak)
British:30,000+(peak)[1]

Claim to Indonesia at the Dam Square Monument

Not sure how relevant this particular section is. If it should stay, can we find some attribution.--Bwmodular 13:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't feel it's relevant unless it was included in a section detailing Dutch reactions to Indonesian Independence. --Sepa 15:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I've removed it. Here it is... Behind the monument on the Dam Square in Amsterdam, commemorating the Netherlands' liberation from Nazi occupation, were placed twelve large potted plants, eleven of which were in soil brought from each of the eleven Dutch provinces while the twelfth was in soil brought from Indonesia. These plants, and the plaque explaining the origin of the soil and implying that Indonesia was a Dutch province, remained on the square well into the 1980's. When the monument was renovated the plants and plaque were inconspicuosly removed by the Dutch governemnt. Merbabu 08:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Update on article expansion and 'revamp'

This edit here [2] made me think that maybe I am not working fast enough to work up this article. There is still much information that I want to go into the article, but 1 step at a time. In the meantime, sorry if the article seems like there are big holes with missing info - or the opposite: a few parts with too much detail for their importance. But i will make sure I have a RELIABLE reference for each thing i put it. And, I will continue to do my best to be NPOV (or at least represent ALL IMPORTANT Points of view as points of view - eg, like the text box of van Mook's - ie, it is clearly stated that that is his opinion, right?). I encourage other editors to do so, but we should be strict on quality - not quantity. Sorry if I am not working fast enough. Merbabu 10:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

PS, re the recent anon edit, i did put some of that info about the outer islands and the japanese army - with a reliable cite! I intend to put more in as I find the info. There is also more info on each section that I can add soon. thanks Merbabu 10:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

You really have a good source. Sorry, I can't help you to add materials, as I don't have any source at hand. The article is really good one now. — Indon (reply) — 08:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Split off PDRI section

I split this section off into a new article, partly because it is now one of the few sections that remians un-referenced, but mainly because it seemed to go into unnecessary detail (even ramble) about things who's relevance was unclear. New article here. Merbabu 05:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Questions

I did a bit of copy editing, and I have some new information to put in. But in the meantime, I have some questions on the text from my review...

  • While some of these organizations pursued their nationalist goals using a strategy of co-operation by joining the Volskraad (People's Council) in the hope that Indonesian would be granted self-rule, others <- which ones???? -> chose a non-cooperative strategy demanding the freedom of self-government from the Dutch East Indies colony.
Which groups were cooperative, and which ones weren't?
→ Answer: I have updated it. — Indon (reply) — 10:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
You edited it beautifully Indon. Indeed, the cooperative ones was the ones who joined Volksraad (some of them from Sjarekat Islam). Don't be deceived by the term 'cooperative' or non 'cooperative', by the time Sukarno and Hatta declared Indonesia's Independence, all of the cooperative joined Indonesia. Kunderemp 17:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Do we know the date?
→ Answer: There is no date from the source. Here's what the source tells: "As early as 1940, the Indonesian people demonstrated their interests in the United Nations. The twenty-eight Indonesian members of the Volksraad petitioned the Dutch Government-in-exile to clarify the implications of the Atlantic Charters for Indonesia. They were informed that it had no special significance.". — Indon (reply) — 12:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • During the evacuations in March 1946, Mohammad Toha, a member of Indonesian militia, smuggled several sticks of dynamite past Japanese and Dutch troops, and into the Dutch military Headquarters in Dayeuh Kolot.
Were there still Japanese troops there and on active duty with the Dutch? Hmmm.
You're right. At 1946, I think most of Japanese had been handled out to Allies. If there was Japanese troops, they must be inactive. The sentence need citation. Kunderemp 17:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  • As a consequence, the Dutch were asked to take back control, and the number of NICA forces soon increased dramatically.
As a 'consequent' of what? Who asked the Dutch to take back control.
  • Before being captured by the Dutch, President Sukarno sent a telegraph message to Mr. Sjafruddin Prawiranegara in Bukittinggi giving him a mandate to create a "Republic of Indonesia government in exile" but this was not received until 1949. A similar telegraph was sent to Mr. Maramis, Indonesian Minister of Finance in Srilanka.
What is the significance of this part, particularly as the letter was not apparently received (until too late)?
I think that was the amazing part. Sjafruddin Prawinegara took initiative to take control and manage the struggle of Indonesia. It could be interpreted as rebellion.
The fact (err.. was it the fact?) President Sukarno sent a telegraph message was a justification the PDRI was a continuation of the same Indonesian Government led by Sukarno, not a rebellion. Hence, after Indonesia regain its territory in 1949, no punishment been applied to PDRI. (compared to Darul Islam and Indonesian Communist Party). Kunderemp 17:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  • In 1949, PDRI government had contacted the leaders Indonesian forces in Java and the 4 RI government ministers in Java who had escaped from Dutch troops.
hmmm - above it says six RI ministers. Which one is correct?
  • Based on the Roem-Royen peace agreement on July 13, 1949, Dutch troops were to be pulled out from Republic of Indonesia regions and the Republic of Indonesia leaders were to be freed.
which regions are these? all Indonesia or specific areas only?

Merbabu 12:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it was Djokjakarta. CMIIW, The whole Indonesian (minus West Papua) territory were acknowledged after Round-Table Conference in The Haque. Kunderemp 17:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
That time Republic of Indonesia (RI) was only a state within United States of Indonesia (Republik Indonesia Serikat - RIS). RIS contains of Republic of Indonesia and some Dutch puppet country. The regions of RI were parts of Sumatra, java and madura. Peace. --Nielswik(talk) 16:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Future reference material

There are sections on Britain and the Birth of Indonesia and Freedom or Death in Surabaya in the forthcoming (May 2007) Forgotten Wars: Freedom and Revolution in Southeast Asia by Christopher Bayly and Tim Harper. (ISBN 0-674-02153-3) I've just received the review copy on my desk but haven't had a chance to read through it yet. RahadyanS 18:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, good that you can add new contents to this article ;-) — Indon (reply) — 09:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Page Move - back

Initially i agreed to the move from Indonesian National Revolution to Indonesian War of Independence [3]. At the time, i did not know that much about the period (except some vague notion of a fight between Indonesians and the Dutch). Now, having completely re-written the article and more than double its size using numerous sources over a few months, i feel I know quite a lot about the topic - there is a lot more that I could put in. What I do know is, that 'War' is to narrow a definition for this topic, and 'Revolution' is far superior. War was only part of the events - furthermore, when the first move was proposed, it was before my re-write, when the article simply discussed the two 'Police Actions' and a few other Indonesia-Dutch conflicts.. Read the article now and it is evident by what topics it covers. Furthermore, all my sources, (many listed in the article) refer to it as either Indonesian National Revolution or simply the Indonesian Revolution. Thus i suggest we go back to Indonesian National Revolution.--Merbabu 11:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Support Reversion - The situation reminds me of the saga of the label/article title of 'Indonesian Civil War' (which it wasnt) and its rather awkward current title Overthrow of Sukarno aka G30SPKI . Would recommend help from an admin to revert - the fact is whatever you read, the more you know about it - the less easy it is to give it 'external definitions' - for Merbabu - it is an obvious sign of maturity in understanding the complexity of 'history' of Indonesian events that do create havoc with external labels. SatuSuro 06:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Review as fit for GA

Passed for GA I have passed this for GA. It is finished and ready for that purpose. It may desire to approach FA. I would not pass it for such without some illustrative content showing - for example - Dutch soldiers in action, or some Dutch or indigenous persons who definitively took the Dutch side, or Van Mook or the Queen of the Netherlands at the very least. Can you find a photograph that documents the sealing of the Renville or Linggartji agreements or the 'transfer of sovereignty'? Or a photo of the first sitting, or -a- sitting of the Republic's government? With regard to the GA criteria: 1. Well-written. Yes. Clear, direct expression. The lead is a hole-in-one.
2. Accurate and verifiable. Yes. 46 references. There are at least two cite tags - provide cites or comment them out please.
3. Broad. Yes. The remaining question for me is 'what about (non-Dutch) vested interests of people who were ambivalent or hostile to the idea of an Indonesian republic. I'm talking about indigenous people who may have feared Javanese dominance or grown fond of or accustomed to either the Japanese or the Dutch before them.
4. Neutral. Yes. Reflecting on the content I think 'The author is reporting a fact without cheering on the revolutionists or the Dutch'
5. Stable. No reason to fail. This reviewer is interested in appraising an article he sees for its contents, not what it was before, nor talkpage or edit wars. I'm appraising what consulting readers consult .. not the 'backstage' areas.
6. Images. There are some images to arrest the reader's attention. Three in total. Below 'Battle of Surabaya' there are none.
Images are a major issue for this reviewer. I would like to see the depiction of some Dutch or communist participants. For present purposes I settle for an Indian soldier atop a tank. It's important that I not hold up on GA to make the editors addressing subjective 'perfect article' criteria. Draw from these perspectives in the march toward FA. I have not been a contributor to this article. Since I have made contributions on Australia-Indonesia relations, your subject was interesting enough to attract my attention as a reviewer.DavidYork71 09:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Much later

From the article: In comparison with the Vietnamese and Malaysian experiences, where the courage of their combatants was comparable with Indonesia's yet independence achieved much later, Indonesia's superior diplomacy is evident.

Malay/Vietnam gained their independence from 1954-1963. In historical context that can hardly be called much later. The statement also seems apologetic (by needlessly mentioning the courage of combatants, in what I guess is an atempt to appease any Malaysians reading this) to me. On top of this, earlier independence is by no means a measure of superior diplomacy.

I think the statement should be dropped, but it is referenced so I'm reluctant do just do so :) --Anss123 (talk) 13:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Removal of box

  • Infobox Military Conflict is not relevant to the range of geographical distribution of the event - and smacks of the problem that the Indonesian project had for over a year while an editor behaved badly every time anyone questioned his Indonesian Civil War title for the Sukarno to Suharto transition era - it just did not fit the style or nature of the conflicts and massacres that were happening - it was not civil war. Similarly one battle in surabaya does not in any way represent the time and space issue that surrounds the Indonesian change from colonial rule. So I support the removal. SatuSuro 08:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi all. Sorry - Internet died before I could put a comment on this page. Thanks SatuSuro. Davidelit (talk) 09:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Infobox is inappropriate. Military conflict is but a part of a much larger group of events. It's such a dumbing down of complex events into a one size-fits all sound bite box that it is misleading. However, I'd be supportive of such a box going into articles on the individual operations such as Operation Product or Battle of Surabaya. --Merbabu (talk) 11:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Although I think one should be here, I will attempt to find some information on Product and Kraai. If anyone finds anything on the two police actions, just let me know, it is difficult to find. (Red4tribe (talk) 21:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC))
Actually, "anything" is not really what we want. I'd rather have very little but quality, instead of lots of potential rubbish from anyone's web site as we have found on Dutch Empire. The Indonesia project's current members are all focussed on quality over quantity. Indeed, much of the info in the two Dutch military offensives is either poorly referenced, or not at all. If anything, the first step would be to remove often dubious info, rather than add it. thanks --Merbabu (talk) 23:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Naturally I don't mean to add a bunch of lies, what I mean by "anything" is if you find a reference with casualties, number etc...just let me know. (Red4tribe (talk) 23:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC))
I can easily find many references online - but they will all be different, so most (all?) hence rubbish. If find a reliable reference - I know of one in the library - I coudl let you know, but it woudl be easier if I add it. I don't want to see any Indonesia project articles being written like Dutch Empire which had info added with no references, and then very poor references were added *after* the info was questioned. Ie, we need references first, not the other way around.--Merbabu (talk) 00:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok, so when you find a reliable referebcem let me know. I am very eager to do this. (Red4tribe (talk) 00:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC))
(ec)You seem to missing my point. The problem you faced with Dutch Empire was that much unreferenced information was added, and when questioned, the editor rushed to find “anything” with a google search to support his additions. Although for most of that article I am not an expert and thus cannot comment expertly, I do know that the lot of the maps and language issues on the Indonesia section was rubbish. Reference first, then info. Not info first and then rubbish reference after it is challenged.
So, chances are, if I find “any” information on casualties, I will not just blindly add it to an infobox. I might add it as an estimate to the prose where it can be explained in context – this context cannot be provided in an infobox or map.
All I am asking is that no-one repeats that on the Indonesia project articles. I note that on this article, you had added into the infobox on-line references that significantly differ with the authoritative references already provided. --Merbabu (talk) 00:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I didn't add the infobox, after it was taken down I put it back up and added deatil to it. But the Dutch thing will not happen again, and I shall end my sentence the way I have ended the ones above, if you find a reliable reference with casualties, strength, etc...post it on my talk page. (Red4tribe (talk) 00:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC))
Re infobox on this article, I acknowledge your acceptance of the comments of others, ie that this article is much more than just a battle/campaign/war, and that the info box is an inappropriate. Thanks for working with the community. :-)
And, thanks for your offer to work constructively together on the other "police action" articles, and to seek quality info, etc. Please go ahead and find some good sources and we can go from there – sorry, I don’t want to scare you away. Thanks! --Merbabu (talk) 00:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I found something here. I'm a little confused by what it says, I'm not sure if they mean 1,100 Dutch troops died in each action, or in both combined. Prehaps you can clear it up. http://books.google.com/books?id=MbjZ4kWgEewC&pg=PA150&dq=indonesian+police+action+dutch+casualties+1,100&ei=MjIqSMzLIZiijgGggYHADQ&sig=x7xbx_5q7BCyupgf0s2gGZp5ThU (Red4tribe (talk) 00:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC))

Comparison to Vietnam

"In comparison with the Vietnamese experiences, where the courage of their combatants was comparable with Indonesia's yet independence achieved much later, Indonesia's superior diplomacy is evident"

This is just an opinion and ignores the greater desire to maintain colonial possesions on the part of the French and the impact of the communist dominance of Vietnamese independence movement and how that affected the world's response to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.251.28.105 (talk) 07:57, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with above stated objections. in my opinion it is better to delete this sentence. there are so many differences between the Vietnamese and Indonesians as there are with the french and Dutch. And how is "indonesias superior diplomacy evident" superior to what? I propose to delete it altogether.--Dutchdoc (talk) 02:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

It's referenced to one of the pre-emininent experts on the period. Suggest it is re-worded rather than deleted. --Merbabu (talk) 03:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Indonesian National Revolution/Archive 1/GA1

Infobox

The infobox is back but with the relevant templates. This will be expanded once more sources have been added that being the inclusion of the number of Indonesians the Dutch faced. Foobfairbanks (talk) 00:06, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Your second sentence above is incomprehensible.Borgmcklorg (talk) 13:16, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

One for Another

Article is gappy. Darul Islam controlled territory for over ten years, interesting in view of the revolution being built on the military. Sad thing, a 'revolution' that just replaces other colonialisms (Dutch and briefly Japanese) with Javanese colonialism, end results largely being formed by international ignorance and cold war politics. This is probably not a reliable source, but they are out there.Borgmcklorg (talk) 13:16, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Rawagede massacre

This is a great article, but shouldn't the Rawagede massacre be mentioned here? Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 00:35, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Today, the Dutch state was held fully accountable for the damages caused Rawagede massacre by a Dutch court in The Hague: http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2011/09/14/general-eu-netherlands-indonesia-massacre_8678265.html Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 14:52, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Just saw it on Indonesian news that The Netherlands' court held Dutch state responsible on Rawagede massacre and have to compensate to the surviving widows. I think the link to Rawagede massacre should be provided on this Indonesian National Revolution article. It is suggested that the battle and bloodshed in this area has inspired Chairil Anwar's poem "Antara Karawang Bekasi". (Gunkarta (talk) 12:50, 15 September 2011 (UTC)).
Done (Gunkarta (talk) 17:01, 15 September 2011 (UTC)).

Video of Sukarno innauguration

Here's a video I've just uploaded to Commons featuring news footage of Sukarno's inauguration as first president - Sukarno's rise to power, ABC 1966. As this article is a "Good Article" I'll leave it here for you to find the best place to incorporate this important historical footage. Wittylama 05:42, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

The Japanese?

Why aren't the Japanese listed as participants in the Infobox? 188.221.112.29 (talk) 20:02, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Remove this bit...

I remove the following section. I felt that following the current expansion of the article, it was a little irrelevant in comparison to the momentus events in the article. If people strongly feel that it should be in the article, perhaps it needs some major trimming. It is far too long...

In the following decades, a diplomatic row over the officially recognised date of Indonesian independence persisted between the governments of Indonesia and the Netherlands. Indonesians commemorate the anniversary of 17 August 1945—the day of Sukarno's proclamation of independence—as their official Independence Day. The Netherlands, on the other hand, for many decades recognised December 27, 1949—the date of their official transfer of power—as the date of Indonesian independence. In 2005 the Netherlands Foreign Minister, Bernard Bot, officially accepted Indonesian independence as beginning on August 17, 1945; expressing regret for suffering during the war.[1]

References

  1. ^ Veeramalla, Anjaiah (August 18, 005). "Dutch govt expresses regrets over killings in RI". The Jakarta Post. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Could you remove this as well. "In comparison with the Vietnamese and Malaysian experiences, where the courage of their combatants was comparable with Indonesia's yet independence achieved much later, Indonesia's superior diplomacy is evident.[39] " The circumstances are totally different to make such a comparison. If made, what is the historical implications beside making some people feeling better? --Factus 08:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Ben Bot has said de facto

here is the whole statement he made;

http://www.novatv.nl/page/detail/nieuws/8169/De+volledige+toespraak+van+Bot+waarin+hij+17+augustus+erkent--ArmTheInsane (talk) 14:09, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Return of the Dutch?

The Dutch did not return, the Dutch government returned, it's like the 200.000 Dutch people left the country and returned, n they were in the concentrationcamps at that time.

I will edit it again

--ArmTheInsane (talk) 12:02, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Do you fail to see that it is referring to the Dutch as a formal, governmental entity and not as an ethnic/national group? That's the reading I'm getting. Nobody is claiming that there were no Dutchmen in the Indies at the time. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:21, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

"Nobody is claiming that there were no Dutchmen in the Indies at the time"

So why did they return then?

A title like; 'Return of the Dutch East Indies government' would be more appropriate , because it looks like there was an invasion at that time, but KNIL was active on many island during WWII. Van Mook was also a Lt.Governor-General.

'Coming of NICA' is also an alternative,

'Return of the Dutch Army is incorrect, because the Dutch Army only was in use in Europe, they only were deployed to support the KNIL from 1946.--ArmTheInsane (talk) 17:33, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm quite happy with the current heading. The heading has to sum up a number of ideas and different points of view. It's reasonably general and not overly precise, but still provides a good banner for the section that we have an idea what it is about. And in this context, generalness and and lack of precision is a good thing. It avoids POV problems and is not inaccurate. (remember, precision and accuracy are too different things).
Alternatively, How about "Dutch military offensives to re-occupy?" Or just leave it as it is? --Merbabu (talk) 23:39, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Coming of NICA would be okay, though I still don't see why most reasonable individuals would say that the title implies no Dutchmen at all (it's quite clear that there were... Zoetmoelder, Willekens in Jakarta, etc. I'd be against return of the Dutch East Indies government as, when they returned, they did not have control over the entirety of the former Indies. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:01, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

False history?

It was stated in the article that "It did not significantly improve the economic or political fortune of the majority of the population, though a few Indonesians were able to gain a larger role in commerce." Really? The English said this about Ireland after they left, but if you ask the Irish, they would tell you differently. This is just old Imperialist sour grapes after losing a slave colony. Why would this crappy "history" be allowed, in this day and age, to be taken as the truth. Indonesia is on the rise in the world market, England and Europe are sinking. Stop pushing old historical, racist myths. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.45.57.209 (talk) 10:35, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Indian soldiers

I just made a new section with source, other sources on similar topic can be found.Ovsek (talk) 07:14, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it is really that notable. It certainly doesn't deserve it's own section. --Merbabu (talk) 08:08, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Deaths?

Somewhere needs to be a clear at a glance body count. One spot says 6,000 Dutch died and another 700 including British, it is very confusing and the Indonesian ranges are so big it looks like a guess.

duly removed. But I'd like to put back reliable figures if a a good reference comes up.Merbabu 12:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

About the casualties from the war of independence, the British Army Official History Series XV said there were 1200 British servicemen and women who were killed or went missing between 1945-1946 in Java and Sumatera (most of them Indian soldiers). The official Dutch Army History also said there were 2300 Dutch soldiers killed in Indonesia between 1945-1949. They also estimated that around 2000 Dutch settlers were killed during the war. In addition, 1000 Japanese soldiers who fought on the side of the Allies against Indonesians in accordance to their unconditional surrender were killed.

However, I think the amount of Indonesian dead in this article is way exaggerated.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Povo-Maubere (talk • contribs)

Thanks for the comments. The article actually agrees with most of your comments (the 'Impacts' section). The exceptions are it doesn't mention Dutch civilian deaths. That is an important addition if reliable sources are found. The other exception, is the Indonesian death toll and your suggestion it is exagerrated. A few things can be said:
  • The article refers to the whole Revolution period, not simply the conflict between Europeans and Japanese. It seems perfectly credible that perhaps many more died from 'internal' Indonesian conflict. But i don't have any sources for that.
  • I suspect the Indonesians were, in comparison to the foreigners, not as good as keeping record of their deaths due to (a) the vast number and (b) the chaotic nature of the time, and (c) internal conflicts in developing countries rarely do have accurate body counts, in part simply because of the polarisation.
  • The whole death toll in the Impacts section actually came out of one book devoted to the Revolution. I have cited a number of its references. The fact that it also agrees with the death tolls you suggest above, makes me think that the estimates it provides for Indonesian deaths are also credible (ie, credible is different to confirmed - i don't think it will ever be confirmed).
  • Remember also that there were many more Indonesians involved than Europeans, and that they were very poorly armed/resourced.
  • Other reliable sources of death tolls, etc, are welcome and can be incorporated.
Happy to discuss. regards --Merbabu 15:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
UPDATE: lol - it 'agrees' cos you just changed it. Sorry, but the changes should be reverted until reliable sources can be found (which is exactly what I have used in the first place). Merbabu 15:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Why was my change reverted? The casulaties from the British and Dutch sides ARE NOT 700. British Official History of Second World War Volume V (Asia-Pacific Theatres) clearly states there were 1200 British servicemen and women killed in Java and Sumatera between 1945 to 1946, most of them Indian other ranks. The book also states there were more than 1000 Japanese soldiers killed while fighting on the side of the Allies during the war of independence. Meanwhile, the official history of Dutch army on the war in Indonesia between 1945-1949 states there were 2300 Dutch soldiers who were killed, while approximately 2000 European settlers were killed during this period as well.

Your source is definately NOT reliable at all, in fact its contents are fallacious.

Then provide your sources. Wikipedia principle No. 1.Merbabu 14:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The statistics of this article are highly unreliable, as they get changed with questionable sources constantly and the reliable sources are estimates. The Indonesian side had a lot higher casualties because many combatants were using traditional swords and weapons they scavenged from the Dutch, while the leaders at Dutch side benefited from the experiences of World War 2, with modern weapons and tactics, and shot everything that scared them, which included civilians. It is a wrong assumption that this was a battle between nations, as many Indonesians did not actively participate in this conflict or were opposed to the Dutch. As the number of active combatants on the Indonesian side was only slightly higher than on the Dutch side, the Indonesians were at a disadvantage with inferior tactics and technology. Dutch history books tend to talk about 3.000 to 6.000 casualties on the Dutch side and 150.000 on the Indonesian side (which includes civilians). I hope I can find some digital sources. 94.210.205.225 (talk) 07:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Result ambiguation?

some editor keep changed the result on infobox with "Dutch military victory and Indonesian political victory". I think its not necessary,and ambiguous. So I just changed it with "Indonesian Victory" since the truth is Dutch never recolonize Indonesia back then ––Mufidkce (talk) 19:07, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Unclear sentence

The following sentence is unclear:

In 1949 international pressure on the Netherlands became such that, together with the existing partial military stalemate, it recognised Indonesian independence.

I believe you mean something like this:

In 1949, the combination of international condemnation and military stalemate persuaded the Dutch cede their claim of sovereignty and recognize Indonesian independence.

If so would someone please replace the confusing sentence with something more like this? I'd do it myself, but I'm not positive I've understood you correctly, and I don't know the topic well enough to add content. KC 03:39, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Indonesian National Revolution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:40, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Montage picture?

Considering the length and variety of the war, I attempted to stitch together a collage.

Image contains photographs taken by both sides of the war. Would it be an improvement to use this for the infobox instead? Juxlos (talk) 00:05, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Should this conflict be considered part of the Pacific War?

A user has recently been trying to add this conflict as part of the Pacific War. Is there any justification for this? Kiwifist (talk) 06:03, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

In my opinion yes. The Dutch East Indies were occupied by Japan during the Pacific War (they promptly released nationalist leader Sukarno), in 1944 Japanese Prime Minister Koiso promised Indonesia would be granted independence, the 16th Army set up the Investigating Committee for Preparatory Work for Independence, and Japanese Admiral Tadashi Maeda facilitated the Proclamation of Indonesian Independence, which was drafted in his house. Also, the word "Japanese" appears 53 times in the article. Davidelit (Talk) 08:18, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Articles are written based on sources, not opinions. What source says this is the same conflict as the Pacific War? The word "Japanese" appearing in the article is a poor and preposterous argument. The term "Pacific War" appears zero times in the article until recently. The word "Indonesian" appears two times in a small section of the Pacific War article and the world "Indonesia" and "Indonesian National Revolution" appears zero times in that article. Additionally, the Pacific War was from 7 December 1941 – 2 September 1945 and the Indonesian National Revolution was from 17 August 1945 – 27 December 1949. So no, it was not part of the Pacific War. Kiwifist (talk) 16:02, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
No. Not a single source I can observe saying that, and this happens by definition after the Pacific War. It would be akin to calling the Korean War or the Konfrontasi part of it as well. Juxlos (talk) 16:06, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
As Davidelit says, the one is rooted in the other; and as Kiwifist shows, they overlap by a fortnight. I can see the rationale, but we should follow the sources that emphasise the sequential years rather than the concurrent weeks. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 16:52, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Political victory

@BabiBandung: I get your point with the Union, but it's absurd to state that both parties achieved a political victory. Yes, both achieved partial objectives (Indonesia became de jure independent with massive debts, the Netherlands gets to keep a formal structure that gets promptly ignored), but probably not a victory. If anything, that line might as well be removed and replaced with just the RTC results - readers can determine who "won" politically. Juxlos (talk) 14:46, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree with what @Juxlos: wrote above, but would take issue with the "continued guerrilla fighting" - surely that stopped when the war ended in 1949? I'm not going to make any changes now - let's see where this discussion goes. Davidelit (Talk) 23:54, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
There are sources that describe the military results as a stalemate (i.e. the Dutch didn’t finish off the guerillas). Again, depends on the definition of a “military victory”. Juxlos (talk) 01:32, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
It's a tricky call. The French continued resistance against the Nazis after 1940, but nobody disputes that the Germans won the Battle of France. The important thing is that sources need to state specifically that it was a stalemate or victory etc, as Vickers does on page 115. I feel that BabiBandung's assertion of a Dutch diplomatic victory is WP:Synthesis - or arguably WP:OR - as he is basing it on the establishment of Dutch-established states in the RIS. Davidelit (Talk) 03:52, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Ah, the Great God of Milhist and their infoboxes. Fraught with problems. I for one think info boxes should all be massively pared back. They physically dominate articles, and like we see above, the temptation is to shoe-horn complexity (or is it even complex in this case?) into 1 or 2 word chunks. If anything, no info in that field might be better. Just because there's a field, doesn't mean we have to use it - but others i know have the reverse approach.
Way back over 10 years ago when I was actively researching for, and editing this article, i remember the line (or similar): the Dutch won the towns and cities, but they could not win the villages and countryside (which is where the bulk of the population lived. Maybe that can be tested.
I would like to see the "social revolution" component developed further. Indeed my memory was that it figured relatively more prominently in the article, and rightfully so.
As for the long bloated list of commanders and leaders...don't' get me started. Are any of them actually mentioned in the article? Can we roll that section up? --Merbabu (talk) 04:39, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
I Agree --BabiBandung (talk) 12:32, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
To be fair, the French Resistance was barely a thing until late 1944. Sudirman and co. had organized military units, controlled vast swathes of countryside and several towns, had enough capability to launch an offensive, and nobody signed a capitulation. IIRC they explicitly planned to disengage and engage guerilla warfare if Operation Kraai happened. Juxlos (talk) 14:44, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Add East Sumatra and Madura in the Netherlands box?

They have their own military formations called the Barisan Pengawal. The commander of the East Sumatra Barisan Pengawal is Djomat Purba, while I still can't find out the name of the Maduran Barisan Pengawal. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 13:50, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

"Dutch military victory"

Why is the Indonesian War of Independence considered a Dutch military victory but, say, the Vietnam War not an American military victory? It strikes me that if your control is in practice limited to a few urban areas and the rest of the country is ruled practically unopposed by enemy guerrilla forces, you have not actually achieved military victory. I think the dichotomy of military vs. political victory here is hard to justify. 163.1.120.19 (talk) 20:25, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

It's been discussed and debated in the past. There are citations for the result. Regards Davidelit (Talk) 23:29, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

List of commanders

There are 25 (twenty-five!) people listed as commanders on the Indonesian side. Even World War II lists only 4 names on one side and 3 on the other, while 13 are named in the World War I article. I suggest a radical trimming of all except the principal civilian and military leasers on both sides. Any thoughts? Davidelit (Talk) 10:28, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

This again? I feel like we trim the list every year and then a bunch of random editors add them in every other week. I say we limit it to 5 each. Juxlos (talk) 11:20, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

The Start date of the Indonesian National Revolution

Based on historical respects, the start of the Indonesian National Revolution weren't from 17 August 1945 as it is of proclamation. It is either started based on Civil Affairs Agreement of 24th August 1945 or 29 September of 1945. It has also been said that, between 17th August 1945 and 29 September 1945, the Indonesian troops were still gathering weapons from the Japanese Army, as no Allied troops have arrived yet before 29 September. sources: https://lib.ui.ac.id/file?file=digital/20393389-Sedjarah%20revolusi%20nasional%20indonesia%20tahapan%20revolusi%20bersendjata%201945-1950,%201966.pdf Tahapan Revolusi Bersendjata 1945-1950

What I'm doing is to decrease political conservatism, religious politics in order to revive historical facts and evidence. The start of the date must definitely be changed. Similarly in the Jakarta Charter, it is said that the Allied troops only came several days after 18th August 1945 where the Constitution is actually finalized. @daviddelit Eustatius Strijder (talk) 08:53, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for engaging on the talk page. The National Revolution refers not only to the armed conflict, so your comments on the arrival of troops are not pertinent. If you are uncertain when the revolution started, that means you have no citation - you are basing your unilateral changes on your own interpretation, a violation of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. Your stated source gives no date for the start of the revolution - although it gives an end date of 1950 in the title. Are you proposing that also be changed in the article? I don't understand what you mean by decrease political conservatism - are you trying to impose your point of view? This is a violation of WP:NPOV. Please stop making these unsourced changes. Davidelit (Talk) 14:18, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
yeah, Eustatius seems to be pushing an agenda or POV. The comments "to decrease political conservatism, religious politics in order to revive historical facts and evidence" is particularly concerning. And, this page is more than an armed conflict between. There is no case to change. --Merbabu (talk) 09:31, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

British casualties

Here is the page from the Official history, in my edit I included in killed those listed as missing although some would be deserters.With this *proof* please restore my edit.

British casualty figures Indonesia 1945-46

Pjholm (talk) 05:22, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for going to this effort of pasting a screen shot. For the record, it is this edit that we are discussing.
Info in pages like this - particularly infoboxes - is often misrepresented or otherwise undermined, particularly with casuality stats or notions of "Supported by". Further, it's often by IP or new account editors. So hopefully you can understand why some of us are sceptical of these kinds of edits.
I've reinstated the edit for now, but how do you reach a figure of 980 dead? Dead and missing in Sumatra and Java? What about the Borneo figure in the notes? Or maybe that includes both, what is now, Malaysian and Indonesian Borneo?
Also, what is on page 258? Noting that you removed that reference.
regards, --Merbabu (talk) 05:58, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
page 258 concerns military activity in Burma, no idea why it would be used as a source for this subject. The Borneo casualties refer to British casualties in WW2. British and Dutch Borneo was reoccupied by Australian forces towards the end of the war and the British suffered no casualties there after the war. Pjholm (talk) 08:51, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Demographic gap

I have added a bit about the demographic effects of the war on the Indonesian population, the demographic gap of 2.4 million. This is an important and crucial aspect of the wide ranging effect of this period on the local populations.

People try to remove it without contacting me again and again, if that happens again I will report them. LouisBStevenson (talk) 17:46, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

And someone used my sources to state the demographic gap was mostly due to the Japanese occupation, but I cannot find this in my source, therefore I have removed it. Please state where in the research paper this is stated, otherwise I will consider it unsourced. LouisBStevenson (talk) 15:21, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indonesian_National_Revolution/Archive_1&oldid=1222347076"