Talk:Indonesian National Revolution

Supported by:

Now that @Eustatius Strijder: mentioned it, the "Supported by" section in the infobox appears to be somewhat bloated. As WP:MILHIST does not currently have a proper MOS for these things, examining it one by one:

• Australia: the source mentions significant diplomatic pressures against the Netherlands by lobbying the US/UK and participating in regional movements. Openly sided with Indonesia during diplomatic negotiations.
• New Zealand: the source is... not verifiable. Removed
• USA: Well-recorded as threatening to withdraw the Marshall Plan from the Netherlands, and was likely one of the deciding factors in the Netherlands giving up.
• India: Imposed restrictions on Dutch traffic to the region, hosted several leaders after Operation Product, general active diplomatic support.
• Pakistan: The WowShack source makes a rather serious claim that Pakistan sent 100 men to Indonesia to fight, but I cannot verify this with academic sources. Otherwise, [1] Explaining Pakistan's Foreign Policy, p142 mentions Pakistan's boycott of KLM, but also adds that India had stronger relations at that time. Removed to be safe, unless someone can verify the WowShack claim.
• Japan: not fully sovereign in 1945-1949, so removed. Holdouts already mentioned as combatants, which is valid.
• Philippines: Source cited mention what happens after 27 December 1949, and popular support prior to that, but otherwise, nothing I would consider significant. Removed.
• Soviet Union: Source cited is 1949-1953: after the revolution. In The Soviet View of the Indonesian Revolution, it is discussed how the Soviets were lukewarm early on, then more supportive by 1947-1948 mostly through the UN... but then the Madiun Affair happened. Soviet recognition of Indonesia's sovereignty was given a month afterwards, described as "with some hesitation". I would argue that the Soviet support wasn't as significant, and so I removed it.

Juxlos (talk) 00:29, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

IMO, at very least, we should define that "Supported by" means.... either only diplomatic recognition suffice (egypt and other arab countries falls under this category), or by pressuring certain parties (such United States), or support by providing materials (supplies, armaments... pretty much what India did). Ckfasdf (talk) 02:06, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Up to today, the prevailing consensus regarding countries "Supported by" indicates either exerting pressure on specific parties (like the United States) or providing materials (such as India). Apart from these two criteria, countries, especially those that solely offer diplomatic recognition, should not be included. Ckfasdf (talk) 08:12, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi wouldnt the British Raj be “India”? Since the term British Raj wasn’t actually used and in other conflicts, the British Raj is just shown as India. I get it does sound Indocentric but it just makes it more consistent 92.30.35.35 (talk) 21:27, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Per Template talk:Infobox military conflict#RfC on "supported by" being used with the belligerent parameter, "Supprted by" is deprecated. Per the final sentence of the closure of that request for comment, "However, these circumstances would be rare, and considering the clear consensus in this discussion the status quo should be removal; inclusion would require an affirmative consensus at the article". So "Supported by" can be removed immediately as reflecting current consensus, and it would be up to those wishing to include to obtain a fresh consensus for inclusion. Kathleen's bike (talk) 18:36, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

"Military victory"

I know this topic has been discussed before but I just want to put my 50 cents on it.

I find the idea of this being a "Dutch military victory" for a lack of better term... is silly. Neither side had a military victory, nor defeat. Because neither side has actually defeated, and make the others capitulated. Honestly would be fine if "Dutch military victory" to be removed, which would make "Indonesian political victory" irrelevant, making it also removable. Wouldn't mind if:

• Indonesian political victory
• Dutch military victory

Were just removed. Because I feel like the two results mentioned above are just there so that either side could claim "Victory"

imho. A better "Result" would look like this:

• Independence of Indonesia from the Netherlands
• Dutch recognition of the Indonesian independence in the Dutch-Indonesian Round Table Conference
• End of Dutch Colonial rule over most parts of Indonesia (or End of Dutch Colonial rule over the East Indies (except New Guinea))
• Formation of the United States of Indonesia
• Creation of the Netherlands-Indonesia Union

These are subject to change based on suggestion of course, so I'm all ears. So yeah, thanks for coming to my ted talk. - EvoSwatch (talk) 09:39, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

@EvoSwatch: IMO, if "Dutch military victory" and "Indonesian political victory" are referenced, I don't really see the issue.. It's just I am still unable to verify the reference in the article.

However, as I look up on this topics. I came across this publication published by Defense Technical Information Center (neutral source). It was mentioned that the result is military stalemate since Dutch forces were not able to prevail over the Indonesians, but were strong enough to resist being expelled. And Given this stalemate, the Republic of Indonesia ultimately prevailed in the conflict. Any comment on this source? Ckfasdf (talk) 11:58, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

The problem with the phrase "Dutch military victory" (the exact phrase used by Vickers, by the way) is that it makes the article vulnerable to the same kind of nationalist editing (on both 'sides') that plagues other articles, particularly List of wars involving Indonesia and Bersiap. I would have no problem with the changes proposed by EvoSwatch as the list is clearly factual, and avoids controversy. I would suggest the first line read "Independence of the United States of Indonesia from the Netherlands", though. Davidelit (Talk) 13:19, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Very well, it has been over a week, enough time has passed. If no one else have anything to add, I will do the edit soon. Though I prefer just ""Independence of Indonesia from the Netherlands" as USI doesn't exist yet during the war, only formed after the cessation of hostilities in 1949 hence the "Formation of the United States of Indonesia", it wouldn't make much sense for it to be free if it was also just got established after the conflict ended. EvoSwatch (talk) 05:54, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

@Rembo01, Ckfasdf, Vif12vf, 139.192.162.29, and 111.94.67.181: You will find a discussion here about why it does not say "Indonesia victory" in the infobox.-- Toddy1 (talk) 17:04, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Either way, this and similar articles seem to burn a lot of editor's time discussing how to fill in the parameters of the all-important </sarcasm> infobox. --Merbabu (talk) 09:18, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Separating "Internal conflict" in infobox

Shouldn't the Darul Islam and People's Democratic Front have separate column from the Dutch forces? Currently it's being lumped together with the Dutch forces and only separated by a line. In my opinion, they being in the same column could cause confusion as some readers might interpreted it as they're co-belligerent, while the fact is that they're in conflict with both the republicans and colonial forces. Jauhsekali (talk) 05:45, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Page Protection

@Cal1407, Toddy1, and Kathleen's bike: Please add page protection for this, persistent sockpuppetry and IP vandalism. 182.2.50.179 (talk) 05:57, 6 June 2024 (UTC)