How long can the Dutch retain their possessions in the East Indies without World War II or the Japanese invasions?
How long can the Dutch retain the East Indies?
- Thread starter Emperor of Halton
- Start date
Well, during the interwar period, they did do a rather sloppy job of crushing the various nationalist factions, so I'd venture a guess of around the 1970s. Whenever it becomes economically untenable for them to maintain Dutch rule essentially (and that's factoring in the cost of crushing possible nationalist movements).
In a scenario such as this, is it more likely that the various islands would become independent rather than being united as Indonesia, or would they be united as in OTL?
Riain
Banned
The Dutch retained West Papua until 1961, so if they really wanted to hold the DEI for longer they could break them up when a revolt became too much and keep what's left.
I imagine the events in nearby Malaysia and Vietnam would have an effect, causing locals to agitate for independence.
I imagine the events in nearby Malaysia and Vietnam would have an effect, causing locals to agitate for independence.
Do you mean, how long the DEI could have been ruled by decree form the Netherlands? Not very long, in the 40-ties the catholics gained more and more power and they were opposed to colonialism (to some degree). I think you'll end up with some sort of commonwealth, this was proposed in before the war.
But West Papua is far less developed and densely populated than the other Indonesian Islands, without the large-scale ethnic, linguistic, and especially religious ties that people could rally around. Much easier to hold on to than, say, Sumatra.
On the military front the Dutch actually did pretty well. The reall reason they bailed out was pressure from the US. The US feared the possible growth of communism in the Dutch Indies.
So in order for the Dutch to remain longer in de Oost, the USA needs to change it stance.
Alternatively, the Dutch might be able to hold onto regions like Timor, Moluccas and West Papua, which had no intention of joining the new Indonesian nation.
So in order for the Dutch to remain longer in de Oost, the USA needs to change it stance.
Alternatively, the Dutch might be able to hold onto regions like Timor, Moluccas and West Papua, which had no intention of joining the new Indonesian nation.
Without WWII European imperialism wouldn't have gone on the decline like it did in our OTL. Hell, if it weren't for WWII the US probably wouldn't care what happens to the DEI.
Faeelin
Banned
See, I don't get the notion that European imperialism wouldn't decline. Europe's GDP recovered pretty quickly from the war. Yet the Empires collapsed. What changes here? Europe wasn't poorer in the 1960s than it was in the 1930s...
But Europe of the 1950s was far poorer and even that depended upon fairly hefty US assistance through aid and trade agreements.
Long term imperialism is of course doomed but the rate it declines can be slowed (or indeed quickened) by other events.
WWII basically proved to many of the colonies that the mother country was both far weaker than they appeared, and could not protect them fully,
MacCaulay
Banned
Me and Vulture did an INSANE AMOUNT OF ADVANCE WORK for a group of short stories in a continuim titled Pacific War 1961. The whole concept was that the European War never happened, and the Japanese didn't end up invading until the early 60s for economic reasons.
I had the Dutch East Indies still under Dutch control in 1961, and Westerling conducting a lot of counterguerilla war stuff. Basically the whole concept was that the end of the European War resulted in this windfall of equipment that allowed them to reinforce their positions that had been weakened by the country being overrun in 1940.
Cook
Banned
It needs to be noted that the West Papuans preferred a continued Dutch presence to domination from Java.
The fact that the Empire collapsed broke the image of it being almighty.
