Indonesia the Brave

I applaud this well mannered and abundantly informed statements !

1) The least Indonesian part as in not Indonesian (read Javan) at all? :D
2) If history is a reason to have 'claims' on other countries, then the Dutch could claim New York, South-Africa, and everything to the South of the Netherlands up to Dunkirque and Luxembourg.

When determing what should have become of West Guinea, shouldn't be the most important thing what's best for the people actually living there?
In my very uninformed opinion that would be independence for the people of W-Guinea, not being annexed by the Indonesians and 'disappearing' into a huge population.




a)That might explain why Indonesia wanted W-Guinea, but doesn't give Indonesia a casus belli to do just that or make it the right thing to do.

b)Ofcourse, because by 1962 and onwards the Dutch were just about ready to retake the entire archipelago. :rolleyes:

Grabbing New Guinea was an effort at building a (colonial) empire IMHO by the Indonesians. My previous mentioning of colonists only confirms that.
It's bullocks that for defensive reasons the Indonesians needed to prevent the Dutch from having any base in the vicinity of Indonesia.


3) Then why didn't you write that, instead of this:

Not really the same, is it? :confused: Your first post clearly implicates you put the fault of W-Guinea not being independent on the Dutch; whilst if anything it's by sheer Indonesian aggression that those people aren't their own seperate nation.

1) This bolded remark is not a sign of hostility ? All right. But it is a sign of ignorant bigoted imprudence! You have just insulted the rest 56% of Indonesian non-Javanese population by generalizing them as Javanese, merely because they are Indonesians. Do you think that it is funny to say anything that holds impressions that Indonesia will be forever reigned by Javanists like Suharto ??? Is it really fun to ignorantly toy with our experiences shamelessly like that ? I thought you know how to behave......

Besides, your "colonists" weren't just of ethnic Javanese, but also Madurans, Balinese, Sundanese, Bugis, Bataks and Minangs.

2) And is it still a reality that West Papua never had connection with at least a certain part of Indonesia ? Is it still is because all Indonesians are Javanese ???

The proposal of independent West Papua though, it had already lost its relevance since Abdurrahman Wahid's administration made the region specially autonomous. That, added with the terrible shape of OPM today, have provided enough reasons for the sane Papuans to stay within the Republic.

And I will now again repeat my point.

While you are right that we were the aggressors, you kept outcrying that while ignoring the point that West Papuan dispute should have been settled in 1950 !! And a little note to you, that the rise of the New Order, along with the crappy Indonesians=Javanese stereotype could have been butterflied away, this way !!!

You could have at least pretend that you know your behavior in a discussion would be limited by the informations you possess.....

3) It is the fact that what the Dutch government had been doing regarding West Papuan dispute was trying to avoid any negotiation with Indonesia regarding the dispute, thus breaking the already-made-agreement !! HJTulp said that West Papuan issue was a democratic one. It was indeed, but it wasn't originally, but originally was a legal issue instead. Apparently all the Netherlands was doing in West Papua after 1949 actually only useful for provoking Indonesia. Therefore, no Dutchman in the whole solar system has the right to blame Indonesian annexation of West Papua, and they should be punished if they would still do it, then should it be the same that should be be given to any Indonesian who dares to deny that Indonesia conquered East Timor !!!
 
Last edited:
By not distinguishing between regular forces, guerilla forces and your own population, the Indonesian command really put an enormous burden on their own subjects.
AFAIK according to the Geneva's Convention the Dutch could have executed every ununiformed individual assisting the resistance. (not that that wouldn't have been beastly)


AFAIK you 'doctrine' wasn't formed untill the Indonesian newly born army had suffered several defeats on the conventional/regular battlefield against the Dutch army.
It wasn't untill after those defeats IMHO that you changed tactics, but I guess you'd call it a change of doctrine. :)

Going for unconventional warfare isn't a first choice as you make it seem. You only choose unconventional warfare if there's no possibility of success with conventional warfare.

Yeah, that's the downside. :( It didn't become apparent to Indonesia's top brass that some people just don't support them. They had a reason too.

Indeed, it became apparent very early on that there were too few armed, trained men. If it weren't for the Japanese (partly with their forced conscription), there's going to be far too few men. The BKR (Early Indonesian Army) was a massive peasant army. That's why you see a lot of sharpened bamboo- armed people in our National Archives (Pre-1948, at least. 1948 upwards the conscripts photographed were getting rudimentary home-made Stens and Type 38s and Type 100s of Japanese vintage). What can you do againts a Matilda or a Sherman with sharpened bamboo sticks?

So we resorted to guerilla warfare quite early on. The Battle of Semarang, where 10,000 Indonesians (with bamboo sticks, knives and several Type 38s) attacked several companies of Japanese numbering approx. 750-800 troops resulted in over 3000 dead. In 1945 'Heroic Acts' (typical glorification) like these were common, and we learnt from those, and the Wehrkrise tacticswere starting to be practiced in the field from 1946 (not officially, officially it started in 1947) onwards, and perang semesta was right from the start.

But still, parachuting to take Maguwo airfield in that operation of yours took us by complete surprise. :)
 
1) This bolded remark is not a sign of hostility ? All right. But it is a sign of ignorant bigoted imprudence! You have just insulted the rest 56% of Indonesian non-Javanese population by generalizing them as Javanese, merely because they are Indonesians. Do you think that it is funny to say anything that holds impressions that Indonesia will be forever reigned by Javanists like Suharto ??? Is it really fun to ignorantly toy with our experiences shamelessly like that ? I thought you know how to behave......
The Java part was directed towards the colonists which were sent towards W-Guinea. If I'm not mistaken, Indonesia early on was militarily and politically dominated by the residents of Java. That's not really that strange; just like overhere politics are dominated by the 'Randstad' and not by Groningen.
Apparently I've pissed you off with my last post, as your English level seems to drop off when you're angry. I'm really having trouble understanding the latter part of your post. I'm not aware of any insults by my side. I do admit I myself was a bit irritated when writing the previous reply, maybe you were likewise?

2) And is it still a reality that West Papua never had connection with at least a certain part of Indonesia ? Is it still is because all Indonesians are Javanese ???
Now that demographics have been doctored as the pro-nationalists wanted, it's a lot more Indonesian than it ever was.
Although you quoted this too, you still haven't answered to this:
If history is a reason to have 'claims' on other countries, then the Dutch could claim New York, South-Africa, and everything to the South of the Netherlands up to Dunkirque and Luxembourg.
The proposal of independent West Papua though, it had already lost its relevance since Abdurrahman Wahid's administration made the region specially autonomous. That, added with the terrible shape of OPM today, have provided enough reasons for the sane Papuans to stay within the Republic.
There's a large difference between an autonomous part of a larger nation and being independent.

While you are right that we were the aggressors, you kept outcrying that while ignoring the point that West Papuan dispute should have been settled in 1950 !! And a little note to you, that the rise of the New Order, along with the crappy Indonesians=Javanese stereotype could have been butterflied away, this way !!!
You put the 'blame' for the occupation of W-Guinea (mostly) at the Dutch?

You could have at least pretend that you know your behavior in a discussion would be limited by the informations you possess.....
You're taking offense in me admitting that my knowledge is limited?

3) It is the fact that what the Dutch government had been doing regarding West Papuan dispute was trying to avoid any negotiation with Indonesia regarding the dispute, thus breaking the already-made-agreement !! HJTulp said that West Papuan issue was a democratic one. It was indeed, but it wasn't originally, but originally was a legal issue instead. Apparently all the Netherlands was doing in West Papua after 1949 actually only useful for provoking Indonesia. Therefore, no Dutchman in the whole solar system has the right to blame Indonesian annexation of West Papua, and they should be punished if they would still do it, then should it be the same that should be be given to any Indonesian who dares to deny that Indonesia conquered East Timor !!!
You claim the only thing the Dutch were doing in W-Guinea was provoking Indonesia, right? Even if that's true, that still means Indonesia should only applaud for independence of W-Guinea if they're not interested in building an empire.
I don't get the part where I'm not allowed to critize the annexation of a young, new country by it's bigger neighbour.
 
1) The Java part was directed towards the colonists which were sent towards W-Guinea. If I'm not mistaken, Indonesia early on was militarily and politically dominated by the residents of Java. That's not really that strange; just like overhere politics are dominated by the 'Randstad' and not by Groningen.
2) Apparently I've pissed you off with my last post, as your English level seems to drop off when you're angry. I'm really having trouble understanding the latter part of your post. I'm not aware of any insults by my side. I do admit I myself was a bit irritated when writing the previous reply, maybe you were likewise?


3) Now that demographics have been doctored as the pro-nationalists wanted, it's a lot more Indonesian than it ever was.
Although you quoted this too, you still haven't answered to this:


4) There's a large difference between an autonomous part of a larger nation and being independent.

5) You put the 'blame' for the occupation of W-Guinea (mostly) at the Dutch?

6) You're taking offense in me admitting that my knowledge is limited?

7) You claim the only thing the Dutch were doing in W-Guinea was provoking Indonesia, right? Even if that's true, that still means Indonesia should only applaud for independence of W-Guinea if they're not interested in building an empire.
8) I don't get the part where I'm not allowed to critize the annexation of a young, new country by it's bigger neighbour.

1) Java has been the center of this country since the time of Dutch rule. And it did provide the chance for building up Java-centrism. It was why Sukarno planned to move the center of Indonesian administration to Central Kalimantan in order to prevent it but before he managed to do that, he got couped by you know "who". Albeit there was a matter of the whether this plan could have been possibly done, at least for the rest of his period of rule....
But you replied to my explanation about the historical connection between West Papua and parts of Indonesian island and the linguistic evidence to support it by bringing up the transmigration issue. Why did my explanation about that irritate you ? I never denied that Indonesia was guilty for her persistence regarding the West Papua. Indeed Indonesia maybe should have just given up because it was a nice move done by the Dutch to turn West Papua from a legal issue into a democratic one but they could do it because they sacrificed what they had agreed in the 1949 Round Table Conference with Indonesia to have settled the dispute in 1950. Besides the memory of the Dutch rule was still strong that time, and there was also the South Maluku rebellion (South Mollucan, especially most of the Christians, were in favor for bringing back Dutch rule to Indonesia during the independence war, yet another reason for anti-Dutch paranoia) in 1950, yet another reason for the republicans that time to do what they thought as should be done in order to secure East Indonesia region, as an independent West Papua was thought as would be able to be a potential place for the remaining South Moluccas seccesionists to take refuge and build a government-in-exile there. To keep blaming Indonesians' persistence to annex West Papua and their anti-Dutch paranoia at that time while ignoring the whole backgrounds and reasons behind it is just selfish and impudent !

2) Yes, my english isn't very good. I will admit that I may have made you misunderstood my points because of it.

3) I see you DID thought that was the whole reason of Indonesian persistence to annex West Papua. There is a difference between "reason" and "excuse", and I've explained the former in the point #1 above. Now I think there is a possibility that you are actually Indonesian, because we got the same word for both meanings in our language :D:p
Besides, although only an excuse, Indonesian's excuse that time technically held more relevance compared to the Dutch one. The Dutch only took racial connection issue, while Indonesian also included the region's historical connection with the Moluccas isles and the fact that West Papuans indeed have their own version of Malay, which proved it, and has been their "national language" since 2 years before the Youth Oath. ;) But well... it is always painful whenever you're talking about the racial theories held by people before the dawn of Information Era....
And also, whenever you're talking about a certain historical issue and/or topic, it is always important to be aware of the time frame of the said issue/topic. I'm aware that you were talking about West Papua during the 1960s but I hope you're aware that you didn't show any signs that you deserved not to be suspected as potential to break the rule I've just mentioned.

4) And it also related the my point in #3, paragraph 3.

5) I have told you that while Indonesia was to be blamed for her persistence, the Netherlands was also to be blamed for provoking it, albeit maybe they didn't aware that they did it. I've acknowledged Indonesia's persistence as a fault and now it's your turn to acknowledge the Netherlands' ignorance on the agreement made by the Round Table Conference that related to the issue as also one.

6) I was offended because while you had admitted that you are limited in the knowledge on the topic and the related issues, you didn't behave like a person who is. It is not appropriate at all.

7) You should applaud on a thing that is a result of you being cheated ?

8) There is saying in here :
"A man that can see germs across the sea but cannot be aware of an elephant right in front of his eyes"

Because every Dutchmen should be aware that because the Dutch government cheated on Indonesia, that whole issue emerged. By being aware of that, you will then realize that by outbursting against the annexation would only showing to people that you are merely irritated because the Dutch plan(s) for West Papua at that time failed, which in turn would stain your expression of concerns for the Papuans. That, and keep using "West Guinea" to call the land of the Papuans, a name that had expired before "Irian Jaya" even did. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
:eek: Don't be so overly nationalistic!

I didn't. He was obviously suspecting me for not believing in democracy, nor that I took offense of it but it was a clear sign that he only sees this world black and white and tends to ignore details and parts of an issue besides what he only focuses on. And HJTulp is yet another proof that it isn't good to swallow altogether history lessons taught by schools of any country. For us, misunderstandings on the G30S/?PKI? event is one of the most obvious examples.
 
Last edited:
1) Yeah, that's the downside. :( It didn't become apparent to Indonesia's top brass that some people just don't support them. They had a reason too.

2) Indeed, it became apparent very early on that there were too few armed, trained men. If it weren't for the Japanese (partly with their forced conscription), there's going to be far too few men. The BKR (Early Indonesian Army) was a massive peasant army. That's why you see a lot of sharpened bamboo- armed people in our National Archives (Pre-1948, at least. 1948 upwards the conscripts photographed were getting rudimentary home-made Stens and Type 38s and Type 100s of Japanese vintage). What can you do againts a Matilda or a Sherman with sharpened bamboo sticks?

1) Though not surprising at all, especially because it was indeed a tempting option for the overwhelmingly overpowered secessionists.

2) Well there was a tank or two destroyed by them during the Battle of Surabaya.;) Now, shouldn't Indonesia be included as one of the new playable nations for the next version of Sid Meier's Civilization ? :D
 

HJ Tulp

Donor
I didn't. He was obviously suspecting me for not believing in democracy, nor that I took offense of it but it was a clear sign that he only sees this world black and white and tends to ignore details and parts of an issue besides what he only focuses on. And HJTulp is yet another proof that it isn't good to swallow altogether history lessons taught by schools of any country. For us, misunderstandings on the G30S/?PKI? event is one of the most obvious examples.

I don't think you realize the way history is thaught here in the Netherlands. The mere suggestion that not every Indonesian was in love with Sukarno is immediately smashed. The whole West Papua question is discussed in a single paragraph of 3 lines.

Which misunderstanding?

I asked you if you believed in democracy because every time FlyingDutchman and myself mentioned the plebiscite and the will of the Papuas you either ignored it, insinuated that the Papuas wanted to be part of Indonesia or said that it was a legal matter.
 
1) I don't think you realize the way history is thaught here in the Netherlands. The mere suggestion that not every Indonesian was in love with Sukarno is immediately smashed. The whole West Papua question is discussed in a single paragraph of 3 lines.

Which misunderstanding?

2) I asked you if you believed in democracy because every time FlyingDutchman and myself mentioned the plebiscite and the will of the Papuas you either ignored it, insinuated that the Papuas wanted to be part of Indonesia or said that it was a legal matter.

1) Now I'm partly understand the causes of your behavior in this discussion all this time, but one could always try to study history by one's own, not?

2) I believe it was already hinted in my wholesome long-assed explanation that I have admitted that Indonesia was indeed to be blamed for still persisting to annex Papua after December 1950. It is actually you guys who keep ignoring my point that the dispute over West Papua should have been settled by 1950, or both Indonesia and Netherlands should have officially met and talked about it in that year at the very least, as it was before agreed at the Round Table Conference but it didn't happen because the Dutch refused!! And history had proved how wrong it was for a first step the Netherlands had took in order to form an independent West Papua !!!

Indeed it was not the Papuans that was to be blamed for their Dutch-encouraged aspirations for independence, but Indonesia for her still-persistence stand post-December 1950 and the Netherlands for not abiding what she had officially agreed to do in 1949 Conference. The Papuans were victims of both sides' interests, and while the annexation of West Papua by Indonesia wasn't done in the best manner, the Netherlands refusal to negotiate with Indonesia had led West Papuans to taste the bitterness of New Order and Civil War! I believe that no body has the right to overlook the unwise avoidance by the Dutch from entering any negotiation with Indonesia until pressed by the US, in every talks about the history of West Papua !

I'm now demanding you to explain your reason for keep making me mentioning the same thing over and over again !!
 
Last edited:
I asked you if you believed in democracy because every time FlyingDutchman and myself mentioned the plebiscite and the will of the Papuas you either 1)ignored it, 2)insinuated that the Papuas wanted to be part of Indonesia 3)or said that it was a legal matter.

1) It seems that I may have ignored it unpurposedly, because I was keep focusing on telling you the avoidance the Netherlands was committing during 1950.

2) In this matter, I'm maybe guilty as charged but what I said was basically "enough amount of minority", no? I've recently learned that there may existed only tiny minority obscure individuals of Papuans that really felt in favor for integration into Indonesia. I will conduct research on this matter latter on. Also if it is about the details of Indonesian military capability during a certain time frame the and of the history of TNI itself in fact, my knowledge about that sort of things does quite lacking.

3) It originally was. One would wonder how lucky was the Netherlands that UN requested the Special Committee on Decolonization to accept transmission of information regarding the territory in accord with Article 73 of the UN Charter by the end of 1950, or whether it was really a sheer out of luck though most likely it was.
 
Last edited:
Top