WI US & Australia supported total Indonesian independence from 1945?

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
There have been a few threads, recently, and over the years, here and in soc.history.what-if, about the US opposing French return to Indochina. One thing that comes up, and rightly so, is the poisonous effect of this on US-French relations and negative geopolitical impact for the west in Europe.

But what if the US did as OTL with the French, but scratched an anti colonial itch against a smaller, easier, target, the Netherlands?

How would the Dutch react to this US pressure?

Would the Communist share of the Dutch vote increase?

Would Netherlands still join NATO or resume its historic neutrality instead?

It's been said France could and would cause a lot of trouble if the US had really pressed for Vietnamese independence in 1945. What kind of trouble could or would the Dutch cause?

It's not the first time I've brought up this idea, and here's how I imagined it coming about in the past:

What if Australia and the United States unequivocally recognized the independence of the Indonesian republic from VJ-Day on, over the entire former Dutch East Indies?

In OTL, the Australians first, and then the Americans, came to gradually support Indonesian independence while all along favoring Dutch-Indonesian compromise, deciding to not tolerate further Dutch efforts from 1949.

What if the two countries opposed Dutch reclamation of the territory from the very beginning and supported immediate independence, with as much UN supervision as the Indonesians would be willing to tolerate?

Their rationale could be that Indonesia is the economic prize of Southeast Asia, and the Dutch are too weak to succeed in retaking and holding the colony.

Also, opposing the Dutch in Indonesia is much lower risk than say, opposing the French in Indochina, because the Netherlands are not a permanent 5 security council member, or an occupying power within Germany. Also, even those already worried about political stability in Europe vis-a-vis communists could see the Netherlands communist party was much weaker than it's French counterpart, peaking at 11% of the vote in the second half of the 1940s. A doubling or trebling of its share still would be far short of a majority.

So first, what are the effects in Indonesia. Sukarno was already dominant on that side. Is he more friendly to the west? Does he align with the US coalition and send troops to Korea? If pro-western at first, does this persist through the 1950s and 1960s, causing Djakarta to never get as interested in Soviet or Chinese ties? Domestically, what happens with the economy and foreign trade patterns? And the balance between left-leaning, Islamic and military political forces. If Sukarno remains in power (and he may not. If there's no war of independence his role in independence may become less appreciated after a time) is he likely to still seek to absorb Malaysia?

(as an aside, did the Japanese occupy Portuguese East Timor or was it neutral during WWII?).

What are the reverberations in Europe and other colonial empires. I am assuming *no* change in US Indochina policy. But, how bitter is the Netherlands at exclusion and what can it do about it? It wouldn't try to resume a neutral stance, would it? Would its economic recovery be damaged?

The British and French will be fearful of US intentions, but I don't think what is done to Netherlands, and not their own empires, makes their European policies change in any material way. Might they seek to delay Indonesian entry into the UN?

Does the example of the Australian and American pro-independence stance in this one instance change expectations in the colonial world and cause earlier difficulties for the other colonial powers in their own territories?
 
Last edited:

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
I'll give answering these questions and anticipating developments a try:

Would the Communist share of the Dutch vote increase?

Not to anymore than doubling, to 22%, and I think that is generous

Would Netherlands still join NATO or resume its historic neutrality instead?

Probably still join NATO, by virtue of the earlier treaty of Dover with the other Benelux countries, Britain and France. WWII has demonstrated the futility of neutrality in their case and they know they need help dealing with Germany or Russia.

Worst-case alternative - Netherlands goes into Swiss or Swedish style neutrality in protest at American high-handedness and British and French inability to stop it.

It's been said France could and would cause a lot of trouble if the US had really pressed for Vietnamese independence in 1945. What kind of trouble could or would the Dutch cause?

Not much, other than trying to be neutral, and an increase in British and French suspicion about American intent toward *their* colonies, but not enough to override the imperatives of their security in cooperating with the US.

What about development of Indonesia?

Well here, there's no violence of the independence war, Sukarno is firmly in charge of the Republic from the beginning. There's some internal factional and ethnic violence.

Probably by the 1950s though things have settled down a bit and there is less bitterness against the Dutch and Eurasian populations.

Indonesia is U.S.-aligned in the early Cold War, competing with the Philippines to be an ally of the U.S.

Indonesia votes against the UN partition for Palestine, but so did a few US allies and all Muslim-majority countries.

Indonesia probably also recognizes Communist China early even though it is not Communist leaning itself. If the Chinese-Indonesian community lobbies against it he might delay, but I do not think that was on the political agenda of Chinese-Indonesians.

Indonesia votes to condemn North Korean aggression in 1950, and sends token numbers of troops to fight in Korea with the UN command.

In 1954, Indonesia becomes a founding member of SEATO, which might become the Jakarta Pact instead of the Manila Pact.

It is not a founding member of the non-aligned movement or first host of the Afro-Asian countries, though if another country, like India, hosts an Afro-Asian conference, it would likely attend.

In turn, the Eisenhower administration is not trying to destabilize the regime.

Internally, Sukarno is less anti-capitalist, and he needs to cater to a few different constituencies, including the Islamic groups.
He still may implement some socialistic projects or development plans as they were fairly fashionable in those decades.

Since he has Western New Guinea from the beginning that does not become a territorial crisis. He may think about occupying East Timor though, after the Indians successfully occupy Portuguese Goa in 1961.

There is no guarantee Sukarno is not eclipsed in the 1950s or 1960s by another figure within the Republican movement through internal politics in this altered domestic and international situation.

I am assuming Indonesia does not launch a "Crush Malaysia" campaign.

Domestic causes, and some fighting in Korea against Chinese troops, might awaken some anti-Chinese sentiment in the early 1950s and maybe later.

All in all, Indonesia's economy and diplomatic position is more stable and successful compared to OTL's, even if not spectacular.
 
I'll give answering these questions and anticipating developments a try:
There is no guarantee Sukarno is not eclipsed in the 1950s or 1960s by another figure within the Republican movement through internal politics in this altered domestic and international situation.

I think this is the most interesting point in the thread. With US acknowledgement of Indonesian independence, the situation is more stable for Indonesia which ironically would mean there is less of a need for Sukarno. Sukarno is charismatic, able to unite and inspire the masses to great causes. But he's absolutely not the best person to turn to when it comes to questions such as economic and social development. OTL Sukarno had inflation reaching 650% by the time he fell from power. Without US support OTL and with Indonesia being caught up in revolutionary fervor, this weakness is masked. A more stable environment would expose Sukarno as someone who is maybe the right person to guide Indonesia to independence but not to make it more prosperous.

I would put my bet on this guy to become an alternative Indonesian President: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamengkubuwana_IX

He's Javanese (Representing the majority ethnicity), is non-partisan (you'd be hard-pressed to find a figure accepted across the various political factions), and from the Western point of view should be a safe pair of hands.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
I think this is the most interesting point in the thread. With US acknowledgement of Indonesian independence, the situation is more stable for Indonesia which ironically would mean there is less of a need for Sukarno. Sukarno is charismatic, able to unite and inspire the masses to great causes. But he's absolutely not the best person to turn to when it comes to questions such as economic and social development. OTL Sukarno had inflation reaching 650% by the time he fell from power. Without US support OTL and with Indonesia being caught up in revolutionary fervor, this weakness is masked. A more stable environment would expose Sukarno as someone who is maybe the right person to guide Indonesia to independence but not to make it more prosperous.

I would put my bet on this guy to become an alternative Indonesian President: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamengkubuwana_IX

He's Javanese (Representing the majority ethnicity), is non-partisan (you'd be hard-pressed to find a figure accepted across the various political factions), and from the Western point of view should be a safe pair of hands.

Very interesting -

Overall, does everybody think that a pro-western Indonesia is plausible, if we have a pro-Indonesian west (America and Australia) early enough?

Or are neutralism vis-a-vis the west and anti-westernism and socialism just too darn fashionable in former colonial areas by the 1950s for Indonesia to not go that way.
 
A monarch as president of Indonesia?

It's not as a farfetched as you think. The guy is more republican than monarchist. He was one of the first declare support for the newly established Republic of Indonesia and even allowed the Republicans to use his city as an emergency capital.

Very interesting -

Overall, does everybody think that a pro-western Indonesia is plausible, if we have a pro-Indonesian west (America and Australia) early enough?

That will depend on whether or not America, Australia, not to mention their populace, can stomach Japanese collaborators as Indonesia's first president and vice president.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
It's not as a farfetched as you think. The guy is more republican than monarchist. He was one of the first declare support for the newly established Republic of Indonesia and even allowed the Republicans to use his city as an emergency capital.

This is very interesting

That will depend on whether or not America, Australia, not to mention their populace, can stomach Japanese collaborators as Indonesia's first president and vice president.

Well I don't think the populace would be a problem. It didn't dent Bung Karno's appeal.

American or Australian objection could be a bigger problem. However, former collaborators did alright in early post-independence politics elsewhere in the region - Aung San in Burma, one of the early Filipino Presidents, Thailand's wartime Marshal Phibun made a post 1945 comeback.

Now I am not sure of the timing of all this however. I'm not sure if any of the collaborators were continuously in charge from VJ-Day or if they benefitted from a few years "cooling off" period after the war and came back when everybody was more focused on the Cold War.
 
It's not as a farfetched as you think. The guy is more republican than monarchist. He was one of the first declare support for the newly established Republic of Indonesia and even allowed the Republicans to use his city as an emergency capital.

Power does nasty things to people, and he's now more prominent in this scenario.
 
Top