Talk:Dutch East Indies

the article says that "Indonesia declared independence". This should be changed into something like "a group of nationalists among others Sukarno declared the indepence of Indonesia." I am not an expert in this matter, but the current wording sounds incorrect and logically impossible. Andries 12:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

importance

I would support the change of importance as it is basically an earlier part of indonesian history SatuSuro 11:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Infobox is misleading

The info box in question

Use of the info box forces information to be shown in a misleading manner. It removes any nuance and provision for complexity - so simplistic its inaccurate. It's like putting an elephant into a baby's suit. Ridiculous. I've tried to put the required complexity in, but the technical parameters of the box don't allow it.

• The Dutch were thrown out during the Japanese occupation (Mar 1942 to Aug 1945). The Japanese destroyed almost all of the colony's economic, administrative and social structures. All the renowned Indonesia scholars I've come across thus put 1942 as the end of the colony.
• Indonesian nationalists declared Indonesian independence in August 1945 and received wide-spread support across the archipelago and internationally.
• That the Dutch recognised Indonesian sovereignty in 1949 doesn't meant that is when the colony was finished. See points above. Indonesians argue convincingly that the Dutch only recognised Indonesian sovereignty, ie it wasn't up to the Dutch to grant.
• The Dutch government later recognised 1945 as the date of Indonesian independence.

I'm trying to make all this fit into the info box, but I'm not having much luck. If i don't succeed, I will remove the box and only support it's re-inclusion if it can be made to cater for the complexity listed above. --Merbabu (talk) 03:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not a fan of these infoboxes for former countries at all. The Spanish Empire had the same issues and it was eventually just removed. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 13:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Ps, I should have said since my last post here I did update it here. it's certainly a poor compromise as far as I'm concerned. I spent ages trying different approaches and for technical and editorial reasons it still contains POV and is actually less clear. I'd rather not have it, and there is nothing that cannot be expressed much better in a simple lead and which caters to the nuances and all POV's in a neutral manner. Wait and see how we go. --Merbabu (talk) 13:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I would remove the infobox. Most of the "history" timeline content is duplicated in the Template:History of Indonesia immediately below. The image can do just fine outside of the infobox. That leaves very little real information, all of which is better covered in the text. CDC (talk) 23:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Dating issue

To Merbabu and other editors on the issue of start to end date of the NEI

From the point of few of the international community and the UN the NEI ended on 27 December 1949. There were two breaks in the international communitys opinion, one was from 1811(ish) to 1814(ish) when the NEI was occupied by the British. The other was from 1942 to 1945 caused by the Japanese occupation during World War II.

As for accual control of Indonesia after the Japanese surrender I would like to point out that those with loyalty to the Dutch dint just drop dead after 1945. Forexample the New Guinea and the Moluccas were under Dutch majority control. And New Guinea even went on to become the Netherlands New Guinea. But even if the territory was tiny it would still have been the NEI. The Byzantine Empire did not stop being the Byzantine Empire when all that was left was just the city of Constantinople. And the same is true of the Netherlands East indies.--SelfQ (talk) 20:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Who says the international community recognizes Indonesian independence as being 1949? The reality is, the Japanese ended in the Dutch East Indies 1942-45, and depsite their best efforts, the Dutch never got it going again. Even the Dutch government now recognizes 1945. That's the problem with these info boxes. Their inability to cater for even the slightest bit of complexity makes them misleading. If I had my way, there would be no infobox. Please read Indonesian National Revolution which is based on some of the most well respected scholars of this period - and covers the period in more detail than this article.--Merbabu (talk) 21:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Who says the international community recognizes Indonesian independence as being 1949?

The United Nations do.

The reality is, the Japanese ended in the Dutch East Indies 1942-45, and depsite their best efforts, the Dutch never got it going again.

You are correct in that they never regained full control. But they did gain partial control. See my Byzantine analogie.

Even the Dutch government now recognizes 1945.

Did you just pull this out of a hat deliberately or were you lied to?--SelfQ (talk) 21:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Did you just pull this out of a hat deliberately or were you lied to - Please show some respect. [1] --Merbabu (talk) 21:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

With the support of the government, I can make it clear to the people of Indonesia that the Netherlands understands that the independent Republic of Indonesia in fact began on 17 August 1945 and that we - sixty years later - fully accept this both morally and politically. (Your source)

Yes the Netherlands of today recognizes Indonesian independence as 17 August 1945, with is a great piece of trivia. And can be seen as a sign of health bilateral relations. But in 1945 a war was started, territory was gained and territory was lost and in 1949 a new independent nation was recognizesed by its enemy AND the world. Ending that enemys claim over that nations territory. If Germany today accepts its territorial boundaries does not mean that germany 1939 accepts those same boundaries. In the time period 1945/1949 Indonisia was a war torn colony just seeking to become independent. Just like colonies of the British, Belgian and French.--SelfQ (talk) 21:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

we both know it's not "trivia". in your last post you disputed recent Dutch recognition of 1945. Now you acknowledge it but dispute its meaning. Which one is it? As for your musings, how do you propose that they be incorporated into the space of an info box in a manner that is not inaccurate or misleading? And, your position still ignores the writings of the best regarded historians of this era (eg, cribb, Reid, ricklefs - which admittedly aren't so well referenced here but are in the other article I linked too.). Wikipedia is based on reliable sources and not musings or reasoning no matter how rational or logical. Again, this just illustrates the inappropriateness of infoboxes. They reduce complex events into labels and pigeon holes - at best they are misleading, at worst downright inaccurate. --Merbabu (talk) 22:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

also, insisting it was a colony from 45-49 ignores the events of 42-45. The Japanese didn't just change the flags, but systematically destroyed most aspects of Dutch rule. again, the problem is more the infobox format rather than our dispute. --Merbabu (talk) 22:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

"we both know it's not "trivia"."

Well yes it is, it would go great in Indonesia–Netherlands relations, with strangely enough doesnt exist yet, or at the end of this article. But it doesnt in anyway have anything to do with the goverment of the Netherlands from the 40's. note that dont mean to cause offence by that statement, it just doesnt have anything to do with 1945 reality.

"in your last post you disputed recent Dutch recognition of 1945. Now you acknowledge it but dispute its meaning. Which one is it?"

The one in bold.

"position still ignores the writings of the best regarded historians of this era"

And you seem to be ignoring the Dutch that returned. There was a administrator, Hubertus Johannes van Mook. There was a army, Eerste Divisie 7 December. There were plantations, shipping goods back to the Netherlands. I mean there were even war crimes trials against the Japanese beaing held.

"also, insisting it was a colony from 45-49 ignores the events of 42-45."

No it doesnt, there is a entire article explaining the situation. All I am trying to do is make it look similar to Kingdom of Hungary to give a clear indication of what happend. That there was indeed a gap, and that the Dutch did indeed partialy return.

I would like to point you to Encyclopedia Britannica that even says in the first line of text "one of the overseas territories of The Netherlands until December 1949,"

As for a solution I dont know. Maybe wait for a 3rd party's opinion?--SelfQ (talk) 22:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

"which one is it?" was a rhetorical question. You can't vehmently say something was rubbish then when proven wrong, say it's trivial. You can't have it both ways - which only shows the inconsistency. The problem with the info box (once again) is that it cannot cater for complexity or nuance. That's why I opposed it's insertion. On the other hand, I am sure that the differences of opinion above could be very handled in the prose. The problem is trying to fit that fit that into a single number field in a box. It doesn't work - never will. It remains misleading and inaccurate. Ps - are you saying cribb et al got it wrong? --Merbabu (talk) 23:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)