the people who lived in the land were tired of being treated horribly. they made their opinions known to such a degree that the people who were oppressing/stealing from them had to leave. the oppressors left, the stealers... not so much.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
As for the ''traumatic'' divorce between the Netherlands and the Dutch East Indies, it basically followed the second world war. Part of the Indonesian leadership had collaborated with the Japanese against their previous 'masters' the Dutch, many Dutch and associated with them were interned during WWII. The element of the 'Policional (from police) actions' aimed of protecting and securing them were justified, many other elements were grey or turned worse; OTOH most of those arguments can be made against their adversaries too. Sure we were the 'Colonial overlords' trying to restore the ''good pre war time'' (even when a future goal would have been independence), but the Indonesian freedom fighters had their share of grey or worse actions too.
Anyway from a Dutch pov, it probably happened a tad too soon after WWII, but Indonesian independence was inevitable, something even the Dutch government realized; that didn't mean they weren't unpleasantly surprised, when their allies (the USA threatened to end post-WWII aid) basically forced them to stop.
Additionally the new Western Super Power the USA, also showed in these conflicts and others (Suez crisis), that they didn't just support their European allies.
As for the Netherlands losing Dutch New Guinea to Indonesia, that wasn't a pleasant chapter in Dutch-Indonesian relations either; AFAIK the Dutch government initial long term goal was giving the population the choice between independence, joining the rest of the Island or Indonesia. (BTW Indonesian independence was recognized by the Netherlands in 1949, whereas West New Guinea went to the UN in 1962 and Indonesia in 1963).
THE Dutch were also trying to split the dutch east indies into several states rather than the unified indonesia we see today.
the usa believed that smaller states would be weaker and more susceptible to communist influences, iirc
it would be undoubtebly much more interesting and fair, for them to split the indies. No need for an artificial blob, like we see today. Makes me depressed a bit.
It's a bit more nuanced than that. The Dutch government did promise the loyal Moluccans there own state on the Moluccas. Furthermore they also made promises to the Papua's on Dutch New Guinea that they had the right of self determination, when it came to their future.
Ultimately the Dutch government couldn't (in case of the latter completely) live up to those promises, due to a variety of reasons, including (amongst others) international pressure.
well, the Dutch motives were one thing - which I didn't go into, so I don't think I could have been more nuanced ;-)
No, but totally correct. The Dutch did not want to leave behind a neo-Javanese Empire, but rather a smaller set of states that they could influence to a greater degree.
Because WWII finished off both the myth of their invincibility (Japan was an evil empire, but it was also an evil Asian empire that had kicked whitey tail up and down the Pacific until they got squashed by American industrial power), and also devastated the European colonial powers and seriously impeded their ability to effectively fight natives. Even when they could, the two superpowers were extremely hostile to colonialism for idealogical and pragmatic reasons. Trying to hold on to your colonial empire was isolating yourself from the world to fight endlessly to hold onto lands that didn't make money and where the people increasingly universally hate you. There was no upside even if you ignore how morally bankrupt colonialism was.
Not always, India made Britain rich so it benefitted them at least.
India being the exception... for the colonizers at least. It still sucked for the Indians.
And it's not like everyone just decided to give up their colonies because it was the right thing to do. Plenty of European countries tried to hold on to their empires, but they all had to let go sooner or later.
India being the exception... for the colonizers at least. It still sucked for the Indians.
The Dutch East Indies was the Dutch equivalent to Britain's India, it was their respective jewel in their colonial crowns. That colonies suck for everyone involved is both modern and political correct. Even when European and other nations btw are ashamed of that chapter in their past, they can't deny they grew richer from their colonies.
Yeah, back in the days of spice and tea trade colonies were very profitable.
When there was actually a market there before the Europeans came, the colonies were profitable. But otherwise? Not so much. And even then, British rule in India was very much a bare bones operation.
That's the success for profit. Maximum income for minimum investment. When the colonies started needing more direct involvement they became a drain on resources instead.
I have to disagree here, the colonies were profitable for those in control. It's the difference between free trade and a monopoly; overall the profit might go down, but the profit made by the monopolist goes up. Though in some cases it was more like an oligopoly.
The situation during the age of Imperialism (19th century) is more like the situatio DarthJF describes.
In addition to this, most of the infrastructure and economy was built towards feeding the metropole. So not only colonization did not do proper investments, they also placed structural obstacles(intentionally or not) to economic transformation and industrialization. Though of course its not as black and white, and results varied.
All those railroads and irrigation and other stuff prevented a local development program and forced the country's economy to cling onto its role in global division of labor. Essentially, the peasant had to continue growing cocoa and sell it for a price Europeans will buy. In effect, de-colonisation changed little in economic activity unless harsh-direct action was taken by the state on the short-term. The state had to continue these economic activities for survival.
Another problem of course was how weak the state was in sub-saharan africa for the colonial regimes built institutions in a certain way. The state had little control over its subjects, thus had little income and power to do a change.