Talk:Japanese occupation of the Dutch East Indies

Naming
Should this article be renamed to Japanese occupation of the Dutch East Indies since Indonesia did not exist before 1945? Arsonal (talk) 16:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your continued excellent work on Indonesia articles. On this particular question, I don't think it is a good idea. This is an article on the history of a current entity and this title reflects this - perhaps if the date was 1943 then I'd agree. It is a far more common title, and is what is used by the most-respected historians and books. Eg, we have an article entitled The spread of Islam in Indonesia. Should we change that to something else as there was no Indonesia in the 12th to 16th century? (rhetoric question) --Merbabu (talk) 09:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think yes. I agree with Arsonal. Andries (talk) 10:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that even if the name is not changed the Dutch East Indies must be mentioned in the first or second sentence. Andries (talk) 12:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I note you didn't respond to my post. At least, you should put your name change question onto the Indonesian noticeboard. cheers --Merbabu (talk) 12:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ehhh, where is your post? I have no intention to change the name without further discussion. Andries (talk) 13:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd like to support a change of name. During the whole period of the occupation, the topic of the article, there was no Indonesia. The occupation itself has a role in becoming Indonesia but this article reflects completely the Dutch East Indies. Agora (talk) 08:40, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

My edits
Do not dare claim some minimally educated white with a very blatant program of altering Indonesian history to suit their own PC agenda and Australian-US-UK scholars who are barely literate in Indoneisan are some how suprerior and more authorative than Indonesian mainstream scholarship. I am sorry if you feel Indonesian history is too racist or controversial for YOU- BUT HERE'S A NASTY FACT- INDONESIAN HISTORY IS RACIST. Here are some unpleasant facts for you sok tahu bule mincing about with your infatuation with PC and multi-culturalism: To claim Chinese had any positive involvement in Perjuangan constitutes original research and it utterly refuted by all Indonesian scholarship- which as being the narrative of its' own native history is unqueastionably the authorative version- exctly as Australin history scholarhsip is the authorative narrative of Austrlian history, British scholarship to British history and so forth. Unless you are prepared to write Indonesian history in agreement with the dominant Indonesian academic perspective - which excludes all Gramedia/Gunung Agung/Tokoh Indonesia belated "revelations" about heroic, selfless Chinese (which should be immediately dismissed as typical Chinese self-aggrandisement and ingratiation to the dominant power) to suit your perceptions Indonesian self determination was a multi-cultural love-fest then you thoroughly need re-adjustment and a dose of reality. I am more than happy to lend a valet with English skills to tour you around all the national museums, the national archives etc to prove my point.
 * The natives were oppressed by the Dutch via the Chinese in an apartheid that made South Africa look like kindergarten.
 * Chinese had NO involvement with Perjuangan except to hamper, sabotage and destroy Indonesian pribumi attempts at Independence.
 * There are NO Chinese national heroes until Megawti appointed ONE chinese poet.
 * There are no Chinese military heroes-
 * Sukarno made no Chinese a national hero
 * Sukarno only made 3 Chinese MP's when he was just about to be thrown out of power by the Muslims
 * the hatred and distrust of Chinese runs so deep- that in the 2009 SBY election when the Chinese Business council endorsed SBY- Partai Demokrat polling illustrated a major defection to Megawati-Prabowo.
 * Kwik Kian Gie- traitor of PDIP- has no native following at all and was highly controversial during Megawati's cabinet- he was universally hated just as the corrupt Marie Elka Pagestu.
 * There are no Chinese befouling the holy ground of Kalibata Heroes cemetery. When you pay respects to my father, my uncles, grandfather and the rest of the Joyosarono-Joyokusuma Hadiningrat royal clan (all Bintang Gurilya) in Kalibata Heroes cemetery - you can speak to the gravekeeper- he will cheerily inform you NO CHINESE.
 * If you actually speak to those who lived during Perjuangan- you will soon find the Chinese were up to their usual tricks of rice-hoarding, smuggling, spying (for pay of course) and running under the skirts of nanny UK or Dutchman.
 * PETA and Heiho had NO CHINESE membership at all. It was 100% pribumi as decreed and designed by the Japanese.
 * Japanese program of forced rekalamasi by the Heiho was to specifically reclaim shops and businesses from the hated Dutch and CHiense Some Chinese were sent as Romusha as just desserts for their oppression of the pribumi,.
 * British occupation of Surabaya was headquartered at the entrance to the Chinatown- why? no chance of attack from the Red Bridge- Chinese were known to be 100% loyal to the re-occupation of Indies.
 * Jakarta suburb with the highest population of Dutch- Menteng, had the highest number non Dutch resident- Chinese. Chinese- keen to be among their beloved master.
 * When a Dutch Resident was to depart finally from Indonesia- and their goods auctioned off- Chinese would Chinese would auction more than double the amrket price on their goods to curry favor with the incoming Resident.
 * Chinese fought against Dipo Negoro and burnt down the library of Keraton Jogja
 * Chinese were noted by Wallace to stand and remove hats as a mark of respect of any passing white.
 * Chinese were so hated- a bounty was placed on Chinese, so effective the Dutch established a counter penalty for the collective punishment of the closest village to the murdered Chinaman, if they refused to surrender the murderers.
 * Chinese immigration peaked during mid 19yth century specifically targeted by Dutch-British program of importation of Chinese (as in Myanmar and Malaysia) to be the obsequious grovelling middleman, compradore and lickspittle exactly as we still find today in Singapore. Chinese were specifically targeted by the Dutch and British as they were obsequious, submissive, servile and cared nothing for politics or native self-determination (bad for business lah), but everything about accumulating wealth and social aspiration.
 * The dutch imported them to run their Indies plantations, taxation, tax-collection, toll-roads, pawn-shops, gambling dens, opium dens, brothels and all manner of immoral, thanjkless, nasty dirty jobs exactly as the Chinese are involved with today in Indonesia- or have you never heard of Dolly, HaiLai or Mangga Dua?
 * Chinese remain the single most hated ethnic/religious group in Indonesia. Why? For their colonial collaboration.

You will respect MY edits on my own nations history as more authoritative, more educated and more accurate . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Starstylers (talk • contribs)


 * Starstylers, on wikipedia talk pages are to discuss content not users we assume good faith and we dont Own articles please keep this in mind with further discussion. Gnangarra 03:03, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This comment is very anti-chinese. It shows a picture which actually is still the problem of some so called "real indonesians" (with some strange extremist ideas, sometimes unfortunately in the name of Islam). I (german) am married to a chinese-indonesian woman from Bandung and I know a lot of chinese indonesian, but also "real indonesian" peoples. I have friends on both sides, and they are very kind to each other and to me, we make no difference on this. 84.167.213.60 (talk) 20:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The anti-Japanese tone of the article represents the Allied nations view of the Occupation more than any other. The fact is that the British, who moved into the Dutch East Indies and occupied it in preparation to turning it back over to Dutch forces after the War, relied heavily on Japanese military forces to keep order for many months after the Japanese surrender. Liberation was not exactly what the British were aiming to do. 38.96.155.221 (talk) 15:21, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

reason for occupation of Dutch Indies Colony by the japanese
This article is very unclear for the reasons why the japanese occupied the archipelago. The article only says that the japanese wanted to be the "good ones" to free the colony, Asia to the asians and things like that. But that is maybe only the half of the truth, if so. The main interest of the japanese was the economics. For their industrial growth they needed more natural resources of which the indonesian archipelago has plenty, like gold, oil and coal in Sumatra and Borneo, all these fine and rich plantations, farms and factories (so called "Onderneming") which have been installed by the Dutch, like sugar (in fact, Java was the biggest sugar producer of the world in the 1920/30's, there were almost about 300 sugar mills, I am a member of a group around Rob Dickinson who is doing researches on this), palm oil, teak wood, rubber, tea, coffee, sisal, algarve, aloe vera, cashew, coco nuts, spices, tobacco, opium, salt, fish, shrimps and many more. The japanese occupators restructured the complete economics of the archipelago, for example they reorganized the sugar mills under control of japanese companies, they merged all the railway companies, they even built a few new railway lines, for example the so called "bones railway", or "trans sumatra spoorweg" (this is not a modern invention) to extend the west-Sumatra-railsystem (Padang) to Pekanbaru to have easyier acces for coal transportation from the sawahlunto coal mines to the chinese sea for quicker and more safe transport of the coal to the mainland Japan. 84.167.213.60 (talk) 20:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The Japanese were definitely not viewed as heroes by the Indonesians. My great uncle was a prisoner in one of the camps there, he said that many of the Indonesians were sympathetic to the dutch prisoners and actually snuck food for them into the camps past the Japanese. 140.158.253.4 (talk) 19:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

wow, the discussion page is more interesting than the article itself....i had thought the article really downplays any negative impacts of the Japanese invasion but i read in the discussion that the Dutch(and the Chinese) were quite hated...not sure what to believe as the Okinawans were just recently angry at the Japanese for their attempts at revisionist history in school textbooks re the mass suicides on the island in WWII...after enough years have passed people will just believe whatever makes them feel good...already an enormous number of holocaust deniers around and there are people still alive who were in the camps...173.126.195.172 (talk) 03:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Indonesian deaths
I find it rather surprising that despite the lenght of the article there is not one mention of the 3 to 4 million indonisians that died because of famine and the labour camps during the ocupation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.126.13.229 (talk) 22:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It is mentioned, in the 4 paragraph of "The Occupation" section. cheers --Merbabu (talk) 02:00, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Dutch civilian internees killed by Indonesians after the war
I am surprised - or rather, given the nationalistic tone of Wikipedia entries on Indonesia, I am not surprised - to see that the murder of thousands of Dutch civilians, including women and children by Indonesians after the war is not mentioned. These people had survived terrible hardships and privations which led to a 25% death rate under Japanese imprisonment; when the war ended and they thought they might be saved, instead many were murdered by nationalist Indonesians. This shameful episode in Indonesia's history naturally doesn't get a mention here. It should. 86.133.213.93 (talk) 15:40, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi. I would hope the Indonesian articles are not nationalist in tone - some of us editors on the Indonesian project have consistently removed edits that do have a nationalist bias. Could you provide some examples? If the massacre you mention is notable, and you can find references for it, then of course it should be included in this article, or other article. Over to you. Cheers. Davidelit (Talk) 16:21, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that the tone and terms in Wikipedia in Indonesian articles are different from what I learned at school and continue to hear in Dutch media. For example, the correct title of this article would be Dutch occupation of the Dutch East Indies, as I argued here before in vain. And yes, the difficulties that Dutch encountered during the Bersiap period is missing may out of this article's scope. Andries (talk) 20:04, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The deaths of Dutch civilians following the Japanese occupation should be mentioned on wikipedia, but is it this article? The deaths were after the occupation. (I would suggest that your point can stand on its own and doesn't require such an accusatory tone. eg, "shameful")
 * Of course what is taught in Dutch schools is going to be different to what is taught in Indonesian schools. The bias that Davidelit refers to can go both ways. --Merbabu (talk) 21:30, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Merbabu, thanks for your reply. I agree that Bersiap may not belong in this article, though it could be mentioned here. However I have to agree with 86.133.213.93 that the set of articles regarding Indonesia have a nationalist tone or use nationalist terminology when you compare it with Dutch reputable sources. This is likely not a problem that can be solved easily and quickly.  My impression is not that the Dutch reputable sources make many mistakes or are very biased, however they do not focus on the fate of the Indonesian people unless they are related to the Netherlands. Btw, I read years ago an article reviewing a Dutch book in an Indonesian newspaper that complained (rightfully so, I think) of this one-sided Dutch portrayal of matters. (Unfortunately my knowledge of Indonesian has declined so much that I am no longer able to read Indonesian newspapers.) For example with regards to nationalist terminology, the title Indonesian Revolution strikes me as nationalist and not neutral and not used in Dutch reputable sources. I think that Indonesian struggle for independence or Independence of Indonesia would be a more accurate, neutral title. Andries (talk) 10:10, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that Dutch sources are "reputable" but Indonesian sources aren't? I'm not sure that Dutch sources are the baseline for neutrality when discussing this period. Is that what you are saying? Personally, I don't believe either Dutch or Indonesian sources are the best - from experience. They can be quiet biased - in different directions obviously. I have not used them myself, and have advise people to use extreme care if they must.
 * As for "Indonesian National Revolution", I have (English language) books on my shelf by Taylor, Vickers, Rickleffs, Cribb, Friend, and Reid. Indeed, Reid has a book by that exact title. These are perhaps the most noted non-Dutch, non-Indonesian Indonesia scholars around today. What your suggested titles miss (and indeed the article does not fully address), is that it was just as much an internal political and armed conflict. Interestingly, the Dutch language link on the Indonesian National Revolution page links to "Politionele acties" ("Police Actions") - but I have not read the article. And, Indonesian editors once moved and argued strongly for the article to be named "Indonesian War of Independence". POV is always interesting. Literally, from where one views things. --Merbabu (talk) 10:36, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, I don't understand how INR is nationalist or inaccurate. Or how your suggestions are less so. --Merbabu (talk) 10:41, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The example of the Indonesian Revolution linking in the Dutch Wikipedia to politionele acties that you mentioned is an extreme example of the different focus of the Dutch reputable sources when compared to other sources. You may be fully right (I only read Dutch sources). Andries (talk) 11:09, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Indonesian romusha There is a brief mention of the recruitment of Indonesian romushas in this article. Is there anywhere I can find out more about this subject? Supposedly the mortality rate was very high and Sukarno said that he regretted encouraging Indonesians to volunteer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.150.249.171 (talk) 05:03, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

no mention of the punishment/executions of Dutch nationals after oil fields destroyed
In one case men and women were herded to a beach and machine-gunned. I will be adding some references for this.HammerFilmFan (talk) 22:47, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: move. --  tariq abjotu  04:26, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Japanese occupation of Indonesia → Japanese occupation of the Dutch East Indies – An editor raised this article at a recent move discussion, which I hope sets a precedent. Basically, the current title of the article is anachronistic and should be changed to reflect the reality during the period. I accept that for people more interested in Indonesian history than WWII in general it's very tempting to keep the same country name across history, but putting an country which did not then exist into a historical event still makes no sense. By extension, a fundamentally re-write of almost all "Country X in war y" articles would be needed to reflect modern borders which are less relevant to the theme than the borders which existed at the time. Brigade Piron (talk) 09:11, 25 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Not support - just as easy to create a redirect page and a variant part of the lead sentence to establish the correlation between the current name and name when occupied - the Netherlands East Indies borders and Indonesian borders are more or less the same. The average user might not be that au fait with the correct name of the former colonial era name - I see no need to move the article, or re-write - the reader statistically is more likely to look for the historically incorrect name.  As for precedent (sic), I would consider the case by case scenario is required for all south east asian countries as there may well be issues that arise in this issue...  As for sense, if the reader is considered before usages that are historically correct then there is a fundamental problem, and I would err on the side of the uninformed reader first, as to how to lead them to the information  sats 09:22, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose: See History of Indonesia and the 6 reference books in this article's "Reference" list. All refer to Indonesia. I don't understand your argument that other articles would need to be changed. First, what's the connection to this one? And how would they be "wrong" --Merbabu (talk) 09:34, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: First of all, my apologies for accidentally removing the comment. I was attempting to fix my spelling error highlighted above and it certainly was not intentional. This article is just one of a family of "X occupation of Y in war Z" (cf. German occupation of Estonia during World War II etc. but also Japanese occupation of Malaya). The problem is that, in many cases, modern and historical borders are different. If you want an example of this, take Israel (the modern state) and the British Mandate of Palestine (which are currently separate categories on Commons "in World War II"). Palestine today is, technically, Israel but it would be exceptionally confusing to have an "Israel in World War II" article as I'm sure you can imagine. Ditto Southern Rhodesia in World War I, which would be extremely confusing if rendered as "Zimbabwe" in the title. This can be extended much further across all articles. Merbabu says that the title can remain Indonesia, as long as the "Dutch" part is explained in the title, but surely the opposite is also true? Suffice to say that I come at this from the perspective of WP:MILHIST rather than WP:Indonesia. Brigade Piron (talk) 09:57, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * But Indonesian borders are those of the Dutch colony. And consistency is always a weak argument. Further, it was an event that was experienced by many millions more Indonesians than Dutch. It's overwhelmingly about the history of Indonesia. Not the Dutch. A cursory read of the article shows it far more important to Indonesian history than Dutch history. --Merbabu (talk)
 * The name "Dutch East Indies" is accurate and contemporary and says nothing about its relative importance to either Dutch or East Indian history. Srnec (talk) 02:37, 26 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Support - Indonesia wasn't occupied by the Japanese, the Dutch East Indies was. This type of ahistorical misnaming is a perennial favourite of mine. On WP we use the names that applied at the time (ie Stalingrad, not Volgograd; Danzig, not Gdansk; Hollandia, not Jayapura etc), not what the place is called now. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 14:14, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - Per Peacemaker67, on Wikipedia we strive for the most accurate and non-anachronistic treatment of historical subjects. Some popular sources may casually replace "Dutch East Indies" with "Indonesia", but sources contemporary to the occupation would have refered to a Dutch colonial possession. Merbabu's argument about the fact that "natives, rather than Dutch experienced the brunt of the occupation" is not convincing. Proportionally, of all ethnic communities, the overseas Chinese in Southeast Asia suffered the most from Japanese occupation. But that shouldn't affect our article naming either. Shrigley (talk) 16:45, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - I was not trying to argue that one ethnic group "bore the brunt" more than another. this argument seems rather facile but all too common on Wikipedia. Rather i am saying it was an event with an impact many times greater on Indonesian history than Dutch. There were 60 million Indonesians under Japanese rule and not even 300,000 Europeans. The events took place in (what is now) Indonesia and not the Netherlands, and the events were pivotal to Indonesian history and a blip (relatively speaking) in Dutch history.
 * to Brigade Piron - yes I do see the differences in the perspective of the milhist brigade. That juggernaut has long come through and made sure that the correct perspective is in place. Combined with the generally lower level of non-western sources and editors. Systematic bias.--Merbabu (talk)|
 * Not quite sure why you refer to MILHIST as a "Juggernaut". Whatever the title, the article remains equally and irrevocably part of Indonesian history, even as the "Dutch East Indies". The insertion of "Indonesia" does not make the article any more "national".Brigade Piron (talk) 10:45, 26 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Support - I also find Peacemaker67's arguments persuasive. I cannot imagine referring to the decisive battle of the Eastern Front as the battle of Volgograd. --Yaush (talk) 20:15, 25 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment. This case is not identical to the case of French Indochina. In the previous case, the issue was the appropriate topic for the article. Scrupulously distinguishing Vietnam—which administratively did not exist, but as a nation did—from either French Indochina on the one hand or Annam/Tonkin/Cochinchina on the other would be difficult (if even possible) to pull off. It is also unnecessary, since we can use the boundaries that actually existed at the time. (An article on Vietnamese nationalism during World War II might make more sense.) In this present case, there is no such problem. Dutch East Indies = Indonesia. The one is a more formal term and the latter a more informal one, but both were in use at the time, as were Netherlands East Indies, Netherlands Indies, Dutch Indies, Dutch India, Netherlands India. There is also a plurality of Dutch terms. The current title is perfectly accurate, but I'm not sure it is better than the proposal. The territory the Japanese occupied has an article: Dutch East Indies. According to Selden C. Menefee (1943), "Japan's Psychological War", Social Forces 21 (4): 425–36, "when the Netherlands Indies were occupied one of Japan's first acts was to change the name of the country to Indonesia, a move long advocated by Indies nationalists". Srnec (talk) 02:37, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * In response to that comment, purely from a syntactical point of view, the Dutch East Indies are still the pre-existing territory being occupied, rather than Indonesia which came into being after the invasion. The title would otherwise have to be changed to something like "Japanese Indonesia"Brigade Piron (talk) 08:40, 26 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Serious comment for Brigade Piron, so now how can you deal with History of Poland during World War I, Hungary in World War I, Azerbaijan in World War II. Poland was torched apart by its neighbors and did NOT exist during that time. If you cannot solve this, then in the future, don't mess with my new article if I were to create an article named History of Vietnam during World War II. ༆ (talk) 07:14, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If you would like to take this up, please do on my talk page. I would only say that I have no involvement with WWI articles (though defenses can be made for all the articles you raise, again, if you want them ask me on my talk page). In the meantime, please read WP:OWN and make a mental note that it was only moved after a discussion involving a significant number of editors. Best wishes, Brigade Piron (talk) 08:33, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Still, you have to answer to me: What about History of Poland during World War I? ༆ (talk) 15:50, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That doesn't seem at all relevant to this discussion. Nick-D (talk) 07:45, 27 August 2013 (UTC)


 * comment this page now looks like a typical milhist argument/discussion page and not an Indonesian one. please consider that whatever the outcome, adequate annotation/context for the different perspectives are needed for those not auf fait with the predilictions of milhist editors.  There are above too many small niggly points that would simply make a response to each point an off topic stretching thread, well away from the original proposal... If a change occurs - the redirect and context need clear explanation out of respect for the reader, not the writers... sats 08:16, 26 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment I tend to prefer 'Dutch East Indies' in this context as it is the most relevant political entity here, but lots of recent books do refer to the WW2-era inhabitants as "Indonesians" and the locality as "Indonesia". Also, the NEI was never really fully reconstituted after the war so "Indonesia" isn't really wrong. Nick-D (talk) 07:40, 27 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Support. Clear anachronism and anachronisms and revisionism are always bad. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:52, 27 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Support - At the time of the occupation, although the term "Indonesia" was in use in both Dutch and native parlance, it did not yet indicate a unique geographic area, nor a political entity, with international recognition. The term "Dutch East Indies" was still the formal name of the area, and the main one recognised abroad. The use of Indonesia in such a context, although common among Indonesian sources (and, I'll admit, some Western academic sources) is not accurate (I think it started in Indonesia [at least] as a way to add more credence to the Indonesian national identity and more of a historical backing). That native ethnic groups were those who bore the brunt of the occupation (although I note that the ethnic Chinese and Dutch were also treated terribly during this time) does not affect its existence as a political entity. This does not, I note, demote from the fact that this was and remains part of Indonesian national history, or that the Japanese actually helped realise the country's independence. This is the same reason why I never use the term Indonesia (on its own) when writing about films from before 1945, and why I use Batavia for Jakarta in articles which take place before 1942. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:16, 31 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Support per nom. This is not a egregious case but it is an anachronism.  Even the Indonesian-language article does not use "Indonesia" in the title.  —  AjaxSmack   01:15, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Polarizing views on the civilian casualties
I'm not going to deny the idea that 4 million people were killed in Indonesia during Japans occupation, but John W. Dower's estimate is just one of many. I think it would help improve this article somewhat to include a variety of sources. I've found 3 serperate estimates on the civilian deaths in Indonesia. One by Sterling Seagrave where Japans kill count was in the hundreds of thousands(only problem is that Seagrave doesn't mention how many hundreds of thousands), one by Werner Gruhl who puts the body count at 1.5 million, and one by RJ Rummel that states that 300,000 were killed(though Rummels estimates on Japans body count isn't flawless).

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?/topic/9196-sterling-and-peggy-seagrave-gold-warriors/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties#Japanese_war_crimes https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP3.HTM

One thing that baffles me about Dower's estimate and RJ Rummels estimate is that, despite both of them mentioning a UN report on Japans occupation of Indonesia, they both come up with different statistics. Does anybody have a link to the UN report so we could clearify? Thanks-Signed Graylandertagger

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Japanese occupation of the Dutch East Indies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140518224034/http://www.ari.nus.edu.sg/docs/wps/wps03_009.pdf to http://www.ari.nus.edu.sg/docs/wps/wps03_009.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140518224034/http://www.ari.nus.edu.sg/docs/wps/wps03_009.pdf to http://www.ari.nus.edu.sg/docs/wps/wps03_009.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110726052834/http://www.dutcheastindies.webs.com/java_sea.html to http://www.dutcheastindies.webs.com/java_sea.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110726052648/http://www.dutcheastindies.webs.com/java.html to http://www.dutcheastindies.webs.com/java.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140518224034/http://www.ari.nus.edu.sg/docs/wps/wps03_009.pdf to http://www.ari.nus.edu.sg/docs/wps/wps03_009.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:13, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Title
This article is about the country/area or about the occupation and why use Infobox former country? The similarly-named Indonesian occupation of East Timor doesn't use Infobox former country. Hddty. (talk) 06:22, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Question
This additions on the research of theorists based on an objective perspective. It's not strange content that will be deleted, and since the source has a URL, it can be verified by translating it.--みしまるもも (talk) 02:37, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Flag of Indonesia
Hi Brigade Piron, it is my understanding that as the war goes on, and the Japanese loses more, they tried to gain sympathy and starts to do more appeasement in Indonesia starting in 1944 and especially 1945, this include allowing to sing the National Anthem "Indonesia Raya" and flying the Indonesian Flag "Sang Saka Merah-Putih" (albeit next to the Japanese "Hinomaru"). Admittedly in 1944 the National Anthem uses the "Mulia, Mulia" lyrics instead of the "Merdeka, Merdeka" lyrics but by 1945 it changes back to the original "Merdeka, Merdeka" lyrics. I know these are wartime Japanese propaganda footages but i think the Indonesian Flag should be added still, maybe with a sidenote to explain it. There is also the "Janji Koiso". And in here it says Pardon me for the rushed translation. I would like to hear your thoughts on this?
 * It was only when they were on the brink of defeat in the Pacific War that Japan promised independence for Indonesia and allowed the red-and-white flag and the anthem Indonesia Raya. Coinciding with Greater East Asia Development Day, September 8-9, 1944, Soomubucho (Head of the General Affairs Department of the Japanese Military Government in Indonesia) announced: "... on this day the army has allowed to wear the Indonesian national flag, and the national anthem Indonesia Raya is also permitted as the Indonesian song. The announcement was published by Sinar Baroe, 9 September 1944.
 * Celebrations were held everywhere, "including the red-and-white flag-raising ceremony on September 9, 1944 in Gambir which was attended by 40,000 people to celebrate the independence of Indonesia, and a sense of relief because the achievement of ideals was in sight," wrote Elson.
 * Edit: Forgot to sign EvoSwatch (talk) 08:57, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Three separated administrative regions
It is said that there were three separated adminsitrative regions in the occupied Dutch East Indies, shouldn't be there an article too? Mhatopzz (talk) 07:27, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Verifying Sock Edit
Would it be possible for someone who understands the language to check whether or not the 9 March edit by જય શ્રી રામ is a good change? I'm hesitant to revert it myself, but that user is a sock of someone who seems to have pushed POV in other places. Placeholderer (talk) 16:15, 3 April 2024 (UTC)