Talk:Sukarno

I made additions to this page.Sukarno, in the late 1950s, did not receive aid from the Soviet Union per se, but from Poland, Czechoslovakia, and later from West Germany and Italy. He received arms from Soviet BLOC countries, but not the USSR. Also, the Eisenhower Administration made sure that they gave more military aid to Sukarno than he would get from the Soviet bloc. This is all well documented in the Kahin book i placed on the reference page, pages 206-209. All facts come from released US Gov't documents.

Lastly, I added a bit on the PRRI rebels, a portion of this page I found deficit after reading the Kahin book. The forces were weak and EXTREMEMLY supported by pro-Western donors both private and public. The CIA, the Taiwanese, and the Filipinos gave lots of arms to the rebels on Sumatra and later even more to those on Sulawesi. It was these arms, including planes in Sulawesi, that embarrassed the United States soon after when the pilot was shot down doing bombing raids on Sulawesi. He was sentenced to death, but Robert Kennedy secured his release in 1961. His name was Allen Pope. This, too is well documented in the Kahin book, pages 179-182.

thomas

---

Are you sure about the Achmad? I thought he only had the one name. M.e 07:22, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

I remember reading that Time magazine(??) in the 60's couldn't cope with him having only one name and made the Achmad bit up.

Peacenik

---

I have made significant additions to this page, but no deletions. The additions are:

1. headings
2. the panca sila
3. more about 'guided democracy'
4. more detail about Sukarno's removal from power

All my additions are attributed from academic sources - see references at bottom of article.

controversial change: I note that there has for many versions appeared on this page a claim that Sukarno was toppled by the US Administration. I could find no source for this claim, and so moved it to the 'removal from power' section as a NPOV issue. I think the claim is significant and warrants an authoritative source before it can be put in the introductory paragraph of this article.

I note that authoritative historians on Indonesia, particularly Benedict Anderson and Robert Cribb, who are no fans of the USA policy towards Indonesia's occupation of East Timor, nevertheless found no evidence of a US role in the toppling of Suharto. On that evidence, it seems to be all Suharto's work.

I would also add that the attribution of Suharto being 'pro-American' has NPOV issues. America was certainly pro-Suharto, but I think the only thing Suharto was pro- was pro-Suharto!

What do you all think? Mercurius 10:31, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It sounds right. (Not knowing much about Indonesia, I can't definitively judge one way or another.) What I know is that the CIA did want Sukarno out, but of course that doesn't necessarily mean they were the cause of his downfall. A-giau 05:43, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sukarno's name

I'm going to remove "Achmad" from Sukarno's name again; as the article notes, he is known simply as "Sukarno". Every single authoritative history of Indonesia I've read uses the single name - I can cite specifics anyone is interested. There are now two potential sources of the "Achmad" name; 1) mentioned by User:Peacenik above and vaguely familiar to me as well, is that a confused American reporter added it in the 1960s; and 2) that Sukarno chose it after a hajj. Given that there are two conflicting stories, and that the vast majority of print sources don't use it at all, I think a good citation of its source is necessary before we insert it in the article. (Some potentially interesting background on Indonesian (Javanese, really) names if anyone is still interested: [1]) CDC (talk) 03:57, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Announcing Wikipedia:Indonesia-related topics notice board

After some thought and consideration, I created an Indonesia-related topics notice board, along the same lines as other regional notice boards (such as those for Malaysia and Africa). This was established to coordinate efforts to improve Indonesia-related Wikipedia entries. If you've made contributions to Indonesia-related articles in the past, or would like to, please take some time to visit, introduce yourself, and sign the roster.

Confusion between "Sukarno" and "Suharto"

There seems to be some confusion between Sukarno and Suharto in the section "Removal from Power", specifically in the second paragraph. Then again, I'm not up on Indonesian history, so maybe not. Cottingham 20:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

This has been the dark side of Indonesian History. What happened on the surface was Soeharto leading the army to crack down the communist party and not long after that resume power from Soekarno. Some said it was Soeharto's politic to grab the power from powerless Soekarno (due to his illness and loss of support), some saw Soeharto as hero who saved the country. The truth is, the fact is blur and evidence is doubtful, for both cases. BlueCall 05:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC) (talk)

doubtful neutrality

Too many US-bashers have edited this one. The article's tone is in many places much too leading and apologetic. Stick to the facts people.

The name should not be altered !

Sukarno was never Sukarno at all,.. the name is "Soekarno". Yes, it was the old spelling, with the same pronuncation, but a name is a name, it should not change ! I would like to suggest to correct the spelling, "Soekarno" and not "Sukarno". Same goes to "Soeharto" and not "Suharto" BlueCall (talk) 04:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Note on the part BACKGROUND:

Native people where not allowed to sit in front of the screen at the movies. Only European people where allowed to watch a movie sitting in front of the screen. So it was not because Sukarno did not have any movie, that he was sitting behind the screen.

C.Z.S. Nanuruw The Netherlands

Note on the part BACKGROUND: Sukarno at the movies

Note on the part BACKGROUND:

Native people where not allowed to sit in front of the screen at the movies. Only European people where allowed to watch a movie sitting in front of the screen. So it was not because Sukarno did not have any movie, that he was sitting behind the screen.

C.Z.S. Nanuruw The Netherlands

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sukarno"

Sukarno

"The most prominent critic of Western democracy was Sukarno, who, rather than being forced, gave the distinct impression of being keen to offer his services to the new conquerors. The metamorphosis of Sukarno from a prewar Marxist-tinged anti-imperialist into a Japanese cooperator par excellence is striking, and cannot solely be attributed to his consummate acting skills."

...

"Sukarno and the other leaders tried to use the Japanese im- posed mass organisation, PUTERA, primarily to strengthen na- tionalist sentiment among the people."

...

"With the war approaching Indonesian territory itself, on 1 March 1945 the Japanese announced that a committee to investigate Indonesian independence would be established."

...

"The rapid deterioration of the Japanese military situation in South-East Asia forced the time schedule for the granting of Indonesian independence to be put forward and on 7 August 1945 the Radjiman committee was replaced by a committee for the preparation of independence, headed by Sukarno and Hatta, and consisting of twenty members representing a cross-section of opinions and interests of the nation as a whole. Sensing that the great event, fervently yearned for so long, was near, Sukarno, in a now famous speech, referring to the prophesies of Djojobojo an ancient Javanese king who had foretold the demise of Dutch colonial rule, told the Indonesian people that the country would be free before the corn would ripen.

On 8 August, Sukarno, Hatta and Radjiman were flown to Japanese headquarters in Saigon to be told by Marshal Terauchi that Indonesia would be granted its independence in the immediate future and urged them to speed up their preparations.

The Japanese occupation policies had engendered enormous psychological and social changes in Indonesian society shattering any chances for a return to the prewar colonial system. Indeed, the Japanese occupation meant much more than merely a change of colonial masters. In fact it proved to be a major watershed in modern Indonesian history in forging an entirely different dimension in the popular Indonesian mentality regarding colonialism and imperialism. It was particularly the younger generation that, unlike many of their elders, was absolutely opposed to the return of the Dutch colonial regime, which not only had lost all credibility and prestige by their 1942 defeat, but also was hated as a result of Japanese indoctrination and military training."

- C.L. Penders, 2002 see http://www.papuaweb.org/dlib/bk/penders2002/01.pdf

Is there a point to this thread? Does the poster actually have a request? A succint statement of its intent would help. Merbabu 03:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Curious

"..led by Sukarno, a major figure in the non-aligned movement."

Again, I find it curious the lack of alternative sources. It seems the suharto elite still have the upper hand on the internet even though I have yet to find a serious scholar or serious historic documentary in the west reffering to Sukarno as anything but a major figure in the "_non-aligned_ independence movement of the former colonies of the "third world". As to allegations that Sukarno needed or actively befriended the japanese to start or incite the independence movement, it's kind of hard to belive considering the way the japanese treated all their colonies as well as the fact that none of the japanese colonies would ever be granted independence during or under japanese rule. But the english as well as the french and the dutch and the Belgians _must_ have seen what was coming. The british had had experience first hand with one of the greatest figures and inspirators of the former colonial nations, Mahatma Ghandi. Who indeed was one of the figures that Sukarnos next in command Mohammad Hatta (see wiki on Hatta) went to visit as well as Nehru.

wiki: "During this time, Hatta was sent out of the country to look for support for Indonesia. One country that he went to was India, the homeland of his old friend, Nehru. Disguised as an aeroplane, co-pilot, Hatta sneaked out of the country to ask for assistance. There he asked Nehru and Mahatma Gandhi for help. Nehru assured him that India will support Indonesia and will make the support known at international forums such as the United Nations (UN)."

So both the indonesians and the japanese must easily have been able to foresee the independence struggle that would follow, and that it would take or need little or no "help" from the japanese as it also turned out.

In fact the japanese would have little or nothing _to_ help sukarno's independence movement with during the end stages and after it's defeat with Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

As to the near top comment on the page that there is no evidence of US involvement in the 1965 coup I can find no words, and I'm only stupefied as to why no moderator/admin has been here to remove the comment, along with claims that the holocaust never occured. perhaps this is considered a point of view, and I'd like a serious discussion on that where people actually go to the trouble of refuting the validity of sources already posted across the internet including those already admitted to other pages in wikipedia.

I'd _really_ like to see someone, no, _anyone_ posting serious sources, facts, or cite historians, scholars, publications _with_ references or ANY other _clear_ evidence that the CIA did NOT have anything to do with the 1965 coup! please! _anyone_! Sincerely,John Smith (nom de guerre) 12:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Links are found across the internet, but a collection should be found in the archives of the talk/discussion pages of Indonesia at this point. I'll even dig up more of the reference material and the footnotes from the footnotes of that page and the history of Indonesia page as well

But I suggest people interested take a look at Woodward's book on CIA's secret wars. I am not aware that neither he nor his work or this brick of a book has ever / yet been discredited.

for the time being that's all until I've made a better list of what should be valid credible sources that are backed up by peers and whatnot.John Smith (nom de guerre) 12:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Footnotes

I have just added a citation for the claim that US diplomats admitted to providing a hit-list to Suharto, but the footnotes on this page are a bit of a mess, there are no <ref> tags used, and I can't find any reference to the system that is being used anywhere in the style guide. If I'm being dense, could someone fix up what I've added, if I'm not then maybe someone could fix up the rest of the references on this page.

Dan 16:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

His notorious collaborationism with the Japanese occupiers

Here [2] I found some interesting information on the abovementioned subject. Does anyone know more about Romusha? This guy was a big-fish collaborator, by accounts.

9 Mar 1943 : Putera ('Pusat Tenaga Rakyat') was set up with Sukarno as Chairman; however, his reputation was tarnished by his role in recruiting Romusha, a conscription of Indonesian laborers to serve the Japanese army, not only in Indonesia, but also in other parts of Southeast Asia (estimated that 270,000 romusha were sent Outer Islands and Japanese-held territories in Southeast Asia, but only 52,000 were repatriated to Java); Sukarno's collaboration with the Japanese gov't (who was hostile to the Allies) also brought into being a familiar refrain in his oratory 'Amerika kita setrika, Inggris kita linggis !'.

Proudlyhumble07 06:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Is it just me who laughs at the argument 'collaborationist as a category is POV and therefore unacceptable' while maintainng the category 'Indonesian national heroes' should be there and is not just the same? For the sake of balance they should both be there or neither. I favour both. This person made a free decision to enthusiastically collaborate with the Japanese fascists from 1942 and was honoured and richly rewarded by them for it too. He played no small role in coordinating the provision of forced labour (including troops) and materiels (eg. fuel) for their war aims. Interestingly the article relates 'Sukarno refused to ever talk about his actions during the war' but thankfully we have historians who can fill in the gaps. He made his bed and so he can lie in it with an appropriate classification.Proudlyhumble07 08:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)