Quick congrats to /u/wotan_weevil, /u/artfulorpheus and /u/platypuskeeper for getting Quality Contributor flairs!

A few weeks ago, I asked, "In the decades following WWII, why did the US pressure the Dutch to leave Indonesia but support the French in Vietnam?" My question never got an answer, so I researched it myself in my spare time.

The TL;DR answer is this quote: "What could be pursued vis-à-vis the Dutch did not seem feasible in the case of the French in Indochina. France, as the most important continental ally, had at its disposal many more resources, policy options, and autonomy than the Netherlands. And while the Indonesian nationalist movement had demonstrated its resistance against communism, the Vietnamese struggle for independence was conducted mainly by communists."

Basically, the American view on the Dutch East Indies had become increasingly negative from the start of the twentieth century to the end of WWII. They initially praised the Dutch as better colonial rulers than the British or French, and they bought a lot of Indonesian goods. Attitudes changed significantly after the Great Depression, when America instituted more protectionist economic policies and decreased Dutch imports. Furthermore, many poorer Americans felt greater sympathy for the colonized peoples, wondering why millions of Asians should suffer in poverty for the benefit of a few wealthy Europeans. This was all set against the backdrop of an increasing threat from Japan; the Americans found that the Dutch were entirely unprepared to defend Indonesia from Japanese aggression.

After WWII, the Dutch had no intention of giving up their colony, but the Americans were more sympathetic to the Indonesians, whose nationalists had organized much more effectively during the Japanese occupation. The postwar attempts to recolonize ended with the Linggadjati Agreement, mediated by the British, which gave the Indonesian Republic control of Java, Sumatra, and Madura, while the Dutch retained the other islands. Up to this point, the Americans were not that involved, providing minimal military aid to the Dutch, but they were becoming increasingly convinced that the heavy-handed colonial approach was only increasing communist sympathies (which were becoming a concern in China and Vietnam). They pressured the Dutch towards further negotiation; the Dutch, however, launched the first "police action" in 1947 with the intention of destroying the Indonesian government and taking back all of the islands. They met with international denouncement, and the Americans warned that their decisions in Indonesia could have "decisive influence" on their reception of Marshall aid. The Dutch signed the Renville Agreement in Jan 1948, effectively granting Indonesian independence, but they still wanted control over Indonesia's foreign affairs. However, Sukarno's government crushed a communist uprising, and from that point the Americans were convinced that he would be an effective buffer against communism while the chaos spread by the Dutch would only strengthen it. At the end of 1948, the Dutch launched a second "police action" and once again were internationally condemned and threatened with embargo. On 27 Dec 1949, with mediation by the US, they agreed to Indonesian independence. Dutch-American relations quickly improved.

I had been wondering if the Dutch felt it was hypocritical for the US to help the French in Vietnam. Interestingly, at the start of the Vietnam War, most in the Netherlands (certainly in the Dutch government) were generally in favor America doing whatever it felt was appropriate. Foreign Minister Joseph Luns believed it was necessary to prevent the spread of communism. However, opposition to the Vietnam War eventually became a rallying point for more left-leaning people, and it led to the election of a Dutch government that was more pragmatic and reserved in its dealings with the USA.

Source:

Krabbendam, Hans, Cornelis A. van Minnen, and Giles Scott-Smith, eds. Four Centuries of Dutch-American Relations 1609-2009. Amsterdam: Uitgeverij Boom, 2009.

Specifically these articles:

• “American Diplomatic Perspectives on the Dutch East Indies” – Frances Gouda

• “The Politics of Asymmetry: The Netherlands and the United States since 1945” – Duco Hellema

• “Decolonization and Dutch-American Relations” – Marc Frey

• “Dutch-American Relations and the Vietnam War” – Rimko van der Maar

After getting a lot of points for providing only a basic answer for a question about the use of ground-up mummies as a paint pigment, I dug a little further and added bit more depth. I didn't think it was possible to find out how much paint could be gotten from one mummy, but I was surprised to find that, in the later 1800's, after the tint had declined greatly in popularity, a major color supplier in London stated he could get seven years' worth of paint from one mummy, and in 1901 , twenty years. Which makes you wonder just how many mummies were actually being recycled when the color was popular, circa 1810. And, since they had also been imported and ground up for medicine, for some time prior to that, whether there was a medicinal-grade mummy, and a mummy rated " external use only: not for human consumption".

On this day in 1937, Howard Phillips Lovecraft passed away from cancer and kidney disease.

Hey, i have recently found a Anti-Tank training video of the US Army, in it they use a tank as demonstration. Does anyone know what tank that is, as i have never seen a tank that looks like this before.

Somebody posted this big video of samples of Swedish dialects (and a few technically-Norwegian ones from Sweden).

As usual, Älvdalska if fascinatingly difficult and different. The vast majority of Swedes won't understand a single word of that. (and most won't understand most of at least a dozen here) If you hear some 'w' sounds in there it's because it retains the 'w' sound from Proto-Germanic that you otherwise have in English. Speaking of which the word 'otherwise' is 'oðerwais' in Älvdalska, i.e. very similar, in another Proto-Germanic connection. It's nuts.

Almost a week later after traveling around Yucatan, I am now fully engorged with pyramid power.

I've been trying to learn more about the Troubles recently. I'm pretty much done with Patrick Keefe's book "Say Nothing" It was really good and informative, but because he is a journalist it had that, like, 'feel' to it. What other books about The Troubles should I read? If there was any particular angle I want to read about, its the political relationship between the IRA and Sinn Fein.

Hi, i'm posting this here because my standalone post got removed. Please have mercy mods.

I want to better understand the current cultural/emotional climate through the lens of history. We might disagree on what the current climate is like (thats okay, not here to debate), so here is what I mean by it - growing unrest & pessimism in the west in the last few years. Some examples - Brexit/general anti-immigration sentiment, global warming/end of world worries, generally high anxiety & lower trust in society, the backlash against capitalism & wealth, the feeling that we are playing a rigged game vs. a meritocratic one, etc.

Soo I see a shift towards dystopian visions & lower trust in people and I just want to get historical perspective on it. Could you guys point me to historical periods or specific books talking about cultural "dark times" in history? I don't care whether these (or the other historical periods) were objectively "bad" or not, just that the people felt that way.

Historians, what caused your interest in history and why did you choose this path of career?

Can anyone link me to examples of the journals/rough taxonomies that explorers wrote upon finding a new species please? E.g the first encounters of British explorers of Kangaroos.