Decolonisation of East Asia Explained
How East Asia was Decolonised. This video talks about Indonesian Independence, Burmese independence, Vietnamese …
source
March 25, 2026
Headlines
"Harmony in Every Heartbeat
How East Asia was Decolonised. This video talks about Indonesian Independence, Burmese independence, Vietnamese …
source
I understand the need to simplify the decolonisation of Indonesia for a 39 minute video, but there are points that, while not discussed even in Indonesian historiography, may be better told:
1. After the Japanese surrender, they didn't necessarily gave up power in Indonesia; the British actually ordered them to keep law and order until British-Indian troops can arrive. Unfortunately, the Japanese weren't exactly sure what to do, and they decided on a policy of first dissolving the Japanese-trained Indonesian paramilitary (PETA), before interning most of their own forces. They reversed the latter policy after the British pressured them, but this was half of the reason why the Indonesians could even take over administration and power in the first place.
2. The "functional" Indonesian administration generally only extended to Java, and lesser still to Sumatra. You should have mentioned that Australian troops have arrived in Indonesian Borneo (Kalimantan), Celebes (Sulawesi), Lesser Sunda Islands (Nusa Tenggara), and the Moluccas (Maluku) by September of 1945, nipping the independence movement in these outer islands in the bud. Also, telling the fact that the British used (British-)Indian troops in Indonesia would be better, as it explained the British reluctance to involve themselves in Indonesian-Dutch affairs, as they were using colonial troops to subdue a colony in revolt.
3. As mentioned in point 1, the Japanese was tasked to maintain law and order, so it would be best to highlight the situation at the time in the four large cities of Java: Batavia/Jakarta in the north-west coast of Java, Bandung in inland west Java, Semarang in the north coast of central Java, and Surabaya in the north-east coast of Java. This is necessary since the Japanese actions there have large implications to how the independence went:
3A. In Batavia, the Japanese and the Indonesian can be said to have "shared" power, but the Japanese were generally in control — for example, the Japanese restricted a particular large mass rally in mid-September. Afterwards, when the British-Indians arrived there by the end of September, they have little difficulty taking over the city since the Indonesians weren't fully in power.
3B. Then, in Bandung, the Indonesians did take control of the city as agreed with the Japanese commander there, but after the Indonesians supposedly violated the agreement, the Japanese took over the city back without a fight on October 10th, allowing the British-Indians in soon after.
3C. Semarang was the bloodiest one of the bunch, before the Battle of Surabaya, that is. Basically, the Indonesians took over Semarang's administration, but they forcibly asked for weapons from the Japanese in Semarang (led by Major Kido Shinichiro). While the Japanese commander of Central Java sympathised with the Indonesians, Major Kido disagreed, so they asked the Japanese HQ in Batavia to weigh in. The HQ allowed the use of force to retain their weapons, so on October 15th, Major Kido and his troops assaulted Semarang, taking control of the city and defending it from Indonesian counterattacks until the British-Indians arrived on October 19th.
3D. Surabaya was a unique case. The three cities I mentioned previously had the Japanese prevail, but Surabaya was the odd one out. To simplify, the Indonesians took over administration of the city, but not its military presence. Then, a Dutch naval captain went to Surabaya to accept the Japanese garrison's surrender. The surrender was supposed to be just for show, but the Japanese mistakenly thought of it as an actual surrender (that their duties to keep law and order was complete). As such, the Japanese surrendered and didn't bother opposing the Indonesians when the latter took over their weapons stores. Unfortunately, the Japanese garrison in Surabaya was in charge of eastern Java, which meant other garrisons in smaller eastern Java cities gave up to the Indonesians with little opposition, allowing 24 thousand rifles and pistols and MGs, even artillery guns and tanks, to fall to Indonesian hands.
4. Battle of Surabaya, simplified. Referring to point 3D, the weapons the Indonesians took allowed their militia there to fight. The British-Indians arrived initially on Oct. 26th, and reached an agreement with the Indonesians soon after. Unfortunately, a leaflet drop from Batavia contained terms violating this agreement, so tens if not hundreds of thousands of Indonesians (20-30 thousand armed militia, the rest were civilians who fought) in Surabaya attacked the British-Indian brigade there, resulting in thousands of Indonesian casualties, 1200 British-Indian ones, and 200 or so of Dutch and Allied civilian casualties. A ceasefire was agreed on a few days later, but while enforcing this ceasefire, the British brigadier-general was killed in confusing circumstances. Because the British needed Surabaya (the largest port in Indonesia), and the fact that about 3-6 thousand Allied civilians were still in Indonesian hands, the British brought a division to Surabaya to clear the city, starting on Nov. 10. The British moved methodically, using tanks and planes and support from artillery and warships to reduce their casualties. AFAIK, about 100 to 300 British-Indians became casualties in this stage, with thousands to tens of thousands of casualties on the Indonesian side. Surabaya was cleared by the end of Nov. 1945.
5. I was a little surprised you didn't mention the Bersiap as a Dutch, because here in Indonesia, it wasn't mentioned in our historiography. To be fair, it is contentious, but such atrocities did happen and were perpetrated by Indonesian youths, and not just to the Dutch, but also to other Europeans, the Indos, the Ambonese and Timorese (despite them being native Indonesian as well), and Indonesian Chinese.
Anyway, to conclude and provide a TL;DR, I suppose you could have mentioned about:
1. That the Japanese were supposed to maintain law and order, only doing so in the three large cities of Java: Batavia/Jakarta, Bandung, and Semarang, because an incident involving a Dutch naval captain in the large port city of Surabaya caused the Japanese to surrender prematurely, allowing the Indonesians to take tens of thousands of weapons easily.
2. That the British had to use Indian troops in Indonesia, which was problematic considering the independence movement situation in the British Raj/India.
3. That the Australians had occupied the rest of Indonesia save for Java and Sumatra, which meant the Dutch were able to easily take over administration there.
4. That the Battle of Surabaya began with the British-Indians arriving there on Oct. 26, followed up by a string of incidents between them and the Indonesians. This erupted in a small battle a few days later, which was resolved temporarily by a ceasefire, but not before the British brigadier there was killed under confusing conditions. The importance of this port city, combined with strong Indonesian oppostion and that thousands of Allied civilians were still imprisoned in the city, meant the British decided to clear the city, supported by tanks, planes, and warships, from Nov. 10 to the end of the months.
5. The Bersiap (I'm sure you have better sources for this).
For references, I personally recommend these three journals by Han Bing Siong, since they are excellent in terms of analysing a variety of Dutch and Indonesian and even Japanese sources critically:
• Siong, H.B. (2003). "Captain Huyer and the massive Japanese arms transfer in East Java in October 1945". Bijdragen tot de taal-, land- en volkenkunde, 159(2-3).
• Siong, H.B. (2000). "Sukarno-Hatta versus the Pemuda in the first months after the surrender of Japan (August-November 1945)". Bijdragen tot de taal-, land- en volkenkunde, 156(2).
• Siong, H.B. (1996). "The secret of major Kido; The battle of Semarang, 15-19 October 1945". Bijdragen tot de taal-, land- en volkenkunde, 152(3).
As for other sources:
• There are no English-language book from a truly Indonesian perspective, but Benedict Anderson's "Java in a Time of Revolution" comes close.
• The Australian official history of the Second World War is good if you want to know about how the Australians came to occupy eastern Indonesia, but they only go so far. Available on the Australian War Museum, online, for free.
• The British official history of the Pacific War — "The War Against Japan" specifically it's fifth volume — is not… great, but it's decent enough for a general overview of their occupation of Indonesia. Available on Google Books, for free.
• The book "The British Occupation of Indonesia: 1945-1946" by Richard McMillan is less biased and more condensed than the British official history.
• This journal by Parrott is, even after close to 50 years, a great dissection of the death of that British brigadier in Surabaya that I mentioned:
Parrott, J.G.A. (1975). "Who Killed Brigadier Mallaby?" Indonesia, 20, 87-111.
Regardless of these criticisms, in general your overview is already largely accurate, so I'd like to convey a sincere thank you for the coverage of the Indonesian independence. There isn't a lot of coverage which isn't biased, and the fact that you disclosed your Dutch background shows you strive to be unbiased. Again, much thanks for the great video!
Not even gonna watch it east asia was colonised before europeans arrived their i mean Japan korea much of brunei where all colonies of a chinese dynasty "Ethnic chinese" are all over the region.
A tour de force of fascinating facts that are so relevant to the world today. You really do a wonderful job remaining intellectually honest and transparent.
Korea and Japan were too advanced to be colonized. Korea was only briefly occupied by Japanese.
I would like to add something about the Kuril Islands and Sakhalin because what I've seen is a gross oversimplification that may confuse some viewers about the history of the two powers (Russia and Japan) and their control over the aforementioned territories.
Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands have a complex history marked by fluctuating control between Russia and Japan.
Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands have a complex history marked by fluctuating control between Russia and Japan.
Initially, the southern part of Sakhalin was indeed conquered by Japan, while Russia took control of the northern part. Similarly, the Kuril Islands saw a split, with Russia controlling the northern islands and Japan the southern ones.
In the mid-nineteenth century, the Treaty of Shimoda in eighteen fifty-five established joint control over Sakhalin while recognizing Japan's sovereignty over the Kuril Islands. However, the Treaty of Saint Petersburg in eighteen seventy-five changed this arrangement, giving all of Sakhalin to Russia in exchange for Japan gaining full control over the Kuril Islands.
During the Russo-Japanese War (nineteen hundred four to nineteen hundred five), Japan emerged victorious and gained control of southern Sakhalin. After World War II, the Soviet Union regained southern Sakhalin and took control of the entire Kuril Islands, a situation that remains a point of contention between Russia and Japan to this day.
Otherwise, thanks for the video!
I would like to add something about the Kuril Islands and Sakhalin because what I've seen is a gross oversimplification that may confuse some viewers about the history of the two powers (Russia and Japan) and their control over the aforementioned territories.
Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands have a complex history marked by fluctuating control between Russia and Japan.
Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands have a complex history marked by fluctuating control between Russia and Japan.
Initially, the southern part of Sakhalin was indeed conquered by Japan, while Russia took control of the northern part. Similarly, the Kuril Islands saw a split, with Russia controlling the northern islands and Japan the southern ones.
In the mid-nineteenth century, the Treaty of Shimoda in eighteen fifty-five established joint control over Sakhalin while recognizing Japan's sovereignty over the Kuril Islands. However, the Treaty of Saint Petersburg in eighteen seventy-five changed this arrangement, giving all of Sakhalin to Russia in exchange for Japan gaining full control over the Kuril Islands.
During the Russo-Japanese War (nineteen hundred four to nineteen hundred five), Japan emerged victorious and gained control of southern Sakhalin. After World War II, the Soviet Union regained southern Sakhalin and took control of the entire Kuril Islands, a situation that remains a point of contention between Russia and Japan to this day.
Otherwise, thanks for the video!
High quality
Japan and Korea are still currently colonized tho
"This dude was trained by birth to be a public speaker" 😅😅😅😅LOL. Nice one, History Scope.
17:03 😂
Btw, the picturization of Indonesian man is not really accurate, im indonesian and i have a fair skin not that black cmon
😂😂😂 ask the Ukrainians about how they feel about integrating with Russia. You are off the mark here.
You critique was unfair.
Deus vult.
The Dutch must conquer the world.
Just as it's wrong for the West to colonise the East, is it legitimate for the East to colonise within itself?
Love the music at the end
Macau and hong kong are still colonies. they just joined tibet in being colonies of the Chinese empire. You don't spend 100 years independent and with a fundamentally different political structure and society and then suddenly rejoin a nation that itself underwent radical changes in that time. And China is not being a kind colonial master.
I strongly disagree, stop colonization term, the only exact proper term woulde be : "pillaging age" or "looting age" or "marauding age"
that's it and that's all
Meanwhile Thailand chilling
Japan did not colonize China outside of Manchuria, so to be precise, this should be a war and not a colonization.
The “Russian colonisation” sounds pretty similar to how the Roman Empire expanded
Nobody talks about Belgiums 🇧🇪 Congo. Oh my lanta, the folks in Belgium raped the Congo and the people into the dirt. Talk about imperialism & European colonialism, sheesh…Belgium burned that nation to the dirt, destroyed the people into the dirt, and countless other atrocities.
I mean, you're just going with Russian propaganda. There were innumerous independence movements in USSR. The issue was that they were rules by a mad man that destroyed all of them and then proceeded to remove the people from their lands and moving them into other parts of Russia were they wouldn't cause any trouble, and moved in ethnical Russians in their place. Not too different from what the US did to native-americans.
what about India Pakistan and Sri lanka
I think the speed with which America decolonized the Philippines is actually one of the great missed opportunities of history. After the Americans defeated the Filipinos in their war for independence, they briefly tried to reform the government and economy to empower the average Filipinos.
But the American administrators just didn’t understand how Spain had ruled their colonies through co-opting local hierarchies, and they didn’t understand the degree to which Filipino elites were invested in maintaining the old Spanish system—just with themselves on top instead of the Spanish.
So by around 1920, the Americans realize that for the Philippines to be successful after independence they desperately need economic, land and political reforms. Unfortunately, by the time America realizes this properly it’s post-WW1, and there’s very little appetite in Washington to risk a second war in the Philippines by angering the local elites and delaying independence. So instead of doing right by the Filipino people America decides to just wash its hand of the problem and speed run the Philippines to independence at the expense of the average Filipino.
The Philippines is still living with the legacy of that American decision today. The conundrum is this: Is it really more moral to leave sooner if that decision leaves a country worse off politically and economically generations later?
After the information about Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose spread, Indian soldiers in Malaya refused to fight for the British.
Wrong, read the history again.