In reading about the Indonesian National Revolution, it's interesting to hear that there were all sorts of local sultans, rajas, chiefs, uleëbalangs, and other aristocrats who had collaborated with and benefited from Dutch rule (and then the Japanese occupation). They were largely swept away and massacred in the social revolutions that ensued, such as in East Sumatra. My question is, could the revolution have gone differently, in an even more disjointed matter- not that OTL wasn't already confusing, it's a large archipelago after all- which led to surviving aristocratic enclaves not being eliminated by republican or other forces? Maybe under Dutch rule or protection. Or from a social standpoint is this just not feasible?
This is interesting to me particularly because this is another case where there was a native collaborator class that has been more or less obliterated by history, much like the Indian princely states. Guess the likelihood of these elites surviving is unlikely given that everyone else except the retreating colonizers basically despises them. Were any of them actually popular by WWII? I wonder if there are any other decolonization examples of native rulers who were overthrown besides in Indonesia and in India.
This is interesting to me particularly because this is another case where there was a native collaborator class that has been more or less obliterated by history, much like the Indian princely states. Guess the likelihood of these elites surviving is unlikely given that everyone else except the retreating colonizers basically despises them. Were any of them actually popular by WWII? I wonder if there are any other decolonization examples of native rulers who were overthrown besides in Indonesia and in India.
