History questions not worth their own thread V

[H4run]

That's all stock-standard dictatorial stuff though.

Tyrant is a cruel and oppressive ruler ( a definition from Oxford dictionary)
Is Soeharto a cruel and oppressive? check!

A tyrant (Greek τύραννος, tyrannos), in its modern English usage, is a ruler of a cruel and oppressive character[1] who is an absolute ruler unrestrained by law or constitution, and/or one who has usurped legitimate sovereignty. A tyrant usually controls most everything.
Aspects from the definition of Tyrant.
1. Ruler of cruel and Oppressive character (Check!)
2. Obsolute ruler unrestrained by law or constitution (Check!)-of course by theory it is but by practice not at all, so check!
3. Control mostly everyting (check check!)

Masada I thought by essence we not disagreeing on anything regarding this topic. We just mention the same things differently

The events after 30 September were exceptional for the scale of its violence. But that was a function less of Suharto and rather more of the political climate in Indonesia. The Madiun Affair in 1948 was also met with extreme violence.

Masada, IMHO you should count also Hill of Soeharto incident in Kalimantan, continues killing of civilian include using PETRUS or the arms army who claim themselves to restore the order by killing criminal without any trial and it is hold by military (IIRC Beny Murdani) not by the police, while in practice it also killed the political opponent and activist. Later on he use mafia (like Yapto) to do his dirty job on killing peoples who he reconsider subversive against his reign. (edit ) I left my journal in my country land so I can't quote to you a genocide that possibly done by the Indonesian military elite in the time of Soeharto (Kopasus) took places in Lampung, also in Aceh don't forget about DOM how Soeharto massacre the civilian in Aceh.

Indeed you are right Masada Soekarno was not that clean and nice also, you may also put him nearly a dictator (as he declare himself to be a life long president, etc etc) but the difference is he still care about the nation, at least the level of corruption and nepotism in Soekarno time way farer than Soeharto, the level of poverty not as massive as Soeharto, also in Soekarno time Indonesia absent from foreign debt and he not sold Indonesia's resources to the MNC and TNC, unlike Soeharto who sold up everything for his own selves and family benefit, he really don't care about peoples prosperity.

 

[Domen]

Does it occur to you that, if it's completely different in different places

I wrote that it was different, but not that it was completely different.

I think that there were similarities and common features as well (especially that feudalism refers also to peasants and other groups, not just knights).

But your post is very interesting and I must agree with it, in general.

 

[say1988]

Maybe this nationalism stuff should be moved to its own thread?

There is certainly more than enough discussion for one.

 

[Masada]

Masada, IMHO you should count also Hill of Soeharto incident in Kalimantan, continues killing of civilian include using PETRUS or the arms army who claim themselves to restore the order by killing criminal without any trial and it is hold by military (IIRC Beny Murdani) not by the police, while in practice it also killed the political opponent and activist. Later on he use mafia (like Yapto) to do his dirty job on killing peoples who he reconsider subversive against his reign. (edit ) I left my journal in my country land so I can't quote to you a genocide that possibly done by the Indonesian military elite in the time of Soeharto (Kopasus) took places in Lampung, also in Aceh don't forget about DOM how Soeharto massacre the civilian in Aceh.

That's all true. The issue I have is that it wasn't exceptional conduct. Hafez al-Assad literally carpet bombed his own cities. Marcos did everything that Suharto did in Aceh in Mindinao.

Indeed you are right Masada Soekarno was not that clean and nice also, you may also put him nearly a dictator (as he declare himself to be a life long president, etc etc) but the difference is he still care about the nation, at least the level of corruption and nepotism in Soekarno time way farer than Soeharto, the level of poverty not as massive as Soeharto, also in Soekarno time Indonesia absent from foreign debt and he not sold Indonesia's resources to the MNC and TNC, unlike Soeharto who sold up everything for his own selves and family benefit, he really don't care about peoples prosperity.

Sukarno opposed the armies response to the Madiun Affair and only consented after it was done. So he bears little responsibility for it.

I'm also not convinced that the Guided Democracy period was less corrupt than the New Order period. Guided Demcoracy afterall gave us perhaps the best Indonesia novel on corruption in Twilight in Djakarta. I'd also note that Indonesia was a complete economic basket-case under Sukarno whose economic performance only really began to improve after he fell. Bung Karno for all his virtues was not a good economic manager. (Granted, it wasn't his fault but he has to bear some responsibility). I'd also suggest that Suharto did care about the people's welfare rather a great deal. It was his regime that spent big on irrigation, rural credit extension, stabilized prices of essentials and subsidized key inputs e.g. fertilizer. For all his faults, Suharto was still at heart a peasant and made a point of working to improve rural life. Sukarno was far less interested in that and lacked the resources to do it, even had he the will.

 

[Plotinus]

You know, this thread has got too long anyway.

Let's move the discussion here. Perhaps if people really want to talk about nationalism they can do so in a new thread.

Moderator Action: Thread closed.