The Mass Killings in Indonesia, 1965-6.

There are many great books but few about which I would say "You have to read this." Readers familiar with this blog will know that one such for me is Camus' 'The Fall'. I want to discuss a book which falls into this rare category as far as I'm concerned: I read it last year and it has had a large and permanent impact on my thinking. I wonder if any of you have come across it or read it - it's called 'The Jakarta Method' by Vincent Bevins, and its central point is about something I knew about but didn't realise the extent of, that is the mass killing of communists and people labelled communist in Indonesia in 1965-6. Are you aware of that ? 

Vincent Bevins

I finally read the book because one of the things I have been concentrating on for a while is the Cold War, which is in effect world history 1945-90. I've had my eye on 'The Jakarta Method' ever since it was published. The author has an interesting perspective, which I don't entirely agree with. He is not a crude anti-US Imperialism person in the mould of John Pilger or Oliver Stone, where whatever happens it is always the fault of the evil, conniving US government. [I wrote this before John Pilger's recent death.] To me, such people are the inverse of blind patriots, and wrong for the same reason: they have an existing, over-simplified schema of how the world works, to which every fact and occurrence must be fitted. This is not Bevins' position: he is fully aware of the crimes of the USSR and Mao. He is what I would call a third world-ist, or developing world-ist, or a non-aligned-ist; in that he is against the Big Powers, and for the developing world countries. This leads him to be pro-Castro and speak favourably of Che Guevara, a place I cannot follow him to. So I don't completely accept his perspective, but the central event he is highlighting is an undoubted fact, that is the murder of at a minimum 500 000 communists and people labelled communist in Indonesia at the end of 1965 and beginning of 1966; in which the precise extent of US government involvement is disputed, but the facts are not disputed that the US government approved of the killings, benefited from them, and backed the people who carried them out as the government of Indonesia for years afterward, with Suharto as their leader. Which makes the US government morally guilty. And the people killed were no threat to the US government or people, nobody thinks they were, they just didn't like them so they killed them. (The US government, UK government and Australian government were all involved in spreading black propaganda against the Communists.)

It's amazing to me that although I knew about the killings I did not know about the extent of them or the US government's involvement. I was already fully aware of the US government's practice in the Cold War of installing corrupt dictators to block - as they saw it - Communist advances: Mobutu, Ferdinand Marcos, the Shah. My point here is that I am fairly well informed about the US government's crimes during the Cold War and the extent of the killings in Indonesia was news to me. No one seriously disputes that the killings took place. Nobody knows how many were killed but the lowest figure of 500 000 is undisputed and the highest estimate is 2 000 000. 500 000 ! It unquestionably ranks with the Armenian genocide, the Holocaust, the killing fields of Pol Pot and the Rwandan genocide. This thing happened. Half a million people were deliberately killed. No one disputes this. So why isn't it common knowledge ? Why isn't it as rightly familiar as those other great crimes of the 20th century ?

It seems to me that the US government and people have done with the Indonesian mass killings what we have done with our brutal campaign against the Mau Mau in Kenya: it is not that the truth is suppressed, it's not that we have forgotten, it's that we never remembered in the first place, it was not worth remembering and we just didn't remember. We did it but didn't register that we did it. (I know that the UK government has officially acknowledged our crimes in Kenya, but if you said 'Mau Mau' or 'Kenyan Emergency' to virtually anyone in England, you'd get a blank stare.)

To find out more about UK government crimes during what we call the Kenyan Emergency, this is highly recommended

Over the years I've done a great deal of reading and watching about the Vietnam war. I've watched documentary series, individual documentaries and read memoirs of American participants. As part of the endless re-hashing of the late '60s (of which I am just as guilty as anyone else), people go on and on and on about the Vietnam war. I know terrible crimes were committed during that war, such as the heavy bombing of Laos. But I honestly think now that part of the obsession with the Vietnam war is a psychological phenomenon I don't the name of if it has one- perhaps a form of displacement activity: which is, you concentrate absolutely on a lesser thing to block out the awareness of a bigger thing. So, in all accounts of Vietnam from an American perspective I read or watch now, part of my reaction is - "You are aware that your government possibly organised and was unquestionably involved in the massacre of 500 000 innocent people slightly to the south in Indonesia in 1965-6 ?" I'll give you two analogies: imagine reading an account of Wehrmacht operations in Russia in 1942-3, and you gradually become more and more aware that the author does not mention and apparently has no idea that the Holocaust is taking place at the same time; imagine reading an account of Soviet economic development in the 1930s, its successes and failures, and the author does not mention and apparently has no idea of the existence of the Gulags, the Purges, or show trials. The account in short is partial and highly distorted. That's how I feel hearing about the Vietnam war now.

Robert Kennedy as a senator drew exactly the same parallels as me when as a solitary voice he publicly condemned the Indonesian killings in January 1966. He said: "We have spoken out against the inhuman slaughters perpetrated by the Nazis and the Communists. But will we speak out also against the inhuman slaughter in Indonesia, where over 100 000 alleged Communists have not been perpetrators but victims ?" (This was his phase after JFK's assassination: before that he was as you may well know a determined and ruthless Cold Warrior.)

I was recently reading a jolly account by a man who was a US diplomat at the time of why they were defeated in Vietnam, called 'The Key to Failure: Laos and the Vietnam War' by Norman Hannah. His theory was a perfectly good one, and really could be summarised in a couple of pages, which another man who wrote the introduction actually did do. But looking back on reading it now, between every line is "You're so cheerful and reasonable. But you don't seem to be aware and certainly don't mention that the government for which you worked at the very least approved of, certainly knew about and did nothing to prevent the killing of 500 000 people for no good reason slightly to the south of where you are talking about - former Indochina - at exactly the time you are talking about." It must have slipped his mind. I've just checked in the index: there is no reference to Indonesia, Sukarno or Suharto. Hannah as a diplomat had an overview of south-east Asia. He must have known about the mass killings in Indonesia. They weren't secret.

Final thought: there's a video on YouTube of Tobias Wolff interviewing Tim O'Brien, both writers, both veterans of Vietnam. During the questions at the end, a very nice and concerned woman asks Tim O'Brien if he thinks treatment for veterans with PTSD has improved over the years, if they are doing enough about it. His response is approx. "It seems to me that we talk a lot about the trauma we've suffered, but we don't talk much about the trauma we've inflicted." The audience response is not anger, and they're not really even stunned: it just takes them a few seconds to process a thought which is obviously right but they'd never heard before and had never crossed their minds before.

Why Aren't YOU in Khaki ?: Methods of Persuasion in British Recruitment Posters, 1914-15

 

In some ways we resemble people from the past: in others, they are utterly alien.  We share many of the same emotions,  but they may be triggered by the equivalent, similar or quite different causes. I want to illustrate this by examining British recruitment posters from World War One. What I believe we shall find is that in most, the emotion they are playing on is recognisable even if the immediate stimulus of it is not: we understand what encouragement and shame (the two most used triggers) are even if we do not feel them from the same sources as our ancestors in the first 15 years of the 20th century. We shall also find that people at that time responded to stimuli almost entirely incomprehensible to us: this is the shock of abruptly realising again that the people from the past are in the past, a different place with different mores, standards and assumptions; a different mental universe.

The image of Lord Kitchener above is so famous it has become unmoored from its origin, endlessly reproduced, imitated and parodied. We might rank it with the following:

I'm not going to name the first painting above: it is superfluous to do so; that's how famous it is. The next are Hokusai's 'The Great Wave': Korda's photograph of Che Guevara; Munch's 'The Scream'; Delacroix' 'Liberty Leading the People'. Almost anyone with the vaguest visual literacy will recognise them, and probably be able to say who made them, where they were made and their title (excepting Che), although they might not know much beyond that, like when they were made and why. That haziness around the specifics - who for instance is Lord Kitchener and what exactly did he do ? - is proof of how famous the images are, not a denial of it.

Conscription was not introduced in the UK until early 1916. To encourage enlistment, the Parliamentary Recruiting Committee produced an extraordinary range of posters in late 1914 and especially 1915. Many of these posters were in my opinion extremely effective because they were simple and clear, and played on two very powerful stimuli, encouragement and shame: sometimes a mixture of the two; surely they are closely allied feelings, each contains an element of the other. The techniques of these posters could be studied with advantage by any modern propagandist, campaigner or advertiser: I'm sure they do; for instance, modern anti-smoking campaigns.

I want to concentrate on 1915, and come back to late 1914 for reasons which will become clear when we do so. The following posters were all issued by the Parliamentary Recruiting Committee, and the issue numbers underneath are those used by that Committee. I have included the month of issue where I have it. By September 1915, the Committee had distributed the remarkable figure of more than 5 500 000 posters. Here are examples which use encouragement:

PRC no.22

PRC no.122

June, 1915. PRC no. 96

    

February, 1915. PRC no.35. Note how the line of men extends beyond the frame on the left.

PRC no. 87

An element of shame is entering more evidently into that last example. The following very famous poster mixes the two stimuli:

by E. J. Kealey, March, 1915. PRC no. 75

There is a well known song from 1914 which is an aural equivalent to the 'Women of Britain say - "Go !"' poster: it is called 'Your King and Your Country Want You', though you might recognise it from the line "We don't want to lose you, but we think you ought to go." Here is the sheet music:

You can see it is specifically called 'A Woman's Recruiting Song'. 

Here are two versions, the first by Helen Clark:

And the second by Edna Thornton:

There is a minor but interesting point in the first verse, regarding a strategy of persuasion - flattering the target of persuasion that he is in a higher social class than he really is. This technique is still widely used today.

We've watched you playing cricket And every kind of game

At football, golf and polo, You men have made your name,

But now your country calls you To play your part in war,

And no matter what befalls you, We shall love you all the more,

So come and join the forces As your fathers did before.

Oh! we don't want to lose you but we think you ought to go

For your King and your Country both need you so;

We shall want you and miss you but with all our might and main

We shall cheer you, thank you, kiss you When you come back again.

To the average male listener, the idea that they had played polo is flattery and a considerable social promotion. The overwhelming majority of British men would have played cricket, football and rugby: virtually none would have played polo, which was the preserve of army officers and wealthy civilians.

The emphasis in the following posters has shifted and is definitely on shame.

PRC no.125

PRC no. 74

PRC no. 128. Note the Union Jack lettering.

PRC no. 103

PRC no. 65

That last is brutally concise, the essence of what so many of these posters are getting at. This next example has this and other posters in the background, a composite of some of the rest of the campaign.

PRC no.121

This famous next example leans heavily on shame.

PRC no. 79

I once saw Tim O'Brien, one of the great writers about the Vietnam War and a veteran of it, on one the series about that war, probably either PBS' 'Vietnam: A Television History' (which is the best on this topic I've seen) or Ken Burns' 'The Vietnam War'. Unfortunately I cannot find the exact reference for what follows*, I am going to paraphrase Tim O'Brien, and I hope he will forgive me because I believe that this is accurate to what he meant. He said that the principal reason he obeyed the draft when he was drafted was the fear of the disapproval of his fellow townspeople in his home town if he did not: and that, looking back after his experience in the war, it seemed a stupid reason and an insufficient one; if he knew when he was drafted what he knew after serving, he would refuse to go and damn anyone's disapproval. But I think it also goes to show that social shame, the disapproval of one's peers, is an extremely powerful force: one which the posters above are trying to arouse.

This next poster addresses women directly, to overcome concerns and resistance they might have.

PRC no. 69

Point 1 there is referring to German Army atrocities in Belgium, a theme we will pick up later on. Point 3 is the same as 'Women of Britain say - "Go !"'. Point 4 is the same as "Daddy, what did YOU do in the Great War ?" We can see how the messages of the posters are reinforcing one another: the whole campaign is coordinated. Note in this regard the relentless slogans of 'Enlist Now', 'Enlist At Once', 'Enlist To-Day' - seeing 'To-Day' hyphenated gave me pause when I first saw it on these posters, it looks odd because we don't do it anymore: a telling orthographic hint that we are dealing with the past.

Now we come to the poster from 1914 which was the starting point for researching this piece, because I could hardly believe it when I first saw it: here one stumbles against the threshold to the past, because the feeling it is trying to summon up seems so entirely alien.

by Lawson Wood. 1914. PRC no. 17

I think that even in 1914, although some would have found this line convincing, many spectators would have reacted negatively to it: I don’t think it is anachronistic to say so. As an ordinary citizen, I am going off to war to get killed or maimed physically perhaps and mentally definitely, 'to maintain the honour and glory of the British Empire' ?

There is a lot to analyse in this poster.

A Scottish soldier stands in a Belgian street. He is from a Highland regiment, though which one in particular I have been unable to identify**. We know it is Belgium because of the bi-lingual sign - 'Jan Mirael Straat/Rue Jean Mirae'. We can compare his uniform and equipment with actual highland soldiers of World War One:

Gordon Highlander, WWI

Gordon Highlander, WWI

Gordon Highlander, WWI, with ceremonial sporran similar to the soldier on the poster.

 I do have to wonder how the proud soldier in the poster is going to get on against shells, barbed-wire, rifle and machine gun fire. For all his pride, he seems a soft target.

Here are real Gordon Highlanders in combat in World War I, with helmets and puttees:

The statement 'A Wee "Scrap o' Paper" Is Britain's Bond' needs explaining. First, the 'scrap of paper' part. This was a very important element in the British Government's justification for entering the war, and in its propaganda. 

In the next paragraph I am going to give an account of a small but significant element of the series of events which led to the outbreak of World War I. Its purpose is to explain the phrase 'scrap of paper'. It is not intended to be a full account of the immediate series of events leading to the outbreak: that would be another blog of its own; the reader must supply the deficiency from their own knowledge or research. It also does not imply the attribution of guilt for the outbreak to any of the belligerents in particular. My current understanding - which may be revised - is that essentially all the major Powers were coequally guilty in the outbreak of the war and in persisting with it once it had broken out, because they shared a common mindset. This mindset can perhaps be summarised under the term Imperialism: which is to say, they thought and acted like senior gangsters, but with vastly greater resources and consequences. Some examples of how they resembled gangsters are the following: intense competition with their rivals, with the accurate fear of being overtaken and destroyed; greed for territory and resources; willingness to use violence to get what they want and to hold it. When I say all the Powers were guilty, I mean exactly that, not that no one was guilty because everyone was. Wars do not just happen: they are not a mysterious event occurring without any human intervention; they are the outcome of political decisions.

Early on the morning of August 4th, 1914, the German Army invaded Belgium on its route to northern France. They were taking this route to bypass the network of forts defending France's eastern frontier with Germany. The Belgian Government called for military assistance from Great Britain under the Treaty of London of 1839, which had established Belgium as a country recognised by all the major Powers and guaranteed its neutrality. The British Government issued an ultimatum to the German Government that they had to withdraw, which expired at 11 pm London time. The British Ambassador in Berlin, Sir Edward Goschen, went to see Gottlieb von Jagow, the State Secretary at the German Foreign Office, to see if the Germans would withdraw, but he said it was too late. This was about 7 pm. Goschen then went to see the German Chancellor, Theobald von Bethmann-Hollweg. Goschen subsequently wrote in his report to Sir Edward Grey, the British Foreign Secretary:

"I found the Chancellor very agitated. His Excellency at once began a harangue, which lasted for about twenty minutes. He said that the steps taken by His Majesty's Government was terrible to a degree; just for a word -- "neutrality," a word which in war time had so often been disregarded -- just for a scrap of paper Great Britain was going to make war on a kindred nation who desired nothing better than to be friends with her."

         (- you can read the report here: Origin of the Term "A Scrap of Paper" - World War I Document Archive (byu.edu))

The German Government did not comply with the ultimatum, and King George V declared Britain at war with Germany that night.

So here is the origin of the term 'scrap of paper' - taken up and broadcasted by British propaganda as a derisive German reference to the Treaty of London and hence Belgian neutrality.

Having stressed how alien the motivation behind our poster of the Highlander is, we see a familiar technique in the caption 'A Wee "Scrap o' Paper" is Britain's Bond' - it is as if the Scottish soldier is saying it - 'A Wee "Scrap o' Paper"' as opposed to 'A Little "Scrap of Paper"', which would be the Standard English way of putting it. A regional accent and vocabulary are intended to make the statement seem more "authentic" and therefore more convincing. One hears this technique endlessly in modern advertising: something will be proposed or recommended in a Geordie (North-Eastern), Scouse (Liverpool), Yorkshire or other regional accent to make the recommendation somehow more "genuine" because it's coming from a "real person". It's all complete nonsense of course: every single element of the given advertisement is finely tuned for maximum persuasive value; as here on our poster of the Highlander.

Here is another poster on the "scrap of paper" theme:

December, 1914. PRC no. 15

Whatever my misgivings about fighting to maintain the honour and glory of the British Empire, either as me now or as an imaginary potential recruit in 1914, the Parliamentary Recruiting Committee must have felt it was a good line to take because they produced another poster on the same theme (apologies for the poor quality reproduction, it was the best I could find): 

by Lawson wood. 1914. PRC no.18.

The caption is 'A Chip Off the Old Block'.

Here are more posters on the theme of Empire:

PRC no.68

by Arthur Wardle. March, 1915. PRC no.58

Another version of this poster makes who 'The Overseas States' are explicit.

As well as the ancient indigenous cultures of Australia, Canada and New Zealand, the absurdity of calling civilisations as old as those of the Indian subcontinent 'a young lion' is jarring to a modern eye.

Here is another poster on the theme of the invasion of Belgium, focusing on real and alleged atrocities committed by the German Army there:

December, 1914. PRC no. 19

Conscription was introduced in Britain in early 1916, starting on March 2nd, so there was no longer a need for posters urging men to enlist. Here is a poster announcing the Military Service Act:

The following posters were not produced by the Parliamentary Recruiting Committee, but turned up during my research and are worth seeing. The first is from Ireland, it was produced in Dublin in July, 1915:

German soldiers are bursting in through the door: the man has not just his wife but also his baby and aged father to protect - or has failed to protect them by not joining up.

This next is from the USA in 1917:

by H. R. Hopps. Note 'Kultur' written on the club.

To finish with, a British recruiting poster from an earlier era - a really remarkable document.

I have been unable to establish which King George is referred to here, that is the date of the poster. My guess from the diction is Regency. But what diction ! Read it aloud. This is the patter of a recruiting sergeant transcribed. The typesetting emphasises the central message: 'Young Heroes' - 'Marines' - 'Prize Money'. As typical of its own time as it is, the message here resembles modern advertising in that the prospect of prize money is alluring, but if you look more carefully, nothing definite is promised: "Remember these Times may return, it is impossible to say how soon." Join the Royal Marines and you might get enough 

PRIZE MONEY

to set you and your family up for life: it's happened (once) before: who knows what might happen ? you never know !

*Mike Boddington informs me that the interview with Tim O’Brien is in Ken Burns’ ‘Vietnam’ series, & it is reproduced in his ‘Vietnam: An Intimate History’ book, p.319

** My brother JP identified our Highlander as a member of the Black Watch – source: National Army Museum.