The defense of Netherlands Indies debate of 1916–1917 was a pressing political controversy in the Netherlands over how to secure the archipelago against foreign aggression during the First World War, pitting the government’s stated defence plans against alternative proposals championed by J. B. van Heutsz, J. Van der Weyden, and their critics, notably Van der Maaten.
Origins and Context
The debate was driven by the First World War, which raged around the Dutch East Indies and exposed the vulnerability of colonial possessions defended by an inadequate fleet and army. The Staatscommissie voor de Verdediging van Nederlandsch-Indië had issued its report in 1913, but its proposals had not been implemented. A vlootwet (fleet bill) had been prepared and would have been submitted to the Staten-Generaal in August 1914, but its introduction was prevented by the outbreak of war. Despite the war making defence more urgent than ever, the bill was not submitted in 1915 or 1916 either.
The Government’s Position
The government’s position, as stated in the Memorie van Antwoord, was that a fleet of 4 battleships (linieschepen), 5 cruisers, and 25 submarines was planned, at an estimated acquisition cost of 275 million guilders. The army was to be reformed into a cadre-militia army (kader-militie-leger). The Minister of Colonies proposed introducing European militia first, with native militia service (inlandsche militieplicht) still under study. The Minister of Marine favoured dreadnought-type battleships and maintained that with 300 million guilders available, the greatest naval strength and security lay in a battleship-cruiser-submarine composition.
The Van Heutsz–Van der Weyden Campaign
J. B. van Heutsz, leveraging his authority as conqueror of Atjeh and former Governor-General of Netherlands Indies (1904–1909), advocated for the defence proposals of his son-in-law, Lieutenant-Colonel J. Van der Weyden, as set out in Van der Weyden’s defense brochure. Van Heutsz delivered major public speeches at the Bond van Vrije Liberalen on 13 January 1917 and at the Industriebond (Industriële Club) on 17 February 1917, calling for the appointment of a buitengewoon Regeerings-Commissaris with unlimited powers to reform the colonial defence system — a role unmistakably pointing to himself.
The Van der Maaten Opposition
Van der Maaten, also an Atjeh veteran, opposed Van Heutsz’s defence advocacy in his pamphlet of 1917. He argued that Van Heutsz had done virtually nothing for defence during his governorship and had even undermined the Staatscommissie voor de Verdediging van Nederlandsch-Indië by authorising the quotation of his devastating private judgment on its report. Van der Maaten counter-argued that as long as funds were insufficient for a fleet capable of gaining naval supremacy, all money for the naval force should go to submarines of great power and range rather than battleships, which he predicted would be destroyed within weeks.
Key Contested Issues
The debate centred on several interconnected questions. On fleet composition, the dispute was between a battleship-cruiser-submarine mix and a submarine-heavy force. On native militia service, the Indische Krijgsvereeniging meeting on 6 March 1916 had revealed reservations among native intellectuals. On cost allocation, Van der Maaten argued that both the Netherlands and India should share defence costs in a fair proportion, calling it “immorality” to make India pay everything. On leadership, the central question was whether Van Heutsz should be appointed buitengewoon Regeerings-Commissaris with unlimited powers.
The Defence Demonstrations of 1916
Defence demonstrations took place across Netherlands Indies on 31 August 1916, but their significance was contested. J. B. van Heutsz represented them as involving “duizenden en nog eens duizenden Indiërs” (thousands upon thousands of Indians), while Van der Maaten countered that most participants were “nontonners” who barely understood the issue.
The “Hollandsche Koopmansgeest”
Van der Maaten identified the “Hollandsche Koopmansgeest” (Dutch merchant spirit) as a root cause of chronic defence underfunding, arguing that the commercial mentality of the Netherlands had consistently prioritised trade profits over the expenditure necessary to secure colonial possessions.
Significance
The debate was one of the most consequential colonial defence controversies of the early twentieth century in Dutch politics. It exposed fundamental disagreements over naval strategy, the role of native populations in colonial defence, the fiscal relationship between metropole and colony, and the proper limits of military authority in civilian government. The personal rivalry between Van Heutsz and Van der Maaten, both Atjeh veterans, gave the debate an acrimonious edge that illuminated the deeper divisions within the Dutch colonial military establishment.
See Also
- J. B. van Heutsz
- J. Van der Weyden
- Van der Maaten
- Van der Weyden’s defense brochure
- Van der Maaten’s pamphlet on Van Heutsz and the Defense of Netherlands Indies
- Netherlands Indies Fleet Bill (1914)
- Staatscommissie voor de Verdediging van Nederlandsch-Indië
- Van Heutsz’s Bond van Vrije Liberalen defense speech (13 January 1917)
- Industriebond defense meeting (17 February 1917)
- Memorie van Antwoord
- C. C. Vattier Kraane
Source
K. van der Maaten, Z. E. De Oud Gouverneur-Generaal J. B. van Heutsz en de Defensie van Nederlandsch-Indië (‘s-Gravenhage: Martinus Nijhoff, 1917).