Talk:30 September Movement

The subtitle "A Purely Internal Army Affair: the PKI and the 'Cornell Paper' " is pretty lengthy and rough. Might someone see a more succinct and elegant phrase? Smilo Don 17:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Surprised this isn't linked yet: Pengkhianatan G30S/PKI. Considering the role it played in propagating the government's version... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:51, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

This article states that Dipa Nusantra Aidit was killed on November 25. His Wikipedia page claims he was killed on November 22. I do not know which date is correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.136.18.95 (talk) 02:39, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

A great resource is the CIA's official intelligence report (pdf here) that was compiled in 1968 and later declassified under the FOIA. It states that the term coup in its common usage (as an attempted overthrow) "might be misleading" (image). It seems laziness or lack of interest in revealing the truth (because they were communists) left many sources poorly put together. Shouldn't this be corrected? Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 16:18, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure which document that you used. What's the title? In 2023, CIA released another classified document ("The Coup That Backfired"). As the title suggests: It was a coup.

https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/document/00186624 Southeastviewer (talk) 14:54, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

按照古兰经说法不信仰伊斯兰教的都是卡费勒，真主赐予穆斯林的财富都被卡费勒也就是印尼华人抢去了必须用圣战方式夺回来。希望散落世界各地的华人要警惕穆斯林。另外，无论是天主教还是犹太教或者是保守主义，对穆斯林来说那都是邪教。Jg451 (talk) 13:58, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

The responsibility for the coup is actually a matter of historic debate and interpretation. You have different people arguing on who is responsible. But it there is one certainty, the September 30 movement was made up of a group of mid ranking military officers. However to muddy the waters, you had the British keen to blame it on PKI for their own agenda. Ultimately when you read the article, some argue that the PKI played a significant role in the events leading up to the coup attempt, citing its growing influence and alleged involvement in subversive activities. Others contend that the military and other anti-communist forces used the coup attempt as a pretext to purge the PKI and eliminate political opposition. Ultimately "there is no credible evidence that Sukarno knew about it beforehand, or that the PKI as an organisation or its mass membership were responsible for it". https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/oct/17/slaughter-in-indonesia-britains-secret-propaganda-war So for those constantly not doing research and hastily changing the article into one narrative that's unsourced and unproven. Either stop or discuss here and show your sources. I reverted the article back to the last long standing neutral version. 49.180.246.45 (talk) 09:45, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

It's not "disputed at best".

https://www.tempo.co/politik/eksklusif-g30s-1965-pengakuan-penyergap-ketua-cc-pki-aidit-nbsp--1417867

https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/document/00186624

https://theconversation.com/behind-the-coup-that-backfired-the-demise-of-indonesias-communist-party-47640

You are also mixing the PKI members and PKI leaderships in their involvement. While the members might not join the coup during the night, the Communist Party's leaderships were deeply involved.

Southeastviewer (talk) 14:52, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

"Ultimately "there is no credible evidence that Sukarno knew about it beforehand, or that the PKI as an organisation or its mass membership were responsible for it".

You manipulatively left out the first part: "While it is now believed that the PKI’s chairman and his agents were involved in the attempted coup. . ."

As I said above, although mass PKI members were not involved in the night of the coup, PKI's leadership was deeply involved. That's a historical fact.

Southeastviewer (talk) 15:57, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

@Davidelit This is the conversation and multiple sources that PKI and its leaders were behind the G30. One of them was from CIA.gov. Other sources are from reliable sources such as The Conversation and this one from Detik.com in which oneof the G30 leader openly admitted PKI was involved and Aidit as well.

https://news.detik.com/berita/d-3667173/penyesalan-pentolan-pki-di-pengujung-eksekusi and I have also translated the relevant part.

So my questions are:

1. Why are you lying by saying there was no relevant citation?

2. Meanwhile you allow unsourced claims to stay in the first paragraph. Why?

3. Where is your resource

Southeastviewer (talk) 12:37, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, Suharto gets name dropped with no explanation of who he is and why he's relevant. Is that his full name? I know next to nothing about Indonesian history and don't feel confident to edit this. If someone could rewrite that section, that would be great. Zqed (talk) 01:20, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

In the last paragraph of the introduction that is, sorry, I forgot to mention the actual section. Zqed (talk) 01:23, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Anti PKI Literature.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:06, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

This is to respond and challenge @Davidelit's claims that my edit was "not given in sources added."

1. The Conversation: "After years of uncertainty, recent findings show the 30th September Movement was the product of months of planning by Untung, the PKI leader Aidit and a handful of others."
2. CIA's declassified research study 'The Coup That Backfired' (released in 2023): "The evidence is overwhelming that the PKI planned the 30 September Movement in every detail. It decided who would lead the movement, what military units would be involved in the operation, which generals of the Army would be killed, when the coup would take place, what VIPs would be safeguarded at Halim, and how the political~ campaign in support of the coup would be managed afterwards. That it got others to execute the deed does not change the fact that it was primarily responsible for the whole affair."
3. Detik.com (Indonesia's national news media): "The Chief I of PKI Special Bureau Supono Marsudidjojo regretted that 30 September 1965 action had to happen. Because he already advised the Head of the Central Committee of PKI DN Aidit to delay the operation. As it turned out Aidit ignored the advice and the operation still went underway."
4. Brittanica: "The Indonesian Communist Party (Partai Komunis Indonesia; PKI) maintained that the coup attempt was an internal affair of the army. The army leadership, on the contrary, insisted that it was part of a PKI plot to seize power and subsequently embarked on a mission to purge the country of the perceived communist threat."

(Pay attention that, as I explained, PKI leader only denied the plot after the plot was foiled. Meanwhile, multiple of its top members were directly involved in the coup, including Njoto and Supono. Both names I listed in the infobox only to be deleted. Why?)

Southeastviewer (talk) 12:57, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

More source from the BBC (2015):

https://www.bbc.com/indonesia/berita_indonesia/2015/09/150930_indonesia_waktu_g30s

"The PKI leader, DN Aidit, was involved in the planning, but the most important role was played by a mysterious agent called Sjam Kamaruzaman, who headed a little-known PKI unit, the Special Bureau, which aimed to infiltrate the ranks of the armed forces."

Report from Indonesian media about Sjam and his pivotal role in the secret bureau within PKI:

https://daerah.sindonews.com/berita/1055497/29/sjam-kamaruzzaman-dan-kerja-rahasia-biro-khusus-pki

Sekembalinya ke Tanah Air dari RRC, Sjam langsung dimasukkan ke dalam Komite Militer PKI yang kemudian berganti nama menjadi Biro Chusus (BC). Dalam biro ini, Sjam memiliki kekuasaan yang sangat luas dan besar.

(After his return to Indonesia from PRC, Sjam was immediately included in the Military Committee of PKI which later changed its name to be Special Bureau. In this bureau, Sjam had a vast and huge power.)

Southeastviewer (talk) 14:48, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

None of those sources say that the PKI as an institution was behind it. The conversation.com says "The movement involved a handful of top PKI leaders, but it was used as a pretext", the CIA source is hardly impartial given that its support for the Dewan Djenderal, Sindonews (owned by a nationalist politician) claims that Sjam as an individual (with links to the PKI Central Committee) was involved, while the Britannica article refers to the G30S as "group of Indonesian military personnel" and simply reports that the army blamed the PKI. You are cherry picking. What organisation did Untung Syamsuri work for? What uniform did the members of the Diponegoro and Brawijaya Divisions wear? And why were the G30S members tried in a special military court? Yet nobody is claiming that the Army as an institution was the G30S mastermind despite the large number of its personnel being involved (far exceeding the number of PKI members). The Indonesian Air Force also only condemned the plot after it was foiled - so were they the mastermind? This article is neutral in tone, and reports all claims and accusations of responsibility, including against both of the military factions, the PKI and the CIA, made by the Indonesian Army and government as well as by historians. You have been pushing your point of view, and have been repeatedly reverted. The consensus is against you. Davidelit (Talk) 16:08, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

"None of those sources say that the PKI as an institution was behind it" - @Davidelit

- "The evidence is overwhelming that the PKI planned the 30 September Movement in every detail." (CIA declassified report)

- "The PKI leader, DN Aidit, was involved in the planning, but the most important role was played by a mysterious agent called Sjam Kamaruzaman, who headed a little-known PKI unit, the Special Bureau, which aimed to infiltrate the ranks of the armed forces." (BBC)

- "The Chief I of PKI Special Bureau Supono Marsudidjojo regretted that 30 September 1965 action had to happen. Because he already advised the Head of the Central Committee of PKI DN Aidit to delay the operation. As it turned out Aidit ignored the advice and the operation still went underway." (Detik.com)

Their top leaders planned it, and here you are splitting between the top leaders vs "PKI as an institution". Your argument is disingenuous.

Are you saying that the whole 3 million members of this notoriously secretive party must know the planning until you would consent that PKI was behind it? Your POV is incredibly biased. You are fighting against history and various researches and reports here. For what? For zero source you are giving?

And you are trying to disprove every single source using disingenuous argument:

- "the CIA source is hardly impartial given that its support for the Dewan Djenderal"

First, you are doing ad hominem here. Moreover, the CIA source, if you read it, did not give any support to "Dewan Jenderal".

- "Sindonews (owned by a nationalist politician) claims that Sjam as an individual (with links to the PKI Central Committee) was involved"

Another incredible ad hominem. If you are to diminish every single journalist's article based on the businessmen who own their media, then you are basically undermining hundreds of others journalistic works. (And it's still better than you who still do not give any single source)

- Britannica article refers to the G30S as "group of Indonesian military personnel" and simply reports that the army blamed the PKI. You are cherry picking.

You are the one cherry-picking for just singling out Britannica article out of the six articles I provided. I cite Britannica to show that indeed some military units were involved, as I wrote: "PKI and its sympathizers within the military units."

- What organisation did Untung Syamsuri work for?

Again, you do not even bother to read the sources provided. Lt. Colonel Untung was a part of Presidential Guard. And as the sources showed, Untung was working with Sjam and Supono both of whom top PKI officials who reported directly to Aidit (leader of Communists) about the coup.

- The Indonesian Air Force also only condemned the plot after it was foiled - so were they the mastermind?

We are talking about who planned it. One top official (Omar Dani) did declare for PKI after the coup. It's not the same with Aidit and PKI top leaders who planned it.

- This article is neutral in tone, and reports all claims and accusations of responsibility, including against both of the military factions, the PKI and the CIA, made by the Indonesian Army and government as well as by historians.

Except the recent articles which openly point to PKI's involvement. You wrote that opening paragraph without any source. I provided sources to show PKI's involvement by various povs (intelligence community, journalists from Indonesia, scholars from abroad).

Southeastviewer (talk) 16:40, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

"You have been pushing your point of view, and have been repeatedly reverted. The consensus is against you" - @Davidelit

1. You reverted it twice.
2. The only consensus around here is you.

You are playing both judge and jury here. I know you're not Indonesian, but many Indonesians will see my sourcing is valid and you deleted them.

1. The Conversation: "After years of uncertainty, recent findings show the 30th September Movement was the product of months of planning by Untung, the PKI leader Aidit and a handful of others." https://theconversation.com/behind-the-coup-that-backfired-the-demise-of-indonesias-communist-party-47640
2. CIA's declassified research study 'The Coup That Backfired' (released in 2023): "The evidence is overwhelming that the PKI planned the 30 September Movement in every detail. It decided who would lead the movement, what military units would be involved in the operation, which generals of the Army would be killed, when the coup would take place, what VIPs would be safeguarded at Halim, and how the political~ campaign in support of the coup would be managed afterwards. That it got others to execute the deed does not change the fact that it was primarily responsible for the whole affair." - https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/document/00186624
3. Detik.com (Indonesia's national news media): "The Chief I of PKI Special Bureau Supono Marsudidjojo regretted that 30 September 1965 action had to happen. Because he already advised the Head of the Central Committee of PKI DN Aidit to delay the operation. As it turned out Aidit ignored the advice and the operation still went underway."
4. Brittanica: "The Indonesian Communist Party (Partai Komunis Indonesia; PKI) maintained that the coup attempt was an internal affair of the army. The army leadership, on the contrary, insisted that it was part of a PKI plot to seize power and subsequently embarked on a mission to purge the country of the perceived communist threat."
5. BBC (2015):

   "The PKI leader, DN Aidit, was involved in the planning, but the most important role was played by a mysterious agent called Sjam Kamaruzaman, who headed a little-known PKI unit, the Special Bureau, which aimed to infiltrate the ranks of the armed forces." https://www.bbc.com/indonesia/berita_indonesia/2015/09/150930_indonesia_waktu_g30s

6. Sindo: Sekembalinya ke Tanah Air dari RRC, Sjam langsung dimasukkan ke dalam Komite Militer PKI yang kemudian berganti nama menjadi Biro Chusus (BC). Dalam biro ini, Sjam memiliki kekuasaan yang sangat luas dan besar. (After his return to Indonesia from PRC, Sjam was immediately included in the Military Committee of PKI which later changed its name to be Special Bureau. In this bureau, Sjam had a vast and huge power.) https://daerah.sindonews.com/berita/1055497/29/sjam-kamaruzzaman-dan-kerja-

Southeastviewer (talk) 16:46, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

After I gave 6 sources (including from BBC, The Conversation, and CIA), user @Davidelit reversed them and accusing me of "quote-mining POV-pushing"

At the beginning, however, he complained that what I wrote didn't agree with the source. That was why I decided to provide the direct quotes (and translations). But he moved the goalpost again and now accusing me of "quote-mining".

Moreover, the POV-pushing is also a very serious accusation. I, as a reader of history, was simply baffled by the lack of sourcing at all at the beginning of the article which suspiciously underplayed/understated PKI's involvement. So, I added more references, and various sources I listed above come four different countries: BBC (UK), CIA (US), The Conversation (Australia), and Indonesia media) - all of which agree PKI's leaderships were involved. Davidelit then try to move the goalpost again by trying to split between PKI's leaderships and "PKI as an institution" (with 3 million members). But the point is the leadership of PKI was factually involved in the coup, as sources from BBC, The Conversation, CIA, and Indonesian media have showed.

If we want to talk about "POV-Pushing", we have to see the state of this article in the first place. Why did Davidelit (and some other editors) would push the claim to underplay PKI's involvement? Why are they not looking out for the consensus in research/reports that point out that PKI's leaders were indeed involved? Why are they comfortable leaving them out?

It's clear that whoever runs this page wants to underplay/understate PKI's involvement in the coup against all the existing evidences. That was the POV-pushing in the first place.

Southeastviewer (talk) 17:02, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

If your concern is simply "PKI as the institution" it should not erase the fact the PKI's top leaders were involved. And that should be written as such. "Orchestrated by the leaders of PKI" instead of downplaying their involvement. @Davidelit

Southeastviewer (talk) 17:11, 27 December 2025 (UTC)