Why Was Thailand Never Colonised?

[Globeliner]

It does appear strange that Thailand was never colonised, all countries surrounding it were,Laos/Vietnam by the French, Myanmar/Malaysia by the British etc, so why was Thailand never taken?

[kiakaha]

Because of the 180 day Visa rule....haha.

Edited May 4, 2007 by kiakaha

[uptou]

i read they had a greek in a powerful position at one point in years gone by,only for a short time though,before he was executed.maybe it was a bit longer than 90 days(& out).

maybe taking to catholism in some parts,had something to do with it.brainwash them first,& then go for the resources.

[MarkBKK]

It does appear strange that Thailand was never colonised, all countries surrounding it were,Laos/Vietnam by the French, Myanmar/Malaysia by the British etc, so why was Thailand never taken?

Bits of it were (by the French, among others). The Brits took most of the money for a couple of years in the 19th century. I guess the reason the whole place was never colonised was because there wasn't that much here and it's too bloody hot!

[Prakanong]

It does appear strange that Thailand was never colonised, all countries surrounding it were,Laos/Vietnam by the French, Myanmar/Malaysia by the British etc, so why was Thailand never taken?

Bits of it were (by the French, among others). The Brits took most of the money for a couple of years in the 19th century. I guess the reason the whole place was never colonised was because there wasn't that much here and it's too bloody hot!

Yeah - the rubber in the south was Malay then and so British

Plenty of logging in Burma so did not need the Thai

Trading port in Penang and Singapore better positioned than Thailand

The women just as nice elsewhere in the colonies ;-)

[uptou]

wasnt bangkok once the most important trading area in asia.so much so that at its height it was more developed (& possibly more advanced) than london.

[gbt71fa]

It does appear strange that Thailand was never colonised, all countries surrounding it were,Laos/Vietnam by the French, Myanmar/Malaysia by the British etc, so why was Thailand never taken?

.....and Japan just stopped by for some Gai tot sixty odd years ago...and Burma just seemed to burn down every darn temple they found....pride is one thing, ignorance of history is another and nationalistic ignorance is worst...still, the beer is cheap so I will just shut up now.

Edited May 4, 2007 by gbt71fa

[Prakanong]

wasnt bangkok once the most important trading area in asia.so much so that at its height it was more developed (& possibly more advanced) than london.

When?

Bangkok was founded after the sacking of Ayuthya in the CE 18th Century was it not?

[Prakanong]

It does appear strange that Thailand was never colonised, all countries surrounding it were,Laos/Vietnam by the French, Myanmar/Malaysia by the British etc, so why was Thailand never taken?

.....and Japan just stopped by for some Gai tot sixty odd years ago...and Burma just seemed to burn down every darn temple they found....pride is one thing, ignorance of history is another and nationalistic ignorance is worst...still, the beer is cheap so I will just shut up now.

ROFL - but they invited the Japanese in - greater Asia and all that lol

The Burmese did not take alll the country though - just what they wanted

Then the Khmer's were building angkor when the Thai's were doing what?

Selective national memeory is wonderful!

[uptou]

wasnt bangkok once the most important trading area in asia.so much so that at its height it was more developed (& possibly more advanced) than london.

When?

Bangkok was founded after the sacking of Ayuthya in the CE 18th Century was it not?

it was a question,without a question mark.

[Midnight Blue]

I guess the question would have to be whether Thailand had any significant natural resources at that period. I would suspect that answer would have to be no. If there were so, surely the west would have found a way to cultivate/exploit, depending on your point of view, those resources. But I am pretty ignorant on the subject matter. Anyone with a factual basis?

[Prakanong]

wasnt bangkok once the most important trading area in asia.so much so that at its height it was more developed (& possibly more advanced) than london.

When?

Bangkok was founded after the sacking of Ayuthya in the CE 18th Century was it not?

it was a question,without a question mark.

I do those a lot as well - the Belgians for some reason take it literally! ;-)))

[Naam]

I guess the question would have to be whether Thailand had any significant natural resources at that period. I would suspect that answer would have to be no. Anyone with a factual basis?

neither Pat Pong nor Soi Cowboy existed in Bangkok during 'colonial' times.

[GuestHouse]

European ‘Colonization’ ie sending large numbers of people to live in, colonize and control a country is very much over stated in Asia. Even India had relatively very few British living there. It was not uncommon for one British Magistrate to have control over huge areas of India, being the only British presence for hundreds of miles.

Similarly the numbers of British living (colonizing) across all the Asian colonies was likewise relatively small.

Thailand did have a small but very influential European population, and was subjugated to European control throughout the 19th Century, large parts of Thailand where annexed, even if not strictly speaking ‘colonized’.

The European Powers had no need to colonize a country that they essentially controlled via manipulation of the existing internal powers.

It must also be remembered that the European Empires in Asia where not ‘Military in Nature’ they were commercially based empires. The control Europe had within Thailand was such that it made no sense to upset business that was profitable to the major European (and increasingly US) powers. The major powers were making money in Thailand, the major powers where happy – why squabble.

There has only been one real Military occupations of modern Thailand, in the second world war Thailand became a Vassal state of Japan.

If you want to read more on the History of Thailand then the standard text is Wyatt - A Short History of Thailand

It will provide you with a better understanding and grasp of Thai history that most Thais have.

[uptou]

I guess the question would have to be whether Thailand had any significant natural resources at that period. I would suspect that answer would have to be no. Anyone with a factual basis?

neither Pat Pong nor Soi Cowboy existed in Bangkok during 'colonial' times.

yes it seems thailand is colonised,but only for the chicks.they let us have those (for 90 days & then we have to leave),but not the land.

[Naam]

I guess the question would have to be whether Thailand had any significant natural resources at that period. I would suspect that answer would have to be no. Anyone with a factual basis?

neither Pat Pong nor Soi Cowboy existed in Bangkok during 'colonial' times.

yes it seems thailand is colonised,but only for the chicks.they let us have those (for 90 days & then we have to leave),but not the land.

some of us more fortunate ones did not come for the chicks. perhaps that's why we don't have to leave?

[Prakanong]

Did the French not send gunboats up the Chao Phrya at one point to shell Bangkok?

Did they not manufacture a crisis more than once hence the excuse you refer to was there??

"In 1893 the French authorities in Indochina used a minor border dispute to provoke a crisis. French gunboats appeared at Bangkok, and demanded the cession of Lao territories east of the Mekong. The King appealed to the British, but the British minister told the King to settle on whatever terms he could get, and he had no choice but to comply. Britain's only gesture was an agreement with France guaranteeing the integrity of the rest of Siam. In exchange, Siam had to give up its claim to the Tai-speaking Shan region of north-eastern Burma to the British.

The French, however, continued to pressure Siam, and in 1906–1907 they manufactured another crisis. This time Siam had to concede French control of territory on the west bank of the Mekong opposite Luang Prabang and around Champasak in southern Laos, as well as western Cambodia. The British interceded to prevent more French bullying of Siam, but their price, in 1909 was the acceptance of British sovereignty over of Kedah, Kelantan, Perlis and Terengganu under Anglo-Siamese Treaty of 1909. All of these "lost territories" were on the fringes of the Siamese sphere of influence and had never been securely under their control, but being compelled to abandon all claim to them was a substantial humiliation to both king and country (historian David K. Wyatt describes Chulalongkorn as "broken in spirit and health" following the 1893 crisis). In the early 20th century these crises were adopted by the increasingly nationalist government as symbols of the need for the country to assert itself against the West and its neighbours."

Edited May 4, 2007 by Tywais

[GuestHouse]

The teaching of Thailand's Official History focuses on terms like 'Never Colonized', ‘Maintained Independence’ and 'Never Conquered' but that may be misleading (perhaps deliberately so – who am I to say?).

But I think it is fare to assume that since through the latter part of the 19th Century and up until the abolition of the absolute monarchy, the cash belonging to Thailand’s national coffers was held at the Bank of England. Then control over the Thai currency, and ultimately trade/commerce was to a very large extent with Britain.

A point that did not go amiss with the leaders of the political movement to bring democracy(?) to Thailand.

It seems then that the term 'independance' is perhaps used with a broad meaning when discussing Thai history.

[GuestHouse]

To be conquered you need to give your enemies an excuse to declare war on you or to meddle in your affairs, Thai Kings have always been very careful to avoid this.

I think you need to read up on the extent to which foreigners, and particularly the British did meddle, and indeed control, Thai affairs.

And not just at a national level.

Thailand had during the later part of the 19Century lost control over many judicial proceedings, to the point that disputes between foreigners and Thais were tried in courts conveined by the foreigner's embassy (not in Thai courts).

[uptou]

I guess the question would have to be whether Thailand had any significant natural resources at that period. I would suspect that answer would have to be no. Anyone with a factual basis?

neither Pat Pong nor Soi Cowboy existed in Bangkok during 'colonial' times.

yes it seems thailand is colonised,but only for the chicks.they let us have those (for 90 days & then we have to leave),but not the land.

some of us more fortunate ones did not come for the chicks. perhaps that's why we don't have to leave?

neither did i.it was a feeble attempt at irony.........possibly along with history.

[Steve2UK]

I think also Thai Kings never did the mistake of calling farang troops to help them against internal/external enemies (a mistake other SE Asia countries did and eventually paid for).

To be conquered you need to give your enemies an excuse to declare war on you or to meddle in your affairs, Thai Kings have always been very careful to avoid this.

Interestingly enough, if you watch King Narsuan 2 closely, you'll actually see farang soldiers(Portugese ?) fighting on the side of Ayudaya. Weapons suppliers ?

Yes, Portuguese mercenaries rather than an "official" Portuguese presence - at least in other Thai period movies I've seen.

I'm inclined to agree with two points already expressed that a] there wasn't much in the way of grabbable resources and b] that Siam functioned as a useful buffer between the British possessions (Burma & Malaya) and French Indochina. I think another factor comes down to simple geography - i.e., given its location, Siam wasn't usefully on the way to anywhere that interested the colonial powers (one of the benefits of the country's main coastline bordering a gulf rather than an ocean).

Edited May 4, 2007 by Steve2UK

[jackr]

so why was Thailand never taken?

... all the answers so far, but the truth being that it could have been taken if necessary. If our hosts want to believe the 'Never Conquered' bit, that's fine... perhaps that's why they're as laid back as they are...

[MiG16]

It does appear strange that Thailand was never colonised, all countries surrounding it were,Laos/Vietnam by the French, Myanmar/Malaysia by the British etc, so why was Thailand never taken?

Two schools of thought with no definitive proof

1) The Thai king was too wily for the colonial powers and played them off against each other - proof of this with first hand evidence is the holy grail of thai history

2) France and england had little interest in Thailand, took the parts they anted anyway and it was a useful buffer zone because they did not want an expensive war so far from home

Then again I may have studied history at Uni I am certainly no historian and never studied Thai history except for reading books out of interest.

This is exactly my understanding from reading Thai history. The wily King was the revered Rama V aka Chulalongkorn. and both powers (England & France) were content to have Thailand as buffer between their respective interests in SE asia.

I think it was some combination of the above 2...I also didnt study enough thai history (a tiny bit as a kid but my memory fails me), I believe at some point they also started to negotiate with the dutch (and all 3 had business/sea port) interest with thailand, so each were played against each other to protect thailand. in making the deals, the King gave away some part of the land as compensation (part of what later beacame malaya/malaysia), and also in the part thats now laos border I think

but these are just bits and pieces of info i recall from primary school many many years ago....dont take them as facts, and please people dont ask for source

[Globeliner]

Unfortunatly, Thailand gave the japs free pass through Thailand, maybe under threat or what, but the Thais were allies with the Japs during WW2, which led to the horrific camps in Kanchanaburi

[A_Traveller]

Sorry for the hit and run, but a quick note on this. Primary Thai sources are recognised as fatally flawed. I'm not at all sure how to phrase this, given forum rules, but suffice it to say that a member of a well know family decided to, literally, rewrite history held within the archives!

Primary sources for a large part of the colonial period are therefore unreliable, and in practical terms inferences have to be made from external records cross referenced back

Good game, good game.

If time permits I'll return to this.

Regards

[chutai]

As I understand it. The British did have plans to occupy Thailand. Churchill had plans to invade I believe?

More evidentially. The reason that Thais drive on the left and that the minotity Muslim population is so heavily concentrated in the deep south is due to the fact that the British made tentative incursions there. In effect they planted Malyasian Muslims there (with commensurate transport) so that the future incursion into Thailand wouldn't be met with too much hostility... at first anyway.

Why colonisation by the British imperialists never went ahead I don't know?

Edited May 4, 2007 by chutai

[Jessy]

It could be argued that Thailand has been colonised, by the Chinese. It is one of the cleverst acts of deception ever seen, and in such a short space of time. Every major business in Thailand and anything that matters - whether it be the military, education, or commerce has been carved up like a cake and run by powerful Chinese Thais families. Many of these Chinese Thais came from China to Thailand as immigrants in the 1940's and 1950's. Many, like Thaksin, had very little when they arrived, but they managed to carve huge business empires for themselves and work their way into positions of power; so, in effect, they have ended up running the country.

[Globeliner]

As I understand it. The British did have plans to occupy Thailand. Churchill had plans to invade I believe?

More evidentially. The reason that Thais drive on the left and that the minotity Muslim population is so heavily concentrated in the deep south is due to the fact that the British made tentative incursions there. In effect they planted Malyasian Muslims there (with commensurate transport) so that the future incursion into Thailand wouldn't be met with too much hostility... at first anyway.

Why colonisation by the British imperialists never went ahead I don't know?

Thats the question we're trying to clear up

[Steve2UK]

As I understand it. The British did have plans to occupy Thailand. Churchill had plans to invade I believe?

More evidentially. The reason that Thais drive on the left and that the minotity Muslim population is so heavily concentrated in the deep south is due to the fact that the British made tentative incursions there. In effect they planted Malyasian Muslims there (with commensurate transport) so that the future incursion into Thailand wouldn't be met with too much hostility... at first anyway.

Why colonisation by the British imperialists never went ahead I don't know?

...... or because it's the south of Thailand is next to Muslim Malaya/Malaysia?

As to the last question - maybe they got a tad distracted by WW2? (Quite a big deal at the the time - it was in all the papers)

[chutai]

Thats the question we're trying to clear up

Erm. Do excuse me. But I rather had the impression that the question was a general one concerning colonisation and not a specific one relating to the British.

Edited May 4, 2007 by chutai