Many people will say that Thailand was never occupied.
But, the history books (history books that are banned from Thailand) tells an other story.
Admitted, Thailand as whole country might be never been occupied.
But parts of Thailand, and the capital Ayutthaya have been occupied.
The South (Pattani) was ruled by the Muslim
And "Isan" used to be a part of Laos and Cambodia before being adhered to Thailand.
What's your idea about this?
https://www.academia.edu/69988653/Contemporary_Conflicts_in_Southeast_Asia

Although Thailand allied with Japan and declared war on Britain and USA, it seems to me that Thailand was occupied by the Japanese in WW2.

8 hours ago, Confuscious said:

What's your idea about this?

If I wanted to know the details, then I would look it up in several history books.

But then, I don't really care.

25 minutes ago, loong said:

Although Thailand allied with Japan and declared war on Britain and USA, it seems to me that Thailand was occupied by the Japanese in WW2.

 

The USA took it so seriously that they ....................... ignored it,lol.

 

8 hours ago, Confuscious said:

But parts of Thailand, and the capital Ayutthaya have been occupied.
The South (Pattani) was ruled by the Muslim

I think you're confused if you mean that part of the Kingdom of Siam was occupied by the Kingdom of Patani. Maybe just poor language structure.

By your own historical account, the peaceful and indigenous  Muslim Kingdom of Patani co-existed as a separate and recognized sovereignty during the existence of the Kingdom of Siam until Siam broke its peace treaty with Patani to invade and forcibly occupy Patani, henceforth termed "the South." Why just tax a country when you can own it? 

Thailand was occupied by the Japanese in the early 1940's. It was never colonized, as the Japanese gave them a choice, and they chose the far less heinous route. The Japanese were thrown out in late 1944, as they were getting slaughtered in Burma and elsewhere, and were weak, and broke, due to their stupidity and recklessness. Some bold senators are responsible for that. 

 

Japanese troops arrived in Bangkok on the afternoon of December 8, 1941, apparently by road from French Indochina, and by the following day the occupation of Bangkok by Japanese troops was complete. Throughout the duration of the Malayan and Burma campaigns large numbers of Japanese troops and quantities of military supplies passed through Bangkok from French Indochina to points south and north by rail, but it is impossible to estimate the numbers or quantities involved. To what extent the Thais cooperated with the Japanese in these movements is unknown. 

 

Thailand declared war against the United States and Great Britain as of noon, January 25, 1942. And most do not seem to know that the allies bombed Bangkok on several occasions. 

42 minutes ago, loong said:

Although Thailand allied with Japan and declared war on Britain and USA, it seems to me that Thailand was occupied by the Japanese in WW2.

Yessir, many years ago I was assigned to NKP in Northern Thailand - I had many Thai friends, many who had older relatives that were around during the Japanese occupation of that area.  They even had loads of pictures of themselves as younger with the Japanese soldiers.  Go to the museums in Kanchanaburi - you will see much from that period including the Japanese occupiers.  

13 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

Thailand declared war against the United States and Great Britain as of noon, January 25, 1942. And most do not seem to know that the allies bombed Bangkok on several occasions. 

 

Doesn't Victory Monument celebrate Thailand winning that war?

7 minutes ago, JBChiangRai said:

 

Doesn't Victory Monument celebrate Thailand winning that war?

No. The monument was erected in 1941 as a tribute to 160 soldiers, policemen and civilians who fought for the kingdom during the border conflict in Indochina between Thailand and France. France insisted on moving the Thai border and Thailand resisted. Thailand somehow prevailed. 

6 minutes ago, JBChiangRai said:

 

Doesn't Victory Monument celebrate Thailand winning that war?

No, it's a nonsense monument celebrating a non-event.

Also, Britain and France allowed it not to be colonised as they required a' buffer state ' to prevent accidental disputes between the British and French occupiers/ colonisers.

 

Britain put on ridiculously unfair treaties regarding trade etc against the Siamese, all of which Siam agreed to, rather than being colonised.

 

The Japanese just walked in, and they were going to either way, just that the Thais try to remember it different, claiming they were invited in as allies.

 

In July 1944, the declaration of war against the US and UK was voided as unconstitutional, and the PM forced out. This could have had plenty to do with the Thais saw the tide of the war turning in the Allies favour.

 

So, the Thai image of nobody ever taking over their country, attempting to give the false narrative that they stood shoulder to shoulder in bunkers defending their land, is a result of selective recollection and dreaming.

10 hours ago, Confuscious said:

Many people will say that Thailand was never occupied.
But, the history books (history books that are banned from Thailand) tells an other story.
Admitted, Thailand as whole country might be never been occupied.
But parts of Thailand, and the capital Ayutthaya have been occupied.
The South (Pattani) was ruled by the Muslim
And "Isan" used to be a part of Laos and Cambodia before being adhered to Thailand.
What's your idea about this?
https://www.academia.edu/69988653/Contemporary_Conflicts_in_Southeast_Asia

Leave it as it is. 

In sum, Thai 'history' books are full of b/s, humbug & hypocrisy.

 

Much as 'Western' history books used to be - and still partly are - full of humbug & hypocrisy relating to European colonization of the Americas and Africa ...

Had Japan won WWII, the "occupation" would have morphed into full-on colonial status.

Thailand was not occupied by Japan in WWII. They were Japan's ally.

Thailand occupied and was set to absorb, the Shan States section of Burma, today's Myanmar. They also occupied and were again set to absorb the western part of Cambodia, into Thailand. These territorial gains were the rewards of being Japan's ally in the war.  

2 hours ago, bigt3116 said:

The USA took it so seriously that they ....................... ignored it,lol.

Declaration of war was never delivered, so was never at war with the USA,

 

USA definitely didn't ignore JP's occupation of TH.  Bombed the hell out of a few locations in TH,  a few times, and worked with The "Free Thai Movement", essential in supplying info,  to speed independence along.

 

Living in PKK, hard to ignore TH's WW II history.   Same as when living in Philly, USA, impossible to ignore USA's history.

11 hours ago, Confuscious said:

And "Isan" used to be a part of Laos and Cambodia before being adhered to Thailand.

Your history does not go back far enough:

 

 

38 minutes ago, mfd101 said:

In sum, Thai 'history' books are full of b/s, humbug & hypocrisy.

 

Much as 'Western' history books used to be - and still partly are - full of humbug & hypocrisy relating to European colonization of the Americas and Africa ...

As I have heard it said "History of wars is written by the winners, not the losers".

 

Thailand has been occupied by Western foreigners for decades. The Chinese are now beginning to occupy that position.

27 minutes ago, Dcheech said:

Thailand was not occupied by Japan in WWII. They were Japan's ally.

Thailand occupied and was set to absorb, the Shan States section of Burma, today's Myanmar. They also occupied and were again set to absorb the western part of Cambodia, into Thailand. These territorial gains were the rewards of being Japan's ally in the war.  

Yes, they won that one, gained territory.

 

The Thais have fought when necessary, lied when necessary and aligned with various countries at various times when it has suited them. A bit like their politics today.

 

 

As a small nation they have a lot to be proud of. 

 

beautiful women also.

 

 

3 hours ago, loong said:

Although Thailand allied with Japan and declared war on Britain and USA, it seems to me that Thailand was occupied by the Japanese in WW2.

Just a historical point on this. Thailand, occupied by Japan declared war on Britain. The war declaration on the USA was not delivered. This explains why, after Japans defeat, Thailand was deemed an enemy combatant by Britain but the USA favored a different treatment. That and that the Free Thai fought along side the allies against Japanese interests. If I am not mistaken ... I would also note that Thailand has claimed not to have been colonized as the rest of SE Asian countries had, not that Thailand had never been occupied.

1 hour ago, GreasyFingers said:

Your history does not go back far enough:

 

 

A valid reminder historically of being mindful of the time period being addressed. I do recall a period where Burma would be a good portion of Siam.

30 minutes ago, Wrwest said:

Just a historical point on this. Thailand, occupied by Japan declared war on Britain. The war declaration on the USA was not delivered. 

The declaration of war to both UK and USA was perfectly fine delivered, however neither took it serious.

switserland of asia, not because of thai superiority... neither super power at the time, france or england, wanted to fight over it... indochine (france) , all the rest bretesh...

4 hours ago, Srikcir said:

I think you're confused if you mean that part of the Kingdom of Siam was occupied by the Kingdom of Patani. Maybe just poor language structure.

By your own historical account, the peaceful and indigenous  Muslim Kingdom of Patani co-existed as a separate and recognized sovereignty during the existence of the Kingdom of Siam until Siam broke its peace treaty with Patani to invade and forcibly occupy Patani, henceforth termed "the South." Why just tax a country when you can own it? 

Even then the Patani States largely accepted being part of Siam as they were left in peace, it was the policy of forced Thaification, instigated by Marshall Plaek Phibunsongkhram in 1934, that started the trouble 

Thailand has been occupied, but not colonised, which is why you don't find many Thais who can speak a language other than their own. 

1 hour ago, Thingamabob said:

Thailand has been occupied, but not colonised, which is why you don't find many Thais who can speak a language other than their own. 

Many Thai in isaan knows Lao or/and Cambodian

Many Thai in the north knows Burmese.

And many Thai at the Southern border knows Malay.

8 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

If I wanted to know the details, then I would look it up in several history books.

But then, I don't really care.

Then why reply?

9 minutes ago, Confuscious said:

Many Thai in isaan knows Lao or/and Cambodian

Many Thai in the north knows Burmese.

And many Thai at the Southern border knows Malay.

 

And also speak their own dialect of it...

9 hours ago, loong said:

Although Thailand allied with Japan and declared war on Britain and USA, it seems to me that Thailand was occupied by the Japanese in WW2.

It was occupied by Indian troops of the British Empire following the Japanese surrender.