Thailand, occupied or not?

[Stocky]

22 minutes ago, Confuscious said:

And many Thai at the Southern border knows Malay.

Not just at the border. 

Kelantan-Pattani Malay is the majority language in the Yala, Narathiwat and Pattani, and widely spoken in Songkhla province too, whilst Kedah Malay is spoken in Satun. 

 

The Jawi alphabet is also widely used.

 

.

Edited August 26 by Stocky

[Moonlover]

8 hours ago, JBChiangRai said:

 

Doesn't Victory Monument celebrate Thailand winning that war?

 

8 hours ago, Upnotover said:

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

Neither is true.  The monument was erected in June 1941 to commemorate the Thai victory in the Franco-Thai War.

[OneMoreFarang]

48 minutes ago, Kinok Farang said:

Then why reply?

Because it is one of those questions where expertise information is easily available.

Let's say you would want to know when Yingluck was PM, would you start a discussion on AN? Or just look it up? 

There is no point discussing facts. 

[Celsius]

There is nothing I enjoy more than watching Farang discuss history and politics of their adopted country while having literally zero rights in said country.

 

Go suck Thai nipple

[Kinok Farang]

1 hour ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Because it is one of those questions where expertise information is easily available.

Let's say you would want to know when Yingluck was PM, would you start a discussion on AN? Or just look it up? 

There is no point discussing facts. 

Ok,point taken.

[Myran]

You can have saved yourself this embarrassment by looking up what "occupied" means.

[Confuscious]

2 hours ago, mokwit said:

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

Do you have any link to that?

Never heard this history.

[Wrwest]

On 8/26/2024 at 10:31 AM, BakedPanda said:

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

Sorry, I went back for further reading. Thailand declared war on Great Britain and the United States on January 25, 1942. The British responded by declaring war on Thailand; the U.S. government ignored Thailand’s declaration of war. The war declaration on the USA was delivered through the Swiss government, representing US interests in Thailand. It was Seni Pramot, Thailand's Ambassador to the US who reportedly did not deliver the declaration of war in Washington. That may have been a face saving story as Pridi pointed out in raising the question as to way Seni would have been directed to deliver the declaration already transmitted through the Swiss previously.

[brewsterbudgen]

12 minutes ago, Wrwest said:

Sorry, I went back for further reading. Thailand declared war on Great Britain and the United States on January 25, 1942. The British responded by declaring war on Thailand; the U.S. government ignored Thailand’s declaration of war. The war declaration on the USA was delivered through the Swiss government, representing US interests in Thailand. It was Seni Pramot, Thailand's Ambassador to the US who reportedly did not deliver the declaration of war in Washington. That may have been a face saving story as Pridi pointed out in raising the question as to way Seni would have been directed to deliver the declaration already transmitted through the Swiss previously.

 

The Thai government certainly behaved shamelessly and cowardly during WW2.

[Purdey]

On 8/26/2024 at 7:01 AM, JBChiangRai said:

 

Doesn't Victory Monument celebrate Thailand winning that war?

I think it celebrates victory in WWI, which saw Thailand on the side of the British and French.

[ChrisKC]

I will answer your Topic Title

 

Yes, it is, by about 70 million people!

[digbeth]

occupation? nobody's claiming that, more often its 'never been colonized (by western powers)'

The fact you raised that Pattani as sovereign state, Lan Chang and Lanna separate kingdoms are actually colonized by Siam

 

WW2 would count as Japanese occupation for sure

[Photoguy21]

On 8/25/2024 at 9:57 PM, 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

Burma occupied Thailand from the North to Ayutthaya. It wasn't in recent history but still remains relevant.

[Cory1848]

On 8/25/2024 at 9:57 PM, 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.

 

I think what “many people say” (in your wording) is that Thailand was never directly colonized by a Western power, unlike nearly every other nation in the so-called Third World. Many Thais are justifiably quite proud of this.

[Thingamabob]

On 8/26/2024 at 3:09 PM, 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.of coupprs

Of course, but the majority of This speak only Thai.

[Wrwest]

23 hours ago, brewsterbudgen said:

 

The Thai government certainly behaved shamelessly and cowardly during WW2.

While I understand your assessment, do we give up our wallet with the gun at our head? What choice. History does document that there was an active resistance of the Free Thai both within and outside of Thai government. My only point is that I can understand that to absolutely confront can mean virtual elimination. Tough call ...

[Kerryd]

"Colonized" indicates that a country is controlled politically, militarily and economically by a foreign country.

"Occupied" indicates that a country has been invaded by a foreign military but may still have it's own political structure and some control over it's economy, though perhaps at the whim of the occupying power.

Journey with me to the past and harken the days of old, when upstart young King Alexander led a conquest that saw him invade and "occupy" most of Persia, Egypt and parts of India.

Many of those areas became "colonies" of Alexander's Empire as they were ruled by his appointees and Generals. Many remained under Greek control for centuries after Alexander's death.

Egypt was invaded and occupied by Alexander, but never really "colonized". Ptolemy declared himself Pharaoh and his line ruled Egypt for nearly 3 centuries, they never adopted Greek language or customs or religion. 

Rome invaded and occupied Egypt as well, but never "colonized" it. They controlled it's military and foreign affairs (in military matters at least) but Egyptians controlled their own internal matters (for the most part). Hence why Egyptians - as a people - never learned Latin.

The British initially invaded and "occupied" India and that "occupation" evolved into "colonization" as the evil (sic) Empire took over India's political, military and economic affairs. Hence why many/most Indians now speak (poor) English in addition to Hindi.

The French invaded "Indochina" and "occupied" large portions of Cambodia, Vietnam and Laos. Like the British, the"occupation" became "colonization" as France assumed control of those country's domestic and foreign affairs.
Not as successful as the British but their influence is still felt in the region.

One could say that "occupation" relates primarily to military affairs and "colonization" refers to the subject nation's politics and economy.
And "occupation" often leads (or used to) to "colonization" the longer the subject nation is occupied.

In WW2, Japan had a strong influence in Thailand. You can thank (or not) the Japanese for why Thai women no longer wander around topless all the time.
While "modern" women in the large cities often affected "modern" standards of dress, women in the lower classes and more rural areas usually still went topless.

This distressed the Japanese who were basically the economic and military powerhouse in Asia at the time. Much like China is now.

They pressured General Phibun, who was Prime Minister at the time, to adopt more "civilized" dress standards and Phibun (around 1939 ?) had this "cultural" poster distributed around the country.



In WW2, Thailand initially tried to resist the Japanese - for a whole 5 hours - but were forced to surrender and strike a peace agreement with them.

However, Thailand maintained it's own gov't and some control over it's domestic and economic affairs.

In that sense, Thailand was "occupied" but not "colonized".

And because of the machinations noted in previous posts, they evaded punishment for their support of the Japanese. While the British were technically "responsible" for Thailand after the war (as the dominant military power in the area and because of their colonies that stretched from Myanmar to India, down "British Malay" and over to Singapore) America was still "the big dog" overall and could still call the shots when it suited them.

England wanted to treat Thailand as a defeated enemy but America objected, in part as they disagreed with England's and France's colonization of the region.

And that is why Thailand was able to escape "punishment" for it's actions - though it didn't make it unscathed.

Most of the territory it had acquired (with Japan's assistance) from the French in the Franco-Thai war, including most of Northern Cambodia (and Siem Reap though it didn't have the status then that it does now) and parts of Laos, was returned to the French in 1946, setting Thailand's borders pretty much to what they are now.

These are the territories Thailand gain in 1941 - and lost in 1946.


 

[Kerryd]

23 hours ago, Purdey said:

I think it celebrates victory in WWI, which saw Thailand on the side of the British and French.

Actually it celebrates Thailand's "victory" in the Franco-Thai War in 1941. General Phibun took advantage of France's problems in Europe to invade parts of Laos and Cambodia and reclaim territories Thailand had been forced to cede to France and England in the late 1800s and early 1900s.

While they did well on the ground and in the air, the Thai navy lost a significant battle at Ko Chang, with a couple small ships sunk and no losses on the French side.

That lead the Japanese to intercede and mediate the dispute, forcing the French to return most of the disputed territories back to Thailand.

(Which Thailand was then forced to return in 1946.)

[Kerryd]

On 8/26/2024 at 3:27 PM, mokwit said:

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

Wrong.

"The Japanese surrendered on 15 August 1945.
Immediately, Allied military responsibility for Thailand fell to the British.
As soon as practicable, British and Indian troops were flown in and rapidly secured the release of surviving POWs. The British were surprised to find that the Japanese soldiers had already been largely disarmed by the Thais."

They didn't "occupy", they were just there to rescue POWs from the Japanese internment camps.

[mokwit]

Here's a wild card - the Anglo Thai peace treaty has a clause that Thailand can't build a Kraa canal without the permission of the British Government. Don't know if it still stands or not.

 

It also forbade the Thais from building a canal across the Kra isthmus without British government permission, which clause undercut the authority of Pridi Banomyong's government.^[5][6]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Thai_Peace_Treaty

 

[Confuscious]

If adopting a foreign language is "Colonizing" I find it strange.
My ex-wife was from Chaiyaphum and the whole viilage spoke "Issan", not Thai.
When some food was delicious, everybody would say "Seb illin" instead of "Aroy".
A friend of mine, living in Songhkla, speaks mostly some kind of Arab language with his employees and the locals.
In Northern Thailand, I frequently meet people who spoke "Lanna".
Question is how many people need to speak a foreign language in order to say the territory has been occupied.

[Lorry]

1 hour ago, Confuscious said:

living in Songhkla, speaks mostly some kind of Arab language

It's Yawi, a dialect of Malay.

Has nothing to do with Arabic. 

Malay is spoken in Malaysia (called Bahasa Melayu) and Indonesia (where it's called Bahasa Indonesia). It's related to Pilipino (spoken in the Philippines), Malagassy (spoken on Madagascar) and polynesian languages like Maori, Hawaiian and so on.

Yawi and Arabic are about as similar as Japanese and English. 

[Lorry]

1 hour ago, Confuscious said:

If adopting a foreign language is "Colonizing" I find it strange.
My ex-wife was from Chaiyaphum and the whole viilage spoke "Issan", not Thai.
When some food was delicious, everybody would say "Seb illin" instead of "Aroy".
A friend of mine, living in Songhkla, speaks mostly some kind of Arab language with his employees and the locals.
In Northern Thailand, I frequently meet people who spoke "Lanna".
Question is how many people need to speak a foreign language in order to say the territory has been occupied.

In some former colonies the language of the former colonial power is now the most widely used language (Latin America).

Often,  only educated elites used and still use it - not the peasants (India).

And sometimes,  the language of the colonial power never got a foothold in the colony - try using Italian in  Ethiopia or German in Papua or Qingdao.