Thailands History

[JimsKnight]

Yup, a thai tv drama I watched in early 2006 with some thais and farangs portrayed this thai woman with the power to travel through time back to the 1800s.

The when the French were prowling about and the British were there too. It showed how this woman managed to change history so that the French did not occupy Siam etc etc.

At the end one of the Thai women (a real mean bitch) was convinced that the tv drama was completely true and that Thailand was the mightiest country, all European powers were evil etc etc.

Whoosh! Somebody bash these peoples heads together so the know the real deal!

[longway]

until as late as 1945 the thai resistance (ขบวนการเสรีไทย) was just an underground movement - and quite contrary to the complete military cooperation offered to imperial forces by the thai government.... so i was only referring to the official thai policy towards the occupational forces...

from what i remember of the books ive read, phibun tried to use the alliance with japan to extend thai territory. at no stage did the thai military fight alongside the japanese against allied forces.

by 1944 when it was clear that japan was going to lose the war khuang (sp?) was made premier and the seri thai movement apparently had full backing of the establishment through him and pridi, though khuang still maintained the facade of co-operation with the japanese. by 1945 thailand was anxious to be seen on the allied side and offered to revolt against the jap. the brits asked them to hold back and before anything further took place the war was over.

i could be wrong but this is the gist of what i have read.

Edited August 27, 2007 by longway

[wilko]

History is not just wars and death tolls - it is about the whys and wherefores - the emphasis on military and big names is misleading.

[Prakanong]

History is not just wars and death tolls - it is about the whys and wherefores - the emphasis on military and big names is misleading.

Exactly - the "Captains and Kings" School of history is very old fashioned and confined to pre-WWII Boys Own comics.

Anyone who has studied history at a decent university would know that.

Spotting someones ideology etc is something that is taught in one of the very first lectures you get at a Uni history course and I remember that lecture well.

AJP Taylor thoroughly supported the populist historians view that "He usually favoured an anti-Great man theory, of history being made for the most part by towering figures of stupidity rather than being dominated by towering figures of genius.He usually favoured an anti-Great man theory, of history being made for the most part by towering figures of stupidity rather than being dominated by towering figures of genius."

[distortedlink]

Some years ago an old soldier I knew back in England and a survivor of the death railway told me that it was Thai army working with the Japanese that arrested the allied troops in Singapore aiding in their transport as slave labourers onto the death railway.

Is anyone able to substantiate this?

[Prakanong]

Some years ago an old soldier I knew back in England and a survivor of the death railway told me that it was Thai army working with the Japanese that arrested the allied troops in Singapore aiding in their transport as slave labourers onto the death railway.

Is anyone able to substantiate this?

I must admit I have never heard of this and I have read quite a bit about it.

Maybe he meant Korean guards - they were quite viscious and took things out on the allies after they were badly treated by the Japanese.

I have "Singapore Burning" and a few other books at home regarding the fall of Singapore and others regarding the railway so will try to take a look later for any mention.

[canadiangirl]

Would someone be so kind as to PM me the name of the Book That Shall Not Be Named?

Thank you.

(Edited: Got it, thanks to those who wrote me! )

Edited August 29, 2007 by canadiangirl

[wilko]

History is not just wars and death tolls - it is about the whys and wherefores - the emphasis on military and big names is misleading.

Exactly - the "Captains and Kings" School of history is very old fashioned and confined to pre-WWII Boys Own comics.

Anyone who has studied history at a decent university would know that.

Spotting someones ideology etc is something that is taught in one of the very first lectures you get at a Uni history course and I remember that lecture well.

AJP Taylor thoroughly supported the populist historians view that "He usually favoured an anti-Great man theory, of history being made for the most part by towering figures of stupidity rather than being dominated by towering figures of genius.He usually favoured an anti-Great man theory, of history being made for the most part by towering figures of stupidity rather than being dominated by towering figures of genius."

I have never been able to say this before on this site but I agree 100% with everything you have said.

below is an example of "personal experience" or "oral" history.....whether it is acurate or not, fist-hand experience whilst valuable must be handled with great care......there is for instance the not-being-able to-see-the-wood-for-the-trees syndrome.

History is an analysis of the past not an anecdotal recount thereof.

[Prakanong]

History is not just wars and death tolls - it is about the whys and wherefores - the emphasis on military and big names is misleading.

Exactly - the "Captains and Kings" School of history is very old fashioned and confined to pre-WWII Boys Own comics.

Anyone who has studied history at a decent university would know that.

Spotting someones ideology etc is something that is taught in one of the very first lectures you get at a Uni history course and I remember that lecture well.

AJP Taylor thoroughly supported the populist historians view that "He usually favoured an anti-Great man theory, of history being made for the most part by towering figures of stupidity rather than being dominated by towering figures of genius.He usually favoured an anti-Great man theory, of history being made for the most part by towering figures of stupidity rather than being dominated by towering figures of genius."

I have never been able to say this before on this site but I agree 100% with everything you have said.

below is an example of "personal experience" or "oral" history.....whether it is acurate or not, fist-hand experience whilst valuable must be handled with great care......there is for instance the not-being-able to-see-the-wood-for-the-trees syndrome.

History is an analysis of the past not an anecdotal recount thereof.

And care must be taken with the evidence too - is it primary or secondary source etc.

While social science will never be as exacting as some other sciences rigorous research methods can still be applied.

There are some good books on histiography too - I remember reading E H Carr's (Marxist from Glasgow Uni I think he as) "What is History" as an undergrad but there are many more since.

His chapter on Cleaopatra's nose still sticks with me.

[John_Rambo]

Has censorship really got so bad on Thai Visa that people can't even write the name of a book that is banned?

[ColPyat]

Has censorship really got so bad on Thai Visa that people can't even write the name of a book that is banned?

Thai Visa can only do as the authorities permit. Mentioning that book could lead to discussions that are very unsafe at the moment.

The correct question should be: 'Is censorship in Thailand that bad?'

[John_Rambo]

Mentioning Thai history could lead to discussions that are unsafe. It is only the content of the discussion, not the utterance of a name, that could create an issue. It's not as if only a debate about that particular book could lead one on to controversial ground, that would be pretty easy to stray on to regardless, yet the thread seems to be doing okay.

The question stands as written.