Thailand - "land Of The Free"

[gburns57au]

So the Burmese occupied and thus ruled Thailand right Mr Burns?

Wrong

They only occupied a portion of what was then Siam, from the border to Ayuthia....they never occupied the whole country and never ruled Siam

Taksin who was the warlord defending against Burma ceded land to the invaders...and re settled his capital at a safe distance from the battle lines, later moving it across the river as it even safer there.

Giving up land during a war is not unusual and is ususally a tactical decision. And is not regarded as an occupation, Taksin eventually regained the lost ground.

So the country of Siam was never fully occupied and certainly never controlled by the Burmese.

[gburns57au]

Seri Thai was name of free Thai resistance movement and had both US and UK undercover agents in country.

Declaration of war against US was never officially presented.(ambass.refused to deliver it )It was however made  against the UK.

Was it ever re-cinded.........????

Quite so.....

and to answer your question, I find no reference to that in my sources....

Therefore we must conclude that it was not and declare all Poms as hostiles and deport them immediately........

[Jai Dee]

Therefore we must conclude that it was not and declare all Poms as hostiles and deport them immediately........      

ROTFLMAO

Especially the types like konangrit's old avatar...

[HarryHacker]

Interesting posts...thanks!

[Richard W]

It was however made  against the UK.

Was it ever re-cinded.........????

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Quite so.....

and to answer your question, I find no reference to that in my sources....

Therefore we must conclude that it was not and declare all Poms as hostiles and deport them immediately........

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I've read that under the peace treaty, Thailand had to pay Britian reparations in the form of a large amount of rice.

Rama Kamhaeng's grandfather is supposed to have lead a rebellion that liberated the country from Khmer rule. I'm not sure of the actual extent though - was the North ever under Khmer rule? There are strong suggestions that Ayutthaya was ethnically very mixed, with the Thai element only coming to dominate later.

Naresuan the Great's father was a Burmese vassal, installed by the Burmese in place of the previous king of Ayutthaya. Naresuan the Great's early victories were achieved fighting for the Buremse.

The word 'Thai' is unlikely to refer to recent history. It's used by Tais from Yunnan (e.g. White Tai, Tai Lue) to Vietnam (e.g. Red Tai, Black Tai) - the speakers of the South Western and Central Tai languages. (Speakers of the Northern Tai languages, of which the most significan is probalby Northern Zhuang, do not call themselves Tai.)

[gburns57au]

It was however made  against the UK.

Was it ever re-cinded.........????

Quite so.....

and to answer your question, I find no reference to that in my sources....

Therefore we must conclude that it was not and declare all Poms as hostiles and deport them immediately........

I've read that under the peace treaty, Thailand had to pay Britian reparations in the form of a large amount of rice.

Rama Kamhaeng's grandfather is supposed to have lead a rebellion that liberated the country from Khmer rule. I'm not sure of the actual extent though - was the North ever under Khmer rule? There are strong suggestions that Ayutthaya was ethnically very mixed, with the Thai element only coming to dominate later.

Naresuan the Great's father was a Burmese vassal, installed by the Burmese in place of the previous king of Ayutthaya. Naresuan the Great's early victories were achieved fighting for the Buremse.

The word 'Thai' is unlikely to refer to recent history. It's used by Tais from Yunnan (e.g. White Tai, Tai Lue) to Vietnam (e.g. Red Tai, Black Tai) - the speakers of the South Western and Central Tai languages. (Speakers of the Northern Tai languages, of which the most significan is probalby Northern Zhuang, do not call themselves Tai.)

King Ramkamheng was the one who pushed the Khmer back and helped to extend the Siam Empire out from Sukhothai, he also was responsible for the Thai language.....King Naresuan was Siam born but was captured and lived with the Burmese for many years before returning and leading forces against the Burmese. The word Thai is believed and probably does come from the Yunnan Tai tribes that established the Sukhothai empire (circa 1200 AD)

I cant find any mention of the reparation to Britain that you spoke of......

Deport them all.......

[kayo]

A further point of interest:

Thailand not only has never been colonised or truly taken over by any other power, but it is additionally the ONLY nation in the world to never have been so.

In about five years, many travels, and many conversations, I have never come across any other nations that have never been colonised.

[bkkmadness]

It was occupied by the Japanese though wasn't it?

[Sir Burr]

A further point of interest:

Thailand not only has never been colonised or truly taken over by any other power, but it is additionally the ONLY nation in the world to never have been so.

In about five years, many travels, and many conversations, I have never come across any other nations that have never been colonised.

Just off the top of my head, what about:-

Russia, Switzerland, Iceland, Sweden. Also, Thailand never came into existance until circa 1200AD. If you take the same time period, you can include England.

[Pie Boy]

My son loves this thread it makes him so proud to be Thai.Thanks to all the informative posters, keep 'em comin'

[dr_Pat_Pong]

It was occupied by the Japanese though wasn't it?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well ... kinda

[Richard W]

Russia, Switzerland, Iceland, Sweden.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The original Rus (whence the name Russia) were Scandinavians who colonised a Slavonic territory. Mind you, I think that was before 1000AD.

Iceland was a Norwegian settlement in a previously woman-free land that was taken over by Danes. According to Irish sources, the Danes and Norwegians considered one another's dead bodies as suitable anchors for spits for a victory feast.

[Richard W]

I've read that under the peace treaty, Thailand had to pay Britian reparations in the form of a large amount of rice.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I cant find any mention of the reparation to Britain that you spoke of......

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Try Google. A quick look found Pridi and the Civilian Regime, 1944-47.

[meadish_sweetball]

Russia, Switzerland, Iceland, Sweden.

The original Rus (whence the name Russia) were Scandinavians who colonised a Slavonic territory. Mind you, I think that was before 1000AD.

Iceland was a Norwegian settlement in a previously woman-free land that was taken over by Danes. According to Irish sources, the Danes and Norwegians considered one another's dead bodies as suitable anchors for spits for a victory feast.

Here is a sidetrack:

The Icelanders (famous pissheads and pisstakers, all 100 000 of them) were also quite recently kind enough to offer Master Bobby Fischer permanent residency after he was found hiding from the long arm of the US law in Japan since he chose to defy their sanctions and play chess in Yugoslavia some time during the Cold War.

Gotta love the Icelanders.

As for Sweden, the "core parts" have never been colonized, but the Southern regions (Skåne, Halland, Blekinge) were Danish before Sweden conquered them. Two regions in the North, Jämtland and Härjedalen, belonged to Denmark for some time (since Denmark had occupied Norway).

Stockholm has never been colonized though, except for by German tourists in the summertime.

[gburns57au]

I've read that under the peace treaty, Thailand had to pay Britian reparations in the form of a large amount of rice.

I cant find any mention of the reparation to Britain that you spoke of......

Try Google. A quick look found Pridi and the Civilian Regime, 1944-47.

Aw heck....did you have to do that.....now we will have to let them stay there...

[bkkmadness]

It was occupied by the Japanese though wasn't it?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well ... kinda

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Was that a kind of forgotten 'don't lose face' situation then Dr P?

Is occupation the same as colonisation, if not what are the differences?

[gburns57au]

It was occupied by the Japanese though wasn't it?

Well ... kinda

Was that a kind of forgotten 'don't lose face' situation then Dr P?

Is occupation the same as colonisation, if not what are the differences?

If you read back through the thread, I think we have covered this.

[Richard W]

King Ramkamheng was the one who pushed the Khmer back and helped to extend the Siam Empire out from Sukhothai, he also was responsible for the Thai language.....King Naresuan was Siam born but was captured and lived with the Burmese for many years before returning and leading forces against the Burmese. The word Thai is believed and probably does come from the Yunnan Tai tribes that established the Sukhothai empire (circa 1200 AD)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What's Ramkamhaeng got to do with the 'Siam empire'? The southern provinces, including what was to be Ayutthaya, broke away at the start of the reign of his son and successor, Loetai.

Was Naresuan captured? I've just heard that he was sent to the Burmese court as a hostage when the Burmese installed his father, Maha Dhammaraja, as vassal king of Ayutthaya.

[gburns57au]

King Ramkamheng was the one who pushed the Khmer back and helped to extend the Siam Empire out from Sukhothai, he also was responsible for the Thai language.....King Naresuan was Siam born but was captured and lived with the Burmese for many years before returning and leading forces against the Burmese. The word Thai is believed and probably does come from the Yunnan Tai tribes that established the Sukhothai empire (circa 1200 AD)

What's Ramkamhaeng got to do with the 'Siam empire'? The southern provinces, including what was to be Ayutthaya, broke away at the start of the reign of his son and successor, Loetai.

Was Naresuan captured? I've just heard that he was sent to the Burmese court as a hostage when the Burmese installed his father, Maha Dhammaraja, as vassal king of Ayutthaya.

I am quoting from a few of my sources on Thai history....so I can only qoute what I read....I did however cross reference the information rather than take information from just one source. But obviously there will be times when I cant verify information or answer particular questions. BTW I dont use the internet to find information as I have found that there are too many variations on the net.

According to my sources Naresuren was captured during an attack on Siam and was held captive for a number of years....on escaping he urged the withholding of the tribute to Burma and Burma then rose against him with a large army. It is rumoured that Naresuren and the Burmese crown prince actually fought against each other on elephant backs and Naresuren prevailed.

[Richard W]

I am quoting from a few of my sources on Thai history....so I can only qoute what I read....I did however cross reference the information rather than take information from just one source. But obviously there will be times when I cant verify information or answer particular questions. BTW I dont use the internet to find information as I have found that there are too many variations on the net.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And lots of straightforward copying!

Most of my information comes from the 'Popular History of Thailand' by ML Manich Jumsai. The primary sources are not as good as they might be - one gets an impression of their adequacy, or lack thereof, in Cambodia and Its Neighbors in the 15th Century. Further reading strongly suggests that we are not looking at a history of nation states, and emphasises that statements such as, 'the capital moved from Sukhothai to Ayutthaya' are as about as meaningful as talking about the capital of England moving before the Danish invasions destroyed most of the English kingdoms.

It is rumoured that Naresuren and the Burmese crown prince actually fought against each other on elephant backs and Naresuren prevailed.[/unquote]

This duel seems to be quite an article of faith. Is there serious reason for doubting it?

[gburns57au]

It is rumoured that Naresuren and the Burmese crown prince actually fought against each other on elephant backs and Naresuren prevailed.[/unquote]

This duel seems to be quite an article of faith. Is there serious reason for doubting it?

I am learning not to make definate statements here.....

[ProfessorFart]

Manich L Jumsai's book is not all that good. It tends to be rather sketchy. WAR Wood's a history of Siam and David Wyatt's Thailand a short History are both invaluable resources.

The Japanese issue is another one of the 'great debatables' of Thai history.

The simplest way to look at it is that in exchange for allowing the Japanese free and easy passage through Thailand, the Japanese allowed Thailand to remain autonomous. The real debateable point is how much real power Phibulsonkhram retained during this period. It is certain that he was able to maintain control of domestic affairs which were of little or no concern to the Japanese who had they have won the war in Asia would have taken Thailand as a matter of course. The real point of interest was the international affairs of state in which it would seem that the Japanese had a lot of influence in yet some historians argue about the level of the Japanese influence.

Naresuan was taken by the Burmese to ensure that Maha Tammaraja remained loyal to the Burmese. When the tributary agreement between the Burmese and Ayutthya was scrapped in 1584 the Burmese took umbrage and attacked Ayutthya but Naresuan had expected this to happen and was able not only to repel the Burmese but take Lanna Thai. Naresuan became King in 1591 during which time he repelled the Burmese again killing Prince MinchitSra in Suphanburi.

[meom]

The Japanese issue is another one of the 'great debatables' of Thai history.

The simplest way to look at it is that in exchange for allowing the Japanese free and easy passage through Thailand, the Japanese allowed Thailand to remain autonomous. The real debateable point is how much real power Phibulsonkhram retained during this period.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought Phibun never had any real power in the first place cause he was installed by the army as a window dresser and the real power among others was with General Phin Choonhavan, commander of the northern army who also occupied the Shan States, thereby securing an unlimited supply of opium which basically bankrolled the army and later military dictatorships for years to come.

[ProfessorFart]

Phibul was the proverbial man of iron who after being installed as PM by the 1932 coup quickly worked to secure total power for himself. It took intense Seri Thai machinations coupled with the defeat of the Japanese to oust him from power the frst time.

Any power in his regime was given totally at his own discretion, any resistance was crushed. You don't gain the stickability he had by being a puppet.

Take a look at Kobkua Suwannathat Pian's interesting biography, Thailand's Durable Premier: Phibun Through Three Decades 1932-1957. It shows him in a kinder light than some histories.

Phin Choonhavan came along later, leading the during the post war ousting of Thamrong which saw Phibul's return to power in 1948.

[meom]

...Phin Choonhavan came along later, leading the during the post war ousting of Thamrong which saw Phibul's return to power in 1948.

Power given to him by Phin Choonhavan and his junta since it were the remnants of Phin's northern command (which was disbanded by Pridi) that kicked-out Pridi in November 1947.

Phin became the army commander and his follower Sarit became in charge of the first infantry regiment that controls Bangkok. Besides that Phin's son in law Phao became director of the national police. The same people were part of the junta that seized power in 1932.

Phibun was a figurehead controlled by Phin and his lot. This became clear in 1951 when the navy tried to oust Phin and Phao. Apparently they failed to kidnap Phin and Phao; instead they arrested Phibun during a ceremony on a battleship.

Since Phin controlled the airforce he simply gave orders to sink the ship leaving Phibun to himself who had to swim to shore.

[ProfessorFart]

I disagree that Phibul was merely a figurehead. Its an over simplfied way of looking at his relationship with the military.

[more to follow]

Edited April 6, 2005 by ProfessorFart

[meom]

I disagree that Phibul was merely a figurehead. Its an over simplfied way of looking at his relationship with the military.

[more to follow]

True in a way it is but then again one should not look purely to Phibun's relation with the military but how the military itself was intertwined with business & politics.

In the big scheme of things, if there is such a thing, Phin was pulling more strings than Phibun.

For example it was Phin who got Phibun (and himself) off the hook after they were charged with war crimes by the Pridi government.

However in the end they were all involved in the same thing; ensuring that the military controlled the country and thanks to the cold war with full support of the US who were more than happy that the marxist Pridi was removed.

[gburns57au]

have a good book called the Bangkok Secret....which delves into some things about Phao and his involvement in the opium trade....While this book is a novel and I dont use it as a source...it is an interesting read....the story is about the death of King Ananda and subsequent events...

[Oleg_Rus]

there are different books and different writers. my question is - what is the point of this discussion? was s**m the colony or occupied ? does it really matter now?

look at great european history - small islands like brits ruled millions., dutch, germans, french had greatest history battles, intrigues, poisons and murders.... Nothing could even come close to midleage history of europe - surely not some stoned wars in china or local disputes between tribes over few rice fields near the river.

and russia also travelled a lot with "small" fleet around here!

[gburns57au]

there are different books and different writers. my question is - what is the point of this discussion? was s**m the colony or occupied ? does it really matter now?

look at great european history - small islands like brits ruled millions., dutch, germans, french had greatest history battles, intrigues, poisons and murders.... Nothing could even come close to midleage history of europe - surely not some stoned wars in china or local disputes between tribes over few rice fields near the river.

and russia also travelled a lot with "small" fleet around here!

The point of this is that people are learning about Thailand and its history....there are some that think Thailand is more interesting than sitting in a bar drinking booze all day

it is about culture and understanding.....and as this a Thai forum, why would discuss European or soviet history here...I am sure there are forums for that.