A Historical Analysis Of Why Thailand Likes America

[jayboy]

I don't think anyone consider's Thailand to have been an Axis power. More to the point, their leaders were well aware they could not stand up to the Japanese militarily, and wanted to protect their country as best they could. No sense fighting a war that was lost before it started. The reason the US did not consider Thailand to be "at war" was the result of a canny Thai amabassador, who did not deliever Thailand's "Declaration of War" to the US.

Thailand declared war and therefore was a member of the axis powers. Their reason for doing so has been pointed out by other posters - they thought Japan would win. The war was certainly not lost before it started. Have you not read how the war developed. At the point when Thailand declared war no-one was certian of the outcome. Germany and Japan looked like winning. The turning point came much later.

America did accept that Thailand was a member of the axis powers, what it did not accept was that there should be reparations. If you look at the names on the headstones of war cemeteries in Kanchanaburi you will note the nationalities of those who died. Then you can see why it was not an American convern.

The fact that the US ambassador did not originally deliver the declaration of war is irrelevant. In international law a declaration is made when an aggressive nation makes the declaration. It does not have to be delivered.

To put this in perspective, France was overrun by Germany and large parts governed by Vichy but it never declared war. The legal government - in exile - under de Gaulle was an ally. You need to consider too the level of organised resistance put up by the respective nations.

This is a very accurate and admirably concise summary of the position, caf.

My purpose here is to draw attention to RustyYellowDodge's original post because it neatly encapsulates the version of history accepted by many Thais and taught in schools.In brief it is a slovenly

complacent and dishonest version of events compounded by an almost complete lack of intellectual curiosity.Even that hoary old canard about Seni Pramoj refusing to deliver the formal declaration of war is repeated.To be fair many nations fail to face up to their past -Japan, Russia and China all coming to mind and Thailand is very far from being the worst offender.Also in Thailand's case the lessons of history are just lack of principle and excessive self regard, not open criminality as in the three examples I mentioned.Overall then Thailand doesn't have too much to agonise over - not that there's any prospect of even limited introspection on past errors!

[caf]

The issue of reparations keeps coming up. I am not sure, but I am wondering what role the whole issue of colonization played in the US being opposed to reparations. Most of SEA, with the exception of Thailand, were colonies. Or is this part of the buffer zone idea?

Not only did the UK, and China want reparations they wanted to occupy Thailand. The US insisted that the UK had agreed to the Atlantic charter in 1941 which stated 1. No territorial gains were to be sought by the United States or the United Kingdom. 2. Territorial adjustments must be in accord with the wishes of the peoples concerned. 3. All peoples had a right to self-determination. 4. Trade barriers were to be lowered. 5. There was to be global economic cooperation and advancement of social welfare. 6. Freedom from want and fear. Freedom of the seas. 7. Disarmament of aggressor nations, postwar common disarmament.

Churchill tried to back out of this agreement on numerous occasions because of India and the Balkans in addition to Thailand. And the Charter had never actually been signed but the US prevailed in Thailand and Churchill backed down.

I don't know about China; but the UK certainly did not want to occupy Thailand. What source gave you that? It did not have the military or financial resources, or intent. Maintaining it as a buffer state was a goal.

[chiangmaikelly]

The issue of reparations keeps coming up. I am not sure, but I am wondering what role the whole issue of colonization played in the US being opposed to reparations. Most of SEA, with the exception of Thailand, were colonies. Or is this part of the buffer zone idea?

Not only did the UK, and China want reparations they wanted to occupy Thailand. The US insisted that the UK had agreed to the Atlantic charter in 1941 which stated 1. No territorial gains were to be sought by the United States or the United Kingdom. 2. Territorial adjustments must be in accord with the wishes of the peoples concerned. 3. All peoples had a right to self-determination. 4. Trade barriers were to be lowered. 5. There was to be global economic cooperation and advancement of social welfare. 6. Freedom from want and fear. Freedom of the seas. 7. Disarmament of aggressor nations, postwar common disarmament.

Churchill tried to back out of this agreement on numerous occasions because of India and the Balkans in addition to Thailand. And the Charter had never actually been signed but the US prevailed in Thailand and Churchill backed down.

I don't know about China; but the UK certainly did not want to occupy Thailand. What source gave you that? It did not have the military or financial resources, or intent. Maintaining it as a buffer state was a goal.

Not only did the UK want to occupy Thailand they did occupy Thailand!

In August 1945 30,000 troops from the British and Indian army under General Slim moved in from Burma overland and by air to Bangkok. There were a lot more troops ready to move in but did not because of political maneuvering by the US.

They stayed for a year, assuming command of Bangkok. They freed the Allied prisoners, civilian internees and returned 100,000 Japanese troops to Japan.

I imagine you could verify this information by google for General Slim or try and acquaint yourself with some good history books about WW II in South East Asia. You might even find out about the British war in Vietnam! How many Vietnamese were the Brits responsible for killing? Now that's an interesting subject but not Thai related.

[CobraSnakeNecktie]

maybe it was a lucky guess to cozy up to America but it sure makes Thailand look smart. Most of the other SEA countries are less than well fed and internally stable. I would chalk it up to Thai pragmatism and flexibility that they were able to help Thailand's people as a whole. Thailand is the shining star of SEA. Prosperous, not starving, well balanced and decent place to live.

With a few different decisions Siam could of ended up like Myanmar.

Thai's do have a lot to smile about when one considers having to live in Myanmar, Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, Bangladesh, Phillipines, China, India, Sri Lanka or Malaysia. What asian country would be considered a step up? Maybe Singapore, Japan, Taiwan or Korea.

[caf]

quote

The issue of reparations keeps coming up. I am not sure, but I am wondering what role the whole issue of colonization played in the US being opposed to reparations. Most of SEA, with the exception of Thailand, were colonies. Or is this part of the buffer zone idea?

Not only did the UK, and China want reparations they wanted to occupy Thailand. The US insisted that the UK had agreed to the Atlantic charter in 1941 which stated 1. No territorial gains were to be sought by the United States or the United Kingdom. 2. Territorial adjustments must be in accord with the wishes of the peoples concerned. 3. All peoples had a right to self-determination. 4. Trade barriers were to be lowered. 5. There was to be global economic cooperation and advancement of social welfare. 6. Freedom from want and fear. Freedom of the seas. 7. Disarmament of aggressor nations, postwar common disarmament.

Churchill tried to back out of this agreement on numerous occasions because of India and the Balkans in addition to Thailand. And the Charter had never actually been signed but the US prevailed in Thailand and Churchill backed down.

quote

I don't know about China; but the UK certainly did not want to occupy Thailand. What source gave you that? It did not have the military or financial resources, or intent. Maintaining it as a buffer state was a goal.

quote

Not only did the UK want to occupy Thailand they did occupy Thailand!

In August 1945 30,000 troops from the British and Indian army under General Slim moved in from Burma overland and by air to Bangkok. There were a lot more troops ready to move in but did not because of political maneuvering by the US.

They stayed for a year, assuming command of Bangkok. They freed the Allied prisoners, civilian internees and returned 100,000 Japanese troops to Japan.

I imagine you could verify this information by google for General Slim or try and acquaint yourself with some good history books about WW II in South East Asia. You might even find out about the British war in Vietnam! How many Vietnamese were the Brits responsible for killing? Now that's an interesting subject but not Thai related.

quote

I don't dispute what you say at all. They did invade and as you say freed many internees as apart of the war effort.

But the point I was replying to was your quote "Not only did the UK, and China want reparations they wanted to occupy Thailand.". That implies they wanted to occupy after the war

It was after the war that the matter of reparations came up and as you say was blocked by the americans.

[kikoman]

The Hmong story revolves around Tony P. Who was the model for the crazy guy in Apocalypse Now. The Thais kicked him out of Chiang Mai a few years ago because he used to go around town drunk shooting his 45. But the Hmong loved him and he was married to a tribal princess. Until he died he ran the Hmong community in the US. I don't know how many are in the US but there is a lot.

Apparently at least 168,000 in the US. Thai is spoken at home by 120,000.

According to the US Census of 2000, there are over 320 languages spoken at home. I've selected some below. Some relevant to SE Asia, others as a reference or just out of curiosity.

You can find the source file here: http://www.census.gov/population/www/cen20...-t20/index.html

Language Spoken at Home for the United States: 2000

Language Number of speakers Arabic 614,580 Balinese 125 Burmese 19,700 Cantonese 259,750 Chinese 1,499,635 English only 215,423,555 Finnish 39,770 French 1,606,790 German 1,382,615 Hebrew 195,375 Japanese 477,995 Korean 894,065 Laotian 149,305 Mandarin 174,550 Miao, Hmong 168,065 Miao-Yao, Mien 16,510 Mon-Khmer, Cambodian 181,890 Spanish 28,100,725 Swedish 67,655 Thai 120,465 Vietnamese 1,009,625

Many people and cultures, make up the population of the United States which is a country of immigrants, in the US. there are 4 states that are minority/majority states. the so called minorities are the now the majority-in Texas, New Mexico, California and Hawaii.Source http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/censusanssta...a/minmajpop.htm

There is a large population from Vietnam, and many Hmong are being allowed to enter the US, not enough to paid the debt in blood owned them and other Ethic people that were allies to the US in that war. Just a few days ago I saw pictures of Hmong being returned to Laos from Thailand , to an uncertain fate.

Cheers:

[chiangmaikelly]

About the reparations.

There was a wide difference in the way the British and the Americans wanted to treat Thailand after the war.

The Brits wanted to treat Thailand as an enemy, occupy the country and extract reparations as punishment. Remember Thailand was the only other country that joined Japan’s war effort freely. Unlike the members of T.V. or modern Thai’s the Brits knew that Thailand had joined Japan’s war effort for profit and territorial gain and not just out of fear.

The Americans did not feel the same way. Why? It would make an interesting book. At any rate the Americans did not feel the same way.

Churchill had agreed to the principles of the Atlantic Charter when the Empire was in major trouble. But after the war reverted back to a more colonial attitude and tried to resume the place that the UK had held before the war.

I don’t think there is any evidence to suggest that Britain wanted Thailand as a colony. I do think there is ample evidence to suggest they wanted punish the Thais for being on the Japanese side during the war.

Had Thailand been on the other side the war might have gone much differently. For sure it would have gone much slower and Singapore and Burma would have been more defendable. Singapore was a close battle as it was with the Brits having a 3 to 1 manpower advantage and the Japanese out of artillery shells. The Japanese commander even said it was a bluff that worked.

It’s easy to see why the Brits were angry with Thailand. But the Americans prevailed and in a year the Brit troops left because they had more problems in India anyway. At first the Brits wanted 1.5 million pounds of rice and settled for a lot less. The Thais paid it off in two years with no one starving. And the Thai government kept control of the rice trade.

You might want to read, “An Uneasy Peace: Britain, the United States and Australia's Pursuit of War Reparations from Thailand, 1945-1952” for a more complete discussion of the issue.

[khaowong1]

The Thais beat the French too?

There is also an interesting reference to the Plain of Jars (and the 'secret war') but I'm not sure the OP got the story right. Weren't the Thais on the plain (paid) 'volunteers' led by regular army officers? Making the connection between last week's news and the other group on the US side at that time, I wonder if the Hmong still love the Americans?

The Thais were Army who dressed up as Military police or something like that, its been a while. The Bangkok post was writing stories about how Thailand was not in Laos when we picked them up. Yes the Thais were technically mercenaries but they had 10 battalions in Laos and a whole division in Vietnam.

The Hmong story revolves around Tony P. Who was the model for the crazy guy in Apocalypse Now. The Thais kicked him out of Chiang Mai a few years ago because he used to go around town drunk shooting his 45. But the Hmong loved him and he was married to a tribal princess. Until he died he ran the Hmong community in the US. I don't know how many are in the US but there is a lot.

my sister who works at a hospital in Fresno, California, says there's over 35,000 hmong in and around Fresno, because of the farming there, she mentioned that there's supposedly over 50,000 in California..

[khaowong1]

Most people think that photojounalist Tim Page was the model for the character that Dennis Hopper played in Apocalypse Now. Are you talking about another "crazy guy"?

I never heard of Tony P. in Chaing Mai and I was around back then.

sorry man, but it was Marlon Brando who played the infamous crazy colonel part in Apocalypse Now, not Dennis Hopper.

[geriatrickid]

The US had a bad track record on its allies in SE Asia. It had a chance to develop very close relations with Vietanam, but the fears of "communism" meant the OSS analysis and pleas were ignored. Instead it made the strategic error of backing the losing side and Thailand, a country that really had nothing in common with US values. When you think about it the struggle of the Vietnamese to throw off colonial oppression, first with the French and then the Japanese, should have struck a chord with the USA. The US made a major strategic error in ignoring Churchill both in SE Asia and in Europe. The iron curtain came down because the Americans did not understand the Russians the way Churchill did. Of course Thailand liked the Americans. By poor strategy and stupidity, Thailand was the only ally of convenience in the region and could exact the price for its friendship. Just imagine if the USA had followed US values and had made India a close friend during the cold war. It's unbelievable that US foreign policy pushed India into the Soviet camp. Thailand can never be considered an ally of the USA. Friendly for profit taking reasons only and because it benefited the various regimes to have the Americans prop them up against potentially hostile nations on its border. A true ally of the USA is something like the UK or Canada or even Australia. Countries that have shed blood and taken tough decisions to support the well being of the US. Thailand will never put itself out for the USA unless there is some money to be made.

[ferd54]

Most people think that photojounalist Tim Page was the model for the character that Dennis Hopper played in Apocalypse Now. Are you talking about another "crazy guy"?

I never heard of Tony P. in Chaing Mai and I was around back then.

sorry man, but it was Marlon Brando who played the infamous crazy colonel part in Apocalypse Now, not Dennis Hopper.

Brando played crazy Col. Kurtz. Dennis Hopper played the crazy photographer.

[chiangmaikelly]

The US had a bad track record on its allies in SE Asia. It had a chance to develop very close relations with Vietanam, but the fears of "communism" meant the OSS analysis and pleas were ignored. Instead it made the strategic error of backing the losing side and Thailand, a country that really had nothing in common with US values. When you think about it the struggle of the Vietnamese to throw off colonial oppression, first with the French and then the Japanese, should have struck a chord with the USA. The US made a major strategic error in ignoring Churchill both in SE Asia and in Europe. The iron curtain came down because the Americans did not understand the Russians the way Churchill did. Of course Thailand liked the Americans. By poor strategy and stupidity, Thailand was the only ally of convenience in the region and could exact the price for its friendship. Just imagine if the USA had followed US values and had made India a close friend during the cold war. It's unbelievable that US foreign policy pushed India into the Soviet camp. Thailand can never be considered an ally of the USA. Friendly for profit taking reasons only and because it benefited the various regimes to have the Americans prop them up against potentially hostile nations on its border. A true ally of the USA is something like the UK or Canada or even Australia. Countries that have shed blood and taken tough decisions to support the well being of the US. Thailand will never put itself out for the USA unless there is some money to be made.

Directly after Japanese surrendered the Brits went to Saigon and let the French people out of jail. The Vietnamese killed a few French people and the French overreacted re-armed the Japanese and they both killed a lot of Vietnamese people. Then the Americans in Vietnam had a small war with the French. A lot of people were killed but it never made headlines.

Ho and the boys up North didn’t want to have anything to do with the Nationalist Chinese army. Understandable because they stole everything that wasn’t nailed down in Hanoi and millions starved.

Ho took all the land away from the Catholic Vietnamese in the North and gave it to the peasants. This was cool with the commies but did not sit well with the French. The Americans and the Brits had also always had a problem with this Robin Hood method of land distribution.

Roughly the same things were happening in Laos and Cambodia. The independence movements had taken advantage of four years of war to build up their new power bases.

The US was hamstrung by its commitments to the Chinese government in Taiwan and the French. It couldn’t make alliances with the fledgling communist states that were leaning so strongly towards communist China.

Strange as it may seem Thailand had a much stronger history with the US than the other countries in the region. If you explore the relationship between the relatives of Woodrow Wilson the American President and the Thai Royal Family you will find some amazing stories centering around Martha’s Vineyard and Harvard University that go back 100 years. Woodrow Wilson’s family was also instrumental in helping Thailand remove the damaging tariffs of the early 1900’s.

I spent time in Thailand, Vietnam and Taiwan during the 1960’s both in and out of the Army. My pilot during that period was an ex French Foreign Legion pilot. He was a Polish man. He had been captured by the Germans during one of the last cavalry charges of horses against tanks in the opening days of WW II. He later escaped made his way to South East Asia and enlisted in the Legion.

I had to fly 18 hours a week to get flight pay and this old Polish guy was the safest pilot we had so I flew with him weekly. 18 hours a week I got stories about South East Asia from the perspective of a war weary mercenary who had seen it all.

I was too close to the action, I couldn’t see the forest for the trees. I only got the flavor of the times. It was a confusing period in Thailand even more so in Vietnam. The mistakes that were made were many. Britain first and then France and then the US.

Britain for not realizing the days of Empire were over. France for trying to rebuild its colonial Empire and the United States for not forcing France and Britain to stick to the principles agreed to in the Atlantic Charter.

[Travel2003]

The Thais beat the French too?

Actually, not quite.  After the Fall of France to the Germans and when the Japanese started to expand into Indochina, the French had several incidents with their colonial possessions powers.  The Thais saw this as an opportunity to get back land ceded to France earlier, and they attacked the Vichy French colonial administration in Laos, using their better-equipped air force to do some damage there.  The Thai Army was able to then move in and take Vientiane.   They were stopped by the French (mostly French Foreign Legion soldiers) in trying to take Cambodia, so that was mostly a stalemate.  And they lost the naval battle which was the last fighting of the conflict.  The Japanese stepped in and told both parties to stop, giving Thailand back some of the disputed territory, leaving Vichy France with the rest.

Militarily at best a draw, the Thai's trumpeted the fact that this was the first time they had ever gotten anything from a European power and quickly declared a victory.  Victory Monument was erected a very short time later.

I think I read somewhere that Thailand used the oportunity to take 5 different areas from their neighbours (Malaysia, Laos, Cambodia, Burma), endorsed by Japan.

But they had to deliver the areas back after the war, correct?

Victory Monument?

Same type of Monument any aggressor would erect.

Historically, Thailand (together with Burma) has been the most agressive nation in this region.

Only natural that Thailand admired Japan.

Back to the title in the thread.

I didnt know Thailand liked America more than other countries.

Maybe some old Thai politicians and military personnel historically like America.

Thais in general doesnt know that much about America, so why should they like America more than other countries?

[HAL9000]

A lot of the questions being raised here are addressed in the Wikipedia article on The Japanese Occupation of Thailand, History of Thailand, The Franco-Thai War, and Vang Pao:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_occupation_of_Thailand

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Thailand_(1932-1973)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-Thai_War

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vang_Pao

[dudemeister]

Most people think that photojounalist Tim Page was the model for the character that Dennis Hopper played in Apocalypse Now. Are you talking about another "crazy guy"?

I never heard of Tony P. in Chaing Mai and I was around back then.

sorry man, but it was Marlon Brando who played the infamous crazy colonel part in Apocalypse Now, not Dennis Hopper.

Brando played crazy Col. Kurtz. Dennis Hopper played the crazy photographer.

But this poster is talking about the character Dennis Hopper played. And Tim Page certainly fits the model!

Maybe the poster found Hopper's character to be more crazy than Brando's.

[ferd54]

Ho and the boys up North didn’t want to have anything to do with the Nationalist Chinese army. Understandable because they stole everything that wasn’t nailed down in Hanoi and millions starved.

Ho took all the land away from the Catholic Vietnamese in the North and gave it to the peasants. This was cool with the commies but did not sit well with the French. The Americans and the Brits had also always had a problem with this Robin Hood method of land distribution.

Roughly the same things were happening in Laos and Cambodia. The independence movements had taken advantage of four years of war to build up their new

Britain for not realizing the days of Empire were over. France for trying to rebuild its colonial Empire and the United States for not forcing France and Britain to stick to the principles agreed to in the Atlantic Charter.

It's hard to see how the US in 1945 could foresee the outcome of the Chinese civil war, which continued until 1949, when the US backed Thailand and protected it from being declared a defeated enemy state right after WWII.

Things were very much in flux, but it's certain that US intelligence and policymakers were already obsessed with the communist threat. That then begs the question how much their anti-communist zeal -- possibly well-founded, possibly not -- helped bring about the very thing they feared. By not dealing with Uncle Ho, they certainly made one of the great global strategic mistakes of the last half of the 20th Century.

The US may have done a fantastic job in Western Europe and Japan after WWII, but it seems their SE Asia policy was a disaster. As for China, I have native-born colleagues here in China who wonder outloud how much better off the country would be today if the KMT prevailed, even with all its corruption. Mao's rule was nothing short of horrific. Yet even if the pro-KMT policy of the US was perhaps the better course, the hard fact remains that the US failed in it.

The world could be a far different place today, but I suppose that's true of so many of the momentous decisions that were made following WWII.

[geriatrickid]

Ferd, I can't argue your points but for the life of me I can't understand why the Americans did what they did in Thailand. it can be argued that the moral decay started with the advent of using Thailand as an R&R base. All that money and all those horny servicemen in an impoverished nation. A government paying off officials to allow operations and activities that were contrary to the rules set out by US Congress. I just don't get how a country which had so much moral integrity and that basically paid for the building of modern Europe could have so willingly sowed the seeds of moral decay and avarice here. The weirdest part was that the Americans were a morally upright nation and believed in the dignity of man. They did a good job in Korea and they did a good job in Japan and but they are loathed despite the massive sacrifice in blood. And yet, they make a mess of things in Thailand and they are loved. Go figger.

[Ulysses G.]

I just don't get how a country which had so much moral integrity and that basically paid for the building of modern Europe could have so willingly sowed the seeds of moral decay and avarice here. The weirdest part was that the Americans were a morally upright nation and believed in the dignity of man. They did a good job in Korea and they did a good job in Japan and but they are loathed despite the massive sacrifice in blood. And yet, they make a mess of things in Thailand and they are loved. Go figger.

Are you talking about letting the servicemen frequent the local cathouses? They did the same in the Philipines, Korea and Japan. How do you blame the U.S. for traditions that go way back in time?

You really are turning into an old fart old timer!

[ferd54]

Ferd, I can't argue your points but for the life of me I can't understand why the Americans did what they did in Thailand. it can be argued that the moral decay started with the advent of using Thailand as an R&R base. All that money and all those horny servicemen in an impoverished nation. A government paying off officials to allow operations and activities that were contrary to the rules set out by US Congress. I just don't get how a country which had so much moral integrity and that basically paid for the building of modern Europe could have so willingly sowed the seeds of moral decay and avarice here. The weirdest part was that the Americans were a morally upright nation and believed in the dignity of man. They did a good job in Korea and they did a good job in Japan and but they are loathed despite the massive sacrifice in blood. And yet, they make a mess of things in Thailand and they are loved. Go figger.

I'm not talking about "moral decay" -- and for that matter the US hardly sowed the seeds of avarice in Thailand. That, I believe, seems to be in their own mother's milk.

I'm talking about helping Uncle Ho instead of backing him into a corner ... and on top of that jumping into bed with corrupt Thai strongmen who then ruled the country.

[chiangmaikelly]

Ferd, I can't argue your points but for the life of me I can't understand why the Americans did what they did in Thailand. it can be argued that the moral decay started with the advent of using Thailand as an R&R base. All that money and all those horny servicemen in an impoverished nation. A government paying off officials to allow operations and activities that were contrary to the rules set out by US Congress. I just don't get how a country which had so much moral integrity and that basically paid for the building of modern Europe could have so willingly sowed the seeds of moral decay and avarice here. The weirdest part was that the Americans were a morally upright nation and believed in the dignity of man. They did a good job in Korea and they did a good job in Japan and but they are loathed despite the massive sacrifice in blood. And yet, they make a mess of things in Thailand and they are loved. Go figger.

Gee you should at least know a little about what you are talking about!

In country R & R locations: China beach, Saigon, Vung Tau. Saigon made Bangkok seem tame.

Saigon also had the largest brothel the world has ever known (Hall of mirrors, 1200 female employees) before the GI’s got there and it was owned by Vietnamese with almost 100% Asian customers.

Out of country R&R locations: Australia (Sydney) 10 months in country Bangkok 03 months in country Tokyo 06 1/2 months in country Hong Kong 03 months in country Manila 03 months in country Hawaii 06 months in country Singapore 03 months in country Taipei 03 months in country Penang.

I went to Hong Kong, Taipei and Hawaii. All of those locations had better sex scenes than Thailand.

The hardest R&R to get was Hawaii everyone wanted to go there. Thailand got a small percent of the total R&R customers.

Beer was way too expensive on R&R in Thailand. $1.00 a bottle. It was free in Vietnam as were cigarettes and whiskey.

King’s Cross was developed in Sydney during this time and was a lot bawdier than Bangkok.

Thailand had a well established network of Brothels in the 15^th century. Read the logs of the French and Portuguese sailors.

You might want to check the number of opium dens in Bangkok 20 years before the US servicemen got there. It is hard to believe. You also might want to check out the bars on the waterfront in Bangkok 20 years before the US servicemen got there.

The Americans on R&R created no moral decay in Thailand. The Americans stationed in Thailand created education, infrastructure and health care for the peasant population.

Where you have large populations of soldiers you have large red light districts. This was true of England, Australia, America, Japan, Korea and on and on. The red light districts were in Thailand before the GI’s got there and they are still here now.

There were large red light districts in Tokyo before Americans got there and they are still there now. There were large red light districts in Hamburg before GI’s got there and they are still there now. They are still in New York they are still in Cuba and on and on. Get over it. The girls are cheaper in Cuba than Phuket! Per capita the number of women employed in the bright light trade has not changed. No, I can’t document that except that I was in Bangkok before the GI’s got there and now and it is the same although the clubs look a bit different. I was in Chiang Mai in 1968 and there were no GI’s there but prostitution was rampant. Now there is less. Chiang Mai was an R&R area for opium armies in case you didn’t know. They ran 100 mule trains loaded with opium down the main streets of Chiang Mai before any GI’s set foot in the town.

Most of the GI’s on R&R in my experience signed a contract with a woman and had a substitute wife for 5 days. Hardly contributing to moral decay. It is the same deal that Portuguese sailors were offered 500 years ago upon docking in Thailand.

[PawyiLee]

Some years ago I read the memoirs of a British consul who spent most of his life in Siam, but I can't remember his name. He had been the beneficiary of an aborted British scheme to take youth into its foreign service and educate them on the job. I believe he said that he and another fellow were inducted at age 18, but neither the other fellow or the scheme lasted for long. It was a fascinating read, but he left out the chapter on his experiences during WWII, other than to indicate he was so embittered that he would have been happy for Britain to occupy Thailand, and exact heavy reparations. Anybody know his name?

[chiangmaikelly]

Ho and the boys up North didn't want to have anything to do with the Nationalist Chinese army. Understandable because they stole everything that wasn't nailed down in Hanoi and millions starved.

Ho took all the land away from the Catholic Vietnamese in the North and gave it to the peasants. This was cool with the commies but did not sit well with the French. The Americans and the Brits had also always had a problem with this Robin Hood method of land distribution.

Roughly the same things were happening in Laos and Cambodia. The independence movements had taken advantage of four years of war to build up their new

Britain for not realizing the days of Empire were over. France for trying to rebuild its colonial Empire and the United States for not forcing France and Britain to stick to the principles agreed to in the Atlantic Charter.

It's hard to see how the US in 1945 could foresee the outcome of the Chinese civil war, which continued until 1949, when the US backed Thailand and protected it from being declared a defeated enemy state right after WWII.

Things were very much in flux, but it's certain that US intelligence and policymakers were already obsessed with the communist threat. That then begs the question how much their anti-communist zeal -- possibly well-founded, possibly not -- helped bring about the very thing they feared. By not dealing with Uncle Ho, they certainly made one of the great global strategic mistakes of the last half of the 20th Century.

The US may have done a fantastic job in Western Europe and Japan after WWII, but it seems their SE Asia policy was a disaster. As for China, I have native-born colleagues here in China who wonder outloud how much better off the country would be today if the KMT prevailed, even with all its corruption. Mao's rule was nothing short of horrific. Yet even if the pro-KMT policy of the US was perhaps the better course, the hard fact remains that the US failed in it.

The world could be a far different place today, but I suppose that's true of so many of the momentous decisions that were made following WWII.

Perhaps the Americans should have started talking to Uncle Ho after he beat the French in 1954 but we had just ended the Korean war against the Chinese communists who were also backing North Vietnam with men and equipment.

Vietnam was partitioned by the Geneva accords at the 17^th parallel.

Ho begins land reforms in the peoples court and kills thousands giving their land away.

The peasants revolt in North Vietnam and 6000 are killed.

In 1957 the US opposes unifying elections fearing Ho will win and there will be an ensuing bloodbath in South Vietnam and Thailand will be in danger from a united communist Vietnam, the next domino.

The US might have been right or wrong but after this there was no turning back the die was cast.

My personal opinion for what it is worth is the US should have backed national elections and let the cards fall where they may. But it was too late for that. The US had paid for the last 10 years of the French war in Vietnam anyway and were already committed.

[LaoPo]

I'm puzzled about the (self proclaimed) amateur-historian OP, member chiangmaikelly and his topic title:

A Historical Analysis Of Why Thailand Likes America

I wonder why he doesn't mention all of his sources as some of his posts are written in a total different way than others. ANY historian would publish his sources if he speaks about ANALYSIS of a certain period in history and/or/of a country; it's a -must- etiquette in history, worldwide.

It certainly looks like (some of) his posts are partly pasted-and-copied from other sources.

Also, I think his views why "Thailand" likes America so much are seen from rather colored glasses; it's difficult for anybody to speak about Thai and Thailand as if it's a FACT that Thailand likes America (or any other country) so much; how does he know the thoughts of 66 million people ?

Is/was there a nationwide poll in Thailand about this ?

If one is not an American nor Thai, like myself, it's reading like a promotion article about America. I like reading promotion articles; it's like reading a brochure for a holiday on Pattaya beach, Samui or Phuket.....coloured (or colored for the Americans) and different than reality.

Nothing wrong with that but a little misty why he does so and how he knows.

To comfort his own views and thoughts ?

Maybe chiangmaikelly can clarify ?

History is one of the most difficult subjects in the world BECAUSE every single government print their own history books, whilst other countries are telling the real truth (in their own eyes that is).

What you get is a milkshake.

Meaning: During the COLD WAR the Western European countries and the US were feeding us about the bad Russians....whilst at the same time the Russians were fed with bad news about the bad Americans and Western Europeans.

result: 2 groups of people not liking each other.

Same-same in Thailand: what does the Thai government tell their children about their role before and during WWII....? That was not very nice, heh, Mr. Thailand

What does the Japanese government tell their citizens about WWII and the cruelties their soldiers committed ? What do they (still) tell their scholars about Pearl Harbor.....

History :D

LaoPo

[caf]

There are so many inaccuracies being quoted in this thread, the posts about r and r and whorehouses seem welcome relief.

One can google I suppose to get the facts about Thailand and WW2; but another way is to read some decent history books and published diaries. I will take up chiangmaikelly's recommendation to read up about general slim. A very unbiased read is the diaries of Lord Allanbrooke. He gives both sides of the argument.

With respect to Chiangmaikelly, while some of what he posts is true he does not give a complete account and makes some facts out of context. Quite unforgiveable in a historian.

Reparations are not punishments - they are different concepts; Russia mainly obtained what it wanted in reparations - America did nothing to stop that; Thailand did declare war; The Japanese did treat Thailand like a land of occupation and suffered much. Japan had to make reparations.

There are other factors why Thailand likes America, and why America has the relationship it has. A selection of readings from both eminent and qualified american and British historians would give one a full account and give both sides of the discussion. Probably not suitable for a forum though.

( Shirer has written much on WW2 )

caf

[DegenFarang]

Ｉ　ｄｏｎｔ　ｋｎｏｗ　ｔｈａｔ　ｔｈｅ　Ｔｈａｉ’ｓ　ｅｓｐｅｃｉａｌｌｙ　ｌｉｋｅ　Ａｍｅｒｉｃａ　ｏｒ　ｉｆ　ｔｈｅｙ　ｄｏ　ｉｔ　ｉｓ　ｆｏｒ　ｔｈｅ　ｒｅａｓｏｎｓ　ｙｏｕ　ｓｔａｔｅｄ　－　ｈｏｗｅｖｅｒ　ｔｈａｔ　ｗａｓ　ａ　ｖｅｒｙ　ｉｎｆｏｒｍｉｎｇ　ｗｒｉｔｅｕｐ．　Ｅｓｐｅｃｉａｌｌｙ　ｔｈｅ　ｐａｒｔｓ　ａｂｏｕｔ　ｔｈｅ　Ｆｒｅｎｃｈ　ｗａｒ　（ｄｉｄｎ’ｔ　ｋｎｏｗ　ｔｈａｔ　ｈａｐｐｅｎｅｄ）　ａｎｄ　ｔｈａｔ　ｔｈｅ　Ｋｉｎｇ　ｉｓ　ａｎ　Ａｍｅｒｉｃａｎ　（ｗｏｗ！）．

Edited January 3, 2010 by DegenFarang

[sharecropper]

Ｉ　ｄｏｎｔ　ｋｎｏｗ　ｔｈａｔ　ｔｈｅ　Ｔｈａｉ’ｓ　ｅｓｐｅｃｉａｌｌｙ　ｌｉｋｅ　Ａｍｅｒｉｃａ　ｏｒ　ｉｆ　ｔｈｅｙ　ｄｏ　ｉｔ　ｉｓ　ｆｏｒ　ｔｈｅ　ｒｅａｓｏｎｓ　ｙｏｕ　ｓｔａｔｅｄ　－　ｈｏｗｅｖｅｒ　ｔｈａｔ　ｗａｓ　ａ　ｖｅｒｙ　ｉｎｆｏｒｍｉｎｇ　ｗｒｉｔｅｕｐ．　Ｅｓｐｅｃｉａｌｌｙ　ｔｈｅ　ｐａｒｔｓ　ａｂｏｕｔ　ｔｈｅ　Ｆｒｅｎｃｈ　ｗａｒ　（ｄｉｄｎ’ｔ　ｋｎｏｗ　ｔｈａｔ　ｈａｐｐｅｎｅｄ）　ａｎｄ　ｔｈａｔ　ｔｈｅ　Ｋｉｎｇ　ｉｓ　ａｎ　Ａｍｅｒｉｃａｎ　（ｗｏｗ！）．

DengenFarang, Unless you are Stephen Hawkings, in which case I might understand it, your bizarre font would give a more sensitive type an epileptic fit.

[LaoPo]

Ｉ　ｄｏｎｔ　ｋｎｏｗ　ｔｈａｔ　ｔｈｅ　Ｔｈａｉ’ｓ　ｅｓｐｅｃｉａｌｌｙ　ｌｉｋｅ　Ａｍｅｒｉｃａ　ｏｒ　ｉｆ　ｔｈｅｙ　ｄｏ　ｉｔ　ｉｓ　ｆｏｒ　ｔｈｅ　ｒｅａｓｏｎｓ　ｙｏｕ　ｓｔａｔｅｄ　－　ｈｏｗｅｖｅｒ　ｔｈａｔ　ｗａｓ　ａ　ｖｅｒｙ　ｉｎｆｏｒｍｉｎｇ　ｗｒｉｔｅｕｐ．　Ｅｓｐｅｃｉａｌｌｙ　ｔｈｅ　ｐａｒｔｓ　ａｂｏｕｔ　ｔｈｅ　Ｆｒｅｎｃｈ　ｗａｒ　（ｄｉｄｎ’ｔ　ｋｎｏｗ　ｔｈａｔ　ｈａｐｐｅｎｅｄ）　ａｎｄ　ｔｈａｔ　ｔｈｅ　Ｋｉｎｇ　ｉｓ　ａｎ　Ａｍｅｒｉｃａｎ　（ｗｏｗ！）．

DengenFarang, Unless you are Stephen Hawkings, in which case I might understand it, your bizarre font would give a more sensitive type an epileptic fit.

Strange font indeed but maybe sent from an iPod or iTouch ?

I noticed the same with the new playmobile from my wife

LaoPo

[aras]

Unless the OP posts a source, link or some other attribution this thread will shortly be removed.

the guy himself seems like a valid source for a forum, a few historically disputed points wouldn't harm anybody!? National geographic comes with alot of bullshit everyday ( for the experts about the subject) and they too fullfil their duty of informing some sort of story to the general public without ineteference by the experts who dont agree with a few points.

Anyway i enjoyed your posts CMK and hope you try to enlighten us more with other topics withing your knowledge.

Regards,

Aras

[caf]

Unless the OP posts a source, link or some other attribution this thread will shortly be removed.

the guy himself seems like a valid source for a forum, a few historically disputed points wouldn't harm anybody!? National geographic comes with alot of bullshit everyday ( for the experts about the subject) and they too fullfil their duty of informing some sort of story to the general public without ineteference by the experts who dont agree with a few points.

Anyway i enjoyed your posts CMK and hope you try to enlighten us more with other topics withing your knowledge.

Regards,

Aras

"a few historically disputed points " !!!

I assume your post is veiled sarcasm.

Many historians have different interpretaions but they always justify them. One needs to read widely to get a balanced account. I have used a number of accepted sources - including Shirer, an American historian - and the opening post is certainly not a little incomplete and biased.

[DegenFarang]

Ｉ　ｄｏｎｔ　ｋｎｏｗ　ｔｈａｔ　ｔｈｅ　Ｔｈａｉ’ｓ　ｅｓｐｅｃｉａｌｌｙ　ｌｉｋｅ　Ａｍｅｒｉｃａ　ｏｒ　ｉｆ　ｔｈｅｙ　ｄｏ　ｉｔ　ｉｓ　ｆｏｒ　ｔｈｅ　ｒｅａｓｏｎｓ　ｙｏｕ　ｓｔａｔｅｄ　－　ｈｏｗｅｖｅｒ　ｔｈａｔ　ｗａｓ　ａ　ｖｅｒｙ　ｉｎｆｏｒｍｉｎｇ　ｗｒｉｔｅｕｐ．　Ｅｓｐｅｃｉａｌｌｙ　ｔｈｅ　ｐａｒｔｓ　ａｂｏｕｔ　ｔｈｅ　Ｆｒｅｎｃｈ　ｗａｒ　（ｄｉｄｎ’ｔ　ｋｎｏｗ　ｔｈａｔ　ｈａｐｐｅｎｅｄ）　ａｎｄ　ｔｈａｔ　ｔｈｅ　Ｋｉｎｇ　ｉｓ　ａｎ　Ａｍｅｒｉｃａｎ　（ｗｏｗ！）．

DengenFarang, Unless you are Stephen Hawkings, in which case I might understand it, your bizarre font would give a more sensitive type an epileptic fit.

Strange font indeed but maybe sent from an iPod or iTouch ?

I noticed the same with the new playmobile from my wife

LaoPo

I use my iPhone to post on TV all the time and it looks fine. This was from an internet cafe I was at last night. Look at this nonsense it spit out: (no wonder I'm not getting any replies...)

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/Bangkok-Univ...95#entry3242395