A Historical Analysis Of Why Thailand Likes America

[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

That looks great

did you recommend this internet cafe to others or did they close already ?

LaoPo

[DegenFarang]

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

That looks great

did you recommend this internet cafe to others or did they close already ?

LaoPo

I go there a lot, nice big comfortable chairs. Next to Villa market on Sukhumvit 11. Just don't try to post on any forums while you are there...

[chiangmaikelly]

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

"Kelly, you have to come pick us up. We are about ……. ", the pilot gave me the coordinates. I checked the coordinates on the map. "Sorry, you have to call me back on a land line." "How the heck am I supposed to find a land line." "I don't know but I have to sign off now."

Sounds harsh but I could not talk to the pilot on the radio because he was in Laos and we had no aircraft in Laos. The general told me I couldn't talk to anyone on the radio in Laos. The New York Times and the Bangkok post said we, nor Thailand had any troops in Laos so we must not be in Laos.

Now I guess I don't know as much as the historians who were writing about the Thai involvement in Laos and Vietnam but I do know some things.

I was in Chiang Mai in 1968 and I talked to troops who had seen the opium trade in Chiang Mai a few years before. I was in Bangkok and Saigon in 1968 and I know a bit about that. I have talked to people who did business in Thailand during the Second World War, in fact my father bought tungsten from Thailand to make steel during the second world war. So I know a little about that. I know that England wanted to punish Thailand after the war and I gave a reference for further reading about that. "An Uneasy Peace: Britain, the United States and Australia's Pursuit of War Reparations from Thailand."

At the beginning of this thread I gave the moderator links to four stories I had written a couple of years ago about Thailand and Vietnam and my personal involvement in both areas. The moderator thought I was cutting and pasting my opinions and I was but they were from my own stories.

I can't give a reference every time I write because most of the things I write are a combination of what I have read and my own experiences during the time period I am writing about.

I really don't know any disputed facts that I have posted. Oh, I guess there is a wide variety of opinion about the battle of Singapore. I have an opinion about it. Normally I state that as an opinion. I think that Britain wanted to punish Thailand for being on the Axis side. That is a widely held opinion. I think the US did not want to punish Thailand for being on the Japanese side. I think that is a widely held opinion. The fact that Thailand was on the Japanese side is not an opinion it is a fact. The fact that there were 900 opium dens in Bangkok 20 years before a GI set foot in Thailand is not an opinion it is a fact. The fact that 20% of the revenue of the Thai government came from opium not too long ago is not an opinion it is a fact. Opium was legal in Thailand for a long time, longer than most other countries in SEA.

I really don't know any disputed facts that I have left unsupported. I would be more than happy to post how I arrived at those facts if I knew what they were. So feel free to ask and I will try to respond.

[sharecropper]

ChiangmaiKelly,

I actually think verbal histories and eyewitness accounts such as yours are more important and more interesting than the macro historical perspective. Why not commit some of your experiences to print?

I recently read (a badly written but interesting) book called Da Nang Diary by Col Tom Yarborough who was a forward air controller and that contained some hairy stuff. I also know a guy (now a diamond dealer in Antwerp) whose job it was to insert US forces and Laos handlers into and then extract them from the jungles of Laos, often under heavy fire, which must have been one of the shortest life-expectancy jobs of the war.

Regardless of the rights or wrongs of any military conflict, the personal testimonies of people facing fire and having to save their own lives and those of their colleagues in extreme circumstance is often very humbling - especially for lazy cowardly lardy <deleted> like myself.

Edited January 4, 2010 by sharecropper

[chiangmaikelly]

ChiangmaiKelly,

I actually think verbal histories and eyewitness accounts such as yours are more important and more interesting than the macro historical perspective. Why not commit some of your experiences to print?

I recently read (a badly written but interesting) book called Da Nang Diary by Col Tom Yarborough who was a forward air controller and that contained some hairy stuff. I also know a guy (now a diamond dealer in Antwerp) whose job it was to insert US forces and Laos handlers into and then extract them from the jungles of Laos, often under heavy fire, which must have been one of the shortest life-expectancy jobs of the war.

Regardless of the rights or wrongs of any military conflict, the personal testimonies of people facing fire and having to save their own lives and those of their colleagues in extreme circumstance is often very humbling - especially for lazy cowardly lardy <deleted> like myself.

I didn't lead a very exciting life during the war. 99% boring. I wrote stories in the Army. I wrote about aviation safety. I tried to convince pilots to do preflight checks and hover checks and the things that would bring them back safely. I traveled all around Asia to inspect safety programs and if they had a problem since I was the lowest ranking person in the office I took care of it, hence my time spent in Thailand. We also picked up aircraft when they went down by accident. I wasn't supposed to be involved in combat losses. 50% of the deaths in Vietnam were by accident. Historians will not agree with that number. But I know because I wrote the reports. Some days when I got tired of writing accident reports I shot the dam_n choppers and it became a combat loss.

I came to Thailand to write the great Thai/American novel because at my age I don't care if anyone thinks I can write or not anymore. I write quite a bit and am working on a number of titles right now. But I keep getting distracted. I have known some Thai families for 40 years and I am helping my special adopted family open a vocational school. Also being part of a Thai family means I have to go to family affairs and weddings and funerals and it takes quite a bit of time.

They also think I should be married again so I am on my 43^rd lunch date this year.

Thank you for the kind words I am writing as much as I can and will continue. Thai Visa gives me good perspective as the members represent a variety of opinions and I think it adds an element of contemporary reality to my thought process.

[PawyiLee]

...McFarland is credited with playing a significant role in the modernization of the post-primary Thai educational system.

Wikipedia lacks an article on Samuel McFarland. Would you mind going there and writing it?

[chiangmaikelly]

...McFarland is credited with playing a significant role in the modernization of the post-primary Thai educational system.

Wikipedia lacks an article on Samuel McFarland. Would you mind going there and writing it?

Seems like a fascinating story both him and his son. Not only the education but the medical work and the invention of the Thai typewriter. The school for royality must have been interesting. Do you know any relatives who have may some insight into the men?

[sharecropper]

ChiangmaiKelly,

I actually think verbal histories and eyewitness accounts such as yours are more important and more interesting than the macro historical perspective. Why not commit some of your experiences to print?

I recently read (a badly written but interesting) book called Da Nang Diary by Col Tom Yarborough who was a forward air controller and that contained some hairy stuff. I also know a guy (now a diamond dealer in Antwerp) whose job it was to insert US forces and Laos handlers into and then extract them from the jungles of Laos, often under heavy fire, which must have been one of the shortest life-expectancy jobs of the war.

Regardless of the rights or wrongs of any military conflict, the personal testimonies of people facing fire and having to save their own lives and those of their colleagues in extreme circumstance is often very humbling - especially for lazy cowardly lardy <deleted> like myself.

I didn't lead a very exciting life during the war. 99% boring. I wrote stories in the Army. I wrote about aviation safety. I tried to convince pilots to do preflight checks and hover checks and the things that would bring them back safely. I traveled all around Asia to inspect safety programs and if they had a problem since I was the lowest ranking person in the office I took care of it, hence my time spent in Thailand. We also picked up aircraft when they went down by accident. I wasn't supposed to be involved in combat losses. 50% of the deaths in Vietnam were by accident. Historians will not agree with that number. But I know because I wrote the reports. Some days when I got tired of writing accident reports I shot the dam_n choppers and it became a combat loss.

I came to Thailand to write the great Thai/American novel because at my age I don't care if anyone thinks I can write or not anymore. I write quite a bit and am working on a number of titles right now. But I keep getting distracted. I have known some Thai families for 40 years and I am helping my special adopted family open a vocational school. Also being part of a Thai family means I have to go to family affairs and weddings and funerals and it takes quite a bit of time.

They also think I should be married again so I am on my 43^rd lunch date this year.

Thank you for the kind words I am writing as much as I can and will continue. Thai Visa gives me good perspective as the members represent a variety of opinions and I think it adds an element of contemporary reality to my thought process.

They also think I should be married again so I am on my 43rd lunch date this year.

Blimey that's a lot of lunches in four days!!!!

[CobraSnakeNecktie]

at 5 baht noodle shops that means your out at least 215 baht.... Wow CMK is loaded !!!!!

[chiangmaikelly]

I had lunch today at a 30 baht cow men gai shop. I eat there a lot. I found the place when I went to a funeral of a friend of mine who was married happily to a Thai lady and lived close to Sattahip. He had a very dangerous job in in SEA during the Vietnam war. He picked up wounded men or parts of men in a metal basked lowered into the jungle by helicopter, sometimes under fire. He never talked about it. He was waiting for the light at the Sattahip intersection when a runaway bus crushed his truck, killing him instantly and severely injuring his wife. Funny that a guy who should have been killed once a day as a young man should meet his maker at a bus stop. He was one of the good guys who everyone liked in Thailand. There were 200 at his funeral both Thai and Western people.

It doesn’t take a brain trust to realize that I meant the previous 12 months when I wrote “last year” but in case in needs clarification I thought I should mention it. That is one of the things I like about Thai Visa, you have the opportunity to correspond with people of all mental levels.

[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

"Kelly, you have to come pick us up. We are about ……. ", the pilot gave me the coordinates. I checked the coordinates on the map. "Sorry, you have to call me back on a land line." "How the heck am I supposed to find a land line." "I don't know but I have to sign off now."

Sounds harsh but I could not talk to the pilot on the radio because he was in Laos and we had no aircraft in Laos. The general told me I couldn't talk to anyone on the radio in Laos. The New York Times and the Bangkok post said we, nor Thailand had any troops in Laos so we must not be in Laos.

Now I guess I don't know as much as the historians who were writing about the Thai involvement in Laos and Vietnam but I do know some things.

I was in Chiang Mai in 1968 and I talked to troops who had seen the opium trade in Chiang Mai a few years before. I was in Bangkok and Saigon in 1968 and I know a bit about that. I have talked to people who did business in Thailand during the Second World War, in fact my father bought tungsten from Thailand to make steel during the second world war. So I know a little about that. I know that England wanted to punish Thailand after the war and I gave a reference for further reading about that. "An Uneasy Peace: Britain, the United States and Australia's Pursuit of War Reparations from Thailand."

At the beginning of this thread I gave the moderator links to four stories I had written a couple of years ago about Thailand and Vietnam and my personal involvement in both areas. The moderator thought I was cutting and pasting my opinions and I was but they were from my own stories.

I can't give a reference every time I write because most of the things I write are a combination of what I have read and my own experiences during the time period I am writing about.

I really don't know any disputed facts that I have posted. Oh, I guess there is a wide variety of opinion about the battle of Singapore. I have an opinion about it. Normally I state that as an opinion. I think that Britain wanted to punish Thailand for being on the Axis side. That is a widely held opinion. I think the US did not want to punish Thailand for being on the Japanese side. I think that is a widely held opinion. The fact that Thailand was on the Japanese side is not an opinion it is a fact. The fact that there were 900 opium dens in Bangkok 20 years before a GI set foot in Thailand is not an opinion it is a fact. The fact that 20% of the revenue of the Thai government came from opium not too long ago is not an opinion it is a fact. Opium was legal in Thailand for a long time, longer than most other countries in SEA.

I really don't know any disputed facts that I have left unsupported. I would be more than happy to post how I arrived at those facts if I knew what they were. So feel free to ask and I will try to respond.

Your posts about your personal experiences in the Vietnam War are interesting and put a different slant on the usual sources. Keep them coming. They are valuable additions. The more that living veterans talk about their experienxes the better.

When you talk about WW2 though you were not there so with respect you need to check sources. The American historian Shirer is not bedside reading and is very detailed. The war is covered well in most histories but one would need to search very deeply for the Thailand question. One poster already mentioned that Thais, through their education system, do not always seem to know all relevant points.

You write: "I think that Britain wanted to punish Thailand for being on the Axis side. That is a widely held opinion. I think the US did not want to punish Thailand for being on the Japanese side. I think that is a widely held opinion. The fact that Thailand was on the Japanese side is not an opinion it is a fact."

The thread now seems to be admitting the Thais were on the axis side. On the punishment question I would disagree. The Uk wanted reparations, nothing to do with punishment. I would not agree either that your thoughts ( from the quote above) are widely held. I certainly know of no source to confim that. Thailand received reparations from Japan.

I realise you are writing from an American perspective, a Thai writer would write very different things; but historical accounts need to be balanced and unbiased. Allenbrookes diaries particularly are interesting because he holds no punches when commenting on some of the UK and American decisions. He was rather unique but then he had a coordinating role in WW2 and subsequently.

[caf]

I had lunch today at a 30 baht cow men gai shop. I eat there a lot. I found the place when I went to a funeral of a friend of mine who was married happily to a Thai lady and lived close to Sattahip. He had a very dangerous job in in SEA during the Vietnam war. He picked up wounded men or parts of men in a metal basked lowered into the jungle by helicopter, sometimes under fire. He never talked about it. He was waiting for the light at the Sattahip intersection when a runaway bus crushed his truck, killing him instantly and severely injuring his wife. Funny that a guy who should have been killed once a day as a young man should meet his maker at a bus stop. He was one of the good guys who everyone liked in Thailand. There were 200 at his funeral both Thai and Western people.

It doesn't take a brain trust to realize that I meant the previous 12 months when I wrote "last year" but in case in needs clarification I thought I should mention it. That is one of the things I like about Thai Visa, you have the opportunity to correspond with people of all mental levels.

Yes, all mental levels. Thaivisa's strength is in its large membership of different people, diffrerent ideas, different nationalities, different points of view..

caf

[chiangmaikelly]

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

"Kelly, you have to come pick us up. We are about ……. ", the pilot gave me the coordinates. I checked the coordinates on the map. "Sorry, you have to call me back on a land line." "How the heck am I supposed to find a land line." "I don't know but I have to sign off now."

Sounds harsh but I could not talk to the pilot on the radio because he was in Laos and we had no aircraft in Laos. The general told me I couldn't talk to anyone on the radio in Laos. The New York Times and the Bangkok post said we, nor Thailand had any troops in Laos so we must not be in Laos.

Now I guess I don't know as much as the historians who were writing about the Thai involvement in Laos and Vietnam but I do know some things.

I was in Chiang Mai in 1968 and I talked to troops who had seen the opium trade in Chiang Mai a few years before. I was in Bangkok and Saigon in 1968 and I know a bit about that. I have talked to people who did business in Thailand during the Second World War, in fact my father bought tungsten from Thailand to make steel during the second world war. So I know a little about that. I know that England wanted to punish Thailand after the war and I gave a reference for further reading about that. "An Uneasy Peace: Britain, the United States and Australia's Pursuit of War Reparations from Thailand."

At the beginning of this thread I gave the moderator links to four stories I had written a couple of years ago about Thailand and Vietnam and my personal involvement in both areas. The moderator thought I was cutting and pasting my opinions and I was but they were from my own stories.

I can't give a reference every time I write because most of the things I write are a combination of what I have read and my own experiences during the time period I am writing about.

I really don't know any disputed facts that I have posted. Oh, I guess there is a wide variety of opinion about the battle of Singapore. I have an opinion about it. Normally I state that as an opinion. I think that Britain wanted to punish Thailand for being on the Axis side. That is a widely held opinion. I think the US did not want to punish Thailand for being on the Japanese side. I think that is a widely held opinion. The fact that Thailand was on the Japanese side is not an opinion it is a fact. The fact that there were 900 opium dens in Bangkok 20 years before a GI set foot in Thailand is not an opinion it is a fact. The fact that 20% of the revenue of the Thai government came from opium not too long ago is not an opinion it is a fact. Opium was legal in Thailand for a long time, longer than most other countries in SEA.

I really don't know any disputed facts that I have left unsupported. I would be more than happy to post how I arrived at those facts if I knew what they were. So feel free to ask and I will try to respond.

Your posts about your personal experiences in the Vietnam War are interesting and put a different slant on the usual sources. Keep them coming. They are valuable additions. The more that living veterans talk about their experienxes the better.

When you talk about WW2 though you were not there so with respect you need to check sources. The American historian Shirer is not bedside reading and is very detailed. The war is covered well in most histories but one would need to search very deeply for the Thailand question. One poster already mentioned that Thais, through their education system, do not always seem to know all relevant points.

You write: "I think that Britain wanted to punish Thailand for being on the Axis side. That is a widely held opinion. I think the US did not want to punish Thailand for being on the Japanese side. I think that is a widely held opinion. The fact that Thailand was on the Japanese side is not an opinion it is a fact."

The thread now seems to be admitting the Thais were on the axis side. On the punishment question I would disagree. The Uk wanted reparations, nothing to do with punishment. I would not agree either that your thoughts ( from the quote above) are widely held. I certainly know of no source to confim that. Thailand received reparations from Japan.

I realise you are writing from an American perspective, a Thai writer would write very different things; but historical accounts need to be balanced and unbiased. Allenbrookes diaries particularly are interesting because he holds no punches when commenting on some of the UK and American decisions. He was rather unique but then he had a coordinating role in WW2 and subsequently.

Did Allenbrooke say anything about Thailand and reparations? I don’t think he did but if I am wrong let me know. I am sure you will.

From an online encyclopedia.

Mrs. McKenzie worked for the State Department, in the Southeast Asia Department, target area Thailand, broadcasting news and commentaries to combat the Japanese propaganda. During their weekly meeting with the Southeast Asia department, State Department directors would tell the broadcasters which news areas to emphasize, but would also always urge them to say "America will help any people who will fight for their own freedom."

A few months after the war ended, news came to the Southeast Asia Department that Thailand was being ceded to Britain. Mrs. McKenzie asked her department head to fight the treaty, but he refused, so she mounted a letter-writing campaign, to the President and Vice-President, Cabinet members, Senators and Congressmen, newspaper publishers and journalists, and asked all her friends and friends of friends to do the same. Hundreds of letters were sent within a few weeks. One paragraph of the letter to President Truman:

We have made many allowances for the sake of Allied unity. However, I cannot feel that our desire for such unity should take us to the point of sacrificing basic American principles, as set forth in your Navy Day address. It is time that we live up to our much-proclaimed role of leader toward a better world, and insist that the British live up to their commitments of "no territorial aggrandizement" and "respect for the rights of man."

Many of the letters were acknowledged, and several news stories and editorials were published. In time, the Southeast Asia Department received a wire on December 19, 1945, saying "Acting Secretary of State Acheson told his press converence today, that the United States had earnestly represented to Great Britain and Siam the hope that they would not conclude an agreement as long as American discussions with Britain are going forward. ... Acheson said that we had asked for delay several times when it appeared that final action seemed imminent."

On January 28, 1946, Mrs. McKenzie received a letter from John Carter Vincent

John Carter Vincent

John Carter Vincent was an American diplomat, Foreign Service Officer, and China Hand. Born in Seneca, Kansas,Vincent graduated from Mercer University in 1923 and was appointed Foreign Service Officer in the same year...

, the Director of the Office of Far Eastern Affairs of the State Department, which indicated the successful completion of her effort. The text of the letter follows:

Dear Mrs. McKenzie:

I have received by reference from the Secretary of State and the President your letters of December 5 and 6, 1945 regarding the situation in Siam. I regret that this reply has been so long delayed.

As you are now doubtless aware, Great Britain and Siam signed an Agreement on January 1, 1946 terminating the state of war which existed between the two countries. On January 5 diplomatic relations between Siam and Great Britain and between Siam and the United States were resumed.

Concerning the terms of the British-Siamese Agreement, this Government had been in close contact with the British Government for a number of months with the result that certain of the original British terms were considerably modified to prevent any possible interpretation which might seem to place Great Britain in a position inimical to Siam's freedom and independence. It is believed that the final Agreement in no way infringes upon the complete sovereignty and independence of Siam.

I think you can read between the lines to determine what Britain had in mind.

For an idea of what Britain had in mind read the Potsdam Declaration in terms of reparations.

And the Peace treaty between Japan and the Allied powers namely: CHAPTER V

CLAIMS AND PROPERTY

Article 14

(a) It is recognized that Japan should pay reparations to the Allied Powers for the damage and suffering caused by it during the war. Nevertheless it is also recognized that the resources of Japan are not presently sufficient, if it is to maintain a viable economy, to make complete reparation for all such damage and suffering and at the same time meet its other obligations.

Therefore,

1. Japan will promptly enter into negotiations with Allied Powers so desiring, whose present territories were occupied by Japanese forces and damaged by Japan, with a view to assisting to compensate those countries for the cost of repairing the damage done, by making available the services of the Japanese people in production, salvaging and other work for the Allied Powers in question. Such arrangements shall avoid the imposition of additional liabilities on other Allied Powers, and, where the manufacturing of raw materials is called for, they shall be supplied by the Allied Powers in question, so as not to throw any foreign exchange burden upon Japan.

2. (I) Subject to the provisions of subparagraph (II) below, each of the Allied Powers shall have the right to seize, retain, liquidate or otherwise dispose of all property, rights and interests of

(a) Japan and Japanese nationals,

( persons acting for or on behalf of Japan or Japanese nationals, and

© entities owned or controlled by Japan or Japanese nationals, which on the first coming into force of the present Treaty were subject to its jurisdiction. The property, rights and interests specified in this subparagraph shall include those now blocked, vested or in the possession or under the control of enemy property authorities of Allied Powers, which belong to, or were held or managed on behalf of, any of the persons or entities mentioned in (a), ( or © above at the time such assets came under the controls of such authorities.

Burma a British possession had been occupied by the Thai’s during the war and Britain wanted to be paid back the things they took from Burma. A large chunk of cash and commodities totaling in the millions (now read billions).

For the rest of the papers check out Kings College London Liddell Hart Centre of Military Archives.

3.3 CONTENT AND STRUCTURE AREA

3.3.1 Scope and content: OSS/State Department Intelligence and Research Reports: Postwar Japan, Korea, and Southeast Asia is a themed microfilm collection relating to US Office of Strategic Services (OSS) and US State Department evaluations of the Far East, 1945-1949. Regions studied include Burma, Hong Kong, French Indo-China, Netherlands East Indies, Japan, Korea, Malaya, the Philippines, and Thailand.

[Sateev]

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?

That would be W.A.R. Wood, who also wrote a book on the history of Thailand. I have both books in my library. ' A Brief History of Thailand' leaned heavily on Prince Damrong's accounts. Excellent, but parochial reading.

Sateev

[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

"Kelly, you have to come pick us up. We are about ……. ", the pilot gave me the coordinates. I checked the coordinates on the map. "Sorry, you have to call me back on a land line." "How the heck am I supposed to find a land line." "I don't know but I have to sign off now."

Sounds harsh but I could not talk to the pilot on the radio because he was in Laos and we had no aircraft in Laos. The general told me I couldn't talk to anyone on the radio in Laos. The New York Times and the Bangkok post said we, nor Thailand had any troops in Laos so we must not be in Laos.

Now I guess I don't know as much as the historians who were writing about the Thai involvement in Laos and Vietnam but I do know some things.

I was in Chiang Mai in 1968 and I talked to troops who had seen the opium trade in Chiang Mai a few years before. I was in Bangkok and Saigon in 1968 and I know a bit about that. I have talked to people who did business in Thailand during the Second World War, in fact my father bought tungsten from Thailand to make steel during the second world war. So I know a little about that. I know that England wanted to punish Thailand after the war and I gave a reference for further reading about that. "An Uneasy Peace: Britain, the United States and Australia's Pursuit of War Reparations from Thailand."

At the beginning of this thread I gave the moderator links to four stories I had written a couple of years ago about Thailand and Vietnam and my personal involvement in both areas. The moderator thought I was cutting and pasting my opinions and I was but they were from my own stories.

I can't give a reference every time I write because most of the things I write are a combination of what I have read and my own experiences during the time period I am writing about.

I really don't know any disputed facts that I have posted. Oh, I guess there is a wide variety of opinion about the battle of Singapore. I have an opinion about it. Normally I state that as an opinion. I think that Britain wanted to punish Thailand for being on the Axis side. That is a widely held opinion. I think the US did not want to punish Thailand for being on the Japanese side. I think that is a widely held opinion. The fact that Thailand was on the Japanese side is not an opinion it is a fact. The fact that there were 900 opium dens in Bangkok 20 years before a GI set foot in Thailand is not an opinion it is a fact. The fact that 20% of the revenue of the Thai government came from opium not too long ago is not an opinion it is a fact. Opium was legal in Thailand for a long time, longer than most other countries in SEA.

I really don't know any disputed facts that I have left unsupported. I would be more than happy to post how I arrived at those facts if I knew what they were. So feel free to ask and I will try to respond.

Your posts about your personal experiences in the Vietnam War are interesting and put a different slant on the usual sources. Keep them coming. They are valuable additions. The more that living veterans talk about their experienxes the better.

When you talk about WW2 though you were not there so with respect you need to check sources. The American historian Shirer is not bedside reading and is very detailed. The war is covered well in most histories but one would need to search very deeply for the Thailand question. One poster already mentioned that Thais, through their education system, do not always seem to know all relevant points.

You write: "I think that Britain wanted to punish Thailand for being on the Axis side. That is a widely held opinion. I think the US did not want to punish Thailand for being on the Japanese side. I think that is a widely held opinion. The fact that Thailand was on the Japanese side is not an opinion it is a fact."

The thread now seems to be admitting the Thais were on the axis side. On the punishment question I would disagree. The Uk wanted reparations, nothing to do with punishment. I would not agree either that your thoughts ( from the quote above) are widely held. I certainly know of no source to confim that. Thailand received reparations from Japan.

I realise you are writing from an American perspective, a Thai writer would write very different things; but historical accounts need to be balanced and unbiased. Allenbrookes diaries particularly are interesting because he holds no punches when commenting on some of the UK and American decisions. He was rather unique but then he had a coordinating role in WW2 and subsequently.

Did Allenbrooke say anything about Thailand and reparations? I don't think he did but if I am wrong let me know. I am sure you will.

From an online encyclopedia.

Mrs. McKenzie worked for the State Department, in the Southeast Asia Department, target area Thailand, broadcasting news and commentaries to combat the Japanese propaganda. During their weekly meeting with the Southeast Asia department, State Department directors would tell the broadcasters which news areas to emphasize, but would also always urge them to say "America will help any people who will fight for their own freedom."

A few months after the war ended, news came to the Southeast Asia Department that Thailand was being ceded to Britain. Mrs. McKenzie asked her department head to fight the treaty, but he refused, so she mounted a letter-writing campaign, to the President and Vice-President, Cabinet members, Senators and Congressmen, newspaper publishers and journalists, and asked all her friends and friends of friends to do the same. Hundreds of letters were sent within a few weeks. One paragraph of the letter to President Truman:

We have made many allowances for the sake of Allied unity. However, I cannot feel that our desire for such unity should take us to the point of sacrificing basic American principles, as set forth in your Navy Day address. It is time that we live up to our much-proclaimed role of leader toward a better world, and insist that the British live up to their commitments of "no territorial aggrandizement" and "respect for the rights of man."

Many of the letters were acknowledged, and several news stories and editorials were published. In time, the Southeast Asia Department received a wire on December 19, 1945, saying "Acting Secretary of State Acheson told his press converence today, that the United States had earnestly represented to Great Britain and Siam the hope that they would not conclude an agreement as long as American discussions with Britain are going forward. ... Acheson said that we had asked for delay several times when it appeared that final action seemed imminent."

On January 28, 1946, Mrs. McKenzie received a letter from John Carter Vincent

John Carter Vincent

John Carter Vincent was an American diplomat, Foreign Service Officer, and China Hand. Born in Seneca, Kansas,Vincent graduated from Mercer University in 1923 and was appointed Foreign Service Officer in the same year...

, the Director of the Office of Far Eastern Affairs of the State Department, which indicated the successful completion of her effort. The text of the letter follows:

Dear Mrs. McKenzie:

I have received by reference from the Secretary of State and the President your letters of December 5 and 6, 1945 regarding the situation in Siam. I regret that this reply has been so long delayed.

As you are now doubtless aware, Great Britain and Siam signed an Agreement on January 1, 1946 terminating the state of war which existed between the two countries. On January 5 diplomatic relations between Siam and Great Britain and between Siam and the United States were resumed.

Concerning the terms of the British-Siamese Agreement, this Government had been in close contact with the British Government for a number of months with the result that certain of the original British terms were considerably modified to prevent any possible interpretation which might seem to place Great Britain in a position inimical to Siam's freedom and independence. It is believed that the final Agreement in no way infringes upon the complete sovereignty and independence of Siam.

I think you can read between the lines to determine what Britain had in mind.

For an idea of what Britain had in mind read the Potsdam Declaration in terms of reparations.

And the Peace treaty between Japan and the Allied powers namely: CHAPTER V

CLAIMS AND PROPERTY

Article 14

(a) It is recognized that Japan should pay reparations to the Allied Powers for the damage and suffering caused by it during the war. Nevertheless it is also recognized that the resources of Japan are not presently sufficient, if it is to maintain a viable economy, to make complete reparation for all such damage and suffering and at the same time meet its other obligations.

Therefore,

1. Japan will promptly enter into negotiations with Allied Powers so desiring, whose present territories were occupied by Japanese forces and damaged by Japan, with a view to assisting to compensate those countries for the cost of repairing the damage done, by making available the services of the Japanese people in production, salvaging and other work for the Allied Powers in question. Such arrangements shall avoid the imposition of additional liabilities on other Allied Powers, and, where the manufacturing of raw materials is called for, they shall be supplied by the Allied Powers in question, so as not to throw any foreign exchange burden upon Japan.

2. (I) Subject to the provisions of subparagraph (II) below, each of the Allied Powers shall have the right to seize, retain, liquidate or otherwise dispose of all property, rights and interests of

(a) Japan and Japanese nationals,

( persons acting for or on behalf of Japan or Japanese nationals, and

© entities owned or controlled by Japan or Japanese nationals, which on the first coming into force of the present Treaty were subject to its jurisdiction. The property, rights and interests specified in this subparagraph shall include those now blocked, vested or in the possession or under the control of enemy property authorities of Allied Powers, which belong to, or were held or managed on behalf of, any of the persons or entities mentioned in (a), ( or © above at the time such assets came under the controls of such authorities.

Burma a British possession had been occupied by the Thai's during the war and Britain wanted to be paid back the things they took from Burma. A large chunk of cash and commodities totaling in the millions (now read billions).

For the rest of the papers check out Kings College London Liddell Hart Centre of Military Archives.

3.3 CONTENT AND STRUCTURE AREA

3.3.1 Scope and content: OSS/State Department Intelligence and Research Reports: Postwar Japan, Korea, and Southeast Asia is a themed microfilm collection relating to US Office of Strategic Services (OSS) and US State Department evaluations of the Far East, 1945-1949. Regions studied include Burma, Hong Kong, French Indo-China, Netherlands East Indies, Japan, Korea, Malaya, the Philippines, and Thailand.

I recommended Allenbrooke twice, whether you read him is up to you. Your sarcastic comment "I am sure you will" suggests you don't really want any constructive criticism if it does not correspond with your pro-American preconceptions.

The American historian Shirer is very detailed but not a quick read. Both texts and others though are informative. And Shirer tells it as it is. Allenbrooke chaired meetings of the Combined Chiefs of Staff and was present at many meetings between Churchill Ike and Stalin and his accounts are very unbiased to the point of being critical of Churchill where he had reason to do so.

Your personal experiences are very interesting and a useful addition to the published texts. Always important that we don't lose these personal insights. But for WW2 you were not there yourself so your personal views are not relevant and you need to use sources.

Mrs McKenzie, from what you say, seems to have worked in counter-propaganda, so hardly a good source. And if, against her department's wishes, started a writing campaign then any letters that followed from that are mainly at best hearsay and certainly un-official and not authorised.

You quote "Japan should pay reparations to the Allied Powers for the damage and suffering caused by it during the war" The American position where it accepted Thailand claiming reparations ( where Thailand was an axis power) and not Britain shows there was another reason behind the American action. Italy could not and did not claim repartions from Germany as they wee an axis power on the same side as Germany. The rules of reparations got very murky when it came to America and Thailand.

Take care reading online encyclopaedias. They can be useful but often contain personal views that are unsubstantiated. Quoting from them does not make them factual.

As I say your personal experiences are interesting and an important addition to total knowledge of the history. Provided that it is realised that that is what it is.

[LaoPo]

That is one of the things I like about Thai Visa, you have the opportunity to correspond with people of all mental levels.

I'm out of here; my mental level is doing overtime and the sugar level is dangerously low so I badly need some fresh Bamboo leaves with some cane sugar I hope.

LaoPo

[chiangmaikelly]

I recommended Allenbrooke twice, whether you read him is up to you. Your sarcastic comment "I am sure you will" suggests you don't really want any constructive criticism if it does not correspond with your pro-American preconceptions.

The American historian Shirer is very detailed but not a quick read. Both texts and others though are informative. And Shirer tells it as it is. Allenbrooke chaired meetings of the Combined Chiefs of Staff and was present at many meetings between Churchill Ike and Stalin and his accounts are very unbiased to the point of being critical of Churchill where he had reason to do so.

Your personal experiences are very interesting and a useful addition to the published texts. Always important that we don't lose these personal insights. But for WW2 you were not there yourself so your personal views are not relevant and you need to use sources.

Mrs McKenzie, from what you say, seems to have worked in counter-propaganda, so hardly a good source. And if, against her department's wishes, started a writing campaign then any letters that followed from that are mainly at best hearsay and certainly un-official and not authorised.

You quote "Japan should pay reparations to the Allied Powers for the damage and suffering caused by it during the war" The American position where it accepted Thailand claiming reparations ( where Thailand was an axis power) and not Britain shows there was another reason behind the American action. Italy could not and did not claim repartions from Germany as they wee an axis power on the same side as Germany. The rules of reparations got very murky when it came to America and Thailand.

Take care reading online encyclopaedias. They can be useful but often contain personal views that are unsubstantiated. Quoting from them does not make them factual.

As I say your personal experiences are interesting and an important addition to total knowledge of the history. Provided that it is realised that that is what it is.

I must be having a communication problem but I will try again. I said, Allenbrooke did not mention reparations from Thailand in his writings. If he did please correct me. Well, did he mention reparations or not? Yes or no. I am trying to be clear here. Nor did Shirer.

The Betty McKenzie letters are a matter of record. The replies to the letters are a matter of record. Nothing made up. She should have statues to her all over Thailand in that she single handedly saved Thailand.

I never said Thailand claimed reparations. Where did that come from?

You did miss an interesting point about John Carter Vincent writing Betty the official state department response. There in lies a clue to the matter. Mr. Vincent was later fired for being a commie.

[caf]

That is one of the things I like about Thai Visa, you have the opportunity to correspond with people of all mental levels.

I'm out of here; my mental level is doing overtime and the sugar level is dangerously low so I badly need some fresh Bamboo leaves with some cane sugar I hope.

LaoPo

Orang has not converted you to this "primate-speak" has he.

[caf]

{ Quote }

I recommended Allenbrooke twice, whether you read him is up to you. Your sarcastic comment "I am sure you will" suggests you don't really want any constructive criticism if it does not correspond with your pro-American preconceptions.

The American historian Shirer is very detailed but not a quick read. Both texts and others though are informative. And Shirer tells it as it is. Allenbrooke chaired meetings of the Combined Chiefs of Staff and was present at many meetings between Churchill Ike and Stalin and his accounts are very unbiased to the point of being critical of Churchill where he had reason to do so.

Your personal experiences are very interesting and a useful addition to the published texts. Always important that we don't lose these personal insights. But for WW2 you were not there yourself so your personal views are not relevant and you need to use sources.

Mrs McKenzie, from what you say, seems to have worked in counter-propaganda, so hardly a good source. And if, against her department's wishes, started a writing campaign then any letters that followed from that are mainly at best hearsay and certainly un-official and not authorised.

You quote "Japan should pay reparations to the Allied Powers for the damage and suffering caused by it during the war" The American position where it accepted Thailand claiming reparations ( where Thailand was an axis power) and not Britain shows there was another reason behind the American action. Italy could not and did not claim repartions from Germany as they wee an axis power on the same side as Germany. The rules of reparations got very murky when it came to America and Thailand.

Take care reading online encyclopaedias. They can be useful but often contain personal views that are unsubstantiated. Quoting from them does not make them factual.

As I say your personal experiences are interesting and an important addition to total knowledge of the history. Provided that it is realised that that is what it is.

{Quote}

I must be having a communication problem but I will try again. I said, Allenbrooke did not mention reparations from Thailand in his writings. If he did please correct me. Well, did he mention reparations or not? Yes or no. I am trying to be clear here. Nor did Shirer.

The Betty McKenzie letters are a matter of record. The replies to the letters are a matter of record. Nothing made up. She should have statues to her all over Thailand in that she single handedly saved Thailand.

I never said Thailand claimed reparations. Where did that come from?

You did miss an interesting point about John Carter Vincent writing Betty the official state department response. There in lies a clue to the matter. Mr. Vincent was later fired for being a commie.

{Quote}

You now seem to say that you have read Allenbrooke and Shirer. So to be clear they both have views on the reparations issue that are different from yours, and Shirer is American.!

Gordon Brown is on record ( Hansard, though admittedly it was a slip of the tongue during a frantic question time ) for saying he is "saving the world" from the repercussions of the financial crisis. But to say McKenzie single handedly saved Thailand is going a bit far, don't you think.

The McKenzie letters were the result of her personal campaign following a fall-out with her boss. I do not say they do not exist but they are tainted because of her vendetta against her employer so totally self-serving and unreliable.

That Thailand claimed and received reparations from Japan is a matter of record.

You do not seem to be using sources and your comments are so biased as to be of no value.

I have said that your personal experiences and those of other veterans are an invaluable addition to total history; but if they are based on the sort of careless sourcing that you have so far displayed then I am not so sure.

I took your description of an in-flight conversation and reference to conversation with a general at face value initially, now I am not so sure.

This thread has run its course and I am making no further contributions. You see only what you want to see anyway and that is not of interest to seekers of historical truth.

caf

[chiangmaikelly]

I read the Rise and Fall years ago. I have read Allenbrooke's quotes as I suppose everyone has who knows about the Churchill syndrome. I don't recall ever reading anything about Thailand war reparations by either man and I don't think you have either. It is nice that you have read both men but it never had anything to do with Thailand and war reparations and America's relationship with Thailand.

If Betty McKenzie was not a commie dupe working for the Chinese ( Shirer also got red listed during that period of time and couldn't find work or publishers because of it.) then I don't think it is a stretch to say she saved Thailand.

No one else in the State Department seems to have cared a flip about Thailand. The OSS cared but they were not quite up to strength at the time.

You don't read me very well or I don't write clearly because I did not record a flight conversation. I worked in an office and pilots would radio in for transport when they made a forced landing. I told the pilot that the general told me not to take radio calls from Laos.

I will agree with you that reparations got very murky. GM in Detroit got reparations for its auto production plants in Germany that got bombed by planes made by Ford also in Detroit.

I think you should, unless God died and left you in charge, change your last sentence to read this thread has run its course for me and I am making no further contributions.

[Sateev]

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?

That would be W.A.R. Wood, who also wrote a book on the history of Thailand. I have both books in my library. ' A Brief History of Thailand' leaned heavily on Prince Damrong's accounts. Excellent, but parochial reading.

Sateev

Oops, my library is not where I am...it should be 'A History of Siam'.

Sateev

[trompelemonde]

Caf - William L.Shirer was a journalist not a historian, there is a big difference. I am not sure how historians would regard his work, but I guess it wouldn't be too favourable.

[caf]

Caf - William L.Shirer was a journalist not a historian, there is a big difference. I am not sure how historians would regard his work, but I guess it wouldn't be too favourable.

He was a journalist and historian. He received several awards for his historical work. His works on WW2 are on the reading lists of at least one uk university to my knowledge and he is quoted in lectures. His main work on WW2 is very detailed and has voluminous footnotes giving sources, including german documents and diaries. So yes he was a journalist but, in answer to your question, was also regarded as a respected historian.

Chiangmaikelly admits he has read some quotes but from the knowledge he displays he has obviously not read in much depth. He has vacillated so much in this thread in my view that he has lost all credibility. I don't respond to him anymore.

[LaoPo]

A Historical Analysis Of Why Thailand Likes America

To the OP Chiangmaikelly:

I kindly suggest you to have this large blind world map* printed on a large scale; glue it onto a large piece of hardboard/wood; nail a wooden pole onto it and allow yourself to have a good laugh with some friends on a lazy Saturday afternoon near the entrance of a market; an early morning is also all right of course.

Print a sign on your printer on A4 format saying in Thai: !!! WIN Baht 100 !!!

Than: ask one of your friends to take a megaphone and have his gf shout in the megaphone:

!!! WIN Baht 100 !!!...........!!! WIN Baht 100 !!!

Curious Thai will show up by the hundreds and you tell them if he/she can point where America is on that blind map I pay you Baht 100 BUT............. if you miss it, YOU pay me Baht 100.

large blind world map

Guess who will go home, his pockets full ?

That's how much Thai like America ............the majority doesn't even know where America is on the world map and I'll bet that 30-40% will not even be able to point where Thailand is, probably more.

But, don't worry; the masses in any given country won't know where they're going on holiday if you would show them the map, above.

LaoPo

[Ulysses G.]

All that proves is that Thais are not familiar with the world map. If you have them point out the American flag or a picture of our President for 100 bht they will all know!

Edited January 6, 2010 by Ulysses G.

[chiangmaikelly]

Caf - William L.Shirer was a journalist not a historian, there is a big difference. I am not sure how historians would regard his work, but I guess it wouldn't be too favourable.

William Shirer never wrote anything about Thailand neither did Allenbrooke. I can't understand why anyone would mention them in a discussion about Thailand.

[waza]

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.

In 1940 the French forces in Indochina consisted of an army of approximately fifty thousand men, of whom twelve thousand were French, organized into forty-one infantry battalions, two artillery regiments, and a battalion of engineers. The most obvious deficiency of the French army lay in its shortage of tanks: it could only field twenty antiquated Renault FT-17s against the Thai Army's 134 tanks primarily built by a British tractor and lawn mower company, Carden Loyd.

The Thai Army was a relatively well-equipped force. Consisting of some sixty thousand men, it was made up of four armies, the largest of which was the Burapha Army with its five divisions. Independent formations under the direct control of the army high command included two motorized cavalry battalions, one artillery battalion, one signals battalion, one engineer battalion, 10,000 short time girls, 1000 monks, 300 souvenir sales people, 3 Indian tailors and one armored regiment. The artillery had available a mixture of aged Krupp and modern Bofors howitzers and field guns, while sixty Carden Loyd tankettes, 42 motorized food carts and thirty Vickers six-ton medium tanks made up the bulk of the army's tank arm.

In early January 1941 the Thai's invaded Laos and Cambodia. The Burapha and Issan Armies led the charge. Laos was not much of a problem because of the number of brothers and sisters of the Issan Army who lived in Laos. That and the fact that the Thai troops ate everything in sight. They ate the grass and trees and all of the small animals, bugs and anything else that moved. Cambodia proved more difficult as the Khmer began stealing the Thai communication equipment. Plus the Thai's didn't speak Khmer or have any relatives there. The Khmer's downright did not like the Thai's. They preferred the French as strange as that might seem.

On January 16, 1941 the French launched a counterattack initiating the fiercest battle of the war. The counterattack was launched against the Thai-held villages of Yang Dang Khum and Phum Preav. The French transmitted their battle orders in Morse code thinking the Thai's would not understand it. They would have been better off transmitting in French. The Thais cut the attack to ribbons and the French did what the French Army is good at doing, they retreated.

Seeing the Army was getting nowhere the French ordered the Navy to attack the Thai forces at Ko Chang island. When the French attacked the Thai ships tried radio the nearby airbase for support. However no one was awake since it was only 6 AM. The French bombed and shelled with impunity until 8 AM when a Thai Naval officer managed to get through to the airbase using a local telephone. Shortly thereafter appeared Corsair bombers who bombed their own flagship. Finally a Thai pilot who could recognize his own ships dropped a few bombs as close as 15 feet to the French Cruiser Lamotte Piquet but the French anti aircraft held off most of the planes. The battle ended at 9:40 AM. Two torpedo boats and a costal defense ship were sunk and it was considered a victory for the French.

The war had lasted a couple of weeks. That is a long time for Thai's or Frenchman to fight. Everyone was tired of war. Both sides decided the Second World War was not all it was cracked up to be.

The French army suffered a total of 321 casualties, of whom 15 were officers. The total number of men missing after January 28 was 178 (6 officers opened clubs in Bangkok, 14 non-commissioned officers became hotel chefs, and 158 enlisted men married ladies from Issan). The Thais had captured 222 men (17 North Africans who later became drug dealers, 80 Frenchmen who tried to teach English at an international school, and 125 Indochinese who became construction workers).

The Thai army suffered a total of 54 men killed in action and 307 wounded.

41 sailors and marines of the Thai navy were killed, and 67 wounded. At the Battle of Ko Chang, 36 men were killed, of whom 20 belonged to HTMS Thonburi, 14 to HTMS Songkhla, and 2 to HTMS Chonburi. The Thai air force lost 13 men. The number of Thai military personnel captured by the French amounted to just 21.

The Japanese mediated the conflict, and a general armistice was arranged to go into effect on January 28. On May 9 a peace treaty was signed, with the French relinquishing their hold on the disputed territories in Laos and Cambodia. That was the two Lao provinces to the west of the Mekong and a third of Cambodia's territory (in short, what Siam had had to cede to Indochina at the beginning of the century).

The Japanese won from Thai Prime Minister Phibun a promise to support them in an attack on Malaya and Burma in a few months. This was a de facto alliance of the Thai government and the Japanese almost a year before the attack on Pearl Harbor.

The lightning swift attack by the Thai tank forces into Laos and Cambodia was termed a "Blitz Noodle" attack.

The Thai idea of putting stewardesses or hot water noodle makers in bombers never really caught on.

In this post I have taken a little liberty to add some facts that seem to make sense to me but might not have actually occurred. I think they are relatively clear. Most of the information is factual. In case they are not clear please message me for the specifics.

Excellent post, reminded me of Spike.

[bonobo]

That's how much Thai like America ............the majority doesn't even know where America is on the world map and I'll bet that 30-40% will not even be able to point where Thailand is, probably more.

 

LaoPo

And where did you get your information on the majority of Thais not knowing where the US is on a map?

(And, of course, I am not sure how being able to pinpoint a country on a map equates to a general opinion one way or another of said country. Most Thais with whom I have spoken dislike Afghanistan due to the Taliban's destruction of the Bamiyan Buddhas, but I don't know how many Thais (or anyone else, for that matter) could point to Afghanistan on a map.)

[Scott]

LaoPo, I am disappointed in your negativity! It's the same for most Americans, who can't find Thailand on a map either.

Now, I think we should let the more knowledgeable and academic posters get back to educating us.

[koheesti]

That's how much Thai like America ............the majority doesn't even know where America is on the world map and

Pardon my piling on but that's just plain silly.