Thai Peoples Understanding Of The 2Nd World War

[ajarnpot]

I was speaking to my gf who is very well educated, probably more so than the majority of expats I've met here and she starts talking about the war and problems it caused,

however the story seems to mix aspects of both the 2nd world war -I exaplained- the one in which germans were carrying out some sort of genocide on jews and non nordic people which was won by the British and the russians who were supplied by the brits and

the vietnam war- the one- I explained - in which the usa decided they did not like the political developments in Vietnam and decided to kill civilians and military alike for it,( not counting the Laos people and surrounding areas attacked in the process ) in order to show them the more peaceful and proper politics that takes place in the States and were sent running with their tails (and tales the amount of yanks I've met who are/were special forces in the nam you would think no one actually stays working in those forces) between their legs.

My question is has anyone else noticed such an occurence amongst even educated Thai people? and does anyone know why?

[jdinasia]

No, I have not found your claims to be true, nor do I agree with your analysis of WW2 or Vietnam.

[wintermute]

The reason why most Thais don't know or differentiate the wars is because during those periods they managed to stay out of most of the larger conflicts that destroyed the civilian population in other countries.

How many english speaking westerners know the details about the war in the Congo, Sino-Japanese war, or the balkans conflicts? I imagine not very many even though those wars involved millions of people and often had more casualties than major battles in the european WW2 conflict.

Thais think of it in the same way..it didn't effect them and wasn't a pivotal point in their society like it was in the western world so they sort of view it as a footnote.

Also if you think about it the Vietnam war was in fact just an extension of the French Indochina war. So you could say it was a long running conflict that ran from the post-WW2 period up until the early 70's.

Also your historical comments about WW2 is complete nonsense.

Edited September 14, 2010 by wintermute

[brewsterbudgen]

Don't mention the Japanese "occupation" of Thailand during WW2. They don't like it!

[Loz]

Well, I wouldn't word it quite as you have. I have I noticed a lack of appreciation for the seriousness of WW2 though. school kids celebrating Hitler as he was an admirable leader with much power (Face). I've found their appreciation (or lack of it) for political correctness to be consistent with one who doesn't understand the grief caused by slavery or holocaust.

It makes them appear frightfully ignorant until one considers that, it didn't have any significant impact on them. this is often accepted as a reasonable explanation.

PErsonally, I hold that the "if it didn't affect me, why should I know about it" school of thought, not to be one that is conducive to a cohesive and understanding society. But that's just me.

[wintermute]

It makes them appear frightfully ignorant until one considers that, it didn't have any significant impact on them. this is often accepted as a reasonable explanation.

PErsonally, I hold that the "if it didn't affect me, why should I know about it" school of thought, not to be one that is conducive to a cohesive and understanding society. But that's just me.

Westerners do the same thing all the time. Large portions of WW2 history is handwaved or disregarded. For instance the casualties in both Russia and China were much larger than the other allies involved yet their role in WW2 is often minimalized. in western history textbooks.

[bermondburi]

Another thing. If you asked a Chinese person about WW2 then they could say it started way before 1939 as they were fighting the imperialist Japanese long before ( our ) the start of WW2 . It's all about the history being relevant to you.

I'm not American but like another poster said you completely omit the fact that without American help ( troop numbers, convoy assistance etc ) things could have been very different.

[wintermute]

Another thing. If you asked a Chinese person about WW2 then they could say it started way before 1939 as they were fighting the imperialist Japanese long before ( our ) the start of WW2 . It's all about the history being relevant to you.

I'm not American but like another poster said you completely omit the fact that without American help ( troop numbers, convoy assistance etc ) things could have been very different.

Without lend-lease and Russia's vast ground forces, Britain would have folded like a wet paper sack after 1942.

Edited September 14, 2010 by wintermute

[Richb2004v2]

Sounds like the beginning of an anti USA thread to me. I am not from the USA but you failed to mention in your first para that if it was not for the intervention of the USA the Germans probably would have won WW2.

I agree. The synopsis by the OP was quite pathetic. I hope he's not giving his educated GF history lessons.

[Berkshire]

I hope you're not tying this to the level of education, simply by one expressing her largely "political" views. I'm sure American education, as it relates to WWII (for example) is going to have a purely American perspective, one which is not shared by the Europeans. It may be subtle, but the differences can be significant. Speaking of perspective, you should ask a devout Muslim about 9/11. I know several educated Muslims who's take on 9/11 may be rather "different" than your typical westerner.

Edited September 14, 2010 by Berkshire

[Loz]

Well I a m a westerner. I hold that Russia were vital to the success of WW2. If they had spent money on a transport infrastructure (roads) the germans wouldn't have been so bogged down (spread out trying to cover too much ground) that they became vulnerable.

But that's just part of the story.

[bermondburi]

Another thing. If you asked a Chinese person about WW2 then they could say it started way before 1939 as they were fighting the imperialist Japanese long before ( our ) the start of WW2 . It's all about the history being relevant to you.

I'm not American but like another poster said you completely omit the fact that without American help ( troop numbers, convoy assistance etc ) things could have been very different.

Without lend-lease and Russia's vast ground forces, Britain would have folded like a wet paper sack after 1942.

A wet paper sack. What is a paper sack? I thought sacks were made of cloth ? Anyway, I got the analogy.

[bermondburi]

Well I a m a westerner. I hold that Russia were vital to the success of WW2. If they had spent money on a transport infrastructure (roads) the germans wouldn't have been so bogged down (spread out trying to cover too much ground) that they became vulnerable.

But that's just part of the story.

What about the weather? the Germans actually lost more troops due to being poorly equipped for the harsh winters they faced on the Eastern front than in the fighting with the Russians. So really no one " won " it but the weather did.

[Richb2004v2]

Sounds like the beginning of an anti USA thread to me. I am not from the USA but you failed to mention in your first para that if it was not for the intervention of the USA the Germans probably would have won WW2.

I agree. The synopsis by the OP was quite pathetic. I hope he's not giving his educated GF history lessons.

Sorry. Crappy connection causing problems. Double post.

Edited September 14, 2010 by Richb2004v2

[Samuian]

yes, have been with Thai friends at the german shores of the baltic sea, pointed roughly in north esterly direction and said: "there is Finland, and there is russia and if we, keep driving this way, we will come to Danmark!"

their immediate reply was" let's drive to America!

When I replied that we would need a ship, a cruiser or take an airplane, they replied how I knew... if there are no roads... unaware of the Atlantic Ocean being in between...

It the state of the education here... sad state.

Japanese de facto occupation and the french sank the entire fleet in a single day... ah' well.. who cares..?

Many do still believe in ghosts too, don't they?

Edited September 14, 2010 by Samuian

[Piengrudee]

Don't mention the Japanese "occupation" of Thailand during WW2.  They don't like it!

Japan NEVER occupied Thailand during WW2. We (Japan & Thailand) are allies; like Germany & Italy, Hitler & Mussolini, Tom & Jerry, Punch & Judy, etc.

[wintermute]

Well I a m a westerner. I hold that Russia were vital to the success of WW2. If they had spent money on a transport infrastructure (roads) the germans wouldn't have been so bogged down (spread out trying to cover too much ground) that they became vulnerable.

But that's just part of the story.

What about the weather? the Germans actually lost more troops due to being poorly equipped for the harsh winters they faced on the Eastern front than in the fighting with the Russians. So really no one " won " it but the weather did.

By that definition Napoleon never really lost a war either. Major strategy errors due to the environment are a part of war.

[sillyman99]

OP,

Maybe your very well educated Girlfriend ( Jeez, how many times have I seen that claim on ThaiVisa ), will educate you, as you obviously have no clue whatsoever.

[Thules]

With the variety of opinions being expressed here, maybe, the Thai's will be wondering about our comprehension of WW2 ?

[WarpSpeed]

couldn't find the troll smilie.. Edited September 14, 2010 by WarpSpeed

[Jingthing]

Don't mention the Japanese "occupation" of Thailand during WW2. They don't like it!

Japan NEVER occupied Thailand during WW2. We (Japan & Thailand) are allies; like Germany & Italy, Hitler & Mussolini, Tom & Jerry, Punch & Judy, etc.

Well, they were, but Thailand's PM at the time, Phibun, was a FASCIST, so it was a friendlier occupation than most. What do they teach Thai kids, that Thailand was never occupied by Japan? That's hilarious!

Edited September 14, 2010 by Jingthing

[wintermute]

Don't mention the Japanese "occupation" of Thailand during WW2. They don't like it!

Japan NEVER occupied Thailand during WW2. We (Japan & Thailand) are allies; like Germany & Italy, Hitler & Mussolini, Tom & Jerry, Punch & Judy, etc.

Well, they were, but Thailand's PM at the time, Phibun, was a FASCIST, so it was a friendlier occupation than most.

Yeah but several Thai officials did do the smart thing and declare the alliance with the axis powers invalid secretly with an interim government. If they had been fully on board with Japan they would have gotten slapped with severe punitive conditions of surrender after WW2.

There's one thing people can't deny..Thailand's leadership has been very diplomatically crafty at saving its civilian population from the bulk of the major foreign wars in modern times.

Edited September 14, 2010 by wintermute

[tigerfish]

Don't mention the Japanese "occupation" of Thailand during WW2. They don't like it!

Japan NEVER occupied Thailand during WW2. We (Japan & Thailand) are allies; like Germany & Italy, Hitler & Mussolini, Tom & Jerry, Punch & Judy, etc.

Well, they were, but Thailand's PM at the time, Phibun, was a FASCIST, so it was a friendlier occupation than most.

Yeah but several Thai officials did do the smart thing and declare the alliance with the axis powers invalid secretly with an interim government. If they had been fully on board with Japan they would have gotten slapped with severe punitive conditions of surrender after WW2.

There's one thing people can't deny..Thailand's leadership has been very diplomatically crafty at saving its civilian population from the bulk of the major foreign wars in modern times.

its just a shame that they didnt get a good kick up the backside from the allied forces at the end of the war then. for letting the japanese commit such horrific atrocities in their own back yard against POWs when building the bridge over the river kwai

Edited September 14, 2010 by tigerfish

[wintermute]

its just a shame that they didnt get a good kick up the backside from the allied forces at the end of the war then. for letting the japanese commit such horrific atrocities in their own back yard against POWs when building the bridge over the river kwai

There's nothing they could have done about it and the leadership was smart because they knew Thais would have been brutalized by the Japanese for refusing. As it is Thai support to the Japanese was minimal. The Thai people just sort of sat out with their hands tied either way.

Like I said it was the smart move. They didn't exactly cooperate with the Japanese but didn't have to fight them as well thus saving the civilian population and the nation as a whole.

[DP25]

Japanese de facto occupation and the french sank the entire fleet in a single day... ah' well.. who cares..?

They lost one naval battle, not the entire fleet. Thailand dominated the air and ground war though, until Japan forced the Thais to stop their invasion now that Vichy France was an ally

[kunash]

Sadly my girlfriend has never heard of Adolf Hitler, or WWII, and she teaches in a kindergarten.  I was quite shocked when i asked her who he was, and she just looked at me with a blank face.

[Jingthing]

No, the Thai government most certainly DID cooperate with Japan, and also DID declare war on the US and Britain. Not the same thing but in the Nazi occupation of France, their fascist leader Petain also DID cooperate with the Nazis.

Edited September 14, 2010 by Jingthing

[wintermute]

No, the Thai government most certainly DID cooperate with Japan, and also DID declare war on the US and Britain. Not the same thing but in the Nazi occupation of France, their fascist leader Petain also DID cooperate with the Nazis.

Read about this history a little more closely. There were important factions within the government that did NOT support allying with Japan and declared this to the U.S. This is what saved Thailand from punitive surrender conditions after WW2.

I might add that important members of the royal family were part of the seri Thai resistance as well.

Edited September 14, 2010 by wintermute

[Samuian]

Japanese de facto occupation and the french sank the entire fleet in a single day... ah' well.. who cares..?

They lost one naval battle, not the entire fleet. Thailand dominated the air and ground war though, until Japan forced the Thais to stop their invasion now that Vichy France was an ally

Alright stay corrected here 'heavely defeated" then, how "big" was the fleet and how great were the losses?

The French left behind them a scene of total devastation. Thonburi was heavily damaged and grounded on a sand bar in the mouth of the Chantaboun river with a loss of about twenty dead.

The torpedo boat Chonburi was sunk with a loss of two men and HTMS Songhkla also sank with a loss of fourteen dead.

The only survivors were rescued by the torpedo boat HTMS Rayong, the minelayer HTMS Nhong Sarhai and the fishery protection vessel Thiew Uthok. These three ships, which had been sheltering to the north of Koh Chang, wisely chose not to break cover and thus were not observed by the French....

wiki

Edited September 14, 2010 by Samuian

[DP25]

They didn't exactly cooperate with the Japanese but didn't have to fight them as well thus saving the civilian population and the nation as a whole.

They invaded Burma. They wanted to reunited all the Thai speaking people of SEA, which is why they launched a successful invasion in to Laos and Cambodia until Japan ordered a ceasefire, and why they invaded Shan part of Burma.