Why Thailand Fought On The Japanese Side During Ww Ii

[JusMe]

Wrong on all counts. The government in exile declared the alliance invalid because Thailand was taken over by a military dictator at the time. Once again, i'll point towards the royal family..they did not support the Japanese occupation and they were and still are considered the social moral compass of the Thai people.

There was no "government in exile", at least not recognized by any other government. Unlike some of the European governments in exile. Despite what Seni Pramoj tried in Washington, the American government did not support any Thai government in exile, nor the formation of any Thai forces against the Japanese.

Although Thailand was governed by a military cabinet, overseen by Phibunsongkram, he was not a sole military dictator. Many others, including Phridi, cooperated with him.

And the royal family was right out of it all. Any significant members were in Switzerland or England. The regency was in Bangkok.

[wintermute]

There was no "government in exile", at least not recognized by any other government. Unlike some of the European governments in exile. Despite what Seni Pramoj tried in Washington, the American government did not support any Thai government in exile, nor the formation of any Thai forces against the Japanese.

Straight from wikipedia.

Following a late morning interview with Secretary Cordell Hull on December 8, Seni returned to his legation to confer with his staff. He stated that he hoped for an Allied victory in the war. Aware that other Washington-based diplomats of occupied countries had chosen to stand-up and cooperate with the United States Government, Seni decided to do the same.

The Thai ambassador and his staff unanimously chose to cast their lot with the Allies. That afternoon, Seni returned to the State Department to offer the embassy's services to the Allies. He blamed pro-Japanese elements for the early Thai surrender and spoke to Hull of unfreezing Thai assets in the United States for prosecution of the war. He suggested that the Thais might "organise and preserve a government of true patriotic, liberty-loving Thais while [our] government is in the clutches of Japan."

The State Department decided to act as if Seni continued to represent Thailand. This enabled him to draw on the frozen Thai assets. Asked by the State Department (at the suggestion of John P. Davies to draw up a list of "reliable and influential Thai nationals known to be definitely patriotic and anti-Japanese", Seni named Pridi, politicians Khuang Aphaiwong and Wilat Osathanon, and diplomats Phraya Sisena and Direk Chaiyanam "reliables". Others Seni suggested included his brother, Mom Rajawongse Kukrit Pramoj, and his brother-in-law, Phra Phinit.

This excerpt directly contradicts your claims that the U.S. government didn't recognize a Thai government in exile. They unfroze Thai assets on their behalf and even allowed them to form a representative committee. Not only that but the royals even campaigned with the Seri Thai resistance as the defacto authority.

Look I didn't want to call you out on it but you're outright lying now there are sources that state clear as day that the Seri Thai was considered the defacto government in exile.

Although Thailand was governed by a military cabinet, overseen by Phibunsongkram, he was not a sole military dictator. Many others, including Phridi, cooperated with him.

The military cabinet was equivalent to the regime in Vichy France it was entirely controlled by figureheads sympathetic towards the axis powers and thus invalid because they seized power through a coup.

And the royal family was right out of it all. Any significant members were in Switzerland or England. The regency was in Bangkok.

Right and they did NOT support the axis. They could have easily cast their lot in with Japan but they did not because they, along with the majority of Thai people, did not agree with the alliance nor the occupation.

This is why Thailand was not forced into reparations or surrender terms at the end of the war. They were considered unwilling allies led by a rogue dictator.

Edited September 15, 2010 by wintermute

[Tonto21]

The question posed by this topic has one simple answer. The Japanese had snazzier uniforms. You know how the Thais love their uniforms. High school principal dressed up like a Japanese Admiral or security guard at a local apartment block with parachute wings type stuff.

You may be on to something here, but I can’t see it being just the uniforms…….They must have had louder whistles as well.

[gburns57au]

Two reasons...

They knew they couldnt stop the Japs from invading and pillaging the countrys women and artifacts, so they joined them with conditions.

They have never been colonised, if the Japs had of come in forcibly and taken over thr country then this claim to fame was gone.

Interesting is that a keystone to Phasat Phnom Rung had to be purchased back from America during the restoration after it had been removed by the Americans towards the end of the war. Obviously either the same conditions were not agreed to with the Yanks or the Yanks had no qualms about stealing artifacts from countries that they were repatriating.

[Thaddeus]

This is a taboo subject in Thailand.

Very much so.

Fairly close to me there is a monument/statue, it's quite reminiscent of the very famous Iwo Jima one.

Not one single local I have talked to has been able to tell me what it is about. Whether it is from an unwillingness to talk about it or just total lack of knowledge I can't figure out. I'm heavily leaning towards the second option though.

Five monkeys in a cage syndrome.

[wintermute]

They have never been colonised, if the Japs had of come in forcibly and taken over thr country then this claim to fame was gone.

Colonization is more than just being invaded it means a significant culture, religious, and language change. The Phillipines is an example of a country that's been thoroughly colonized..they are catholic (non asian religion) and are very western in a lot of ways.

For instance a lot of english speaking countries don't want to admit it but there's some "reverse" colonization going on with American culture these days. Even Aussie and British kids walk around with a swagger listening to rap music and watching American movies.

Edited September 15, 2010 by wintermute

[Berkshire]

The choice of the Netherlands, Norway, and the non-Petain part of France was NOT to join the Nazi regime. Thailand actively joined and declared war against the Allies, something the Netherlands and Norway did NOT do.

What nonsense. A large part of the government in those nations were indeed fully compliant with the nazi regime as well because they were taken over. You're playing semantics here. The nazis even recruited soldiers from the population of those countries. So in effect they did join the nazis.

You're also using double standards here. Those European countries clearly had axis sympathetic governments pulling the strings yet the majority of the people did not like the Nazis. Thailand was literally in the same situation, they were confronted with a far superior military force and were also being led by a military dictator.

Thailand was also taken over by a axis sympathetic regime but that does not mean the Thai majority were sympathetic to the Japanese cause or wanted any part of it. The fact that the royals were totally against Japan was sign enough that much of Thailand did not agree.

And yes, they saw how Japan was beating the British. Good idea to join the stronger force, the winners, and benefit from that. Even the Japanese were surprised when Thailand actually went so far as to declare war. They had expected cooperation, but got much more!

Wrong on all counts. The government in exile declared the alliance invalid because Thailand was taken over by a military dictator at the time. Once again, i'll point towards the royal family..they did not support the Japanese occupation and they were and still are considered the social moral compass of the Thai people.

Winterdude, I'd tend to agree with most of what you say. But it seems a lot of these other guys have already made up their minds. Nevertheless, carry-on fighting the good fight!

[Ricardo]

Japan only had one voluntary ally during the war, Thailand.

I thought Germany (and Italy ?) also were allies of Japan voluntarily ?

[JusMe]

There was no "government in exile", at least not recognized by any other government. Unlike some of the European governments in exile. Despite what Seni Pramoj tried in Washington, the American government did not support any Thai government in exile, nor the formation of any Thai forces against the Japanese.

Straight from wikipedia.

"Following a late morning interview with Secretary Cordell Hull on December 8, Seni returned to his legation to confer with his staff. He stated that he hoped for an Allied victory in the war. Aware that other Washington-based diplomats of occupied countries had chosen to stand-up and cooperate with the United States Government, Seni decided to do the same.

The Thai ambassador and his staff unanimously chose to cast their lot with the Allies. That afternoon, Seni returned to the State Department to offer the embassy's services to the Allies. He blamed pro-Japanese elements for the early Thai surrender and spoke to Hull of unfreezing Thai assets in the United States for prosecution of the war. He suggested that the Thais might "organise and preserve a government of true patriotic, liberty-loving Thais while [our] government is in the clutches of Japan."

The State Department decided to act as if Seni continued to represent Thailand. This enabled him to draw on the frozen Thai assets. Asked by the State Department (at the suggestion of John P. Davies to draw up a list of "reliable and influential Thai nationals known to be definitely patriotic and anti-Japanese", Seni named Pridi, politicians Khuang Aphaiwong and Wilat Osathanon, and diplomats Phraya Sisena and Direk Chaiyanam "reliables". Others Seni suggested included his brother, Mom Rajawongse Kukrit Pramoj, and his brother-in-law, Phra Phinit."

"This excerpt directly contradicts your claims that the U.S. government didn't recognize a Thai government in exile. They unfroze Thai assets on their behalf and even allowed them to form a representative committee. Not only that but the royals even campaigned with the Seri Thai resistance as the defacto authority.

Look I didn't want to call you out on it but you're outright lying now there are sources that state clear as day that the Seri Thai was considered the defacto government in exile.

"Although Thailand was governed by a military cabinet, overseen by Phibunsongkram, he was not a sole military dictator. Many others, including Phridi, cooperated with him.

"The military cabinet was equivalent to the regime in Vichy France it was entirely controlled by figureheads sympathetic towards the axis powers and thus invalid because they seized power through a coup.

"And the royal family was right out of it all. Any significant members were in Switzerland or England. The regency was in Bangkok.

"Right and they did NOT support the axis. They could have easily cast their lot in with Japan but they did not because they, along with the majority of Thai people, did not agree with the alliance nor the occupation.

This is why Thailand was not forced into reparations or surrender terms at the end of the war. They were considered unwilling allies led by a rogue dictator.

First, although Wikipedia can often provide some decent information, I wouldn't rely on it for anything subtle or nuanced.

However, your own quote says, "The State Department decided to act as if Seni continued to represent Thailand." So where was the government in exile located? Who was the Prime Minister in Exile? All the US did was continue as usual and waited until Thailand itself declared war on them. But there was no government of Thailand anywhere except in Thailand. And simply drawing up a list does not in any way constitute a government, in exile or otherwise.

A "representative committee" only tried to give advice to the Americans, most of which was ignored.

The royal campaign was not conducted in the US as none of them were there. They did try to put forth some Thai perspective in England, but as in the US, they were mainly ignored.

Thailand was forced into agreeing to reparations, and signed a document of surrender after the war. (see the documents I've posted on SendSpace). However, as Thailand has so often done in the past, she managed to play off the British who wanted severe reparations against the Americans who wanted none at all. The economics become quite complex, but eventually even the agreed reparations were not delivered.

As a curious side note, from declaration of war to surrender and signed treaties, Thailand was actually "at war" longer against the Allies than the Japanese. (only as determined by time)

[JusMe]

Look I didn't want to call you out on it but you're outright lying now there are sources that state clear as day that the Seri Thai was considered the defacto government in exile.

The fact that you are using Wikipedia as your sources, and I have done some extensive outside study of the issue does not in any way constitute justification for you to say "you're outright lying."

I see no point in continuing that level of discussion.

[mark45y]

In response mainly to Wintermute.

Wintermute stated, “This is why Thailand was not forced into reparations or surrender terms at the end of the war. They were considered unwilling allies led by a rogue dictator.”

The reparations deal was already done. It was only through the letter writing campaign of Betty McKenzie that the reparations were lowered at the last moment. It had nothing to do with the Seri Thai and everything to do with the statements Churchill had made at the beginning of the war concerning the welfare of nations after the war. Excerpt from the letter that got Thailand off the reparations hook written to the American President by Betty McKenzie, “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."

It is interesting that you ascribe the Seri Thai with being responsible for the light treatment of Thailand with regards to reparations but it has no basis in real fact.

Your other statements about Phibun being a rouge dictator were proved false when Thailand re elected him as Prime Minister again after the war in 1948.

Your suggestions about the royal family being pro one cause or another are easily answerable but I don’t think the province of this forum so I will not go into them.

[mark45y]

Two reasons...

They knew they couldnt stop the Japs from invading and pillaging the countrys women and artifacts, so they joined them with conditions.

They have never been colonised, if the Japs had of come in forcibly and taken over thr country then this claim to fame was gone.

Interesting is that a keystone to Phasat Phnom Rung had to be purchased back from America during the restoration after it had been removed by the Americans towards the end of the war. Obviously either the same conditions were not agreed to with the Yanks or the Yanks had no qualms about stealing artifacts from countries that they were repatriating.

Not saying it didn't happen but the Yanks did not occupy Thailand after the war that was the Brits and Indians. The occupation lasted one year 1946.

[thequick7]

Why Thailand Fought On the Japanese (Axis) Side During WWII?

Simply put - Because they thought that the Japanese (Axis Powers) were going to win.

Ummm NO,

They had no choice.

You think they were gonna fight the Japanese, how could they ?

What would you have done to ensure hundreds of thousands of your people were not slaughtered, and your cities bombed ?

Cos we all know how benevolent the Japanese were against any occupied natives.

No doubt Guesthouse could have turned the war around if only he had been there.

Yes, they had options. One, of course, was to fight against the Japanese landings, disobey their own prime minister, and have large numbers slaughtered.

Another option would have been simply to acquiesce, recognizing they could do little other than submitting.

The third option, which Thailand chose, was to join the Japanese, become their allies and benefiting (short time anyway) by "winning" the war and regaining provinces from Malaya and Burma.

For original documents, see http://www.sendspace.com/file/h0ywut

The first two choices would have been silly. If you're a small country that shares land borders with others your choices are very limited if a bigger more aggressive country with a far superior military masses against you. People accusing the Thai government of being cowards for joining Japan literally always ignore the fact that there was no sensible alternative. Even most small mainland european countries (Netherlands, Norway, France, etc..) were forced to join the Nazi regime because of the imminent danger of annihilation if they fought back. This is not much different from the choice Thailand had to make. They also saw Japan literally kick the crap out of Britain in SE Asia.

Think about this for a moment..Britain during that era was still riding high on its colonial reputation as a strong country with one of the best naval forces in the world. Watching Brits surrender en mass in Singapore and getting their flagship sunk was a HUGE victory for Japan and totally broke the morale of SE Asian countries.

The countries you talk about in your retort "Netherlands, Norway, France, etc.." did not ally with germany to save themselves from being attacked, so they are not a very good example to explain your point of view. Im not saying what thailand did was wrong, that was for thailand to decide.. but to say that these countries were silly for standing up for themselves is a bit disrespectful to those that did give their lives fighting for what they believed in.

[mark45y]

Large numbers of Thais were slaughtered by the Japanese and by American bombings of Bangkok.  

If that is the case then why hasn't someone changed the causality numbers on Wiki?  

I have seen documentation about Chinese comfort women and Korean comfort women and even Japanese comfort women.  I have never seen any documentation of Thai comfort women used by the Japanese.  

I have read stories of Thai women feeding the Japanese troops as they retreated from Burma in disarray but nothing on forced prostitution of Thai women by the Japanese.  

Perhaps you could direct me to a source that mentions Thai women as opposed to Asian women.  

I have seen references to Thai engineers being hired to survey for the Japanese railroad and Thai workers hired to build the railroad but I have never seen any statistics that list Thai deaths in railroad building during WW II.

Sometimes there are no official statistics because those who are in power don't want any statistics gathered and published. That doesn't mean that many Thais were not killed in Allied bombing raids. We just don't know the numbers today. Same with the comfort women/slaves. No stats, but it still happened.

The history of the Japanese, “comfort women” has been well documented in many sources and Thai women were not a part of it as was the bombing of Bangkok both from the Thai and Allied sides.

Unless you can provide new historical evidence that runs contrary to the published histories currently available I suggest that they may be correct and you are not.

[wintermute]

First, although Wikipedia can often provide some decent information, I wouldn't rely on it for anything subtle or nuanced.

That's a rather adorable attempt to poison the source in a debate where the facts are there play as day. If you don't trust wikipedia (because mainly it refutes your argument) you can always look up the facts independently starting with the names of the people involved.

However, your own quote says, "The State Department decided to act as if Seni continued to represent Thailand." So where was the government in exile located? Who was the Prime Minister in Exile?

Nonsense. That's what the Seri Thai was..a government in exile led by a committee of high ranking officials and royals. Their state of transience was not particularly unique either. Other occupied countries also maintained a fractured state government without one authoritative leader. Also, you claim the U.S. state department didn't recognize the Seri Thai then why did they UNFREEZE state assets for the officials? Did they just willingly hand a nation's entire foreign treasury account to random people? It's not hard to figure out that it was official,..right down to Seri thai members sitting down with heads of state in the U.S.

Spin this anyway you want..people don't just hand over the keys to an entire nation's bank account on a whim during wartime.

A "representative committee" only tried to give advice to the Americans, most of which was ignored.

Wrong again. The foundation for the future thai government was set and one of the reasons why the Thai royal family possessed such a prominent role in state politics during the post-war era was due to this.

Thailand was forced into agreeing to reparations, and signed a document of surrender after the war.

The axis aligned government was asked to surrender, the nation itself had its reparations abolished. It's just like how Vichy France's policies were not considered to be reflective on France as a whole.

What you're trying to claim is hilarious though. You make it seem like thailand hoodwinked both the British and America. Sorry but that's not what happened. There was a reasoned and measured response to each country's responsibility in WW2.

Edited September 15, 2010 by wintermute

[wintermute]

The countries you talk about in your retort "Netherlands, Norway, France, etc.." did not ally with germany to save themselves from being attacked, so they are not a very good example to explain your point of view. Im not saying what thailand did was wrong, that was for thailand to decide.. but to say that these countries were silly for standing up for themselves is a bit disrespectful to those that did give their lives fighting for what they believed in.

In effect they did ally under a puppet nazi regime because they were led by officials from their own country who joined the Nazi party. Quisling, Petain, etc.. are rightfully scorned to this day but they were still native citizens and leaders in their country who chose to align with the Nazis.

What i'm saying is not reflective on the majority of people in the Netherlands, Norway, and France who did not like being under the nazi regime. I still say the parallel is similar to Thailand. Most Thais and the royal family did not like the Japanese occupation but they were being led by a military dictator with axis sympathies. There's little they could do.

If you want an example of a country that did hold out until the very end..look at Poland.

[wintermute]

In response mainly to Wintermute.

The reparations deal was already done. It was only through the letter writing campaign of Betty McKenzie that the reparations were lowered at the last moment. It had nothing to do with the Seri Thai and everything to do with the statements Churchill had made at the beginning of the war concerning the welfare of nations after the war. Excerpt from the letter that got Thailand off the reparations hook written to the American President by Betty McKenzie, "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."

The letter sounds more like a condemnation of anti-colonialism than it does about arguing any certain point about reparations. In fact that's what she is arguing. Also i'd appreciate if you quote sources.

It is interesting that you ascribe the Seri Thai with being responsible for the light treatment of Thailand with regards to reparations but it has no basis in real fact.

No, what's interesting is fabricating things like "they voted Phibun in" like your comment below when democracy was pretty much nonexistant in post WW2 Thailand.

Your other statements about Phibun being a rouge dictator were proved false when Thailand re elected him as Prime Minister again after the war in 1948.

Don't be silly, he came into power through a violent second military coup in 1947 to gain power then was later exiled to Japan after multiple attempts to overthrow him finally succeeded.

Your suggestions about the royal family being pro one cause or another are easily answerable but I don't think the province of this forum so I will not go into them.

Nice Lese Majeste there bub.

Edited September 15, 2010 by wintermute

[prodriver]

I would also think the old Thai way of taking care of themselves comes into play as well. We will and have been invaded by the Japanese lets make this as painless as possible and join them.

Even though they were alies many Thais died at the hands of the Japanese building the death railroad.

I am sorry but that is incorrect. The Asian labourers involved in the building of the railway into Burma were predominantly Tamils, Malays and Burmese. NOT Thais.

My source is from my good friend Rod Beattie who is the curator of the war cemeteries in Kanchanaburi and has the museum next to the main cemetery in town. He is one (if not the most) of the most knowledgeable people on the railway in the world today. You may have seen him on several documentaries on the subject often shown on the National Geographic channel.

[gburns57au]

They have never been colonised, if the Japs had of come in forcibly and taken over thr country then this claim to fame was gone.

Colonization is more than just being invaded it means a significant culture, religious, and language change. The Phillipines is an example of a country that's been thoroughly colonized..they are catholic (non asian religion) and are very western in a lot of ways.

For instance a lot of english speaking countries don't want to admit it but there's some "reverse" colonization going on with American culture these days. Even Aussie and British kids walk around with a swagger listening to rap music and watching American movies.

Colonization.....making an area a colony of your own country under your government...does not require significant cultural, religious or language change. to colonize a country you merely need to invade it and put your own government in. Cultural, religious and language change is a result of successful and continued colonization. To offset your PI example....lets look to Hong Kong, a Brit colony for 100 years.

[gburns57au]

Two reasons...

They knew they couldnt stop the Japs from invading and pillaging the countrys women and artifacts, so they joined them with conditions.

They have never been colonised, if the Japs had of come in forcibly and taken over thr country then this claim to fame was gone.

Interesting is that a keystone to Phasat Phnom Rung had to be purchased back from America during the restoration after it had been removed by the Americans towards the end of the war. Obviously either the same conditions were not agreed to with the Yanks or the Yanks had no qualms about stealing artifacts from countries that they were repatriating.

Not saying it didn't happen but the Yanks did not occupy Thailand after the war that was the Brits and Indians. The occupation lasted one year 1946.

Towards the end of the war does not mean after the war, before the war had ended....the keystone was taken by American soldiers and had to be purchased from a University in the US.

[mark45y]

Back as far as 1933 Thailand was pro Japan as it abstained from the League of Nations vote to censure Japan over their conduct in Manchuria.

The amount of the frozen assets of Thailand in the US totaled a couple of million dollars and were given to Thai persons in the US to establish a intelligence network during the war. The British were not so foolish and parted with little money for the same thing.

The Seri Thai took no action in Thailand until a few months before the end of the war in 1944. At the height of its power estimates put it at 8000 people.

To compare France to Thailand during WW II is beyond silly. France went to war, lost hundreds of thousands of soldiers and civilians and lost the war and was occupied by Germany. Parts of Thailand resisted a Japanese landing for two hours and then became the only voluntary ally of Japan during WW II.

The wartime government after being ousted at the end of the war was reelected a year later and many of the Seri Thai members were assassinated.

Was American hoodwinked by Thais? Being stuck in the US at the outbreak of hostilities the diplomats had two choices. One to be interned for the remainder of the war as were the Japanese diplomats or to get a couple of million in cash and live pretty well during the war. Which choice would you have made?

[JusMe]

Back as far as 1933 Thailand was pro Japan as it abstained from the League of Nations vote to censure Japan over their conduct in Manchuria.

The amount of the frozen assets of Thailand in the US totaled a couple of million dollars and were given to Thai persons in the US to establish a intelligence network during the war. The British were not so foolish and parted with little money for the same thing.

The Seri Thai took no action in Thailand until a few months before the end of the war in 1944. At the height of its power estimates put it at 8000 people.

To compare France to Thailand during WW II is beyond silly. France went to war, lost hundreds of thousands of soldiers and civilians and lost the war and was occupied by Germany. Parts of Thailand resisted a Japanese landing for two hours and then became the only voluntary ally of Japan during WW II.

The wartime government after being ousted at the end of the war was reelected a year later and many of the Seri Thai members were assassinated.

Was American hoodwinked by Thais? Being stuck in the US at the outbreak of hostilities the diplomats had two choices. One to be interned for the remainder of the war as were the Japanese diplomats or to get a couple of million in cash and live pretty well during the war. Which choice would you have made?

Hmmm, Mark, sounds as if you've done the same kind of extensive study as I have.

The Seri Thai wasn't completely ineffective. They did provide some bombing reports of damage done by Allied planes to the Bangkok ports, and they did rescue a few Allied downed flyers who were handed over to the Thai military rather than the Japanese. But they did not undertake any attacks or sabotage of Japanese assets.

Neither did they offer any help to those prisoners of war on the River Kwai. A pharmacist in Kanchanaburi on rare occasions was able to give a little medicine, and a family there (which had an auto body shop in Bangkok until recently) did manage to smuggle a small amount of foodstuff on boats up the river. Any financial aid the prisoners received was from the interned Allied civilians in Bangkok.

[mark45y]

To Wintermute.

The answer to the Betty McKenzie letter from the state department. 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.

Phibun was a peoples favorite. He was not convicted of war crimes because of the public outcry in 1945. Phibun was installed as PM in 1947 because he had the support of the people and gave an air of legitimacy to the military coup.

[mark45y]

I would also think the old Thai way of taking care of themselves comes into play as well. We will and have been invaded by the Japanese lets make this as painless as possible and join them.

Even though they were alies many Thais died at the hands of the Japanese building the death railroad.

I am sorry but that is incorrect. The Asian labourers involved in the building of the railway into Burma were predominantly Tamils, Malays and Burmese. NOT Thais.

My source is from my good friend Rod Beattie who is the curator of the war cemeteries in Kanchanaburi and has the museum next to the main cemetery in town. He is one (if not the most) of the most knowledgeable people on the railway in the world today. You may have seen him on several documentaries on the subject often shown on the National Geographic channel.

Thanks, I learn something every day.

[longway]

There was quite a lot of support from the Thai population for the Japanese and for the Thai involvement in it. See some of the newspapers at the time (

If you think that using government controlled newspapers who have been disseminating anti chinese propaganda for years prior to the war are a fair way of guage the level of support of the thai population then yes your statement can be true. Don't forget that the nationalistic card was also played by phibun who 'regained' territory lost by thaiand to the french in a war, the japanese mediated the ceasefire. Its a complex time and events of those times can be spun in many ways to suit whatever POV you want to peddle.

Your other statements about Phibun being a rouge dictator were proved false when Thailand re elected him as Prime Minister again after the war in 1948.

The democrats won that election with Anuphong as PM the military forced him to resign later on, that is when Phibun became PM again.

The Seri Thai was perhaps the best equipped, best communicating, best organized, and least effective of any resistance forces during WWII.

SEAC diagreed with you.

Edited September 15, 2010 by longway

[elkangorito]

About whom are you speaking?

There was quite a lot of support from the Thai population for the Japanese and for the Thai involvement in it. See some of the newspapers at the time (

If you think that using government controlled newspapers who have been disseminating anti chinese propaganda for years prior to the war are a fair way of guage the level of support of the thai population then yes your statement can be true. Don't forget that the nationalistic card was also played by phibun who 'regained' territory lost by thaiand to the french in a war, the japanese mediated the ceasefire. Its a complex time and events of those times can be spun in many ways to suit whatever POV you want to peddle.

Your other statements about Phibun being a rouge dictator were proved false when Thailand re elected him as Prime Minister again after the war in 1948.

The democrats won that election with Anuphong as PM the military forced him to resign later on, that is when Phibun became PM again.

The Seri Thai was perhaps the best equipped, best communicating, best organized, and least effective of any resistance forces during WWII.

SEAC diagreed with you.

Edited September 15, 2010 by elkangorito

[ianwuk]

Very interesting to read. Thanks very much

ianwuk

[barrybankruad]

Two reasons...

They knew they couldnt stop the Japs from invading and pillaging the countrys women and artifacts, so they joined them with conditions.

They have never been colonised, if the Japs had of come in forcibly and taken over thr country then this claim to fame was gone.

Interesting is that a keystone to Phasat Phnom Rung had to be purchased back from America during the restoration after it had been removed by the Americans towards the end of the war. Obviously either the same conditions were not agreed to with the Yanks or the Yanks had no qualms about stealing artifacts from countries that they were repatriating.

Different war. The Narai lintel was stolen by the Americans during the Vietnam War. not WWII.

[electau]

Thailand was occupied by the Japanese in WW2. The occupation commenced at the same time as the attack on Malaya. Between 2400 hrs and 0130hrs on the 7/8 December 1941.

Thailand was never colonised and was sympathetic toward Japans interests at the time. It could never be regarded as an "enemy country". Bangkok was bombed by B29s from India before these aircraft were relocated to the Pacific islands to bomb Japan directly.

Japan needed to occupy Thailand so they could invade Burma and the later India would have been next.

At the time of the attack on the British Empire by Japan the British Goverment had still never received a definite reply from the US if it would join in the war against Japan if there was an attack on Singapore or Malaya.

As luck happened the US was caught of guard by the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour two hours later. Mr Churchill was said to be very pleased when he was advised.

The US had a neutralist policy at the time and had never jointed th League of Nations.

Thailand as a country was not directly involved in WW2 other countries were Portugal ( East Timor was occupied by the Japanese). Both Thailand and Portugal were sympathetic to the aims of the Axis powers. Thailand had a defacto goverment in exile as had many European countries that had been overrun by German forces.

Great Britain declared war on Germany, Japan declared war on the British Empire, Japan declared war on the United States of America and Germany declared war on the USA after Japan had attacked Pearl Harbour. Germany attacked the USSR but the USSR had a non agression pact with Japan until 1945 when they invaded Korea.

Edited September 16, 2010 by electau

[JusMe]

Thailand was occupied by the Japanese in WW2. The occupation commenced at the same time as the attack on Malaya.

Japan needed to occupy Thailand so they could invade Burma and the later India would have been next.

Thailand as a country was not directly involved in WW2

Thailand had a defacto goverment in exile as had many European countries that had been overrun by German forces.

Great Britain declared war on Germany, Japan declared war on the British Empire, Japan declared war on the United States of America and Germany declared war on the USA after Japan had attacked Pearl Harbour. Germany attacked the USSR but the USSR had a non agression pact with Japan until 1945 when they invaded Korea.

Thailand was NEVER occupied. Thailand agreed that the Japanese could cross Thailand in order to attack Malaya and Burma, and Thailand also agreed to supply materiel. But the Thai armed forces, as well as the Thai police forces, remained completely independent and armed. The country was NOT occupied.

As for involvement in WW2? Thailand declared war, even to the surprise of the Japanese, against the Allies. She also occupied four Malay provinces and one Burmese, where Thai forces did come into contact with Chinese forces.

There was NO Thai government in exile whatsoever, defacto or otherwise. There were a few individuals, such as Seni Pramoj, who tried to influence Western governments, but they were unsuccessful.