Are Thais Taught Anything About The World Outside Of Thailand

[poanoi]

There are in fact few people world wide who has an understanding how and why the world functioning,

only those that studied physics understand

[Mosha]

I only know 1 Thai in the area who remembers the Japanese being in La-Un, she was a young girl. She says there were no Farang soldiers kept here.

http://www.sophonshideaway.com/Whatson/WW2Japanese.htm

[StreetCowboy]

There are in fact few people world wide who has an understanding how and why the world functioning,

only those that studied physics understand

Speak for yourself. I don't.

SC

[kerryk]

Occasionally, I come across some Americans who still think Taiwan and Thailand are the same country. I suppose that it is not only Thai people who don't know much about the outside world.

,

education ain't what it used to be that's for sure, doesn't seem to matter which country you choose.

You're thinking of nostalgia. Nostalgia's crap, nowadays. Old people don't know they when they're well off nowadays, not like when I was young.

SC

The only real education is that of the university of life, they don't teach that in school.

Thank goodness you posted. I just called my wife and told her to take our two boys out of medical school as it is not a real education. Saved me a ton of money.

[phutoie2]

The more educated you are, the more you will have to think.

Ignorance is bliss

Was it some greek guy in a toga who said " There are two types of people in the world. Those who sit and think and those who just sit"

Well Greece are up sh*t creek without a paddle and Thailand are doing quite nicely, but a bit damp presently.

[KeyserSoze01]

Some members may have noticed Italy announced a deal with China re bond funding last week, and the Chinese have also looked at buying Greek bonds. What's the end game?

"He who pays the piper calls the tune".....................why go to war when you can wreck a countries economy overnight but simply calling in your debt.

Very very cunning huh? Now your starting to see the REAL COST of that cheap pair of shoes you bought at Walmart.

The end game for China is to continue to support struggling economies while at the same time feathering their own nest. China is quietly investing in many countries around the world and using these investments to leverage their position to gain economic dominance. One doesn't have to dig very deep to find evidence of this trend. If China were to "call in their debts", the result would be mutually assured economic destruction.

Countries have gone bankrupt before and it did not topple the world's financial systems. Greece would be no different.

[nong38]

Some members may have noticed Italy announced a deal with China re bond funding last week, and the Chinese have also looked at buying Greek bonds. What's the end game?

"He who pays the piper calls the tune".....................why go to war when you can wreck a countries economy overnight but simply calling in your debt.

Very very cunning huh? Now your starting to see the REAL COST of that cheap pair of shoes you bought at Walmart.

The end game for China is to continue to support struggling economies while at the same time feathering their own nest. China is quietly investing in many countries around the world and using these investments to leverage their position to gain economic dominance. One doesn't have to dig very deep to find evidence of this trend. If China were to "call in their debts", the result would be mutually assured economic destruction.

Countries have gone bankrupt before and it did not topple the world's financial systems. Greece would be no different.

Cant argue with that. The problem with the EU is when they set the party up they let countries get involved who ere not sticking to the financial requirements, the major players all knew that was the case, just told some of those southern states to put your house in order very soon...........promise now ok. All being carried along in the euphoria of the great new world currency and what happened ? Promises not kept, allowed to get worse and now the birds have come to roost. The Germans are going to have bail this lot out, they dont have much choice.

[Berkshire]

Exactly. The American history that I learned conveniently left out (or otherwise marginalized) what happened to blacks and American Indians. Found out years later that it was rather significant. I would imagine Euro history taught in schools is very much the same.

Are you claiming that you were educated in the US but not taught about what happened to blacks and American Indians? That seems HIGHLY unlikely to me. In fact, I think it's b*^+ocks.

Sorry for late reply, but I've been somewhat occupied.

Mr. SteeleJoe, what is your malfunction? Talk about selective reading. Unless English is a third language for you. Read my post again. Explain to me what "or otherwise marginalized" means.

[WebBangkok]

How many of you have been taught anything about Thai history ? I know i havent

Yes , i was, and it was clearly about the R&R of Short Time for American Soldiers.....

WhingeingMoaners, on Today, 20:36 , said:

Occasionally, I come across some Americans who still think Taiwan and Thailand are the same country. I suppose that it is not only Thai people who don't know much about the outside world.

lol at the black dude, he wants to wipe out every country

[Kananga]

If I had a clue what you were on about I'd gladly answer any "question" you care to put to me, however I think you've had a few this evening.

You have to laugh at these types. What if you chose the handle 'Sex God' or 'World's fastest Swimmer'? Bet he wouldn't be so fast to take the name so literally then. Its amazing how some people can be easily swayed like that, and obviously the irony of your handle was completely lost on him.

Then to top it off he attempts to bamboozle you with some sort of pseudo intellectual pidgin english!

[MrJohnson]

Occasionally, I come across some Americans who still think Taiwan and Thailand are the same country. I suppose that it is not only Thai people who don't know much about the outside world.

Yes, fair point. How much do we, as westerners know about Asian history. The Opium Wars, The Rape of Nanjing, the long and hard won independence struggle of the Indonesians against the Dutch, Portugese, French and the English?

[exeter]

Occasionally, I come across some Americans who still think Taiwan and Thailand are the same country. I suppose that it is not only Thai people who don't know much about the outside world.

Yes, fair point. How much do we, as westerners know about Asian history. The Opium Wars, The Rape of Nanjing, the long and hard won independence struggle of the Indonesians against the Dutch, Portugese, French and the English?

The further away from home we get the less we know of where we currently are, perhaps that is the same in most education systems, a good point indeed, however the English would only have been in this part of the world under the British flag along with possibly Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish. The British were in Malaya and Singapore but I had no idea that Indonesia won indepence struggle with the "English-British" Part of Malaya, now Malaysia? is on an Island where some of Indonesia is for sure and I do remember many years ago a struggle going on in that part of the then Malaya which eventually resulted in Malaysia emerging from British rule, along with Singapore, into fully independent and nowadays successful countries/city states.

[alleykat]

Occasionally, I come across some Americans who still think Taiwan and Thailand are the same country. I suppose that it is not only Thai people who don't know much about the outside world.

Yes, fair point. How much do we, as westerners know about Asian history. The Opium Wars, The Rape of Nanjing, the long and hard won independence struggle of the Indonesians against the Dutch, Portugese, French and the English?

Probably more than the Thais.

[Albacore]

Quite right. The ambassador story is a marketing tool. Surprising how much traction it has had over the years. One merely has to think about it for a moment. Thailand allowed Japan land access for the troops that defeated Singapore. How happy can the Allies have been at the time?

Indeed. It is so simplistic and illogical and yet it's so widely accepted -- that is surprising.

For all we know, Cordell Hull said to him. "If I were you I would take that thing back. Here's what we'll offer you: you get to go along with the Japanese and avoid the unpleasantness with them that your neighbors have had -- you can't beat them anyway and we certainly aren't even close to ready to kick them out -- and in the meantime you help us out during and after the war by...in return, we'll look after you even if your on the losing side". Or maybe it was something like that but it was Seni's idea. Or Phibun's.) And then the Thais proceed to have their cake and eat it too.

I think anyone can figure it out. Follow the money. Thailand assets in the US frozen and few of the diplomats or students in the US went back to Thailand when they had the chance during the exchange of diplomats.

The Thai embassy gave the Thai students in the US their money. So a lot of well connected kids were out of cash and a lot of well connected diplomats.

What's a fellow to do. Some of history is in books and some is logic. I have read a couple of books recently.

Siam becomes Thailand: a story of intrigue

By Judith A. Stowe

Thailand and the Japanese presence, 1941-45

By Thamsook Numnonda

I learned quite a lot I didn't know. GF thinks I am a bit nuts reading about Thai history. That does tell you something about this topic

.

Thailand did have a plan for fighting the Japanese. Move the capital to Phetchabun and fight them from the mountains. The communists fought the Thai army there for 10 years in the 1970's.

Thailand only had a population of 12 million during WW II and a standing army of 50,000. The Japanese rarely had more than 50,000 troops in Thailand. How long could 50,000 have lasted in the mountains? The communists lasted for 10 years. Thailand could have influenced the outcome of the war. They chose not to. And they choose not to remember it very well either. It is easier to manage a country when the citizens know little about the outside world or history.

Hello,

I will need to read Thailand and the Japanese Presence, 1941-45. I've enjoyed reading your posts on this thread, but please allow me to argue some of the points made here. While Thailand had a standing army of 50,000 (and could have brought up more without too much trouble) using considerably modern equipment, their number one supplier was the Empire of Japan. The Type-46, Type-83 (Thai designation of the Japanese Type-38), Type-66 rifles, bayonets, submarines, and modern warships all came from the Japanese. The Japanese also supplied them the munitions. Although Thailand had already bought equipment from Germany for manufacturing their own rounds, I believe they relied too much on Japan as a supplier to wage war with them. You do mention retreating to the mountains and waging war with the Japanese there. I do believe the Thais could have held the Japanese off a considerable while in this fashion. Thai soldiers were determined, and the Japanese were known for not making the most tactical decisions regarding attacks on entrenched opponents. Although they might have been able to hold them off here, and maybe they could have been supplied by other foreigners, what the Japanese really needed was was in the Southern parts of Thailand. Yes, the Thais did put up a ferocious fight for a short while in some places, and the Battle of Prachuab Khrikhan comes to mind. It may be easy to look at the significant number of Japanese casualties compared to Thais in this instance and figure they should have kept fighting. The reality is that the commander got the message of the cease fire, and thinking it was a Japanese trick, ordered his men to keep blasting away at Japanese who were under the impression that a cease-fire had been made. The agreement to a cease-fire must have been very embarrassing to many Thai soldiers, and I think the agreement was made primarily in the interest of a few Thais. However, I truly believe this agreement saved many, many, many Thais. The Japanese were not nice to the Thais after they occupied Thailand, and constantly humiliated Thais by slapping them across the face. If Thailand had chosen to fight Japan, after Japanese had helped them in so many ways militarily, I don't think the Japanese would have had any mercy for Thais, who'd be seen as backstabbing traitors. While they might have fought them off for a while in the mountains, the Japanese would have quickly swept across the South of Thailand- torturing, raping, and murdering countless Thais as they had already been doing for years in China. If this had been the case, I bet a lot more Thais would know something about WWII.

-James

Edited September 19, 2011 by Albacore

[Richard4849]

Occasionally, I come across some Americans who still think Taiwan and Thailand are the same country. I suppose that it is not only Thai people who don't know much about the outside world.

Yes, fair point. How much do we, as westerners know about Asian history. The Opium Wars, The Rape of Nanjing, the long and hard won independence struggle of the Indonesians against the Dutch, Portugese, French and the English?

Probably more than the Thais.

Depends on what kind of Thais you're hanging out with, don't you think? There are a lot of very highly educated Thais, in case you were not aware.

[Kananga]

Occasionally, I come across some Americans who still think Taiwan and Thailand are the same country. I suppose that it is not only Thai people who don't know much about the outside world.

Yes, fair point. How much do we, as westerners know about Asian history. The Opium Wars, The Rape of Nanjing, the long and hard won independence struggle of the Indonesians against the Dutch, Portugese, French and the English?

Probably more than the Thais.

Depends on what kind of Thais you're hanging out with, don't you think? There are a lot of very highly educated Thais, in case you were not aware.

There are Thai traffic cops that don't take bribes, but they are also not the norm in case you were not aware...

[StreetCowboy]

Quite right. The ambassador story is a marketing tool. Surprising how much traction it has had over the years. One merely has to think about it for a moment. Thailand allowed Japan land access for the troops that defeated Singapore. How happy can the Allies have been at the time?

Indeed. It is so simplistic and illogical and yet it's so widely accepted -- that is surprising.

For all we know, Cordell Hull said to him. "If I were you I would take that thing back. Here's what we'll offer you: you get to go along with the Japanese and avoid the unpleasantness with them that your neighbors have had -- you can't beat them anyway and we certainly aren't even close to ready to kick them out -- and in the meantime you help us out during and after the war by...in return, we'll look after you even if your on the losing side". Or maybe it was something like that but it was Seni's idea. Or Phibun's.) And then the Thais proceed to have their cake and eat it too.

I think anyone can figure it out. Follow the money. Thailand assets in the US frozen and few of the diplomats or students in the US went back to Thailand when they had the chance during the exchange of diplomats.

The Thai embassy gave the Thai students in the US their money. So a lot of well connected kids were out of cash and a lot of well connected diplomats.

What's a fellow to do. Some of history is in books and some is logic. I have read a couple of books recently.

Siam becomes Thailand: a story of intrigue

By Judith A. Stowe

Thailand and the Japanese presence, 1941-45

By Thamsook Numnonda

I learned quite a lot I didn't know. GF thinks I am a bit nuts reading about Thai history. That does tell you something about this topic

.

Thailand did have a plan for fighting the Japanese. Move the capital to Phetchabun and fight them from the mountains. The communists fought the Thai army there for 10 years in the 1970's.

Thailand only had a population of 12 million during WW II and a standing army of 50,000. The Japanese rarely had more than 50,000 troops in Thailand. How long could 50,000 have lasted in the mountains? The communists lasted for 10 years. Thailand could have influenced the outcome of the war. They chose not to. And they choose not to remember it very well either. It is easier to manage a country when the citizens know little about the outside world or history.

Hello,

I will need to read Thailand and the Japanese Presence, 1941-45. I've enjoyed reading your posts on this thread, but please allow me to argue some of the points made here. While Thailand had a standing army of 50,000 (and could have brought up more without too much trouble) using considerably modern equipment, their number one supplier was the Empire of Japan. The Type-46, Type-83 (Thai designation of the Japanese Type-38), Type-66 rifles, bayonets, submarines, and modern warships all came from the Japanese. The Japanese also supplied them the munitions. Although Thailand had already bought equipment from Germany for manufacturing their own rounds, I believe they relied too much on Japan as a supplier to wage war with them. You do mention retreating to the mountains and waging war with the Japanese there. I do believe the Thais could have held the Japanese off a considerable while in this fashion. Thai soldiers were determined, and the Japanese were known for not making the most tactical decisions regarding attacks on entrenched opponents. Although they might have been able to hold them off here, and maybe they could have been supplied by other foreigners, what the Japanese really needed was was in the Southern parts of Thailand. Yes, the Thais did put up a ferocious fight for a short while in some places, and the Battle of Prachuab Khrikhan comes to mind. It may be easy to look at the significant number of Japanese casualties compared to Thais in this instance and figure they should have kept fighting. The reality is that the commander got the message of the cease fire, and thinking it was a Japanese trick, ordered his men to keep blasting away at Japanese who were under the impression that a cease-fire had been made. The agreement to a cease-fire must have been very embarrassing to many Thai soldiers, and I think the agreement was made primarily in the interest of a few Thais. However, I truly believe this agreement saved many, many, many Thais. The Japanese were not nice to the Thais after they occupied Thailand, and constantly humiliated Thais by slapping them across the face. If Thailand had chosen to fight Japan, after Japanese had helped them in so many ways militarily, I don't think the Japanese would have had any mercy for Thais, who'd be seen as backstabbing traitors. While they might have fought them off for a while in the mountains, the Japanese would have quickly swept across the South of Thailand torturing, raping, and murdering countless Thais. If this had been the case, I bet a lot more Thais would know something about WWII.

-James

Why would the Thais have chosen to fight on behalf of an oppressor from the opposite side of the world against an oppressor from their own continent, who had similar coloured skin and shared some religious beliefs? We all choose sides in our wars, and write our histories afterwards. If we are lucky, we can paint ourselves as heroes; if we are less so, perhaps we can claim to be victims. We all seek not to be stuck with Hitler in the Naughty Corner, beside Vlad the Impaler, even if that means sacrificing our reputation for courage and heroism, as the Italians have had to do.

What do the Chinese call the 1935 - 49 war?

Getting closer to home,

What do Europeans call the American War?

SC

[jombom]

The invasion of Thailand was only a small part of the attack on Singapore. If the Thai army had gone to the mountains, the Japanese would have continued on to Malaysia anyway. Basically, it had little or nothing to do with Thailand.

The first ''action'' in the Pacific war was an attack on an RAF airfield in Northern Malaysia, approx 20 minutes before Pearl Harbour.

The attack on the airfield was supposed to prevent aerial defense against troop landings in Thailand.

[kerryk]

The invasion of Thailand was only a small part of the attack on Singapore. If the Thai army had gone to the mountains, the Japanese would have continued on to Malaysia anyway. Basically, it had little or nothing to do with Thailand.

The first ''action'' in the Pacific war was an attack on an RAF airfield in Northern Malaysia, approx 20 minutes before Pearl Harbour.

The attack on the airfield was supposed to prevent aerial defense against troop landings in Thailand.

Seems you have forgotten about the 100,000 Japanese troops that went North and invaded Burma. Japanese planes were flying out of Chiang Mai attacking Burma and China only a few weeks after the troops landed in Thailand. Thailand was an integral part of the Japanese strategy in the China Burma theatre during the war.

The Flying Tigers (US Mercenaries) attacked the Japanese at Chiang Mai shortly after the Japanese had landed in Thailand and started flying out of the Northern airfields. When the Thais decided to mentally change sides after WW II they even built a memorial to the downed Flying Tiger pilots in Chiang Mai.

This is not to say that the Thais did not eventually tire of the Japanese presence. In the last year of the war they got in an argument over guess what? Money. And the Thais were ready to kick the Japanese out but the Allies talked them into waiting, saying it would cause to many problems and the war was already actually over anyway. So the Thai forces loyal to the Allies never got to actually fight the Japanese. The Thais during the war did try to provide intelligence to the Allies but it was never trusted. Hmmmm wonder why?

[kerryk]

Quite right. The ambassador story is a marketing tool. Surprising how much traction it has had over the years. One merely has to think about it for a moment. Thailand allowed Japan land access for the troops that defeated Singapore. How happy can the Allies have been at the time?

Indeed. It is so simplistic and illogical and yet it's so widely accepted -- that is surprising.

For all we know, Cordell Hull said to him. "If I were you I would take that thing back. Here's what we'll offer you: you get to go along with the Japanese and avoid the unpleasantness with them that your neighbors have had -- you can't beat them anyway and we certainly aren't even close to ready to kick them out -- and in the meantime you help us out during and after the war by...in return, we'll look after you even if your on the losing side". Or maybe it was something like that but it was Seni's idea. Or Phibun's.) And then the Thais proceed to have their cake and eat it too.

I think anyone can figure it out. Follow the money. Thailand assets in the US frozen and few of the diplomats or students in the US went back to Thailand when they had the chance during the exchange of diplomats.

The Thai embassy gave the Thai students in the US their money. So a lot of well connected kids were out of cash and a lot of well connected diplomats.

What's a fellow to do. Some of history is in books and some is logic. I have read a couple of books recently.

Siam becomes Thailand: a story of intrigue

By Judith A. Stowe

Thailand and the Japanese presence, 1941-45

By Thamsook Numnonda

I learned quite a lot I didn't know. GF thinks I am a bit nuts reading about Thai history. That does tell you something about this topic

.

Thailand did have a plan for fighting the Japanese. Move the capital to Phetchabun and fight them from the mountains. The communists fought the Thai army there for 10 years in the 1970's.

Thailand only had a population of 12 million during WW II and a standing army of 50,000. The Japanese rarely had more than 50,000 troops in Thailand. How long could 50,000 have lasted in the mountains? The communists lasted for 10 years. Thailand could have influenced the outcome of the war. They chose not to. And they choose not to remember it very well either. It is easier to manage a country when the citizens know little about the outside world or history.

Hello,

I will need to read Thailand and the Japanese Presence, 1941-45. I've enjoyed reading your posts on this thread, but please allow me to argue some of the points made here. While Thailand had a standing army of 50,000 (and could have brought up more without too much trouble) using considerably modern equipment, their number one supplier was the Empire of Japan. The Type-46, Type-83 (Thai designation of the Japanese Type-38), Type-66 rifles, bayonets, submarines, and modern warships all came from the Japanese. The Japanese also supplied them the munitions. Although Thailand had already bought equipment from Germany for manufacturing their own rounds, I believe they relied too much on Japan as a supplier to wage war with them. You do mention retreating to the mountains and waging war with the Japanese there. I do believe the Thais could have held the Japanese off a considerable while in this fashion. Thai soldiers were determined, and the Japanese were known for not making the most tactical decisions regarding attacks on entrenched opponents. Although they might have been able to hold them off here, and maybe they could have been supplied by other foreigners, what the Japanese really needed was was in the Southern parts of Thailand. Yes, the Thais did put up a ferocious fight for a short while in some places, and the Battle of Prachuab Khrikhan comes to mind. It may be easy to look at the significant number of Japanese casualties compared to Thais in this instance and figure they should have kept fighting. The reality is that the commander got the message of the cease fire, and thinking it was a Japanese trick, ordered his men to keep blasting away at Japanese who were under the impression that a cease-fire had been made. The agreement to a cease-fire must have been very embarrassing to many Thai soldiers, and I think the agreement was made primarily in the interest of a few Thais. However, I truly believe this agreement saved many, many, many Thais. The Japanese were not nice to the Thais after they occupied Thailand, and constantly humiliated Thais by slapping them across the face. If Thailand had chosen to fight Japan, after Japanese had helped them in so many ways militarily, I don't think the Japanese would have had any mercy for Thais, who'd be seen as backstabbing traitors. While they might have fought them off for a while in the mountains, the Japanese would have quickly swept across the South of Thailand- torturing, raping, and murdering countless Thais as they had already been doing for years in China. If this had been the case, I bet a lot more Thais would know something about WWII.

-James

There was no Japanese control over the Thai Army or administration during the war. The two nations were equal partners and never acted like conqueror and conquered.

Thailand was the only country in South East Asia where the indigenous army operated independently of the Japanese army. Japan kept it's promise to Thailand to respect their independence. The Thai view during that time was that the Japanese army was not an army of occupation but a guest army.

Although there was some friction between the armies there were no recorded cases of them fighting after the Treaty of Friendship which stipulated Japan would treat Thailand as an ally was signed.

Dr. Ba Maw the Burmese PM when visiting Thailand soon after the war said, “I found Thailand almost undamaged by the war....the Thais appeared to be completely carefree and unconcerned with the tremendous storms over the region around them.”

Thailand danced a little two step and led the world of public opinion on. The PM of Burma didn't make it up. Thailand basically escaped damage from WW II the same as it had escaped colonization before with luck and diplomacy and marketing. Look at how many people on Thai Visa think Thailand was occupied by the Japanese army. No one at the time referred to it as occupation that came later when the powers to be were re writing history.

[kerryk]

Indeed. It is so simplistic and illogical and yet it's so widely accepted -- that is surprising.

For all we know, Cordell Hull said to him. "If I were you I would take that thing back. Here's what we'll offer you: you get to go along with the Japanese and avoid the unpleasantness with them that your neighbors have had -- you can't beat them anyway and we certainly aren't even close to ready to kick them out -- and in the meantime you help us out during and after the war by...in return, we'll look after you even if your on the losing side". Or maybe it was something like that but it was Seni's idea. Or Phibun's.) And then the Thais proceed to have their cake and eat it too.

I think anyone can figure it out. Follow the money. Thailand assets in the US frozen and few of the diplomats or students in the US went back to Thailand when they had the chance during the exchange of diplomats.

The Thai embassy gave the Thai students in the US their money. So a lot of well connected kids were out of cash and a lot of well connected diplomats.

What's a fellow to do. Some of history is in books and some is logic. I have read a couple of books recently.

Siam becomes Thailand: a story of intrigue

By Judith A. Stowe

Thailand and the Japanese presence, 1941-45

By Thamsook Numnonda

I learned quite a lot I didn't know. GF thinks I am a bit nuts reading about Thai history. That does tell you something about this topic

.

Thailand did have a plan for fighting the Japanese. Move the capital to Phetchabun and fight them from the mountains. The communists fought the Thai army there for 10 years in the 1970's.

Thailand only had a population of 12 million during WW II and a standing army of 50,000. The Japanese rarely had more than 50,000 troops in Thailand. How long could 50,000 have lasted in the mountains? The communists lasted for 10 years. Thailand could have influenced the outcome of the war. They chose not to. And they choose not to remember it very well either. It is easier to manage a country when the citizens know little about the outside world or history.

Hello,

I will need to read Thailand and the Japanese Presence, 1941-45. I've enjoyed reading your posts on this thread, but please allow me to argue some of the points made here. While Thailand had a standing army of 50,000 (and could have brought up more without too much trouble) using considerably modern equipment, their number one supplier was the Empire of Japan. The Type-46, Type-83 (Thai designation of the Japanese Type-38), Type-66 rifles, bayonets, submarines, and modern warships all came from the Japanese. The Japanese also supplied them the munitions. Although Thailand had already bought equipment from Germany for manufacturing their own rounds, I believe they relied too much on Japan as a supplier to wage war with them. You do mention retreating to the mountains and waging war with the Japanese there. I do believe the Thais could have held the Japanese off a considerable while in this fashion. Thai soldiers were determined, and the Japanese were known for not making the most tactical decisions regarding attacks on entrenched opponents. Although they might have been able to hold them off here, and maybe they could have been supplied by other foreigners, what the Japanese really needed was was in the Southern parts of Thailand. Yes, the Thais did put up a ferocious fight for a short while in some places, and the Battle of Prachuab Khrikhan comes to mind. It may be easy to look at the significant number of Japanese casualties compared to Thais in this instance and figure they should have kept fighting. The reality is that the commander got the message of the cease fire, and thinking it was a Japanese trick, ordered his men to keep blasting away at Japanese who were under the impression that a cease-fire had been made. The agreement to a cease-fire must have been very embarrassing to many Thai soldiers, and I think the agreement was made primarily in the interest of a few Thais. However, I truly believe this agreement saved many, many, many Thais. The Japanese were not nice to the Thais after they occupied Thailand, and constantly humiliated Thais by slapping them across the face. If Thailand had chosen to fight Japan, after Japanese had helped them in so many ways militarily, I don't think the Japanese would have had any mercy for Thais, who'd be seen as backstabbing traitors. While they might have fought them off for a while in the mountains, the Japanese would have quickly swept across the South of Thailand torturing, raping, and murdering countless Thais. If this had been the case, I bet a lot more Thais would know something about WWII.

-James

Why would the Thais have chosen to fight on behalf of an oppressor from the opposite side of the world against an oppressor from their own continent, who had similar coloured skin and shared some religious beliefs? We all choose sides in our wars, and write our histories afterwards. If we are lucky, we can paint ourselves as heroes; if we are less so, perhaps we can claim to be victims. We all seek not to be stuck with Hitler in the Naughty Corner, beside Vlad the Impaler, even if that means sacrificing our reputation for courage and heroism, as the Italians have had to do.

What do the Chinese call the 1935 - 49 war?

Getting closer to home,

What do Europeans call the American War?

SC

In July 1943 Tojo came to Thailand and made the sensational announcement that Japan was going to transfer four Malaysian states to Thailand that the Thais had ceded to England in 1909 and three Shan states (Burma) in gratitude for Thailand's aid to Japan. Same old stuff. What works in Thailand is money. Japan bought Thailand's allegiance during WW II. The Allies could have done the same thing but were too cheap. The highest bidder has always won in Thailand.

[alleykat]

Occasionally, I come across some Americans who still think Taiwan and Thailand are the same country. I suppose that it is not only Thai people who don't know much about the outside world.

Yes, fair point. How much do we, as westerners know about Asian history. The Opium Wars, The Rape of Nanjing, the long and hard won independence struggle of the Indonesians against the Dutch, Portugese, French and the English?

Probably more than the Thais.

Depends on what kind of Thais you're hanging out with, don't you think? There are a lot of very highly educated Thais, in case you were not aware.

Yes, Richard I am aware that there are highly educated Thais, please see my earlier post. And no, I'm not talking about bargirls. And did I mention hanging out?

I was referring to a high percentage of the general population, uneducated through to university level. Not the privileged minority.

Even the working to middle classes in the West (educated and uneducated), are mostly aware of the main events in modern world history even if they don't know the specifics or the exact dates.

[Berkshire]

Even the working to middle classes in the West (educated and uneducated), are mostly aware of the main events in modern world history even if they don't know the specifics or the exact dates.

This is a completely inaccurate statement, unless you add "modern WESTERN world history." The vast majority of westerners know very little about Asian history...not to mention South American or African history. Surely you know this.

[Kananga]

Even the working to middle classes in the West (educated and uneducated), are mostly aware of the main events in modern world history even if they don't know the specifics or the exact dates.

This is a completely inaccurate statement, unless you add "modern WESTERN world history." The vast majority of westerners know very little about Asian history...not to mention South American or African history. Surely you know this.

That maybe true or not, it hasn't been measured by you or anyone else as far as I know. However it is probably fair to say that if you took a broad section of society in any western nation against a broad section of Thai society and asked them the same questions based on basic world geography the western nation would score higher.

[kerryk]

Is there a Thai version of Trivial pursuit?

[alleykat]

Even the working to middle classes in the West (educated and uneducated), are mostly aware of the main events in modern world history even if they don't know the specifics or the exact dates.

This is a completely inaccurate statement, unless you add "modern WESTERN world history." The vast majority of westerners know very little about Asian history...not to mention South American or African history. Surely you know this.

That maybe true or not, it hasn't been measured by you or anyone else as far as I know. However it is probably fair to say that if you took a broad section of society in any western nation against a broad section of Thai society and asked them the same questions based on basic world geography the western nation would score higher.

Thanks Kananga, the way you descibe is exactly what I'm trying to illustrate. And you could add basic history and science to that.

Whilst it is true that there are a lot of westerners who don't know a lot about Asian, African or South American history I would say that they at least know something. For example I would be so bold as to say that more Australian and English nationals know something about what the Khmer Rouge did in Cambodia in the 1970's than Thai people do (and it's their neighbouring country).

Edited September 20, 2011 by alleykat

[Kananga]

Even the working to middle classes in the West (educated and uneducated), are mostly aware of the main events in modern world history even if they don't know the specifics or the exact dates.

This is a completely inaccurate statement, unless you add "modern WESTERN world history." The vast majority of westerners know very little about Asian history...not to mention South American or African history. Surely you know this.

That maybe true or not, it hasn't been measured by you or anyone else as far as I know. However it is probably fair to say that if you took a broad section of society in any western nation against a broad section of Thai society and asked them the same questions based on basic world geography the western nation would score higher.

Thanks Kananga, the way you descibe is exactly what I'm trying to illustrate. And you could add basic history and science to that.

Whilst it is true that there are a lot of westerners who don't know a lot about Asian, African or South American history I would say that they at least know something. For example I would be so bold as to say that more Australian and English nationals know something about what the Khmer Rouge did in Cambodia in the 1970's than Thai people do (and it's their neighbouring country).

Exactly. I remember being in Thailand after my first trip to Vietnam 11 years ago. I tried talking about the Vietnam war with some Thais and they had no clue what I was on about. And thats in their own backyard in their parents lifetime.

[Berkshire]

Thanks Kananga, the way you descibe is exactly what I'm trying to illustrate. And you could add basic history and science to that.

Whilst it is true that there are a lot of westerners who don't know a lot about Asian, African or South American history I would say that they at least know something. For example I would be so bold as to say that more Australian and English nationals know something about what the Khmer Rouge did in Cambodia in the 1970's than Thai people do (and it's their neighbouring country).

Interesting that you would mention the Khmer Rouge. Is western knowledge of other cultures tied to what the western media feeds us? I doubt any westerner would care about Cambodia if not for the movie The Killing Fields years ago. Ditto Hitler, the Romans, King Arthur, etc. Many westerners (and Asians) probably know a lot more about what happened on the Titanic than they know about why the Japanese entered WWII. It seems like many westerners are equating knowledge of popular culture (with a decidedly western slant) to true formal education.

[kerryk]

Thanks Kananga, the way you descibe is exactly what I'm trying to illustrate. And you could add basic history and science to that.

Whilst it is true that there are a lot of westerners who don't know a lot about Asian, African or South American history I would say that they at least know something. For example I would be so bold as to say that more Australian and English nationals know something about what the Khmer Rouge did in Cambodia in the 1970's than Thai people do (and it's their neighbouring country).

Interesting that you would mention the Khmer Rouge. Is western knowledge of other cultures tied to what the western media feeds us? I doubt any westerner would care about Cambodia if not for the movie The Killing Fields years ago. Ditto Hitler, the Romans, King Arthur, etc. Many westerners (and Asians) probably know a lot more about what happened on the Titanic than they know about why the Japanese entered WWII. It seems like many westerners are equating knowledge of popular culture (with a decidedly western slant) to true formal education.

Even in that cesspool of Western illiteracy Pattaya there a number of Pubs that have a Trivia Quiz night. I think it is a difference in culture thing. I have never seen a Thai bar with a quiz night. I don't think knowledge is a big Thai value. Trivial Pursuit is an American game and how odd is that! Imagine Americans playing a game that involves knowledge Or for another example Thai Visa. I think a lot of posters like the intellectual challenge (however slight) that posting here provides.

[Kananga]

Thanks Kananga, the way you descibe is exactly what I'm trying to illustrate. And you could add basic history and science to that.

Whilst it is true that there are a lot of westerners who don't know a lot about Asian, African or South American history I would say that they at least know something. For example I would be so bold as to say that more Australian and English nationals know something about what the Khmer Rouge did in Cambodia in the 1970's than Thai people do (and it's their neighbouring country).

Interesting that you would mention the Khmer Rouge. Is western knowledge of other cultures tied to what the western media feeds us? I doubt any westerner would care about Cambodia if not for the movie The Killing Fields years ago. Ditto Hitler, the Romans, King Arthur, etc. Many westerners (and Asians) probably know a lot more about what happened on the Titanic than they know about why the Japanese entered WWII. It seems like many westerners are equating knowledge of popular culture (with a decidedly western slant) to true formal education.

But there are more movies about Japan in WW2 than about the Titanic... which kind of contraditcs your opinion. Anyway, surely the media is precisely the medium for learning about other countries and cultures? You would have to be very stubborn to disagree that BBC world news coverage is trailing behind Thailand's efforts to report on events on the world stage.

By the way, when you say that many westerners equate knowledge of popular culture with a a true formal education, where do you gather this opinion from? Since when was the Khmer rouge atrocities labelled as 'popular culture' and you must agree that a formal education is not the only opportunity for people to learn fact based knowledge.

None of this changes the fact that Thais in general are hopeless at world geography, the same way their proficiency of English lacks behind their neighbours.