Are Thais Taught Anything About The World Outside Of Thailand

[cmsally]

Oh boy, take a look at this; it should liven up the discussion considerably!

"High School Nazi Academy"

[Richard4849]

[

One you are completely wrong but I can't tell you why because TV is censored. I guess that proves my point. How many internet sites are blocked as of today?

But you couldn't answer my question. All you have to do is push the reply button. This was the post. "See, he couldn't deal with the question. Of course a free press is important to education. But more than that is the other question about the Thai education system teaching children what Thai peasants need to know as evidenced by the last election and the feeling of many educated Thais that the peasants are not ready for a free press or full voting rights as evidenced by the suggestion that college graduates get two votes. Is Somchai in favor of this too?

So blather on about grammar and avoid the issue of Thai students remaining ignorant of the world at large because they are not ready for that kind of knowledge.

Approximately 80,000 sites currently blocked.

approx. 80% of them deal with the monarchy

Approx. 19% of them are pornographic websites

So what, exactly, is it about the outside world that Thailand's internet censors are currently blocking?

I'm very curious to hear your position, as all I see blocked are anti-monarchy and smut sites.

Compare this to China, which blocks Facebook, YouTube, etc. etc.

Sorry Richard can't answer against TV rules.

Send me a PM then.

Sorry Richard I went to bed.

I respect Thailand and the laws of the country so I won't write anything transmitted over the INTERNET even by PM that might be against those laws.

Your defense of Thai censorship is unusual for a Western person.

Right. What a cop out. You make a statement you can't defend, then find some cockamamie excuse to get out of the argument.

FYI, I never "defended" censorship". You completely made that up.

For the record, I think censorship is vile (and futile).

I simply stated that the Thai internet censorship is focused on DOMESTIC ISSUES. It does not prevent local people from gaining knowledge of THE WORLD OUTSIDE THAILAND, which is the topic of this thread, and the statement with which you disagreed but refuse to discuss further.

Frankly, I have little desire to converse further with a person who throws out statements he refuses to support, then makes up things other people never said or even implied.

Have a nice day.

[kerryk]

Right. What a cop out. You make a statement you can't defend, then find some cockamamie excuse to get out of the argument.

FYI, I never "defended" censorship". You completely made that up.

For the record, I think censorship is vile (and futile).

I simply stated that the Thai internet censorship is focused on DOMESTIC ISSUES. It does not prevent local people from gaining knowledge of THE WORLD OUTSIDE THAILAND, which is the topic of this thread, and the statement with which you disagreed but refuse to discuss further.

Frankly, I have little desire to converse further with a person who throws out statements he refuses to support, then makes up things other people never said or even implied.

Have a nice day.

Richard said and I quote, “"Censorship" in the Thai press -- such that it exists -- is entirely and completely limited to domestic issues (the monarchy, mostly).

We were talking about Thais learning about the outside world.

The freedom (or lack thereof) in the local press does exactly zero to prohibit Thais learning about the world around them. It is all there for them to explore -- in the press, on TV, and on the INTERNET, if they want to.” End of quote.

Richard if that isn't a defense of Thai censorship I don't know what is. The same thing has been said to me by Thai Yellow shirt intellectuals when I suggested that Freedom of the press and speech is necessary to democracy. I pointed out to them and to you where freedom of the press and speech is necessary for a quality education and you said it is not. That's OK. You think one can get a quality education with press censorship I don't. (You are wrong, of course, but I can't quote any examples because that would be illegal.) I can't discuss it further than that because it is against the law and TV policy. That is not a cop out that is the law. If you don't like it don't rant at me send a letter to the government.

Yingluck and Abhisit both realized the benefits of an education in a society without censorship it does not really seem that complicated to me.

A five year old child when losing an argument stamps his little feet and refuses to talk anymore.

A number of posters have posted valid arguments and articles stating that the Thai education system fails to produce students that are capable of critical thought and the above post about the Nazi sports day in Chiang Mai brings home the Thai lack of knowledge about the outside world.

Thailand economy is dependent on exports to other countries. It is predominantly an export economy. The future of Thailand depends on knowledge of the rest of the world.

[Richard4849]

How does stating that censorship in Thailand does not block information about the OUTSIDE WORLD equate to a defense of it?

Censorship blocks information about the domestic situation -- particularly the monarchy -- which I find indefensible.

Can you not see the difference?

If Thais lack knowledge about the outside world, censorship has nothing to do with it. That is NOT a defense of censorship -- it is a statement of fact.

[LJW]

Plenty of thick people everywhere.

[cmsally]

How does stating that censorship in Thailand does not block information about the OUTSIDE WORLD equate to a defense of it?

Censorship blocks information about the domestic situation -- particularly the monarchy -- which I find indefensible.

Can you not see the difference?

If Thais lack knowledge about the outside world, censorship has nothing to do with it. That is NOT a defense of censorship -- it is a statement of fact.

On many levels domestic issues and international ones are inextricably linked. If you are having a wide ranging discussion, at some point the issue of domestic censorship will affect that discussion. For example as a Thai wanting to have a discussion with a foreigner about world issues; it will be quite likely that the foreigner will produce examples from their country and will ask the Thai to do the same. It is not unlikely that the issue of censorship will be affecting their reply.

Censorship of domestic issues has a lot to do with Thais' acquisition of international knowledge; for starters it puts them at a disadvantage on the debating stakes.

Although it may not be a disadvantage in the acquisition of PASSIVE knowledge (such as reading books etc). When you get to the spheres of interaction, critical thought and debate; how on earth do you expect them to compete at the same level.

[kerryk]

How does stating that censorship in Thailand does not block information about the OUTSIDE WORLD equate to a defense of it?

Censorship blocks information about the domestic situation -- particularly the monarchy -- which I find indefensible.

Can you not see the difference?

If Thais lack knowledge about the outside world, censorship has nothing to do with it. That is NOT a defense of censorship -- it is a statement of fact.

I get what you are talking about now. Thailand blocks information on how Thailand deals with the outside world. No, it does not block information about what happens in the outside world independent of Thailand.

The reason Thais don't know much about WW II is Thailand's dealings with the major players in WW II is not discussed. You can't really discuss much without running into a legal stumbling block.

If Thailand had been on the winning side and covered themselves in glory during the period everyone would know about it. The fact is Thailand was on the losing side and depended on the Americans to save them from the starvation that the British wanted to impose on the country.

I think Thailand owes the US a major debt of gratitude but no one has told the majority of Thais about it. I think Thailand should know what Japanese soldiers did during WW II but Thais don't know because to bring that up would bring up Thailand's status as a willing ally of Japan during the war.

I really don't know if history is downplayed in the Thai educational system because the powers that be are ashamed of Thai performance in recent historical events or it is just a cultural quirk.

The Victory monument was built to commemorate a war that Thailand didn't win. So do you really want to talk about it much? How far back do you have to go to find a war Thailand was involved in that it won?

It is difficult to discuss history when so many of the players can't be discussed. See, what I am saying? Best just to forget about history entirely which is what the educational system has done for the most part.

[nong38]

Right. What a cop out. You make a statement you can't defend, then find some cockamamie excuse to get out of the argument.

FYI, I never "defended" censorship". You completely made that up.

For the record, I think censorship is vile (and futile).

I simply stated that the Thai internet censorship is focused on DOMESTIC ISSUES. It does not prevent local people from gaining knowledge of THE WORLD OUTSIDE THAILAND, which is the topic of this thread, and the statement with which you disagreed but refuse to discuss further.

Frankly, I have little desire to converse further with a person who throws out statements he refuses to support, then makes up things other people never said or even implied.

Have a nice day.

Richard said and I quote, ""Censorship" in the Thai press -- such that it exists -- is entirely and completely limited to domestic issues (the monarchy, mostly).

We were talking about Thais learning about the outside world.

The freedom (or lack thereof) in the local press does exactly zero to prohibit Thais learning about the world around them. It is all there for them to explore -- in the press, on TV, and on the INTERNET, if they want to." End of quote.

Richard if that isn't a defense of Thai censorship I don't know what is. The same thing has been said to me by Thai Yellow shirt intellectuals when I suggested that Freedom of the press and speech is necessary to democracy. I pointed out to them and to you where freedom of the press and speech is necessary for a quality education and you said it is not. That's OK. You think one can get a quality education with press censorship I don't. (You are wrong, of course, but I can't quote any examples because that would be illegal.) I can't discuss it further than that because it is against the law and TV policy. That is not a cop out that is the law. If you don't like it don't rant at me send a letter to the government.

Yingluck and Abhisit both realized the benefits of an education in a society without censorship it does not really seem that complicated to me.

A five year old child when losing an argument stamps his little feet and refuses to talk anymore.

A number of posters have posted valid arguments and articles stating that the Thai education system fails to produce students that are capable of critical thought and the above post about the Nazi sports day in Chiang Mai brings home the Thai lack of knowledge about the outside world.

Thailand economy is dependent on exports to other countries. It is predominantly an export economy. The future of Thailand depends on knowledge of the rest of the world.

Well said that man, exactly one of the things I have been on about.

[theblether]

How does stating that censorship in Thailand does not block information about the OUTSIDE WORLD equate to a defense of it?

Censorship blocks information about the domestic situation -- particularly the monarchy -- which I find indefensible.

Can you not see the difference?

If Thais lack knowledge about the outside world, censorship has nothing to do with it. That is NOT a defense of censorship -- it is a statement of fact.

I get what you are talking about now. Thailand blocks information on how Thailand deals with the outside world. No, it does not block information about what happens in the outside world independent of Thailand.

The reason Thais don't know much about WW II is Thailand's dealings with the major players in WW II is not discussed. You can't really discuss much without running into a legal stumbling block.

If Thailand had been on the winning side and covered themselves in glory during the period everyone would know about it. The fact is Thailand was on the losing side and depended on the Americans to save them from the starvation that the British wanted to impose on the country.

I think Thailand owes the US a major debt of gratitude but no one has told the majority of Thais about it. I think Thailand should know what Japanese soldiers did during WW II but Thais don't know because to bring that up would bring up Thailand's status as a willing ally of Japan during the war.

I really don't know if history is downplayed in the Thai educational system because the powers that be are ashamed of Thai performance in recent historical events or it is just a cultural quirk.

The Victory monument was built to commemorate a war that Thailand didn't win. So do you really want to talk about it much? How far back do you have to go to find a war Thailand was involved in that it won?

It is difficult to discuss history when so many of the players can't be discussed. See, what I am saying? Best just to forget about history entirely which is what the educational system has done for the most part.

I'm genuinely interested in your comment about the British wanting to impose starvation on Thailand, can you send me a link please?

[kerryk]

How does stating that censorship in Thailand does not block information about the OUTSIDE WORLD equate to a defense of it?

Censorship blocks information about the domestic situation -- particularly the monarchy -- which I find indefensible.

Can you not see the difference?

If Thais lack knowledge about the outside world, censorship has nothing to do with it. That is NOT a defense of censorship -- it is a statement of fact.

I get what you are talking about now. Thailand blocks information on how Thailand deals with the outside world. No, it does not block information about what happens in the outside world independent of Thailand.

The reason Thais don't know much about WW II is Thailand's dealings with the major players in WW II is not discussed. You can't really discuss much without running into a legal stumbling block.

If Thailand had been on the winning side and covered themselves in glory during the period everyone would know about it. The fact is Thailand was on the losing side and depended on the Americans to save them from the starvation that the British wanted to impose on the country.

I think Thailand owes the US a major debt of gratitude but no one has told the majority of Thais about it. I think Thailand should know what Japanese soldiers did during WW II but Thais don't know because to bring that up would bring up Thailand's status as a willing ally of Japan during the war.

I really don't know if history is downplayed in the Thai educational system because the powers that be are ashamed of Thai performance in recent historical events or it is just a cultural quirk.

The Victory monument was built to commemorate a war that Thailand didn't win. So do you really want to talk about it much? How far back do you have to go to find a war Thailand was involved in that it won?

It is difficult to discuss history when so many of the players can't be discussed. See, what I am saying? Best just to forget about history entirely which is what the educational system has done for the most part.

I'm genuinely interested in your comment about the British wanting to impose starvation on Thailand, can you send me a link please?

http://home.comcast.net/~dmckroot/thailand.htm How the US prevented Britain from taking over and colonising Thailand after WW II.

Thailand's secret war: the Free Thai, OSS, and SOE during World War II

By E. Bruce Reynolds Rice reparations reduced from 10% of total crop to a much smaller amount that was paid off in two years with no loss of critical food supplies to Thailand.

The UK needed a lot of rice after WWII because it had people starving in Burma, Malaysia and India. They initially were going to get it from Thailand.

Edited September 24, 2011 by kerryk

[theblether]

How does stating that censorship in Thailand does not block information about the OUTSIDE WORLD equate to a defense of it?

Censorship blocks information about the domestic situation -- particularly the monarchy -- which I find indefensible.

Can you not see the difference?

If Thais lack knowledge about the outside world, censorship has nothing to do with it. That is NOT a defense of censorship -- it is a statement of fact.

I get what you are talking about now. Thailand blocks information on how Thailand deals with the outside world. No, it does not block information about what happens in the outside world independent of Thailand.

The reason Thais don't know much about WW II is Thailand's dealings with the major players in WW II is not discussed. You can't really discuss much without running into a legal stumbling block.

If Thailand had been on the winning side and covered themselves in glory during the period everyone would know about it. The fact is Thailand was on the losing side and depended on the Americans to save them from the starvation that the British wanted to impose on the country.

I think Thailand owes the US a major debt of gratitude but no one has told the majority of Thais about it. I think Thailand should know what Japanese soldiers did during WW II but Thais don't know because to bring that up would bring up Thailand's status as a willing ally of Japan during the war.

I really don't know if history is downplayed in the Thai educational system because the powers that be are ashamed of Thai performance in recent historical events or it is just a cultural quirk.

The Victory monument was built to commemorate a war that Thailand didn't win. So do you really want to talk about it much? How far back do you have to go to find a war Thailand was involved in that it won?

It is difficult to discuss history when so many of the players can't be discussed. See, what I am saying? Best just to forget about history entirely which is what the educational system has done for the most part.

I'm genuinely interested in your comment about the British wanting to impose starvation on Thailand, can you send me a link please?

http://home.comcast....ot/thailand.htm How the US prevented Britain from taking over and colonising Thailand after WW II.

Thailand's secret war: the Free Thai, OSS, and SOE during World War II

By E. Bruce Reynolds Rice reparations reduced from 10% of total crop to a much smaller amount that was paid off in two years with no loss of critical food supplies to Thailand.

The UK needed a lot of rice after WWII because it had people starving in Burma, Malaysia and India. They initially were going to get it from Thailand.

Good link, I'll need to have a further look into it. Two points though, to say the Britain was going to starve Thailand is very pejorative, where is the proof that Britain was going to starve Thailand? Extracting rice supplies from a defeated enemy to prevent starvation in other Third World countries seems to be a laudable thing. If it meant starving the Thai population to do so then it would be a disgrace, so I would like to see proof that subjecting Thailand to starvation was some type of official policy.

Some of the other points made in the link are nonsensical, I don't doubt that they are true as the correspondent saw it, but nonsensical none the less. Every modern government has internal debates before announcing policies, some of the internal debates are crackpot, but the debates are had and the crackpot ideas are usually ( hopefully ) discarded.

It doesn't get away the from the fact that Thailand was an enemy combatant. Now we can argue the point as to whether or not they intended to be, or did they feel compelled. Did they take this option to save Face? Or did they think that resistance was futile and better to do a deal with the devil the same way the ( Eire ) Irish and Vichy French did.

Back on topic, it seems to be that Thailand is selectively censored, in both history and current affairs. Just the same as most Western countries then huh?

Edited September 24, 2011 by theblether

[nong38]

How does stating that censorship in Thailand does not block information about the OUTSIDE WORLD equate to a defense of it?

Censorship blocks information about the domestic situation -- particularly the monarchy -- which I find indefensible.

Can you not see the difference?

If Thais lack knowledge about the outside world, censorship has nothing to do with it. That is NOT a defense of censorship -- it is a statement of fact.

I get what you are talking about now. Thailand blocks information on how Thailand deals with the outside world. No, it does not block information about what happens in the outside world independent of Thailand.

The reason Thais don't know much about WW II is Thailand's dealings with the major players in WW II is not discussed. You can't really discuss much without running into a legal stumbling block.

If Thailand had been on the winning side and covered themselves in glory during the period everyone would know about it. The fact is Thailand was on the losing side and depended on the Americans to save them from the starvation that the British wanted to impose on the country.

I think Thailand owes the US a major debt of gratitude but no one has told the majority of Thais about it. I think Thailand should know what Japanese soldiers did during WW II but Thais don't know because to bring that up would bring up Thailand's status as a willing ally of Japan during the war.

I really don't know if history is downplayed in the Thai educational system because the powers that be are ashamed of Thai performance in recent historical events or it is just a cultural quirk.

The Victory monument was built to commemorate a war that Thailand didn't win. So do you really want to talk about it much? How far back do you have to go to find a war Thailand was involved in that it won?

It is difficult to discuss history when so many of the players can't be discussed. See, what I am saying? Best just to forget about history entirely which is what the educational system has done for the most part.

I'm genuinely interested in your comment about the British wanting to impose starvation on Thailand, can you send me a link please?

http://home.comcast....ot/thailand.htm How the US prevented Britain from taking over and colonising Thailand after WW II.

Thailand's secret war: the Free Thai, OSS, and SOE during World War II

By E. Bruce Reynolds Rice reparations reduced from 10% of total crop to a much smaller amount that was paid off in two years with no loss of critical food supplies to Thailand.

The UK needed a lot of rice after WWII because it had people starving in Burma, Malaysia and India. They initially were going to get it from Thailand.

That the British Empire needed rice to feed millions of Asians may very well be correct and the right thing to do so long as the providing country was not starving as a result. What does surprise me and I think hard to believe is that Thailand was somehow to be absorbed into the Empire! Britain was on its knees after WW2 and was about to start dismantaling the Empire has we ( yes I am English ) could neither afford or control it any longer, does not make any sense to take on something else that would soon want its country back. Now if it was that Britain had been asked to administer Thailand to solve a regional food problem in the short term then that does make sense beacuse that we probably could organise. So maybe it was words and interpretation that is at odds.

[SteeleJoe]

...to say the Britain was going to starve Thailand is very pejorative, where is the proof that Britain was going to starve Thailand? Extracting rice supplies from a defeated enemy to prevent starvation in other Third World countries seems to be a laudable thing. If it meant starving the Thai population to do so then it would be a disgrace, so I would like to see proof that subjecting Thailand to starvation was some type of official policy.

I've written about this very thing on a few different threads over the last several months and have spoken or written about it else where for many years. This is a matter of historical record. It's telling that you don't wish to accept or wish to spin it (I'd bet any amount of money of the claim was made about the US, you'd readily accept it without question but of course I can't prove that, can i?), but it comports nicely with some of your previous posts.

What blows me away is you asking for substantiation of the claim regarding events in Thailand circa 70 years ago (which was provided -- and there's loads more if one cares to look) but when pressed to substantiate a (preposterous) claim you made about Thailand of the same era you refused to do so on the thread because it was off topic (despite the fact that many other posters discussed it ad continued to do so after you stopped). You said you'd only do so by PM -- but of course no substantiation was offered there either, was it?

PS: These were not just "other Third World countries". These were colonies that had to be fed to be kept from spiraling out of control. Laudable? Maybe. Necessity and self-interest? Indisputably.

Edited September 24, 2011 by SteeleJoe

[Richard4849]

Little brown people stay more subservient when they're a bit peckish.

[theblether]

...to say the Britain was going to starve Thailand is very pejorative, where is the proof that Britain was going to starve Thailand? Extracting rice supplies from a defeated enemy to prevent starvation in other Third World countries seems to be a laudable thing. If it meant starving the Thai population to do so then it would be a disgrace, so I would like to see proof that subjecting Thailand to starvation was some type of official policy.

I've written about this very thing on a few different threads over the last several months and have spoken or written about it else where for many years. This is a matter of historical record. It's telling that you don't wish to accept or wish to spin it (I'd bet any amount of money of the claim was made about the US, you'd readily accept it without question but of course I can't prove that, can i?), but it comports nicely with some of your previous posts.

What blows me away is you asking for substantiation of the claim regarding events in Thailand circa 70 years ago (which was provided -- and there's loads more if one cares to look) but when pressed to substantiate a (preposterous) claim you made about Thailand of the same era you refused to do so on the thread because it was off topic (despite the fact that many other posters discussed it ad continued to do so after you stopped). You said you'd only do so by PM -- but of course no substantiation was offered there either, was it?

PS: These were not just "other Third World countries". These were colonies that had to be fed to be kept from spiraling out of control. Laudable? Maybe. Necessity and self-interest? Indisputably.

I asked you a question on PM that you refused to answer, the question still stands, so answer it ......

So now you can send me a link to the fact that it was British policy to starve Thailand, Your that clever you'll be able to do that easily won't you? :jerk:

[SteeleJoe]

I asked you a question on PM that you refused to answer, the question still stands, so answer it ......

That's a lie. I have the PMs.

The history is there. You can look it up or not. It was never stated policy to starve anyone, of course. The policies (eg confiiscating 3 million tons of rice) arguably could have resulted in such a thing.

PS: I never claimed to be clever. But your cute little emoticon certainly proves that you are.

Edited September 24, 2011 by SteeleJoe

[kerryk]

I get what you are talking about now. Thailand blocks information on how Thailand deals with the outside world. No, it does not block information about what happens in the outside world independent of Thailand.

The reason Thais don't know much about WW II is Thailand's dealings with the major players in WW II is not discussed. You can't really discuss much without running into a legal stumbling block.

If Thailand had been on the winning side and covered themselves in glory during the period everyone would know about it. The fact is Thailand was on the losing side and depended on the Americans to save them from the starvation that the British wanted to impose on the country.

I think Thailand owes the US a major debt of gratitude but no one has told the majority of Thais about it. I think Thailand should know what Japanese soldiers did during WW II but Thais don't know because to bring that up would bring up Thailand's status as a willing ally of Japan during the war.

I really don't know if history is downplayed in the Thai educational system because the powers that be are ashamed of Thai performance in recent historical events or it is just a cultural quirk.

The Victory monument was built to commemorate a war that Thailand didn't win. So do you really want to talk about it much? How far back do you have to go to find a war Thailand was involved in that it won?

It is difficult to discuss history when so many of the players can't be discussed. See, what I am saying? Best just to forget about history entirely which is what the educational system has done for the most part.

I'm genuinely interested in your comment about the British wanting to impose starvation on Thailand, can you send me a link please?

http://home.comcast....ot/thailand.htm How the US prevented Britain from taking over and colonising Thailand after WW II.

Thailand's secret war: the Free Thai, OSS, and SOE during World War II

By E. Bruce Reynolds Rice reparations reduced from 10% of total crop to a much smaller amount that was paid off in two years with no loss of critical food supplies to Thailand.

The UK needed a lot of rice after WWII because it had people starving in Burma, Malaysia and India. They initially were going to get it from Thailand.

Good link, I'll need to have a further look into it. Two points though, to say the Britain was going to starve Thailand is very pejorative, where is the proof that Britain was going to starve Thailand? Extracting rice supplies from a defeated enemy to prevent starvation in other Third World countries seems to be a laudable thing. If it meant starving the Thai population to do so then it would be a disgrace, so I would like to see proof that subjecting Thailand to starvation was some type of official policy.

Some of the other points made in the link are nonsensical, I don't doubt that they are true as the correspondent saw it, but nonsensical none the less. Every modern government has internal debates before announcing policies, some of the internal debates are crackpot, but the debates are had and the crackpot ideas are usually ( hopefully ) discarded.

It doesn't get away the from the fact that Thailand was an enemy combatant. Now we can argue the point as to whether or not they intended to be, or did they feel compelled. Did they take this option to save Face? Or did they think that resistance was futile and better to do a deal with the devil the same way the ( Eire ) Irish and Vichy French did.

Back on topic, it seems to be that Thailand is selectively censored, in both history and current affairs. Just the same as most Western countries then huh?

Thai rice production in Thailand in 1945 was 3.699.000 tons.

Britain wanted 1.500,000 tons.

What do you think would have happened?

[SteeleJoe]

Thai rice production in Thailand in 1945 was 3.699.000 tons.

Britain wanted 1.500,000 tons.

What do you think would have happened?

If I'm not mistaken that 1.5 was reduced from initial notions of twice the amount.

I forgot to mention how amusing I find it that earlier on the thread someone was describing the Thais as being occupied and horribly vicitimized by the Japanese but now blithely dismisses egregious punitive measures against the Thais because they were "enemy combatants". (And yet is still ignorant of Phibun's admiration for and occasional aping of the Japanese militarists well before WWII or the ties made then).

Edited September 24, 2011 by SteeleJoe

[theblether]

Thai rice production in Thailand in 1945 was 3.699.000 tons.

Britain wanted 1.500,000 tons.

What do you think would have happened?

If I'm not mistaken that 1.5 was reduced from initial notions of twice the amount.

I forgot to mention how amusing I find it that earlier on the thread someone was describing the Thais as being occupied and horribly vicitimized by the Japanese but now blithely dismisses egregious punitive measures against the Thais because they were "enemy combatants". (And yet is still ignorant of Phibun's admiration for and occasional aping of the Japanese militarists well before WWII or the ties made then).

Your away with the fairies on this one, in fact I would say your lacking intellectual honesty. Thailand was an declared war on the side of the Japanese, hence, they are an enemy combatant.

I think we all agree there was a sense of compulsion in that declaration, and at best it was similar to the Vichy French government, a government of an occupied country pretending to be the rightful government.

There is no doubt that the Thais suffered as a result of the occupation, including forced labour, comfort women etc etc. We can argue about the figures and after research I am happy to admit my figure of 300,000 was wrong. That figure was more like the total amount of casualties due to the war in Thailand, rather than deaths of Thai nationals. Mea Culpa. That figure includes people of all nationalities, slave labourers, comfort women etc etc killed and wounded.

Now I'm looking for proof from you or anyone it was British policy to starve Thailand.

[SteeleJoe]

Your away with the fairies on this one, in fact I would say your lacking intellectual honesty. Thailand was an declared war on the side of the Japanese, hence, they are an enemy combatant.

I never claimed otherwise. Nor did I ever imply it in any way. Indded my posts on this thread only support that characterization (though I have pointed out that the motives are not a balck and white sort of thing).

So it's ridiculous -- and ironically very dishonest -- for you to accuse me of lacking intellectual honesty. (Echoing a phrase from me).

I think we all agree there was a sense of compulsion in that declaration, and at best it was similar to the Vichy French government, a government of an occupied country pretending to be the rightful government.

At best. At worst -- and more accurately, in terms of historical fact -- it was a willing ally, in it for its own self interest. Or maybe the truth is somewhere between.

You simply weren't going to concede until forced to, were you? But you've still got some reading to do.

[kerryk]

Thai rice production in Thailand in 1945 was 3.699.000 tons.

Britain wanted 1.500,000 tons.

What do you think would have happened?

If I'm not mistaken that 1.5 was reduced from initial notions of twice the amount.

I forgot to mention how amusing I find it that earlier on the thread someone was describing the Thais as being occupied and horribly vicitimized by the Japanese but now blithely dismisses egregious punitive measures against the Thais because they were "enemy combatants". (And yet is still ignorant of Phibun's admiration for and occasional aping of the Japanese militarists well before WWII or the ties made then).

Your away with the fairies on this one, in fact I would say your lacking intellectual honesty. Thailand was an declared war on the side of the Japanese, hence, they are an enemy combatant.

I think we all agree there was a sense of compulsion in that declaration, and at best it was similar to the Vichy French government, a government of an occupied country pretending to be the rightful government.

There is no doubt that the Thais suffered as a result of the occupation, including forced labour, comfort women etc etc. We can argue about the figures and after research I am happy to admit my figure of 300,000 was wrong. That figure was more like the total amount of casualties due to the war in Thailand, rather than deaths of Thai nationals. Mea Culpa. That figure includes people of all nationalities, slave labourers, comfort women etc etc killed and wounded.

Now I'm looking for proof from you or anyone it was British policy to starve Thailand.

No occupation they Thais and Japanese were allies. Thailand and the Japanese presence, 1941-45

By Thamsook Numnonda

No forced labor. Thais were paid quite well by the Japanese and they even upped the pay later in the war because they needed more workers. No comfort women were Thai. They were Korean, Dutch, even Japanese but no Thais. Deaths in WW II Thailand military 5600 civilian 2000. I invite you to present any sources with different information.

[theblether]

Thai rice production in Thailand in 1945 was 3.699.000 tons.

Britain wanted 1.500,000 tons.

What do you think would have happened?

If I'm not mistaken that 1.5 was reduced from initial notions of twice the amount.

I forgot to mention how amusing I find it that earlier on the thread someone was describing the Thais as being occupied and horribly vicitimized by the Japanese but now blithely dismisses egregious punitive measures against the Thais because they were "enemy combatants". (And yet is still ignorant of Phibun's admiration for and occasional aping of the Japanese militarists well before WWII or the ties made then).

Your away with the fairies on this one, in fact I would say your lacking intellectual honesty. Thailand was an declared war on the side of the Japanese, hence, they are an enemy combatant.

I think we all agree there was a sense of compulsion in that declaration, and at best it was similar to the Vichy French government, a government of an occupied country pretending to be the rightful government.

There is no doubt that the Thais suffered as a result of the occupation, including forced labour, comfort women etc etc. We can argue about the figures and after research I am happy to admit my figure of 300,000 was wrong. That figure was more like the total amount of casualties due to the war in Thailand, rather than deaths of Thai nationals. Mea Culpa. That figure includes people of all nationalities, slave labourers, comfort women etc etc killed and wounded.

Now I'm looking for proof from you or anyone it was British policy to starve Thailand.

No occupation they Thais and Japanese were allies. Thailand and the Japanese presence, 1941-45

By Thamsook Numnonda

No forced labor. Thais were paid quite well by the Japanese and they even upped the pay later in the war because they needed more workers. No comfort women were Thai. They were Korean, Dutch, even Japanese but no Thais. Deaths in WW II Thailand military 5600 civilian 2000. I invite you to present any sources with different information.

Invitation accepted

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

http://www.links.net/vita/swat/course/prosthai.html

http://en.wikipilipinas.org/index.php?title=Comfort_Women

How did you not know that?

[theblether]

Your away with the fairies on this one, in fact I would say your lacking intellectual honesty. Thailand was an declared war on the side of the Japanese, hence, they are an enemy combatant.

I never claimed otherwise. Nor did I ever imply it in any way. Indded my posts on this thread only support that characterization (though I have pointed out that the motives are not a balck and white sort of thing).

So it's ridiculous -- and ironically very dishonest -- for you to accuse me of lacking intellectual honesty. (Echoing a phrase from me).

I think we all agree there was a sense of compulsion in that declaration, and at best it was similar to the Vichy French government, a government of an occupied country pretending to be the rightful government.

At best. At worst -- and more accurately, in terms of historical fact -- it was a willing ally, in it for its own self interest. Or maybe the truth is somewhere between.

You simply weren't going to concede until forced to, were you? But you've still got some reading to do.

I conceded, and I concede willingly, after going to research the figures. I apologize for that.

I think you are suffering from a degree of intellectual dishonesty, your reading of history is biased against Britain, patchy and highly selective. I asked you a question on pm, answer it.

[SteeleJoe]

I conceded, and I concede willingly, after going to research the figures. I apologize for that.

I think you are suffering from a degree of intellectual dishonesty, your reading of history is biased against Britain, patchy and highly selective. I asked you a question on pm, answer it.

Your apology is accepted.

Show me examples (or even one) or indications of my: 1) intellectual dishonesty 2) a reading of history that is biased against Britain, patchy and highly selective.

I asked you a question on pm, answer it.

No, you didn't. I have the PMs and there's not one question from you in any of them. There are some from me, though.

(And I don't know who you think you are to give orders even if you had.)

EDIT: You realize that this personal feuding will just get deleted, right?

Edited September 24, 2011 by SteeleJoe

[theblether]

I conceded, and I concede willingly, after going to research the figures. I apologize for that.

I think you are suffering from a degree of intellectual dishonesty, your reading of history is biased against Britain, patchy and highly selective. I asked you a question on pm, answer it.

Your apology is accepted.

Show me examples (or even one) or indications of my: 1) intellectual dishonesty 2) a reading of history that is biased against Britain, patchy and highly selective.

I asked you a question on pm, answer it.

No, you didn't. I have the PMs and there's not one question from you in any of them. There are some from me, though.

(And I don't know who you think you are to give orders even if you had.)

Tell you what, send me one link that says it was British policy to starve Thailand and I'll fold my tent.

[SteeleJoe]

I conceded, and I concede willingly, after going to research the figures. I apologize for that.

I think you are suffering from a degree of intellectual dishonesty, your reading of history is biased against Britain, patchy and highly selective. I asked you a question on pm, answer it.

Your apology is accepted.

Show me examples (or even one) or indications of my: 1) intellectual dishonesty 2) a reading of history that is biased against Britain, patchy and highly selective.

I asked you a question on pm, answer it.

No, you didn't. I have the PMs and there's not one question from you in any of them. There are some from me, though.

(And I don't know who you think you are to give orders even if you had.)

Tell you what, send me one link that says it was British policy to starve Thailand and I'll fold my tent.

I never said "it was Britsh policy to starve Thailand". In fact you know that (intellectual dishonesty) because you responded to my post that included this:

It was never stated policy to starve anyone, of course. The policies (eg confiiscating (sic) 3 million tons of rice) arguably could have resulted in such a thing.

So, no examples? Nope. Just more of the ad hominem approach you've used again and again with me, in lieu of actual argument.

EDIT: I'll go one step further. I don't believe the British wished to deliberately starve Thais; that is, I don't think that was their motive or the desire per se

No more than I see their desire to see the rice go to their colonies instead of lettiing the Thais have it as being "laudable" rather than obligatory (it was their duty to be concerned with the welfare of those inhabitants) and of obvious self interest (for reasons I mentioned previously).

Edited September 24, 2011 by SteeleJoe

[kerryk]

If I'm not mistaken that 1.5 was reduced from initial notions of twice the amount.

I forgot to mention how amusing I find it that earlier on the thread someone was describing the Thais as being occupied and horribly vicitimized by the Japanese but now blithely dismisses egregious punitive measures against the Thais because they were "enemy combatants". (And yet is still ignorant of Phibun's admiration for and occasional aping of the Japanese militarists well before WWII or the ties made then).

Your away with the fairies on this one, in fact I would say your lacking intellectual honesty. Thailand was an declared war on the side of the Japanese, hence, they are an enemy combatant.

I think we all agree there was a sense of compulsion in that declaration, and at best it was similar to the Vichy French government, a government of an occupied country pretending to be the rightful government.

There is no doubt that the Thais suffered as a result of the occupation, including forced labour, comfort women etc etc. We can argue about the figures and after research I am happy to admit my figure of 300,000 was wrong. That figure was more like the total amount of casualties due to the war in Thailand, rather than deaths of Thai nationals. Mea Culpa. That figure includes people of all nationalities, slave labourers, comfort women etc etc killed and wounded.

Now I'm looking for proof from you or anyone it was British policy to starve Thailand.

No occupation they Thais and Japanese were allies. Thailand and the Japanese presence, 1941-45

By Thamsook Numnonda

No forced labor. Thais were paid quite well by the Japanese and they even upped the pay later in the war because they needed more workers. No comfort women were Thai. They were Korean, Dutch, even Japanese but no Thais. Deaths in WW II Thailand military 5600 civilian 2000. I invite you to present any sources with different information.

Invitation accepted

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

http://www.links.net/vita/swat/course/prosthai.html

http://en.wikipilipinas.org/index.php?title=Comfort_Women

How did you not know that?

Only one of your links mentions Thai women being used in comfort stations and I think that is an error that is corrected later on that page. I think if you read further on that same wiki page you will find the full quote where it mentions comfort stations were used in Thailand but not that they were staffed by Thai women.

Quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comfort_women

Internationally, it is generally thought that most of the women were from Korea and China.[30] According to State University of New York at Buffalo professor Yoshiko Nozaki and other sources, the majority of the women were from Korea and China.[31] Chuo University professor Yoshiaki Yoshimi states there were about 2,000 centers where as many as 200,000 Japanese, Chinese, Korean, Filipino, Taiwanese, Burmese, Indonesian, Dutch and Australian women were interned.[32] Ikuhiko Hata, a professor of Nihon University, estimated the number of women working in the licensed pleasure quarter was fewer than 20,000 and that they were 40% Japanese, 20% Koreans, 10% Chinese, with others making up the remaining 30%. According to Hata, the total number of government-regulated prostitutes in Japan was only 170,000 during World War II.[33] Others came from the Philippines, Taiwan, Dutch East Indies, and other Japanese-occupied countries and regions.[34] Some Dutch women, captured in Dutch colonies in Asia, were also forced into sexual slavery.[35] End quote.

It does not mention Thai women, No detailed articles about comfort women ever mention Thai women.

[SteeleJoe]

I confess the accusation of being biased against the British especially rankles and I'm going to, against my better judgement, go off on that tangent: Even allowing for skeletons in the closet that all nations but especially major powers have, there are few if any nations that I hold in higher regard in a general; sense (though it's sort of silly to make such broad statements about something like a whole country and its history). This is especially true when it comes to their actions in World War II and their overall conduct (civilian and military alike).

Now at the end of the war, and right after, things got a bit unseemly particularly in SEA as the colonial powers hurried to reestablish control -- and the British have some things to answer for in Indochina -- but, ahem, they are hardly alone there...

No, asiee from the fact that I haven't written anything that shows such a bias the idea is at odds with my feelings about Britain and the British (a nationality shared, by the way, by all of my best friends over the last couple decades).

[kerryk]

I conceded, and I concede willingly, after going to research the figures. I apologize for that.

I think you are suffering from a degree of intellectual dishonesty, your reading of history is biased against Britain, patchy and highly selective. I asked you a question on pm, answer it.

Your apology is accepted.

Show me examples (or even one) or indications of my: 1) intellectual dishonesty 2) a reading of history that is biased against Britain, patchy and highly selective.

I asked you a question on pm, answer it.

No, you didn't. I have the PMs and there's not one question from you in any of them. There are some from me, though.

(And I don't know who you think you are to give orders even if you had.)

Tell you what, send me one link that says it was British policy to starve Thailand and I'll fold my tent.

Let me paint you a mental picture. Thai and Indian troops were on the Burma Thai border ready to march in and occupy Thailand. Famine had attacked India severely during the war (4 million had died in Bengali alone). The troops had knowledge of the death camps on Thai soil and the 10,000 women that were raped in the first few days of the invasion of Burma by Japanese troops who the Thais had let march across Thailand.

The UK troops had seen nothing but death and destruction in the China Burma theater of war and Thailand was almost untouched by war.

The United States, Britain, and Thailand had signed a treaty. Thailand was being ceded to the British Empire. Thai rice production in Thailand in 1945 was 3.699.000 tons. Britain wanted 1.500,000 tons. What do you think would have happened if the Americans had not intervened?

[SteeleJoe]

Let me paint you a mental picture. Thai and Indian troops were on the Burma Thai border ready to march in and occupy Thailand. Famine had attacked India severely during the war (4 million had died in Bengali alone). The troops had knowledge of the death camps on Thai soil and the 10,000 women that were raped in the first few days of the invasion of Burma by Japanese troops who the Thais had let march across Thailand.

The UK troops had seen nothing but death and destruction in the China Burma theater of war and Thailand was almost untouched by war.

The United States, Britain, and Thailand had signed a treaty. Thailand was being ceded to the British Empire. Thai rice production in Thailand in 1945 was 3.699.000 tons. Britain wanted 1.500,000 tons. What do you think would have happened if the Americans had not intervened?

Quality.

Kudos.