"The man with the key" thread is currently being hijacked by posts about the second world war and franco-thai war. So I think it's a good idea to start a new thread.

Thailand is very proud of its claim never to have been colonised. Is this true?

Many believe that Thailand simply rolled over and allied with the Japanese when they were knocking at the door. Even going so far as to declare war on the Uk and America.

So was Thailand really allied with the Japanese, the Japanese certainly treated the Thais as if they were a conquered nation. Many more Thais died building the infamous railway than the allied POWs.

Apart from wars, maybe Thailand has been colonised via the back door, Chinese immigrants? Who runs the country now?

Any thoughts or opinions?

yes

Yes - it has been. One of the reasons though it never got the full India or Vietnam treatment though is that basically they have / had nothing worth taking. Nothing. It would have cost a conquering nation considerably more than they could plunder from Thailand so not worth the effort except for some of the opium provinces in the North which were swallowed up and today still form part of 2 other countries. It's just that from a national pride point of view they prefer to teach their kids (when they are in school and not in MBK knifing each other) that they were the worlds best negotiators, and that their people were so much more loyal to their country than other places that no country could defeat them. Pack of balls basically.

I agree about the Japanese, but it did not last long enough to change the Thai culture, so can see the Thai point of view too.

it has been colonized by tourists.

I think the Thais view the Japanese occupation as a 'temporarily permitted alliance'.

Yes - it has been. One of the reasons though it never got the full India or Vietnam treatment though is that basically they have / had nothing worth taking. Nothing. It would have cost a conquering nation considerably more than they could plunder from Thailand so not worth the effort except for some of the opium provinces in the North which were swallowed up and today still form part of 2 other countries. It's just that from a national pride point of view they prefer to teach their kids (when they are in school and not in MBK knifing each other) that they were the worlds best negotiators, and that their people were so much more loyal to their country than other places that no country could defeat them. Pack of balls basically.

Because the British and the French already exported and profited so handsomely from all that rice grown in Burma, Malaysia and Indchina (respectively) that they obviously had absolutely no desire to access the Thai arable land, not to mention the fact that only an idiot would want to take advantage of a Malay - China and Burma - Indochina land route for trade when they can pay to support the shipping business and sail through pirate infested waters to give their navy something to do.

When the British and the French threatened to invade Thailand several times (usually about 'lack of free trade' - some things never change) they ended up seeing each other off, much to the relief of Thailand. It was all just for sh_ts and giggles anyway, they didn't want any of Thailand really.

Edited August 29, 201213 yr by Trembly

What about the Burmese invasion of 1569 ? Wasnt "Thailand" technically a colony/vassal state of Burma for about 15 years, further were not the Khmers the orginal people of the area and the "Tai" people "invaded" from Southern China ?

I think the OP title is slightly incorrect, isnt Thailand claim to fame the fact they were never colonised by a western power, unlike what happened in Cambodia/Vietnam and Burma ie French and British

Thailand has most definitely been colonised

Are we going to include Siam in this discussion?

I think the Thais view the Japanese occupation as a 'temporarily permitted alliance'.

I think they like to view it as pulling the wool over the Japanese eyes while the secretly helped the Allies.

There's a host of imagery from this period in photo archives outside of Thailand that is highly unlikely ever be displayed in the Kingdom.

Are we going to include Siam in this discussion?

Which interesting enough throws up another bit of unless information, the origin of the word Siam, which I understand comes from a Hindi word meaning "brown race", which I am sure will distress all the Hi-so's....

I am loving this thread. Loving it. Can't wait for the Thaier than Thai brigade to turn up with their "If you don't like it go home" comments lol.

Colonised - No. Colonial powers used Thailand as a boundary between their power - to avoid conflicts between the colonial powers.

Occupied - Yes

Are we going to include Siam in this discussion?

Which interesting enough throws up another bit of unless information, the origin of the word Siam, which I understand comes from a Hindi word meaning "brown race", which I am sure will distress all the Hi-so's....

Not at all; they are the ones getting richer selling all that white skin cream !

Colonised - No. Colonial powers used Thailand as a boundary between their power - to avoid conflicts between the colonial powers.

Occupied - Yes

There are two definitions of colonized the second being;

"Come to settle among and establish political control over (the indigenous people of an area)."

That will be the Japanese then. Still.

Edited August 29, 201213 yr by Pseudolus

Thailand declared war on the US and UK on Jan 25, 1942. Few if any Thais were killed building the railway of death. Many Asians were killed but no or very few Thais.

I realize we will play the game that the Thai ambassador never delivered the declaration of war to the US. Well that is silly. An ambassador does not have the power to change a governmental decision and all those American bombers that bombed Thailand for years did not think so either. Nor did Thailand when it surrendered. All Thai diplomats were interned in the US in 1942 and the ones that wanted to go back to Thailand were sent back and exchanged for the American diplomats from Bangkok. Nor did the Brits in 1946 when they occupied Bangkok. Nor did Thailand when it gave back the territory to the French and Burmese.

Edited August 29, 201213 yr by chiangmaikelly

Colonised - No. Colonial powers used Thailand as a boundary between their power - to avoid conflicts between the colonial powers.

Occupied - Yes

There are two definitions of colonized the second being;

"Come to settle among and establish political control over (the indigenous people of an area)."

That will be the Japanese then. Still.

And the Burmese

Colonised - No. Colonial powers used Thailand as a boundary between their power - to avoid conflicts between the colonial powers.

Occupied - Yes

There are two definitions of colonized the second being;

"Come to settle among and establish political control over (the indigenous people of an area)."

That will be the Japanese then. Still.

In 1940's did the Americans colonize the British? No of course not. Nor did the Japanese colonize the Thais. They were allies. The Thais agreed to let the Japanese use Thailand to attack both Singapore and Burma (probably dramatically changing the duration of WWII) for the land back that the Brits and French stole and the right to the opium production areas of Burma which Thailand increased from 9 to 36 tons per year.

Are we going to include Siam in this discussion?

Or Lanna for that matter. Then the answer is yes, by the Burmese.

And Pattaya has been colonised by the Brits.

Are we going to include Siam in this discussion?

Or Lanna for that matter. Then the answer is yes, by the Burmese.

And Pattaya has been colonised by the Brits.

Brits out Russians families in. Time marches on.

Edited August 29, 201213 yr by chiangmaikelly

Southeast Asia was colonized by the Chinese by migration as opposed to state sponsored invasion. Although the Burmese, "Thai Aborigine", Lao, and Khmer have changed borders for centuries the Chinese and their descendents have managed to gain control of a great deal of the power base of the region by dogged persistence and increasing control of the economy. This is somewhat of a colonization by DNA and not foreign control. Still the roots are there.

Colonised - No. Colonial powers used Thailand as a boundary between their power - to avoid conflicts between the colonial powers.

Occupied - Yes

There are two definitions of colonized the second being;

"Come to settle among and establish political control over (the indigenous people of an area)."

That will be the Japanese then. Still.

In 1940's did the Americans colonize the British? No of course not. Nor did the Japanese colonize the Thais. They were allies. The Thais agreed to let the Japanese use Thailand to attack both Singapore and Burma (probably dramatically changing the duration of WWII) for the land back that the Brits and French stole and the right to the opium production areas of Burma which Thailand increased from 9 to 36 tons per year.

Umm no. Thailand were not allies of the Japanese because that seems to make you believe that Thailand had a choice. Japan marched in. Thailand, incapable of fighting because that would mean all the mummy boys being away from their mummy, said "ohh, well seeing as you are here, let's be friends. Please don't kill us". Really - any book written by a Thai expert on anything, let alone History, use it for what it's worth. Toilet paper.

Colonised - No. Colonial powers used Thailand as a boundary between their power - to avoid conflicts between the colonial powers.

Occupied - Yes

There are two definitions of colonized the second being;

"Come to settle among and establish political control over (the indigenous people of an area)."

That will be the Japanese then. Still.

In 1940's did the Americans colonize the British? No of course not. Nor did the Japanese colonize the Thais. They were allies. The Thais agreed to let the Japanese use Thailand to attack both Singapore and Burma (probably dramatically changing the duration of WWII) for the land back that the Brits and French stole and the right to the opium production areas of Burma which Thailand increased from 9 to 36 tons per year.

Umm no. Thailand were not allies of the Japanese because that seems to make you believe that Thailand had a choice. Japan marched in. Thailand, incapable of fighting because that would mean all the mummy boys being away from their mummy, said "ohh, well seeing as you are here, let's be friends. Please don't kill us". Really - any book written by a Thai expert on anything, let alone History, use it for what it's worth. Toilet paper.

If you dont like it...go home then...

If you dont like it...go home then...

Bugger - you beat me to it. Anyway, it seems you can not say this enough on here

You go home.

Many more Thais died building the infamous railway than the allied POWs.

No they didn't. It was Burmese, Malaysians, Javans, and Indians that were dieing like flies. There is a reason there is almost no anti Japanese sentiment in Thailand unlike in the rest of Asia, the Japanese basically left them alone.

Thailand at the time was under going a nationalistic period in which they wanted to reunite all of the Thai speaking peoples in to one country. That meant they wanted Laos and Shan territory in Burma, and even wanted part of China. The government was happy to cooperate with the Japanese and invade Shan state in Burma.

Thailand probably came out of WWII better than almost any country, so they did quite a good job. They didn't have mass atrocities from the Japanese like the Koreans and Chinese did. They invaded both British and French territory. The country was not carpet bombed like Europe and Japan although there was some bombing. And after the war, they were able to say they were forced by the Japanese, so the United States didn't even punish them. Worked out so good there is hardly even any memory of the war at all, much of the rest of the world is still arguing over it

Many more Thais died building the infamous railway than the allied POWs.

No they didn't. It was Burmese, Malaysians, Javans, and Indians that were dieing like flies. There is a reason there is almost no anti Japanese sentiment in Thailand unlike in the rest of Asia, the Japanese basically left them alone.

Thailand at the time was under going a nationalistic period in which they wanted to reunite all of the Thai speaking peoples in to one country. That meant they wanted Laos and Shan territory in Burma, and even wanted part of China. The government was happy to cooperate with the Japanese and invade Shan state in Burma.

Thailand probably came out of WWII better than almost any country, so they did quite a good job. They didn't have mass atrocities from the Japanese like the Koreans and Chinese did. They invaded both British and French territory. The country was not carpet bombed like Europe and Japan although there was some bombing. And after the war, they were able to say they were forced by the Japanese, so the United States didn't even punish them. Worked out so good there is hardly even any memory of the war at all, much of the rest of the world is still arguing over it

INteresting perspective.

So, to paraphrase, Thailand is the France of Asia?

Dem dirty Rats. And if you don't like it, leave.

And Pattaya has been colonised by the Brits.

Pattaya has been colonized by the Russians, the days of the Brits are over

And Pattaya has been colonised by the Brits.

Pattaya has been colonized by the Russians, the days of the Brits are over

Why feel the need to hijack an interesting thread with an attack on Brits? I suggest if you don't like it, go home.

the United States didn't even punish them.

DP25 is broadly correct......I highlighted that statement as it's highly relevant as to what happened next. I've had a good look at the workings of US foreign policy after the war at the best that can be said is that the US was overwhelmed. Too many people were making decisions with major implications way above their pay grade and this in turn caused long lasting and debilitating effects.

The status of Thailand was one such mistake.

the United States didn't even punish them.

DP25 is broadly correct......I highlighted that statement as it's highly relevant as to what happened next. I've had a good look at the workings of US foreign policy after the war at the best that can be said is that the US was overwhelmed. Too many people were making decisions with major implications way above their pay grade and this in turn caused long lasting and debilitating effects.

The status of Thailand was one such mistake.

Please elaborate.

A well-organized resistance movement numbered around 90,000 Thai guerrillas,^[6] supported by many government officials allied to the regent Pridi Phanomyong, was active from 1942 on to fight the Japanese. The partisans provided invaluable espionage services for the Allies, as well as performing some sabotage, and in 1944 helped engineer Phibun's downfall. After the war, however, Thailand still received little punishment for its wartime role under Phibun.

wiki

Edited August 29, 201213 yr by BuckarooBanzai