Thailand Never Been Colonised - Fact Or Myth?

[pieandmash]

I've often heard that line about "Many more Thais died building the infamous railway than the allied POWs" but having been to the museums up in Kanchanaburi, Hellfire Pass and doing my own browsing I've yet to find any mention of Thais dying building it, Asians yes but not Thais. If anyone has any links to prove otherwise then I'd been interested to see them.

[Cobalt60]

The old axiom that history is written by the victors, possibly does not apply here then, as I don't believe WW2 actually happened according to the Thais I have spoken to and does not appear in their history lessons.

(Which home should I go back to, I have two)

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Thaivisa Connect App

Edited August 29, 2012 by Cobalt60

[maxme]

The old axiom that history is written by the victors, possibly does not apply here then, as I don't believe WW2 actually happened according to the Thais I have spoken to and does not appear in their history lessons.

(Which home should I go back too, I have two)

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Thaivisa Connect App

There is a lot of things that the Thais did and did not do that don't appear in their history books making everything suggestive in their eyes.

[Soutpeel]

(Which home should I go back too, I have two)

The coldest one

[Cobalt60]

The museum at The Bridge is called the JEATH railway museum. The acronym is for the poor souls that took part in the 'action' Japan, England ,Australia, Thailand and Holland, I didn't grace it with my prescence.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Thaivisa Connect App

[Pseudolus]

The museum at The Bridge is called the JEATH railway museum. The acronym is for the poor souls that took part in the 'action' Japan, England ,Australia, Thailand and Holland, I didn't grace it with my prescence.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Thaivisa Connect App

So the Thais during the war were similar to the Non Jewish Slovakians then? Basically the bitches of their conquering power, who pretended to themselves that they were sort of allies to them, and took part in and horrendous atrocities but come out the other side smelling of roses? Doesn't surprise me at all. anything for an easy life and a buck on the hip.

Perhaps the Yanks wanted to keep Thailand sweet though? The communist movement was gaining momentum in Vietnam, Korea was kicking off, and they needed somewhere for their soldier to get some R+R.

If you read accounts of POWs working on the Burma railroad though, it is clear that the Japanese treated the local Thais with disdain and not better than they treated any other conquered nation.

Edited August 29, 2012 by Pseudolus

[hookedondhamma]

The museum at The Bridge is called the JEATH railway museum. The acronym is for the poor souls that took part in the 'action' Japan, England ,Australia, Thailand and Holland, I didn't grace it with my prescence.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Thaivisa Connect App

So the Thais during the war were similar to the Non Jewish Slovakia then? Basically the bitches of their conquering power, who pretended to themselves that they were sort of allies to them, and took part in and horrendous atrocities but come out the other side smelling of roses? Doesn't surprise me at all. anything for an easy life and a buck on the hip.

Perhaps the Yanks wanted to keep Thailand sweet though? The communist movement was gaining momentum in Vietnam, Korea was kicking off, and they needed somewhere for their soldier to get some R+R.

If you read accounts of POWs working on the Burma railroad though, it is clear that the Japanese treated the local Thais with disdain and not better than they treated any other conquered nation.

This thread is gold.

[theblether]

The museum at The Bridge is called the JEATH railway museum. The acronym is for the poor souls that took part in the 'action' Japan, England ,Australia, Thailand and Holland, I didn't grace it with my prescence.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Thaivisa Connect App

So the Thais during the war were similar to the Non Jewish Slovakia then? Basically the bitches of their conquering power, who pretended to themselves that they were sort of allies to them, and took part in and horrendous atrocities but come out the other side smelling of roses? Doesn't surprise me at all. anything for an easy life and a buck on the hip.

Perhaps the Yanks wanted to keep Thailand sweet though? The communist movement was gaining momentum in Vietnam, Korea was kicking off, and they needed somewhere for their soldier to get some R+R.

If you read accounts of POWs working on the Burma railroad though, it is clear that the Japanese treated the local Thais with disdain and not better than they treated any other conquered nation.

That's a rough way of putting it but ehm...............true

The communist aspect wasn't an issue immediately post war though......that came years later after the US realized they had lost the greatest chance in human history to " impose " their values of democracy and freedom on the World.

I put the word " impose " in brackets as I do feel that the core values of the US are worthy values. Another US foreign policy eff up caused by the professional diplomats and politicians being overwhelmed..........as well as the US allowing itself to be held hostage by the anti British Irish lobby.

Mental stuff.

[BuckarooBanzai]

The museum at The Bridge is called the JEATH railway museum. The acronym is for the poor souls that took part in the 'action' Japan, England ,Australia, Thailand and Holland, I didn't grace it with my prescence.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Thaivisa Connect App

So the Thais during the war were similar to the Non Jewish Slovakia then? Basically the bitches of their conquering power, who pretended to themselves that they were sort of allies to them, and took part in and horrendous atrocities but come out the other side smelling of roses? Doesn't surprise me at all. anything for an easy life and a buck on the hip.

Perhaps the Yanks wanted to keep Thailand sweet though? The communist movement was gaining momentum in Vietnam, Korea was kicking off, and they needed somewhere for their soldier to get some R+R.

If you read accounts of POWs working on the Burma railroad though, it is clear that the Japanese treated the local Thais with disdain and not better than they treated any other conquered nation.

That's a rough way of putting it but ehm...............true

The communist aspect wasn't an issue immediately post war though......that came years later after the US realized they had lost the greatest chance in human history to " impose " their values of democracy and freedom on the World.

I put the word " impose " in brackets as I do feel that the core values of the US are worthy values. Another US foreign policy eff up caused by the professional diplomats and politicians being overwhelmed..........as well as the US allowing itself to be held hostage by the anti British Irish lobby.

Mental stuff.

You should not confuse US core values with US political incompetence. They are two separate things.

Does the US get no credit for defending a free Europe?

[Pseudolus]

The museum at The Bridge is called the JEATH railway museum. The acronym is for the poor souls that took part in the 'action' Japan, England ,Australia, Thailand and Holland, I didn't grace it with my prescence.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Thaivisa Connect App

So the Thais during the war were similar to the Non Jewish Slovakia then? Basically the bitches of their conquering power, who pretended to themselves that they were sort of allies to them, and took part in and horrendous atrocities but come out the other side smelling of roses? Doesn't surprise me at all. anything for an easy life and a buck on the hip.

Perhaps the Yanks wanted to keep Thailand sweet though? The communist movement was gaining momentum in Vietnam, Korea was kicking off, and they needed somewhere for their soldier to get some R+R.

If you read accounts of POWs working on the Burma railroad though, it is clear that the Japanese treated the local Thais with disdain and not better than they treated any other conquered nation.

That's a rough way of putting it but ehm...............true

The communist aspect wasn't an issue immediately post war though......that came years later after the US realized they had lost the greatest chance in human history to " impose " their values of democracy and freedom on the World.

I put the word " impose " in brackets as I do feel that the core values of the US are worthy values. Another US foreign policy eff up caused by the professional diplomats and politicians being overwhelmed..........as well as the US allowing itself to be held hostage by the anti British Irish lobby.

Mental stuff.

You should not confuse US core values with US political incompetence. They are two separate things.

Does the US get no credit for defending a free Europe?

Keep it on topic please. This is not a US v Brits thread. This is about Thai History. A thread that by no means should not be classed as thai bashing, racism, or any other reason a thread can be closed because it is discussing factual history and to close it would be censorship of the worst kind. US and Brits are great. Friend and all lovely.

Now, back to the topic in hand. Someone mentioned a lot about Burmas occupation of Thailand; more details?

[theblether]

The museum at The Bridge is called the JEATH railway museum. The acronym is for the poor souls that took part in the 'action' Japan, England ,Australia, Thailand and Holland, I didn't grace it with my prescence.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Thaivisa Connect App

So the Thais during the war were similar to the Non Jewish Slovakia then? Basically the bitches of their conquering power, who pretended to themselves that they were sort of allies to them, and took part in and horrendous atrocities but come out the other side smelling of roses? Doesn't surprise me at all. anything for an easy life and a buck on the hip.

Perhaps the Yanks wanted to keep Thailand sweet though? The communist movement was gaining momentum in Vietnam, Korea was kicking off, and they needed somewhere for their soldier to get some R+R.

If you read accounts of POWs working on the Burma railroad though, it is clear that the Japanese treated the local Thais with disdain and not better than they treated any other conquered nation.

That's a rough way of putting it but ehm...............true

The communist aspect wasn't an issue immediately post war though......that came years later after the US realized they had lost the greatest chance in human history to " impose " their values of democracy and freedom on the World.

I put the word " impose " in brackets as I do feel that the core values of the US are worthy values. Another US foreign policy eff up caused by the professional diplomats and politicians being overwhelmed..........as well as the US allowing itself to be held hostage by the anti British Irish lobby.

Mental stuff.

You should not confuse US core values with US political incompetence. They are two separate things.

Does the US get no credit for defending a free Europe?

I think your mis-reading what I said..........I said the US was overwhelmed and that the professional diplomats and politicians were......overwhelmed!!!!

That was allied to a provable anti British agenda orchestrated by the Irish American lobby..........with serious consequences which are still being felt to this day.

Anyway, can I be bothered getting involved in yet another US v UK bunfight?????..............let me think about it.

.

Edited August 29, 2012 by theblether

[nontabury]

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

I read that after the war the British punished the Thais for their involvement with the Japs,

By force in the Thai's to pay compensation, in the form of Rice, that is the reason that rice pudding became such a favourite desert in the Uk.

[Pseudolus]

I read that after the war the British punished the Thais for their involvement with the Japs,

By force in the Thai's to pay compensation, in the form of Rice, that is the reason that rice pudding became such a favourite desert in the Uk.

Jing lor?

[theblether]

At the risk of being cheeky Pseudolus............I am on topic and you don't know it.

The US v UK issue was the primary issue behind the non-colonization of Thailand after the war......how did you not know that??

@nontabury......there was a rice shortage and famine in areas of the British empire........the Brits were intending to remove some of the Thai rice production to allay the famine but the US prevented it.

[BuckarooBanzai]

Let me think ... Burma was the Brits ... Cambodia and Vietnam was the French ... and Thailand was the Japanese. A questionable history. Where does the US really fit into this picture? Certainly not as a Colonial power. And who really wins - I think China.

[JusMe]

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.

There was a previous agreement between the Thai government, represented by the Prime Minister, Phibunsongkram, and the Japanese for the landing and transit of Japanese troops through Thailand to attack Burma and Malaya.

The Thais and japanese signed an agreement at the Temple of the Emerald Buddha, and then the Thais surprised the japanese by actually declaring war on the western allies.

Thailand had lots of choices, and made the choice to join the Japanese.

After the war, there was significant disagreement between the Brits and Americans regarding just whether Thailand should be "punished" or not, and how much. Eventually an agreement was signed for Thailand to provide some rice to other parts of SE Asia, but even that low level was never actually handed over.

I do have copies of all the documents if anyone wants them. Send me a PM and I'll put them up in a SendSpace file.

[ThailandMysteries]

The US v UK issue was the primary issue behind the non-colonization of Thailand after the war......how did you not know that??

What on earth are you talking about? Post war colonization of Thailand was never mentioned.

What embassy or NGO here in Thailand do you work for? You have been horribly misinformed.

The issue at stake was whether or not Thailand should be deemed culpable for having allied itself with the Japanese and, in 1942, for having declared war on Britain and the US (ie, as per Prime Minister Phibunsongkhram).

The US adopted a "softly softly" approach due to their wariness of Anglo-French colonial history within the region, and also because they perceived Thailand as a potential (future) strategic ally.

Let me repeat: no one wanted to colonize Thailand after WWII.

[submaniac]

Japan and Thailand's relationship is alot longer and more complex than people posting here realize. Japan and Thailand had been "allied" states since the 16th century during the era of the Japanese Red seal ships. Japan had trading posts/colonies in Thailand. There's a 2011 Thai movie called "Yamada: Samurai of Ayuthaya" about a Japanese samurai who came to Thailand and fought with King Naruasan, and eventually was the leader of the Nakhon Si Thamarrat region.

Thailand's relationship with Burma is this: Burma was the regional powerhouse during the time of King Naruasan (the King with the large monument with alot of roosters in Ayuthaya). The Burmese king actually held King Naruasan hostage throughout his childhood. The way things worked during that time was that there was not a united "King" over Thailand like there is now, but each city state/area (such as Ayuthaya) had its own king. Burma's king acted as an "emperor" over the other local kings, and they paid tribute to Burma's King. Kind Narusan refused to pay tribute, and that's how (among other things) the sacking of Ayuthaya happened.

During the World War II era Thailand was under the control of army officers and civil servants (yes, I know not much has changed). The prime minister and dictator of Thailand, Plaek Phibunsongkhram,made a deal with Japan. The Thai King, Ananda Mahidol (the older brother of the current HM) was still a child and living in Switzerland. Phibun made the deal with Japan to cooperate with the Japanese. Phibun and the Japanese wanted Thailand to declare war on the United States and England. The regent for the King refused to sign the declaration of war. The Thai ambassador to the United States refused to deliver the declaration of war to the United States.

Japan began treating Thailand like a conquered country rather than an ally. The U.S. started bombing Bangkok. The Thai population began getting sick of the Japanese, the bombing, and later in the war everyone realized Japan was going to lose.

In 1946 HM Ananda Mahidol died due to a gunshot wound. The current HM became King.

Plaek Phibun remained prime minister and dictator of Thailand until 1957, when an army general, Sarit Thanarat, accused him of lese majeste. Phibun was overthrown, and Thanarat became Thai prime minister until his death in 1963. Under Thanarat, the public role of the Thai King increased (the monarchy had been minimized under Phibun). When Thanarat died HM King Bhumibol King Bhumibol ordered 21 days of official mourning and his body lay in state for 100 days under Royal patronage in the Palace.

see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan%E2%80%93Thailand_relations

[theblether]

The US v UK issue was the primary issue behind the non-colonization of Thailand after the war......how did you not know that??

What on earth are you talking about? Post war colonization of Thailand was never mentioned.

What embassy or NGO here in Thailand do you work for? You have been horribly misinformed.

The issue at stake was whether or not Thailand should be deemed culpable for having allied itself with the Japanese and, in 1942, for having declared war on Britain and the US (ie, as per Prime Minister Phibunsongkhram).

The US adopted a "softly softly" approach due to their wariness of Anglo-French colonial history within the region, and also because they perceived Thailand as a potential (future) strategic ally.

Let me repeat: no one wanted to colonize Thailand after WWII.

Garbage

Where's KerryK when you need him

This issue has been covered before and KerryK brought forward information and proof of an agreement between the US and the UK for the UK to colonize Thailand. To my recollection a husband and wife team started a campaign in congress to overturn the agreement and were successful. I'll need to go look at my content to get proof of that, I'll be gone a while getting that.

I will say though that if I can get the info it's credit to KerryK...........right I'm away to try and find it.......

Edited August 29, 2012 by theblether

[ThailandMysteries]

The US v UK issue was the primary issue behind the non-colonization of Thailand after the war......how did you not know that??

What on earth are you talking about? Post war colonization of Thailand was never mentioned.

What embassy or NGO here in Thailand do you work for? You have been horribly misinformed.

The issue at stake was whether or not Thailand should be deemed culpable for having allied itself with the Japanese and, in 1942, for having declared war on Britain and the US (ie, as per Prime Minister Phibunsongkhram).

The US adopted a "softly softly" approach due to their wariness of Anglo-French colonial history within the region, and also because they perceived Thailand as a potential (future) strategic ally.

Let me repeat: no one wanted to colonize Thailand after WWII.

Garbage

Where's KerryK when you need him

This issue has been covered before and KerryK brought forward information and proof of an agreement between the US and the UK for the UK to colonize Thailand. To my recollection a husband and wife team started a campaign in congress to overturn the agreement and were successful. I'll need to go look at my content to get proof of that, I'll be gone a while getting that.

I will say though that if I can get the info it's credit to KerryK...........right I'm away to try and find it.......

Do you really believe the UK actually wanted to COLONIZE Thailand after WWII?

In the mid-twentieth century, Britain began relinquishing control of its overseas territories. The days of the British Empire were either gone or fading fast.

And you're suggesting that Britain wanted to COLONIZE Thailand in 1945?

With all respect, you simply don't know what you're talking about.

As per my previous questions: where do you work in Thailand? Are you employed by an Embassy or an NGO or a University? And if you're employed by a local University, which one?

[theblether]

The US v UK issue was the primary issue behind the non-colonization of Thailand after the war......how did you not know that??

What on earth are you talking about? Post war colonization of Thailand was never mentioned.

What embassy or NGO here in Thailand do you work for? You have been horribly misinformed.

The issue at stake was whether or not Thailand should be deemed culpable for having allied itself with the Japanese and, in 1942, for having declared war on Britain and the US (ie, as per Prime Minister Phibunsongkhram).

The US adopted a "softly softly" approach due to their wariness of Anglo-French colonial history within the region, and also because they perceived Thailand as a potential (future) strategic ally.

Let me repeat: no one wanted to colonize Thailand after WWII.

Garbage

Where's KerryK when you need him

This issue has been covered before and KerryK brought forward information and proof of an agreement between the US and the UK for the UK to colonize Thailand. To my recollection a husband and wife team started a campaign in congress to overturn the agreement and were successful. I'll need to go look at my content to get proof of that, I'll be gone a while getting that.

I will say though that if I can get the info it's credit to KerryK...........right I'm away to try and find it.......

Do you really believe the UK actually wanted to COLONIZE Thailand after WWII?

In the mid-twentieth century, Britain began relinquishing control of its overseas territories. The days of the British Empire were either gone or fading fast.

And you're suggesting that Britain wanted to COLONIZE Thailand in 1945?

With all respect, you simply don't know what you're talking about.

As per my previous questions: where do you work in Thailand? Are you employed by an Embassy or an NGO or a University? And if you're employed by a local University, which one?

I live in Glasgow, Scotland.....what's the relevance

Anyway I'm still looking for it......by the way are you an American?

.........................................................................................................................................................................................................

Right.....found it.......here was a cracking bun fight from last year.....have a look at this one

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/498702-are-thais-taught-anything-about-the-world-outside-of-thailand/page__hl__japanese

Anyway......my troll antenna is twitching and it's not often wrong. I'm normally quite a polite person and I would normally go straight to the appropriate post but in your case I'll make an exception.......I reckon your another one of our bounce back banned members. There seems to be a plague of them going about at the moment.

Edited August 29, 2012 by theblether

[ThailandMysteries]

I live in Glasgow, Scotland.....what's the relevance

Anyway I'm still looking for it......by the way are you an American?

I hope you're happy in Glasgow.

Yes, you need to go and look for your sources. Come back when you have more to add.

But do remember that Britain was economically devastated after WWII, and was in no position to embark on a new era of colonization.

I don't what you've heard (although I'd be interested in reading it), but it's almost certainly incorrect.

[theblether]

I live in Glasgow, Scotland.....what's the relevance

Anyway I'm still looking for it......by the way are you an American?

I hope you're happy in Glasgow.

Yes, you need to go and look for your sources. Come back when you have more to add.

But do remember that Britain was economically devastated after WWII, and was in no position to embark on a new era of colonization.

I don't what you've heard (although I'd be interested in reading it), but it's almost certainly incorrect.

I've decided I really can't be bothered debating this issue again. Shock development, theblether can't be bothered blethering.

ps.....the proof you seek is in that topic......go get it Gollum.

Edited August 29, 2012 by theblether

[DrTuner]

I have a question. During WW2, what was the state of the Thai military ? I ask because that would have relevance on how far they had to bend for the Japanese and if they crossed the boolean border of having been colonized.

[smokie36]

There's definitely a bridge near this thread. Especially given comments elsewhere on the General Forum. 1/10.

[theblether]

I have a question. During WW2, what was the state of the Thai military ? I ask because that would have relevance on how far they had to bend for the Japanese and if they crossed the boolean border of having been colonized.

Your not a troll so I'll answer your question.......the Thai military ( I believe around 50,000 strong at the time ) had a two day or so skirmish with the invading Japanese forces, which quite frankly they had no chance of repelling.

So a strategic alliance was suggested ( hastily and eh, conveniently ), so that the Thais could say with a straight face that they weren't invaded and didn't surrender.

Okay, maybe that was Real-Politik in action..........the next step of actually declaring war on the US and UK was a step too far. People don't realize the true implications of that declaration......the terror of the time was the Japanese pouring through Burma into India.......and the Germans pouring through the Middle East and meeting the Japanese in India. The Thai position made it unsafe for British and US forces, such as they were at the earlier days of the war, to operate in Thailand. There's a big difference between engaging in an occupied nation and an enemy combatant nation.

[ThailandMysteries]

I live in Glasgow, Scotland.....what's the relevance

Anyway I'm still looking for it......by the way are you an American?

I hope you're happy in Glasgow.

Yes, you need to go and look for your sources. Come back when you have more to add.

But do remember that Britain was economically devastated after WWII, and was in no position to embark on a new era of colonization.

I don't what you've heard (although I'd be interested in reading it), but it's almost certainly incorrect.

I've decided I really can't be bothered debating this issue again. Shock development, theblether can't be bothered blethering.

ps.....the proof you seek is in that topic......go get it Gollum.

So -- you don't know what you're talking about. You have admitted it.

There was no HIDDEN plan whereby Britain would colonize Thailand after WWII.

And you are not employed as an academic or historian for a local embassy or NGO or university.

Thank you for your contribution to this thread.

[theblether]

I live in Glasgow, Scotland.....what's the relevance

Anyway I'm still looking for it......by the way are you an American?

I hope you're happy in Glasgow.

Yes, you need to go and look for your sources. Come back when you have more to add.

But do remember that Britain was economically devastated after WWII, and was in no position to embark on a new era of colonization.

I don't what you've heard (although I'd be interested in reading it), but it's almost certainly incorrect.

I've decided I really can't be bothered debating this issue again. Shock development, theblether can't be bothered blethering.

ps.....the proof you seek is in that topic......go get it Gollum.

So -- you don't know what you're talking about. You have admitted it.

There was no HIDDEN plan whereby Britain would colonize Thailand after WWII.

And you are not employed as an academic or historian for a local embassy or NGO or university.

Thank you for your contribution to this thread.

Yes there was but you're too lazy to read the link I sent you.......oh well, trolls these days, they ain't what they used to be.

[ThailandMysteries]

What on earth are you talking about? Post war colonization of Thailand was never mentioned.

What embassy or NGO here in Thailand do you work for? You have been horribly misinformed.

The issue at stake was whether or not Thailand should be deemed culpable for having allied itself with the Japanese and, in 1942, for having declared war on Britain and the US (ie, as per Prime Minister Phibunsongkhram).

The US adopted a "softly softly" approach due to their wariness of Anglo-French colonial history within the region, and also because they perceived Thailand as a potential (future) strategic ally.

Let me repeat: no one wanted to colonize Thailand after WWII.

Garbage

Where's KerryK when you need him

This issue has been covered before and KerryK brought forward information and proof of an agreement between the US and the UK for the UK to colonize Thailand. To my recollection a husband and wife team started a campaign in congress to overturn the agreement and were successful. I'll need to go look at my content to get proof of that, I'll be gone a while getting that.

I will say though that if I can get the info it's credit to KerryK...........right I'm away to try and find it.......

Do you really believe the UK actually wanted to COLONIZE Thailand after WWII?

In the mid-twentieth century, Britain began relinquishing control of its overseas territories. The days of the British Empire were either gone or fading fast.

And you're suggesting that Britain wanted to COLONIZE Thailand in 1945?

With all respect, you simply don't know what you're talking about.

As per my previous questions: where do you work in Thailand? Are you employed by an Embassy or an NGO or a University? And if you're employed by a local University, which one?

I live in Glasgow, Scotland.....what's the relevance

Anyway I'm still looking for it......by the way are you an American?

.........................................................................................................................................................................................................

Right.....found it.......here was a cracking bun fight from last year.....have a look at this one

http://www.thaivisa....e__hl__japanese

Anyway......my troll antenna is twitching and it's not often wrong. I'm normally quite a polite person and I would normally go straight to the appropriate post but in your case I'll make an exception.......I reckon your another one of our bounce back banned members. There seems to be a plague of them going about at the moment.

The link you quote points to a thread on this forum.

I am still waiting for you to provide REAL links to informative sources which give empirical evidence (as per your claim) that Britain wished to COLONIZE Thailand after WWII.

Until you provide such evidence, I stand by my assertion that you are wrong and don't know what you are talking about.

And please, try to remember that the word "troll" is generally reserved (by adults, at least) for kids who are reading children's books.

[theblether]

The information is in the thread oh little one.......and on this forum we reserve the word troll for people like you

Or is that another example of something you don't know????................4.20am in Thailand and still arguing with a guy in Glasgow. What an exciting life you must live.