Thailand Never Been Colonised - Fact Or Myth?

[cluby]

economically speaking, they have been colonised. Just see where the elites are trained. How they talk, how they dress, what they dream to be or to have... And 1 basic illustration : companies that invest in tv ad are mainly americans. For ages countries are subjugated by economic tricks more than by military mean

Edited August 30, 2012 by cluby

[Banzai99]

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.

I thought you'd already gone.

[submaniac]

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

see:General William Slim. Because the Allies were planning to take the offensive themselves, the corps' units were thrown forward almost to the Chindwin River and widely separated, and were therefore vulnerable to being isolated and surrounded.

• 20th Indian Infantry Division occupied Tamu, 110 kilometres (68 mi) south-east of Imphal. The division was untried but well-trained.
  
• 17th Indian Infantry Division occupied Tiddim, 243 kilometres (151 mi) south of Imphal, at the end of a long and precarious line of communication. The division, which had two brigades only, had been intermittently in action since December 1941.
  
• 23rd Indian Infantry Division was in reserve in and around Imphal. It had served on the Imphal front for two years and was severely understrength as a result of endemic diseases such as malaria and typhus.
  
• 50th Indian Parachute Brigade was north of Imphal, conducting advanced jungle training.
  
• 254th Indian Tank Brigade was stationed in and around Imphal.
  

Maybe "deemded" a British win, but it looks like the Indians were fighting the battle. And it wasn't much a win as Britain didn't lose land that it already had. It's more a defense of a position And there is no reports of this army occupying Bangkok.

[simple1]

http://en.wikipedia....attle_of_Imphal

see:General William Slim. Because the Allies were planning to take the offensive themselves, the corps' units were thrown forward almost to the Chindwin River and widely separated, and were therefore vulnerable to being isolated and surrounded.

• 20th Indian Infantry Division occupied Tamu, 110 kilometres (68 mi) south-east of Imphal. The division was untried but well-trained.
  
• 17th Indian Infantry Division occupied Tiddim, 243 kilometres (151 mi) south of Imphal, at the end of a long and precarious line of communication. The division, which had two brigades only, had been intermittently in action since December 1941.
  
• 23rd Indian Infantry Division was in reserve in and around Imphal. It had served on the Imphal front for two years and was severely understrength as a result of endemic diseases such as malaria and typhus.
  
• 50th Indian Parachute Brigade was north of Imphal, conducting advanced jungle training.
  
• 254th Indian Tank Brigade was stationed in and around Imphal.
  

Maybe "deemded" a British win, but it looks like the Indians were fighting the battle. And it wasn't much a win as Britain didn't lose land that it already had. It's more a defense of a position And there is no reports of this army occupying Bangkok.

It was a British led army, with some British infantry as well, it was of course a British colony from 1842, so from a British point of view at that point in history a part of the Empire. I don't know why, but put you seem to be denigrating the effort of the British in WW11 who suffered, in conjunction with commonwealth forces, a total of 452,000 military deaths.

Edited August 30, 2012 by simple1

[travelmann]

http://en.wikipedia....attle_of_Imphal

see:General William Slim. Because the Allies were planning to take the offensive themselves, the corps' units were thrown forward almost to the Chindwin River and widely separated, and were therefore vulnerable to being isolated and surrounded.

• 20th Indian Infantry Division occupied Tamu, 110 kilometres (68 mi) south-east of Imphal. The division was untried but well-trained.
  
• 17th Indian Infantry Division occupied Tiddim, 243 kilometres (151 mi) south of Imphal, at the end of a long and precarious line of communication. The division, which had two brigades only, had been intermittently in action since December 1941.
  
• 23rd Indian Infantry Division was in reserve in and around Imphal. It had served on the Imphal front for two years and was severely understrength as a result of endemic diseases such as malaria and typhus.
  
• 50th Indian Parachute Brigade was north of Imphal, conducting advanced jungle training.
  
• 254th Indian Tank Brigade was stationed in and around Imphal.
  

Maybe "deemded" a British win, but it looks like the Indians were fighting the battle. And it wasn't much a win as Britain didn't lose land that it already had. It's more a defense of a position And there is no reports of this army occupying Bangkok.

And just remind us what the Great Thai Nation was doing to help? Of course Britain was already fighting ONE war elsewhere at the time and would be extremely stretched at best..

[travelmann]

http://en.wikipedia....attle_of_Imphal

see:General William Slim. Because the Allies were planning to take the offensive themselves, the corps' units were thrown forward almost to the Chindwin River and widely separated, and were therefore vulnerable to being isolated and surrounded.

• 20th Indian Infantry Division occupied Tamu, 110 kilometres (68 mi) south-east of Imphal. The division was untried but well-trained.
  
• 17th Indian Infantry Division occupied Tiddim, 243 kilometres (151 mi) south of Imphal, at the end of a long and precarious line of communication. The division, which had two brigades only, had been intermittently in action since December 1941.
  
• 23rd Indian Infantry Division was in reserve in and around Imphal. It had served on the Imphal front for two years and was severely understrength as a result of endemic diseases such as malaria and typhus.
  
• 50th Indian Parachute Brigade was north of Imphal, conducting advanced jungle training.
  
• 254th Indian Tank Brigade was stationed in and around Imphal.
  

Maybe "deemded" a British win, but it looks like the Indians were fighting the battle. And it wasn't much a win as Britain didn't lose land that it already had. It's more a defense of a position And there is no reports of this army occupying Bangkok.

It was a British led army, with some British infantry as well, it was of course a British colony from 1842, so from a British point of view at that point in history a part of the Empire. I don't know why, but put you seem to be denigrating the effort of the British in WW11 who suffered, in conjunction with commonwealth forces, a total of 452,000 military deaths.

And the Thai losses he forgot to mention?? oh yeah ZERO as he likes to quote.

Better to fight and lose than take it up the jacksy, id rather go down fighting with some respect.

[maxme]

http://en.wikipedia....attle_of_Imphal

see:General William Slim. Because the Allies were planning to take the offensive themselves, the corps' units were thrown forward almost to the Chindwin River and widely separated, and were therefore vulnerable to being isolated and surrounded.

• 20th Indian Infantry Division occupied Tamu, 110 kilometres (68 mi) south-east of Imphal. The division was untried but well-trained.
  
• 17th Indian Infantry Division occupied Tiddim, 243 kilometres (151 mi) south of Imphal, at the end of a long and precarious line of communication. The division, which had two brigades only, had been intermittently in action since December 1941.
  
• 23rd Indian Infantry Division was in reserve in and around Imphal. It had served on the Imphal front for two years and was severely understrength as a result of endemic diseases such as malaria and typhus.
  
• 50th Indian Parachute Brigade was north of Imphal, conducting advanced jungle training.
  
• 254th Indian Tank Brigade was stationed in and around Imphal.
  

Maybe "deemded" a British win, but it looks like the Indians were fighting the battle. And it wasn't much a win as Britain didn't lose land that it already had. It's more a defense of a position And there is no reports of this army occupying Bangkok.

It was a British led army, with some British infantry as well, it was of course a British colony from 1842, so from a British point of view at that point in history a part of the Empire. I don't know why, but put you seem to be denigrating the effort of the British in WW11 who suffered, in conjunction with commonwealth forces, a total of 452,000 military deaths.

And the Thai losses he forgot to mention?? oh yeah ZERO as he likes to quote.

Better to fight and lose than take it up the jacksy, id rather go down fighting with some respect.

I think that was the point, he wants this turning into a we and them thing.

[travelmann]

http://en.wikipedia....attle_of_Imphal

see:General William Slim. Because the Allies were planning to take the offensive themselves, the corps' units were thrown forward almost to the Chindwin River and widely separated, and were therefore vulnerable to being isolated and surrounded.

• 20th Indian Infantry Division occupied Tamu, 110 kilometres (68 mi) south-east of Imphal. The division was untried but well-trained.
  
• 17th Indian Infantry Division occupied Tiddim, 243 kilometres (151 mi) south of Imphal, at the end of a long and precarious line of communication. The division, which had two brigades only, had been intermittently in action since December 1941.
  
• 23rd Indian Infantry Division was in reserve in and around Imphal. It had served on the Imphal front for two years and was severely understrength as a result of endemic diseases such as malaria and typhus.
  
• 50th Indian Parachute Brigade was north of Imphal, conducting advanced jungle training.
  
• 254th Indian Tank Brigade was stationed in and around Imphal.
  

Maybe "deemded" a British win, but it looks like the Indians were fighting the battle. And it wasn't much a win as Britain didn't lose land that it already had. It's more a defense of a position And there is no reports of this army occupying Bangkok.

It was a British led army, with some British infantry as well, it was of course a British colony from 1842, so from a British point of view at that point in history a part of the Empire. I don't know why, but put you seem to be denigrating the effort of the British in WW11 who suffered, in conjunction with commonwealth forces, a total of 452,000 military deaths.

And the Thai losses he forgot to mention?? oh yeah ZERO as he likes to quote.

Better to fight and lose than take it up the jacksy, id rather go down fighting with some respect.

I think that was the point, he wants this turning into a we and them thing.

Maybe he'd have a different view if this had happened in Thailand http://www.asianholocaust.org/china---info.html

[geriatrickid]

I bet those members from New Zealand, Australia and Canada with a knowledge of their nations' sacrifice in WWII must be reading this thread with disbelief. Long before there was the US lend lease, there was the Canadian lend lease that saw almost $5billion go to the UK and then Russia. The UK was kept on life support by Canada. After the debacle of Dunkirk it was the RCAF and RCA that was the sole operational group that stood between the Nazis and England. It was Australians, New Zealanders, Canadians and South Africans that filled the gaps in the RAF during the Battle of Britain. It was Australia and New Zealand and remnants of the Dutch in Indonesia that delayed the Japanese as they marched across the Pacific. It was the Canadians sacrificed in Singapore and Hong Kong by the British and it was the Australians that against enormous odds sabotaged the Japanese war machine in the South Pacific. There would have been no victory in the South Pacific without Australia and New Zealand. The British blocked the Japanese entry into India because of the agreement of the Indians to fight, but that came at a price: India's independence. Similar undertakings were given in Malaya and other colonies. The independence of India has nothing to do with the USA, but was an agreement between the UK and India.

And then we come to Thailand, the Japanese lackey state. The Thais were rightly more concerned with their own nation and eld expansionist desires. If the French were disposed of, they could more easily grab more of Laos and even of Cambodia. The Japanese defeat of the French was in the best interests of Thailand's expansionist plans. Unfortunately, the Thais misjudged and ended up with much less than they thought they would get from their collaboration. There was no need for colonial status when the country was a vassal state of the Japanese.

[DowntownAl]

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

Did Japan have to do 90 reports too?

[simple1]

I bet those members from New Zealand, Australia and Canada with a knowledge of their nations' sacrifice in WWII must be reading this thread with disbelief. Long before there was the US lend lease, there was the Canadian lend lease that saw almost $5billion go to the UK and then Russia. The UK was kept on life support by Canada. After the debacle of Dunkirk it was the RCAF and RCA that was the sole operational group that stood between the Nazis and England. It was Australians, New Zealanders, Canadians and South Africans that filled the gaps in the RAF during the Battle of Britain. It was Australia and New Zealand and remnants of the Dutch in Indonesia that delayed the Japanese as they marched across the Pacific. It was the Canadians sacrificed in Singapore and Hong Kong by the British and it was the Australians that against enormous odds sabotaged the Japanese war machine in the South Pacific. There would have been no victory in the South Pacific without Australia and New Zealand. The British blocked the Japanese entry into India because of the agreement of the Indians to fight, but that came at a price: India's independence. Similar undertakings were given in Malaya and other colonies. The independence of India has nothing to do with the USA, but was an agreement between the UK and India.

And then we come to Thailand, the Japanese lackey state. The Thais were rightly more concerned with their own nation and eld expansionist desires. If the French were disposed of, they could more easily grab more of Laos and even of Cambodia. The Japanese defeat of the French was in the best interests of Thailand's expansionist plans. Unfortunately, the Thais misjudged and ended up with much less than they thought they would get from their collaboration. There was no need for colonial status when the country was a vassal state of the Japanese.

As usual interesting input, just did a Google search and found the following

The Royal Air Force roll of honour for the Battle of Britain recognises 595 non-British pilots (out of 2,936) as flying at least one authorised operational sortie with an eligible unit of the RAF or Fleet Air Arm between 10 July and 31 October 1940.^[10][84] These included 145 Poles, 127 New Zealanders, 112 Canadians, 88 Czechoslovaks, 32 Australians, 28 Belgians, 25 South Africans, 13 French, 10 Irish, 7 Americans, and one each from Jamaica, the British Mandate of Palestine, and Southern Rhodesia.^[85] "Altogether in the fighter battles, the bombing raids, and the various patrols flown between 10 July and 31 October 1940 by the Royal Air Force, 1495 aircrew were killed, of whom 449 were fighter pilots, 718 aircrew from Bomber Command, and 280 from Coastal Command. Among those killed were 47 airmen from Canada, 24 from Australia, 17 from South Africa, 35 from Poland, 20 from Czechoslovakia and six from Belgium. Forty-seven New Zealanders lost their lives, including 15 fighter pilots, 24 bomber and eight coastal aircrew. The names of these Allied and Commonwealth airmen are inscribed in a memorial book which rests in the Battle of Britain Chapel in Westminster Abbey. In the chapel is a stained glass window which contains the badges of the fighter squadrons which operated during the battle and the flags of the nations to which the pilots and aircrew belonged.

Edited August 30, 2012 by simple1

[salavan]

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

"temporary stay in the kingdom" hey thats what its got on my visa

[theblether]

I bet those members from New Zealand, Australia and Canada with a knowledge of their nations' sacrifice in WWII must be reading this thread with disbelief. Long before there was the US lend lease, there was the Canadian lend lease that saw almost $5billion go to the UK and then Russia. The UK was kept on life support by Canada. After the debacle of Dunkirk it was the RCAF and RCA that was the sole operational group that stood between the Nazis and England. It was Australians, New Zealanders, Canadians and South Africans that filled the gaps in the RAF during the Battle of Britain. It was Australia and New Zealand and remnants of the Dutch in Indonesia that delayed the Japanese as they marched across the Pacific. It was the Canadians sacrificed in Singapore and Hong Kong by the British and it was the Australians that against enormous odds sabotaged the Japanese war machine in the South Pacific. There would have been no victory in the South Pacific without Australia and New Zealand. The British blocked the Japanese entry into India because of the agreement of the Indians to fight, but that came at a price: India's independence. Similar undertakings were given in Malaya and other colonies. The independence of India has nothing to do with the USA, but was an agreement between the UK and India.

And then we come to Thailand, the Japanese lackey state. The Thais were rightly more concerned with their own nation and eld expansionist desires. If the French were disposed of, they could more easily grab more of Laos and even of Cambodia. The Japanese defeat of the French was in the best interests of Thailand's expansionist plans. Unfortunately, the Thais misjudged and ended up with much less than they thought they would get from their collaboration. There was no need for colonial status when the country was a vassal state of the Japanese.

Spot on................

There is no doubt whatsoever that the following two statements are true.........

Britain was the last free state standing in Europe after Dunkirk.

It only remained so because the Commonwealth countries poured in to help while the US procrastinated.

Anyone with a knowledge of WW2 knows the importance of the Commonwealth countries.

The issue of colonization of Thailand is possibly a misnomer........to my knowledge ( may be wrong ) every other nation that declared war on the Allies found themselves subjected to administrative governments or direct military command after the war. We all know what happened to the countries behind the Iron Curtain, however a lot of people don't know that the Japanese Constitution was written and imposed on them ( rightly so ) by the US.

The earlier article about the US diplomats interfering to overturn the decision that Britain should administrate is in my opinion, a prime example of people making decisions way above their pay grade. Thailand should have been put under either UK or US administration after the war for a certain period of time, would you believe that I know some Thais that believe it would have been a good thing??? They can see the progress of Singapore and Malaysia and the relative stability and success of the countries, and they wish Thailand had a bit of that.

Anyway......ask yourself this, if it had been announced at the end of the war that Thailand was to be run by the British how would you have felt about that?........

Now ask yourself if it was announced that it was to be run by the US how would you have felt about that?..........

Have you ever wondered how people's perception of what is right and wrong is so strongly influenced by their country of birth? The US and the UK are two of the strongest allies that the world has ever seen but the populaces spend too much time fighting like rats in a sack about stupid things, while on the foundation humanity issues we are in total agreement.

Nowt queerer that folk.

Again.

.

Edited August 30, 2012 by theblether

[Trembly]

http://en.wikipedia....attle_of_Imphal

see:General William Slim. Because the Allies were planning to take the offensive themselves, the corps' units were thrown forward almost to the Chindwin River and widely separated, and were therefore vulnerable to being isolated and surrounded.

• 20th Indian Infantry Division occupied Tamu, 110 kilometres (68 mi) south-east of Imphal. The division was untried but well-trained.
  
• 17th Indian Infantry Division occupied Tiddim, 243 kilometres (151 mi) south of Imphal, at the end of a long and precarious line of communication. The division, which had two brigades only, had been intermittently in action since December 1941.
  
• 23rd Indian Infantry Division was in reserve in and around Imphal. It had served on the Imphal front for two years and was severely understrength as a result of endemic diseases such as malaria and typhus.
  
• 50th Indian Parachute Brigade was north of Imphal, conducting advanced jungle training.
  
• 254th Indian Tank Brigade was stationed in and around Imphal.
  

Maybe "deemded" a British win, but it looks like the Indians were fighting the battle. And it wasn't much a win as Britain didn't lose land that it already had. It's more a defense of a position And there is no reports of this army occupying Bangkok.

I'm trying really hard not to start a willy waving contest and I apologise in advance if I fail but I have a small point of order to make : the aforementioned units were part of the Fourteenth Army which was by no means composed totally of commonwealth troops, not to mention the fact that all officers of field rank and a large proportion of officers below field rank in commonwealth regiments were British.

Edited August 30, 2012 by Trembly

[lovelomsak]

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

Occupied - Yes

I feel I am in agreement with loveloas.

[Mosha]

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

Unless they were comfort women. The Japanese took them from every country they controlled.

No Thai comfort women. The Japanese paid. A lot of written history of comfort women. Never any mention of Thai women.

The Thais would have mentioned it because at the time they were trying to get our of paying war reparations and any negatives against Japan were made public.

http://bdc-lancaster.net/criticalWriting/The_Comfort_Women_of_WWII.html

[BookMan]

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

"temporary stay in the kingdom" hey thats what its got on my visa

You Japanese?

[spidermike007]

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.

Here are the actual facts:

In 1940, most of France was occupied by Nazi Germany, and Phibun immediately set out to avenge Siam's humiliations by France in 1893 and 1904, when the French had redrawn the borders of Siam with Laos and Cambodia by forcing a series of treaties. For that purpose, the Thai government needed Japanese assistance against France, which was secured through the Treaty between Thailand and Japan Concerning the Continuance of Friendly Relations and the Mutual Respect of Each Other's Territorial Integrity, concluded in June 1940. Also concluded in 1940 was the British-Thai Non-Aggression Pact between the governments of Great Britain and the Kingdom of Thailand. On July 18, 1940, the British government had accepted Japanese demands for closing the Burma Road for three months to prevent war supplies to China.^[1] As the government of Thailand was now becoming aligned with the Japanese, the British government concluded the pact with Bangkok so as not to antagonize Tokyo.

Luang Wichit wrote a number of popular dramas that glorified the idea of many ethnic groups belonging to one greater "Thai" empire and condemned the evils of European colonial rule. Irredentist and anti-French demonstrations were incessantly held around Bangkok, and in late 1940 border skirmishes erupted along the Mekong frontier. On January 9, 1941, Thailand attacked southern Vietnam, giving Tokyo a reason to move on Saigon (now Hồ Chí Minh City).^[2] In 1941, the skirmishes became a small–scale war between Vichy France and Thailand. The Thai forces dominated the war on the ground and in the air, but suffered a crushing naval defeat at the battle of Koh Chang. The Japanese then stepped in to mediate the conflict. The final settlement thus gave the disputed areas in Laos and Cambodia back to Thailand.

Phibun's prestige was so increased that he was able to bask in a feeling of being truly the nation's leader. As if to celebrate the occasion, he promoted himself to field marshal, skipping the ranks of lieutenant general and general.

This caused a rapid deterioration of relations with Britain and the United States. In April 1941 the United States cut off petroleum supplies to Thailand. Thailand's campaign for territorial expansion came to an end on December 8, 1941 when Japan invaded the country along its southern coastline and from Cambodia. After initially resisting, the Phibun regime allowed the Japanese to pass through the country in order to attack Burma and invade Malaya. Convinced by the Allied defeats of early 1942 that Japan was winning the war, Phibun decide to form an actualmilitary alliance with the Japanese.

As a reward, Japan allowed Thailand to invade and annex the Shan States and Kayah State in northern Burma, and to resume sovereignty over the sultanates of northern Malaya which had previously been lost in the Anglo-Siamese Treaty of 1909 with Britain. In January 1942 Phibun declared war on Britain and the United States, but the Thai Ambassador in Washington, Seni Pramoj, refused to deliver it to the State Department. Instead, Seni denounced the Phibun regime as illegal and formed a Seri Thai Movement in Washington. Pridi, by now serving in the role of an apparently powerless regent, led the resistance movement inside Thailand, while former Queen Ramphaiphanni was the nominal head of the movement in Great Britain.

Secret training camps were set up, the majority by the populist politician Tiang Sirikhanth in the northeast region of the country. There were a dozen camps alone in Sakhon Nakhon Province. Secret airfields also appeared in the northeast, where Royal Air Force and United States Army Air Force planes brought in supplies, as well as Special Operations Executive, Office of Strategic Services, and Seri Thai agents, while at the same time evacuating out prisoners of war. By early 1945, Thai air force officers were performing liaison duties with South East Asia Command in Kandy and Calcutta.

By 1944 it was evident that the Japanese were going to lose the war, and their behaviour in Thailand had become increasingly arrogant. Bangkok also suffered heavily from Allied Strategic bombing. This, coupled with the economic hardship caused by the loss of Thailand's rice export markets, made both the war and Phibun's regime very unpopular. In July 1944 Phibun was ousted by the Seri Thai-infiltrated government. The National Assembly reconvened and appointed the liberal lawyer Khuang Aphaiwong as Prime Minister. The new government hastily evacuated the British territories that Phibun had occupied and surreptitiously aided the Seri Thai movement, while at the same time maintaining ostensibly friendly relations with the Japanese.

The Japanese surrendered on August 15, 1945. Immediately, the Allied military responsibility for Thailand fell to the British. As soon as practicable, British troops were flown in and these rapidly secured the release of surviving POWs. The British were surprised to find that the disarmament of the Japanese soldiers had already been largely completed by the Thais.

The British regarded Thailand as having been partly responsible for the immeasurable damage dealt upon the Allied cause and favoured treating the kingdom as a defeated enemy. However, the Americans had no sympathy for what they considered to be British and French colonialism and supported the new government. Thailand thus received little punishment for its wartime role under Phibun.

So, Thailand was ab absolute ally of Japan, until they realized that Japan was losing the war. Bottom line. They aided the Japanese throughout their war effort. Need I say more?

[Phronesis]

Myth

The colonisation of Isaan is in full swing as I type.

Its pace would accelerate even further if there were more farangs willing to donate a house.

The dilution of Thai ethnicity is also steadily progressing. Last year in Australia for example, there were more than 40 thousand Thai fiancee visa applications.

[Berkshire]

And the Thai losses he forgot to mention?? oh yeah ZERO as he likes to quote.

Better to fight and lose than take it up the jacksy, id rather go down fighting with some respect.

That's a rather unique military strategy. I can imagine you on the battlefield. "You heard me right, send the troops out to slaughter! I don't care if we're outmanned and outgunned. This is not about winning, it's about protecting my inflated ego!" Really courageous. I just have one question: Are you and Pseudolus engaged in some sort of torrid love affair? You guys seem to be on the same wavelength.

[tragickingdom]

Thailand simply collaborated with the Japanese. The Thai elite never gave very much about the men in the street who suffered too. Thailand has switched allies just weeks before the Japanese lost the war and they send a few medics to the allies. Thailand has been forced to pay damages to the allies in the form of rice (they probably never did) check too why the name has changed from Siam to thailand.

Thailand was always very smart in changing alliances. Kissing up with the enemy was a way to avoid too much land loss. Still the Thais have lost land to France.

[submaniac]

It was a British led army, with some British infantry as well, it was of course a British colony from 1842, so from a British point of view at that point in history a part of the Empire. I don't know why, but put you seem to be denigrating the effort of the British in WW11 who suffered, in conjunction with commonwealth forces, a total of 452,000 military deaths.

And the Thai losses he forgot to mention?? oh yeah ZERO as he likes to quote.

Better to fight and lose than take it up the jacksy, id rather go down fighting with some respect.

I think that was the point, he wants this turning into a we and them thing.

Ok folks, why don't you all go hang out with your buddy Pseudolis. You three are all cut from same cloth of Britania. Come'on let's hear the chant: "We're British, we're better than everyone else! We're British we're better than everyboyd else!" We're 70 old lager louts, who laid bricks in the homeland. But we're going to come to Thailand and reinvent ourselves as lords of the manor. We're going to pretend it's the grand colonial days of the empire. And we're going have little brown servants and sit on the plantation sipping tea. And we're going to complain about the Thais and insult them and expect them to say anything nothing to us in response. Because We're British!! Hooray! How dare they anything about us. Can't you see we're British. Because we're British we can call Thailand the weazel of Asia. Yay!! How wonderful it is to be British!

Thailand therefore spoke to Japan. Imagine a schoolboy, spoilt brat mummies boy of course, talking to its teacher. Japan says "Right you, we are marching through and taking Thailand next week. Do you want to do this the easy way or the hard way". Thailand response is "By easy way, do you mean that we get to tell the world we are your partners and feel important, don't have to do much, apart from profit a little, can partake in war crimes and have no accountability, and pretend to all and sundry when you lose that we were always on the good guys side?". To which Japan said "yeah what ever. Sign that or we'll give you the Penang treatment.".

Is that about it? So historically Thailand is a bit of a weasel on the world stage?

We're British Hooray!!! We can say what we want about a country that we are guests in! We're British!! We're certainly good at dishing it out, but we can't take it!!!

Edited August 30, 2012 by sbk

[Pseudolus]

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

Occupied - Yes

I feel I am in agreement with loveloas.

I tend to agree - the only reason Thailand was not colonised is that Japan was defeated. If they had not been, Thailand would be basically colonised. If this was not the case, then history is wrong in talking about the Japan Invasion of Thailand, and there would never have been a Free Thai Movement. Yet again, the same as the French.

[MahaYellow]

Farangs have already colonised Pattaya and Soi Cowboy.

[stevehaigh]

it has been colonized by tourists.

i think you mean Russians

[BookMan]

We're 70 old lager louts, who laid bricks in the homeland. But we're going to come to Thailand and reinvent ourselves as lords

You were once a bricklayer?

[SNGLIFE]

If one views "colonization" as being the overtaking of the cultural and ethnic identity of an indigenous or well-established population or society, then certainly the argument could be made that Thailand has been increasingly colonized since the days of Rama V; and especially since the past two decades. Heck, I'm doing my part...

Edited August 30, 2012 by SNGLIFE

[Psych01]

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

It has indeed been colonised but, as said here by Soutpeel, not by a western country. Maybe if it had, none of us would be here.

[fredKroket]

There is a clear difference between invasion and colonization. The Japs invaded but didn't colonize, unless Fuji restaurants amongst many others are what remains of their legacy?

So long as foreigners are not allowed to buy land in Thailand it will not be colonized, but perhaps more westernized, which isn't a good thing. The introduction of motorway speed cameras and higher taxes on alcohol and tobacco, means the powers that be are following western government practices and can spot an opportunity to make some cash out of the rapidly growing Thai middle classes and expats.

[chiangmaikelly]

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

Unless they were comfort women. The Japanese took them from every country they controlled.

No Thai comfort women. The Japanese paid. A lot of written history of comfort women. Never any mention of Thai women.

The Thais would have mentioned it because at the time they were trying to get our of paying war reparations and any negatives against Japan were made public.

http://bdc-lancaster...en_of_WWII.html

That is the first reference I have ever seen to Thai women used by the Japanese as comfort women. The author provides no documentation for her claim but she does seem very sincere. Too bad she does not let us in on her facts.