Could Thailand ever have been colonized?

This was a question raised on another thread. I didn't want to answer as I didn't want to de-rail the other thread and go off-topic.

Another guy, ChiangMaiKelly, thinks NO!

What do you think?

If yes ...............

1. When?

2. By whom?

IMO: yes. And that's a very definite yes.

I am responsible for colonising 1 house 10 years ago !

Not worth the effort.

Not worth the effort.

Not worth the effort.

Oooh..... I've got a stalker, always wanted one of my very own. I will love him and cuddle him for all eternity, smother him with kisses and affection...... such a warm feeling.

Siam Curious are you related to The Pundit or Bodie by any chance?

Not worth the effort.

+1 Brigade,

Could a country ever have been been colonized? Exactly how can i read this question? Surely a typo.

The day would still have to come when i would post a new thread only in order to fund my credibility from another thread, totally ignoring the new subject matter.

It has been colonized, the colonials just don't wave Hua Ren flags around (instead just being content to own and run everything... which is the whole point I believe).

In the case of Thailand, it was mostly Veni Vidi Veni.

Of course it could have been. But it hasn't been.

With enough military power you can colonize everything.

Of course it could have been. But it hasn't been.

With enough military power you can colonize everything.

Afghanistan? Lets see.... Brits, Russians, Americans, Alexander the Great and Genghis Khan.

Colonialism is the establishment, exploitation, maintenance, acquisition and expansion of colonies in one territory by people from another territory. It is a process whereby the metropole claims sovereignty over the colony, and the social structure,government, and economics of the colony are changed by colonizers from the metropole. Colonialism is a set of unequal relationships between the metropole and the colony and between the colonists and the indigenous population.^[1]

By this definition: NO!

By logic: Burmese, Japanese...

Colonialism is the establishment, exploitation, maintenance, acquisition and expansion of colonies in one territory by people from another territory. It is a process whereby the metropole claims sovereignty over the colony, and the social structure,government, and economics of the colony are changed by colonizers from the metropole. Colonialism is a set of unequal relationships between the metropole and the colony and between the colonists and the indigenous population.^[1]

By this definition: NO!

By logic: Burmese, Japanese...

So I guess we agree. Have you wondered why the OP has given no reasons for his claim? I think he wanted someone else to do the work for him. He has no reasons of his own that Thailand could have been colonized.

Colonialism is the establishment, exploitation, maintenance, acquisition and expansion of colonies in one territory by people from another territory. It is a process whereby the metropole claims sovereignty over the colony, and the social structure,government, and economics of the colony are changed by colonizers from the metropole. Colonialism is a set of unequal relationships between the metropole and the colony and between the colonists and the indigenous population.^[1]

By this definition: NO!

By logic: Burmese, Japanese...

So I guess we agree. Have you wondered why the OP has given no reasons for his claim? I think he wanted someone else to do the work for him. He has no reasons of his own that Thailand could have been colonized.

I honestly don't even understand the question!

Could?

It either was or wasn't!

The Chinese have already done it , open ya peepers

Didn't the sexpat's first conquer the place sometime in the 70's?

The Chinese have the the place all stitched up and have had for aeons, as noted by others earlier.

I think the way that Thai's are taught the history of LOS, they were never, ever colonised and kicked always serious arse. However, I reckon they were stuffed royally by the Burmese and Cambodians several times way, way back and just chose to ignore it.

Didn't the sexpat's first conquer the place sometime in the 70's?

The Chinese have the the place all stitched up and have had for aeons, as noted by others earlier.

I think the way that Thai's are taught the history of LOS, they were never, ever colonised and kicked always serious arse. However, I reckon they were stuffed royally by the Burmese and Cambodians several times way, way back and just chose to ignore it.

I think you gave the OP what he wanted some indiscriminate anti Thai rhetoric.

Absurd question, of course it could have been. Is this the same CM Kelly of Stickman fame, had some...interesting posts. The British or French could have, the Japanese if they chose to in WW2 and the US if it had wanted to afterwards. But as another poster said, the Chinese now control Thailand by stealth, via power, money, industry, and influence right now. The Thais seem to be the only ones unaware of this.

Absurd question, of course it could have been. Is this the same CM Kelly of Stickman fame, had some...interesting posts. The British or French could have, the Japanese if they chose to in WW2 and the US if it had wanted to afterwards. But as another poster said, the Chinese now control Thailand by stealth, via power, money, industry, and influence right now. The Thais seem to be the only ones unaware of this.

I would direct your attention to the British colonies after WW2. And the Americans lack of Success with the Philippines. Point in fact the French had a few problems with their colonies in SEA as I remember. Since Thailand was the only country in the area not colonized while the French and Dutch and British were colonizing everyone else I guess you have to ask the poignant question why?

If the Burmese and the Vietnamese, both historically martially superior peoples than the Thais could not stop themselves being conquered and colonised what chance would Siam of stood. The only reason it wasn't colonised is it served as a handy buffer state between the British and French.

Definetly, maybe.

If the Burmese and the Vietnamese, both historically martially superior peoples than the Thais could not stop themselves being conquered and colonised what chance would Siam of stood. The only reason it wasn't colonised is it served as a handy buffer state between the British and French.

Buffer schmuffer. Look at a map and think about it for a while. If the French or the British or the Dutch could have they would have. French/Thais or British/Thais or Dutch/Thais would have been a buffer too. See the flaw in your arguments is they didn't. Does Laos have a common border with Burma? Do you think China is a buffer state against Russia for the British Empire? Who colonized China?

It was colonized by the japanese during WW2 .

There's a difference between occupation, invasion and colonisation.

It was colonized by the japanese during WW2 .

Thailand was a willing ally of the Japanese during WW II. A Forgotten Invasion Thailand in Shan State, 1941-45 | Docs for ...

The PM of Thailand signed a secret agreement with Japan committing Thai troops to the invasion of Burma. Two weeks later he signed a formal treaty of alliance. His reward from the Japanese was territory ceded to the British in 1909. On Jan 25 the PM of Thailand declared war on the USA and UK. In case you are wondering, no ambassadors don't have the authority to change orders of the Prime Minister and legal government of a country.

Edited November 24, 201213 yr by chiangmaikelly