Thailand colonized

[quiuvo]

Was Thailand ever colonized? If so, by whom and when?

[7by7]

By a western power, no; and it is the only country in S.E. Asia which wasn't. Although it did cede some territory to both the British and the French.

Large parts were conquered by the Burmese in the late 18th century before the Burmese were later expelled.

Much of what is modern Thailand was part of the Khmer empire from the 9th to 15th centuries.

The country was occupied by the Japanese during WW11, with the consent of the government at the time; but there was much resistance to this.

History of Thailand may be of interest and gives much more detail.

Edited November 21, 2013 by 7by7

[JusMe]

The country was occupied by the Japanese during WW11, with the consent of the government at the time; but there was much resistance to this.

No, there was never an occupation. Thailand maintained its fully armed police and military, even joining in some of the fighting, mainly in the north against the Chinese.

The landing of Japanese troops was with the consent of the government, but there was never an occupation.

And there was very little resistance to both the landings and the presence of the Japanese throughout the war. Resistance of note - a bit more than a full day - occurred at Prachuap Khiri Khan, with the deaths of approximately 33 Thais.

Throughout the country, there was very little resistance or even disapproval.

[wolfrunes]

You are wrong on the occupation by Japanese. It's a negotiation between the ruling powers. Japs get "free passage way" to go thru Thailand to invade Malaysia and then Singapore. In return, Thailand will be left untouched.

[PhilipCook]

One could say the country is controlled by the Japanese right now.

[asiamaster]

Thailand was and still is colonised by the Chinese....

[willyumiii]

The British did take Burma and a good part of Malaysia away from Thailand.

I guess you could say they colonized them after taking .them from Thailand.

After WWII the Brits walked away from both, but they were not returned to Thailand.

Some Brit expats I know claim they are not treated as well by the Thai government ( immigration ) as other expats.

I wonder if the Thais still hold a grudge?

Probably not.

Most Thais I know don't know much of their countries history.

[Mudcrab]

Yes, by the Shinawatra clan

[7by7]

Thailand wasn't occupied by the Japanese in the same way that Vichy France wasn't occupied by the Germans.

There was also a resistance movement inside Thailand; particularly the north west.

[Mudcrab]

I guess the real question is what is Thailand? The modern day country?

The whole world has been colonized to some extent and continues to be so. Various groups take control over decades or even centuries. I'm not a scholar of SEA history (although did do some study in high school) but it is likely that a 1000 or 3000 years ago the demographics in the now Thailand were radically different to what we see today.

I understand Spanish is now the second language in the US - who knows the US might be New New Mexico in a hundred years.

Australia will likely be Ozghanistan complete with Sharia law.

The UK might become the United Kingdom of Arabia and its various states - although the Scots do put up a good fight historically speaking. Unfortunately democracy may even overcome Hadrians wall.

[Mudcrab]

Thailand wasn't occupied by the Japanese in the same way that Vichy France wasn't occupied by the Germans.

There was also a resistance movement inside Thailand; particularly the north west.

Shame they weren't around when the bridge was built. Then again Hollywood would have missed out on a movie option.

[eddie61]

No, the combined might of the British empire and France was not enough to subdue the indomitable Thais.

Signed, Goscini and Uderzo

[brit1984]

thailand (or siam) was controlled by burma (from ~1550 to ~1800) and by japan (1941 to 1945)

parts of the country were taken by british and french empires and later became part of other countries

i recommend not to discuss this subject with thai people as they can get a bit emotional about it

Edited November 22, 2013 by brit1984

[7by7]

Both Kings Rama IV and V were concerned about European colonisation and made various treaties with both France and Britain in, successful, efforts to avoid this; but did have to cede territory to both powers.

Although not the official history, I can't help wondering if the main reason Siam, as it was then, was not colonised by either the British or the French was because both powers wanted a buffer state between British India and French Indochina.

[thaicbr]

The British did take Burma and a good part of Malaysia away from Thailand.

I guess you could say they colonized them after taking .them from Thailand.

After WWII the Brits walked away from both, but they were not returned to Thailand.

Some Brit expats I know claim they are not treated as well by the Thai government ( immigration ) as other expats.

I wonder if the Thais still hold a grudge?

Probably not.

Most Thais I know don't know much of their countries history.

Some of Siam was reorganized but that was a fair time before WW2 not as a result of it.

Interesting website here: http://www.csmngt.com/thailand_history.htm

Looks like France chewed up more than Britain!

[sadhukar]

thailand (or siam) was controlled by burma (from ~1550 to ~1800) and by japan (1941 to 1945)

parts of the country were taken by british and french empires and later became part of other countries

i recommend not to discuss this subject with thai people as they can get a bit emotional about it

Well for starters the burmese never controlled siam for that long. People get emotional because you're full of ****

[thailandpeter2]

the first landing of the japanese was actually NOT with the thai government's approval and there was some brief fighting. the thai prime minister had been upcountry and learned of the landing only a fw hours later and then gave his approval to stop the figthing...

The country was occupied by the Japanese during WW11, with the consent of the government at the time; but there was much resistance to this.

No, there was never an occupation. Thailand maintained its fully armed police and military, even joining in some of the fighting, mainly in the north against the Chinese.

The landing of Japanese troops was with the consent of the government, but there was never an occupation.

And there was very little resistance to both the landings and the presence of the Japanese throughout the war. Resistance of note - a bit more than a full day - occurred at Prachuap Khiri Khan, with the deaths of approximately 33 Thais.

Throughout the country, there was very little resistance or even disapproval.

[thailandpeter2]

yes they chewed up A LOT more tha the british. in any case, during the reign of rama 4 and rama 5 thailand lost app. 40 % of it's territory.all laos and cambodia, and a little bit in the south...

but that was logical: france wantesd to gain possessions; britain had them already in india/burma and malaysia. and they both wanted to retain a buffer state (thailand) between their colonies...

The British did take Burma and a good part of Malaysia away from Thailand.

I guess you could say they colonized them after taking .them from Thailand.

After WWII the Brits walked away from both, but they were not returned to Thailand.

Some Brit expats I know claim they are not treated as well by the Thai government ( immigration ) as other expats.

I wonder if the Thais still hold a grudge?

Probably not.

Most Thais I know don't know much of their countries history.

Some of Siam was reorganized but that was a fair time before WW2 not as a result of it.

Interesting website here: http://www.csmngt.com/thailand_history.htm

1809 siam.jpgcolonail expansion by year.jpg

Looks like France chewed up more than Britain!

[dao16]

I think it is a ridiculous thing to take pride on. Almost any country in the world has some period when it was dominated by some other place. Ok, Thailand escaped being a "colony" in the technical sense when the whole mercantilism idea was all the rage and later on when the pillage really got to new levels. That said, they aren't an exception from history and I think being proud of that is a ten-year-old's version of being proud. They have plenty to be proud about, but that idea is overly simplistic and simple minded.

Basically, people cut up time and events as is necessary in ways that are convenient for their national mythology. I have seen it in almost every place I have been (although some places are more realistic than others). I was told lies in history class as a child. When I found out that they were lies, I had this idea that other countries told their people the truth. Then I traveled and studied more. Guess what. Every place has its mythology and the people tell themselves stories about how their history.

[thaicbr]

thailand (or siam) was controlled by burma (from ~1550 to ~1800) and by japan (1941 to 1945)

parts of the country were taken by british and french empires and later became part of other countries

i recommend not to discuss this subject with thai people as they can get a bit emotional about it

Well for starters the burmese never controlled siam for that long. People get emotional because you're full of ****

But this did happen

"

• • To totally destroy an entire city.. destruction of such magnitude, multiple huge stone temples . without bull dozers.. it must have been quite a demolition project!

The Burmese destruction of Ayutthaya in 1767 resulted in the loss of all official Thai government paperwork & records.

[thaicbr]

i just love this line from the Thai history pages i linked to:

"The Dutch were negotiated out, the French were thrown out, the British were bought out, the Japanese were nuked out & the Americans voted themselves out ... but they're all back on vacation now ;-)."

[tilac2]

The British did take Burma and a good part of Malaysia away from Thailand.

I guess you could say they colonized them after taking .them from Thailand.

After WWII the Brits walked away from both, but they were not returned to Thailand.

Some Brit expats I know claim they are not treated as well by the Thai government ( immigration ) as other expats.

I wonder if the Thais still hold a grudge?

Probably not.

Most Thais I know don't know much of their countries history.

"Most Thais I know don't know much of their countries history."

Neither do you, it seems.

The British did not "take Burma and a good part of Malaysia away from Thailand". The exhanges of territory were much more complicated that this, and Thailand (or 'Siam') itself gained much territory and influence up to the early 20th century.

Although Thailand/Siam was not actually colonised by foreign powers, there are historians who now argue that the country has effectively colonised itself, with some classes and ethnic sub-groups dominating others. Factors such as the 'sakdina' system and Chinese immigration need to be considered - among several other factors.

I don't pretend to have made a detailed study of this - and those who are interested should read books by David Wyatt, Thongchai Winichakul and others - but I might just summarise part of the situation, as I see it, by asking: 'Who needs British colonials in pith helmets riding on decorated elephants when you have Thaksins in Prada riding in Mercedes?'

And furthermore... I guess that an underlying and very interesting question about whether Thailand/Siam was ever colonised is this:

'Is there evidence that formerly colonised countries fare worse, in the subsequent years, than uncolonised countries?' This is, I'd say, more than a clever exam question; it's worth an entire book or even TV documentary, but I have never seen this question discussed seriously in a book or on TV, with statistics and proper data.

[tw25rw]

I believe the French were worming their way in, but were kicked out before they became too influential.

Ahh, found it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France%E2%80%93Thailand_relations

[Gandtee]

I would suggest that bargaining bits of the country have led to the problems that Thailand faces in the South.

[tim armstrong]

I would suggest that bargaining bits of the country have led to the problems that Thailand faces in the South.

Thailand has been quite smart over the years to keep larger colonizers at bay, and still does that well. But I think politicians on both sides will need to step up a gear when Asean starts to take effect, as other regional economies are very aggressive and competitive, which is not that obvious in the thai psyche. I think its good that 'thainess' in the culture remains dominant, but for how long ?

[7by7]

I would suggest that bargaining bits of the country have led to the problems that Thailand faces in the South.

Perhaps if Siam had given all of the Muslim south the British and so those parts subsequently became parts of Malaysia upon that country's independence, then Thailand wouldn't have it's current problems in the South.

But that's a simplistic view of what is a very complex situation; as is yours.

Edited November 22, 2013 by 7by7

[HOOD Robin]

Thailand was and still is colonised by the Chinese....

[PETERTHEEATER]

The British did take Burma and a good part of Malaysia away from Thailand.

I guess you could say they colonized them after taking .them from Thailand.

After WWII the Brits walked away from both, but they were not returned to Thailand.

Some Brit expats I know claim they are not treated as well by the Thai government ( immigration ) as other expats.

I wonder if the Thais still hold a grudge?

Probably not.

Most Thais I know don't know much of their countries history.

[PETERTHEEATER]

Re Post 28 - my reply to quote is missing.

Britain has never taken any part of Malaysia from Thailand.

And Thailand never had Burma as possession so the British did not take itcaway.

[7by7]

Parts of what is now Burma and Malaysia were ceded to the British by Siam; see the maps posted earlier by thaicbr.