Thailand colonized

[Travel2003]

For a good overview - read "Thailand: A Short History" by David Wyatt - Ignore the barstool historians on TV.

Better yet get a degree in Asian studies from Oxford but hardly the accepted method of debate on TV. Did you think it would pass instead of linking information on the INTERNET?

If you want me to comment, you better string your random thoughts together into one coherent phrase with a point. That last sentence has no point. What is "it" that you are referring too? Barstool is calling you....

I read that book.

It is a good piece of read.

Not the regular book written by customers or x-convicts.

[simple1]

Any knowledge of how the barbarity and cruelty of the Japanese in Korea, Manchuria and China influenced the decision making of the Thai government?

they also had knowledge of european barbarity in indo china burma, india africa and indonesia. why would they side with them to maintain those colonies?

I am assuming that at the time the Thai decision makers were primarily Thai Chinese and therefore curious what if any influence this has on negotiations/talks with the Japanese taking into consideration the extreme violence of the Japanese against the Chinese population.

As you know after the capture of Hong Kong, Malaya and Singapore thousands of Chinese civilians were murdered, I do not believe the same happened in Thailand, so why not?

Thailand at the time was very anti Chinese.

"Thailand joined the Japanese because of anti Chinese sentiment of the PM. On 5 August 1941, Thailand joined a group of nations that recognized the Japanese puppet state of Manchukuo. His (Phibunsongkhram) administration also encouraged economic nationalism. Anti-Chinese policies were imposed, and the Thai people were to purchase as many Thai products as possible and therefore destroy the Chinese proportion in markets. In a speech in 1938, Luang Wichitwathakan, himself of Chinese ancestry, compared the Chinese in Siam to the Jews in Germany."

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

Thanks, interesting background reading.

[7by7]

Like Vichy France and the Germans, the Thai government may have offered little or no resistance to the Japanese and then cooperated with them; but as with the Free French there was, as others have already said, a Free Thai movement, Seri Thai.

Thailand in World War 2 - Resistance.

From the office of the regent in Thailand, Pridi ran a clandestine movement that by the end of the war had with Allied aid armed more than 50,000 Thai to resist the Japanese occupation. In 1944 he managed to engineer the unseating of Phibun, who was replaced by Khuang Aphaiwong, the son of a minor nobleman and a civilian linked politically with conservatives like Seni. Khuang's main task was to continue the charade of collaboration whilst shielding the growing underground movement. This he succeeded to a great extent, convincing not only Nakamura but also the notorious Masanobu Tsuji.

By the beginning of 1945, preparations were actively being pursued for a rising against the Japanese occupiers. Plans for an uprising relied on the success of a quick, surprise strike by a special police unit against the Japanese command structure. The residences of leading officers and the Japanese communications facilities were kept under surveillance. The police assault was to be coordinated with a general attack by the partly mechanised Thai 1st Army against Japanese troops in Bangkok. Fortifications, in the guise of air raid shelters, had been dug at key crossroads, and additional troops had been brought into the city in small groups in civilian clothes. The task of Free Thai forces elsewhere would be to thwart Japanese efforts to reinforce their Bangkok garrison by cutting communications lines and seizing airfields.

Japan had been building up it's forces in Thailand since late 1944, changing the troops stationed there from garrison troops to proper combat soldiers due mainly to the Allies' successes and advances in Burma. So Seri Thai had to choose their moment wisely.

Of course, Japan's unconditional surrender after the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki meant that this uprising never happened.

Whilst checking my facts, and I admit discovering a few more, I came across Thailand's Secret War OSS, SOE and the Free Thai Underground During World War II by E. Bruce Reynolds. I've not read it, but will change that at the earliest opportunity. From the synopsis and extracts in the link, it should provide some fascinating insights.

Edited November 25, 2013 by 7by7

[Stradavarius37]

For a good overview - read "Thailand: A Short History" by David Wyatt - Ignore the barstool historians on TV.

Better yet get a degree in Asian studies from Oxford but hardly the accepted method of debate on TV. Did you think it would pass instead of linking information on the INTERNET?

If you want me to comment, you better string your random thoughts together into one coherent phrase with a point. That last sentence has no point. What is "it" that you are referring too? Barstool is calling you....

I read that book.

It is a good piece of read.

Not the regular book written by customers or x-convicts.

Well, since most TV barstool warriors are all experts in Thailand history (each with their own interpretation of events worthy of publication, no doubt) it is doubtful that most here will find a well-researched, well-referenced source to be of interest.

[thailiketoo]

I read that book.

It is a good piece of read.

Not the regular book written by customers or x-convicts.

Well, since most TV barstool warriors are all experts in Thailand history (each with their own interpretation of events worthy of publication, no doubt) it is doubtful that most here will find a well-researched, well-referenced source to be of interest.

http://www.e-reading.biz/bookreader.php/138836/Thailand%60s_Secret_War%3A_The_Free_Thai,_OSS,_and_SOE_during_World_War_II.pdf

[Stephenmreid]

As my first boss here in Thailand,Mechai Viravadya, told me "Thailand has never been colonized, they take one look at Thais and think "bugger this, it will cost us too much to feed them"

[CaptHaddock]

No kidding? You worked for Mechai? He has a good resume, with the condom thing and all.

It's true that colonies can be money losers. By the 20th century the Brits were losing money on India. Must have made the decision to acquiesce to independence that much easier to make.

As my first boss here in Thailand,Mechai Viravadya, told me "Thailand has never been colonized, they take one look at Thais and think "bugger this, it will cost us too much to feed them"

[laolover88]

Read Siam Mapped by Thongchai Winichakul Silkworm Books 1995. One of the best books ever written about Thailand. What exactly is and was Thailand/Siam? Not so much a question of was 'Thailand' colonised, well not militarily, but economically by Japan and China..more a question of the 'Thais' Who they?? as colonisers

[Bagwan]

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

Signed, Goscini and Uderzo

See that large red conical hat over there? Yes, the one with a large white 'D' on it. Put it on your head(s) and stand in the corner for an hour.

The Brits had more than their hands full already and in any case Siam, as it was then, was not too attractive a venture. Having taken a swampy malaria ridden island and built Singapore, pulled the Malay States into a coalition and governed Burma, what could Siam offer? Southern Africa proved much more attractive. King Rama V knew full well that he could not stand up to the might of Britain and settled for the best deal that he could get, hence the ceding to Siam of the 3 southern states. As has been pointed out Siam provided a convenient buffer state with the French, never, even now, on good terms with the UK. My view of the Entente Cordiale is not dissimilar to that of a husband and wife holding hands. It stops them thumping each other. .

[ultimate weapon]

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

Signed, Goscini and Uderzo

See that large red conical hat over there? Yes, the one with a large white 'D' on it. Put it on your head(s) and stand in the corner for an hour.

The Brits had more than their hands full already and in any case Siam, as it was then, was not too attractive a venture. Having taken a swampy malaria ridden island and built Singapore, pulled the Malay States into a coalition and governed Burma, what could Siam offer? Southern Africa proved much more attractive. King Rama V knew full well that he could not stand up to the might of Britain and settled for the best deal that he could get, hence the ceding to Siam of the 3 southern states. As has been pointed out Siam provided a convenient buffer state with the French, never, even now, on good terms with the UK. My view of the Entente Cordiale is not dissimilar to that of a husband and wife holding hands. It stops them thumping each other. .

You are right. It's not they were too powerful that the brits couldn't colonize them it's cos they were not a good choice to colonize that's all.

[thailiketoo]

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

Signed, Goscini and Uderzo

See that large red conical hat over there? Yes, the one with a large white 'D' on it. Put it on your head(s) and stand in the corner for an hour.

The Brits had more than their hands full already and in any case Siam, as it was then, was not too attractive a venture. Having taken a swampy malaria ridden island and built Singapore, pulled the Malay States into a coalition and governed Burma, what could Siam offer? Southern Africa proved much more attractive. King Rama V knew full well that he could not stand up to the might of Britain and settled for the best deal that he could get, hence the ceding to Siam of the 3 southern states. As has been pointed out Siam provided a convenient buffer state with the French, never, even now, on good terms with the UK. My view of the Entente Cordiale is not dissimilar to that of a husband and wife holding hands. It stops them thumping each other. .

You are right. It's not they were too powerful that the brits couldn't colonize them it's cos they were not a good choice to colonize that's all.

Thailand Natural resources: tin, rubber, natural gas, tungsten, tantalum, timber, lead, fish, gypsum, lignite, fluorite, arable land. Agricultural products; rice, cassava (manioc), rubber, corn, sugarcane, coconuts, soybeans. Controls only land route from Asia to Malaysia and Singapore. Ports; Bangkok, Laem Chabang, Map Ta Phut, Prachuap Port, Si Racha.

Go school learn stuff. Thailand much more better Burma. Brits take Burma cause ?????. French take Laos, silly French boys.

[StreetCowboy]

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

Signed, Goscini and Uderzo

See that large red conical hat over there? Yes, the one with a large white 'D' on it. Put it on your head(s) and stand in the corner for an hour.

The Brits had more than their hands full already and in any case Siam, as it was then, was not too attractive a venture. Having taken a swampy malaria ridden island and built Singapore, pulled the Malay States into a coalition and governed Burma, what could Siam offer? Southern Africa proved much more attractive. King Rama V knew full well that he could not stand up to the might of Britain and settled for the best deal that he could get, hence the ceding to Siam of the 3 southern states. As has been pointed out Siam provided a convenient buffer state with the French, never, even now, on good terms with the UK. My view of the Entente Cordiale is not dissimilar to that of a husband and wife holding hands. It stops them thumping each other. .

You are right. It's not they were too powerful that the brits couldn't colonize them it's cos they were not a good choice to colonize that's all.

Thailand Natural resources: tin, rubber, natural gas, tungsten, tantalum, timber, lead, fish, gypsum, lignite, fluorite, arable land. Agricultural products; rice, cassava (manioc), rubber, corn, sugarcane, coconuts, soybeans. Controls only land route from Asia to Malaysia and Singapore. Ports; Bangkok, Laem Chabang, Map Ta Phut, Prachuap Port, Si Racha.

Go school learn stuff. Thailand much more better Burma. Brits take Burma cause ?????. French take Laos, silly French boys.

Why would anyone go by land from Malaysia to the rest of Asia in the 18th or 19th centuries? Staples like rice were not much of an export product, rubber, coconut could all be just as easily grown in Malaysia. Thailand was not a balkanised country like the Malayan peninsula, and served as a useful buffer between French Indochina and Malaya and Burma. Any attempt to conquer Siam would have brought in the French on the other side, and there was no reason to squabble with your neighbours regarding a territory so far away that offered nothing much different from what both European powers already had.

Although never directly under Chinese rule, the Chinese appear to have left quite a mark culturally on Thailand, and the Burmese and Khmer too, judging from the temple architecture.

SC

[thailiketoo]

Thailand Natural resources: tin, rubber, natural gas, tungsten, tantalum, timber, lead, fish, gypsum, lignite, fluorite, arable land. Agricultural products; rice, cassava (manioc), rubber, corn, sugarcane, coconuts, soybeans. Controls only land route from Asia to Malaysia and Singapore. Ports; Bangkok, Laem Chabang, Map Ta Phut, Prachuap Port, Si Racha.

Go school learn stuff. Thailand much more better Burma. Brits take Burma cause ?????. French take Laos, silly French boys.

Why would anyone go by land from Malaysia to the rest of Asia in the 18th or 19th centuries? Staples like rice were not much of an export product, rubber, coconut could all be just as easily grown in Malaysia. Thailand was not a balkanised country like the Malayan peninsula, and served as a useful buffer between French Indochina and Malaya and Burma. Any attempt to conquer Siam would have brought in the French on the other side, and there was no reason to squabble with your neighbours regarding a territory so far away that offered nothing much different from what both European powers already had.

Although never directly under Chinese rule, the Chinese appear to have left quite a mark culturally on Thailand, and the Burmese and Khmer too, judging from the temple architecture.

SC

Three empty countries, Thailand, Burma and Laos. Which would you take?

[wolf5370]

Thailand Natural resources: tin, rubber, natural gas, tungsten, tantalum, timber, lead, fish, gypsum, lignite, fluorite, arable land. Agricultural products; rice, cassava (manioc), rubber, corn, sugarcane, coconuts, soybeans. Controls only land route from Asia to Malaysia and Singapore. Ports; Bangkok, Laem Chabang, Map Ta Phut, Prachuap Port, Si Racha.

Go school learn stuff. Thailand much more better Burma. Brits take Burma cause ?????. French take Laos, silly French boys.

Why would anyone go by land from Malaysia to the rest of Asia in the 18th or 19th centuries? Staples like rice were not much of an export product, rubber, coconut could all be just as easily grown in Malaysia. Thailand was not a balkanised country like the Malayan peninsula, and served as a useful buffer between French Indochina and Malaya and Burma. Any attempt to conquer Siam would have brought in the French on the other side, and there was no reason to squabble with your neighbours regarding a territory so far away that offered nothing much different from what both European powers already had.

Although never directly under Chinese rule, the Chinese appear to have left quite a mark culturally on Thailand, and the Burmese and Khmer too, judging from the temple architecture.

SC

Three empty countries, Thailand, Burma and Laos. Which would you take?

For Britain it made sense to take Burma as it was next door to India (which they already held) and gave them the whole bay of India (Indian Ocean). I think given free reign they probably may have moved on to Siam, but not for the fact that the French were the other side and that it was already perhaps a century too late to start colonizing. Siam was back then thick rain forest - Spain had shown how unfriendly that was having had such lands in south America for 300+ years by this point and got hardly more than a few dozen miles inland from the coast. Britain had had its share of jungle with India and then Burma anyway - they had no idea what was under the ground and could not afford to find out. It made better sense for them to be friendly with Siam to secure the Indo-China trade route. War in the area would have served no one.

Britain did not always colonize - mostly they wanted to trade - India was a particular exception because it was being colonized by the French (Britain and France were at war) so it was a case of taking it first (and that was more to do with French foolishness that Britain managed to do that - they were vastly outnumbered and gunned, but the French put to sea and many captains refused to fight - they pretty much abandoned it!). Britain wanted to trade with China for tea, silk and rice - but tea alone was bankrupting Britain (demand was very high but cost was enormous) - this was the creation of the poppy trade - Britain bought the raw poppy seeds from China for silver, took it to India and processed it into opium, and sold it back to China for much more silver - then used that to purchase the tea. Eventually live tea plants was stolen (illegally purchased with bribes of silver and opium) from China and taken to India. Siam was a good trading partner for silk, ivory and Chinese tea - it could be gleaned far cheaper than from China and with a lot less fuss - so taking Siam would also be killing the goose that laid golden eggs. Britain was pleased with the relationship with Siam (there are quite a few Victorian publications - magazines and newspapers of the time - which prove this); the Kings son, crown prince Chulalongkorn, attended school in Britain.

If Britain had held further appetite for colonization, China would have been the target. It only took two gunships to force the ceding of Hong Kong as a waypoint for trading. And had put a sharp finish to the Boxer revolution. It would not have been too much of a challenge to take at least the coastal areas - and would have been a much better solution for trade.

Edited November 27, 2013 by wolf5370

[Shayne123]

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.

[thailiketoo]

Thailand Natural resources: tin, rubber, natural gas, tungsten, tantalum, timber, lead, fish, gypsum, lignite, fluorite, arable land. Agricultural products; rice, cassava (manioc), rubber, corn, sugarcane, coconuts, soybeans. Controls only land route from Asia to Malaysia and Singapore. Ports; Bangkok, Laem Chabang, Map Ta Phut, Prachuap Port, Si Racha.

Go school learn stuff. Thailand much more better Burma. Brits take Burma cause ?????. French take Laos, silly French boys.

Why would anyone go by land from Malaysia to the rest of Asia in the 18th or 19th centuries? Staples like rice were not much of an export product, rubber, coconut could all be just as easily grown in Malaysia. Thailand was not a balkanised country like the Malayan peninsula, and served as a useful buffer between French Indochina and Malaya and Burma. Any attempt to conquer Siam would have brought in the French on the other side, and there was no reason to squabble with your neighbours regarding a territory so far away that offered nothing much different from what both European powers already had.

Although never directly under Chinese rule, the Chinese appear to have left quite a mark culturally on Thailand, and the Burmese and Khmer too, judging from the temple architecture.

SC

Three empty countries, Thailand, Burma and Laos. Which would you take?

For Britain it made sense to take Burma as it was next door to India (which they already held) and gave them the whole bay of India (Indian Ocean). I think given free reign they probably may have moved on to Siam, but not for the fact that the French were the other side and that it was already perhaps a century too late to start colonizing. Siam was back then thick rain forest - Spain had shown how unfriendly that was having had such lands in south America for 300+ years by this point and got hardly more than a few dozen miles inland from the coast. Britain had had its share of jungle with India and then Burma anyway - they had no idea what was under the ground and could not afford to find out. It made better sense for them to be friendly with Siam to secure the Indo-China trade route. War in the area would have served no one.

Britain did not always colonize - mostly they wanted to trade - India was a particular exception because it was being colonized by the French (Britain and France were at war) so it was a case of taking it first (and that was more to do with French foolishness that Britain managed to do that - they were vastly outnumbered and gunned, but the French put to sea and many captains refused to fight - they pretty much abandoned it!). Britain wanted to trade with China for tea, silk and rice - but tea alone was bankrupting Britain (demand was very high but cost was enormous) - this was the creation of the poppy trade - Britain bought the raw poppy seeds from China for silver, took it to India and processed it into opium, and sold it back to China for much more silver - then used that to purchase the tea. Eventually live tea plants was stolen (illegally purchased with bribes of silver and opium) from China and taken to India. Siam was a good trading partner for silk, ivory and Chinese tea - it could be gleaned far cheaper than from China and with a lot less fuss - so taking Siam would also be killing the goose that laid golden eggs. Britain was pleased with the relationship with Siam (there are quite a few Victorian publications - magazines and newspapers of the time - which prove this); the Kings son, crown prince Chulalongkorn, attended school in Britain.

If Britain had held further appetite for colonization, China would have been the target. It only took two gunships to force the ceding of Hong Kong as a waypoint for trading. And had put a sharp finish to the Boxer revolution. It would not have been too much of a challenge to take at least the coastal areas - and would have been a much better solution for trade.

I would generally agree with that with the caveat that there is the Himalayan mountain range between Burma and India. It's not like its easy to get back and forth.

[kirstymelb101]

Yes, by the Shinawatra clan

Hahahaha... Too funny !!

[TheNativeSon]

No no no. Thailand was never colonized by anyone.

DUH

[Thai at Heart]

Any knowledge of how the barbarity and cruelty of the Japanese in Korea, Manchuria and China influenced the decision making of the Thai government?

There was little outside knowledge of the Japanese activities in Manchuria (other than it had become Manchukuo) or the rest of China, particularly before 1941. And the Japanese colonization of Korea was generally ignored.

The Thai government was impressed by the Japanese economy and growing military power. There were Japanese settlers, including spies, throughout Thailand. In one twisted kind of way, one could say they were adding to the Thai economy by their business links.

Are you sure? I find it difficult to believe that the executive decision making level within the Thai government were unaware of the Japanese atrocities in China and elsewhere. The mass killings of civilians in China and other activities were reported in the USA and were a contributing factor to US policy towards Japan; at the very least the Thai Embassy must have briefed the government.

I know of one Thai Chinese family who made its initial inroads in business by dealing with the Japanese and made fortunes.

By the end of the war they had increased their wealth 10 fold.