Thailand colonized

[thailiketoo]

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?

[spidermike007]

Thailand was occupied by the Japanese from 1941 onwards, during WWII. It appears they were more or less given the choice of full occupation, or surrendering control of their territory to the Japanese, so they could use Thailand in their campaigns against Burma and Malaysia. The great coward Plaek Phibunsongkhram (known simply as Phibun) was instrumental in this. He essentially allowed the Japanese to do as they saw fit. Bangkok was bombed by the Japanese in 1941, and essentially surrendered the same day. It resulted in Thailand eventually having to declare war against the UK, and the US. That resulted in substantial American bombing of Bangkok, the ports of Thailand, and the railway system, by the US, and the British in 1942, and again later. The Thai ambassador to the UK delivered the declaration of war, but the Thai ambassador to the US, being a man of principal, did not deliver that same declaration, though the US considered themselves at war with Thailand, due to the Japanese occupation of their land. There were some very courageous resistance leaders, and the resistance army consisted of upwards of 90,000 incredibly brave Thais. The history leading up to this was quite fascinating. There was a skirmish with the French, as Thailand used the local politics to attempt to invade Laos and Cambodia in 1940, to regain territory it had previously lost to the French. Though they prevailed in the land battle, they got their asses kicked by the French Navy in Koh Chang, and eventually lost the battle to the French. They began to use the Japanese to mediate, and that opened the door to the eventual FULL OCCUPATION OF THAILAND, by the Japanese. Many of the parliamentarians realized how heinous the Japanese were, and resisted, but the coward Phibun pushed hard on the Japanese behalf, and after the bombing, they all gave in. So, while the Japanese never colonized Thailand, the occupation was full, and complete.

[asiamaster]

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.

In other words - Collaborators - but what about 'The Bridge over the River Qwai??'

Once again they were just passing through -this time to support their forces in Burma.

Bear in mind that in those days there was nothing much in Thailand. The Japanese were far more intent on conquering the British colonies ( Malaya, Singapore, Burma, even targeted India and Australia) and Dutch Indonesia. The Brits and the Dutch had put decent infrastructure in place, there were coffee, tea and rubber plantations, mining industry etc.

In Thailand there was only rice....

[sms747]

. Bangkok was bombed by the Japanese in 1941, and essentially surrendered the same day.

Impressive resistance almost a whole day, lunch time probably intervened!

[JusMe]

For those who would like to actually expend some energy and do some research on the relationships between Thailand and Japan, an excellent starting point is two doctoral theses:

Thadeus Flood: Japan's Relations with Thailand 1928 ~ 1941

and

Edward Bruce Reynolds: Ambivalent Allies: Japan and Thailand 1941 ~ 1945

The first is available in hard copy on the shelves of Thammasat's Pridi Banomyong Library.

I do have pdf copies of both, and can upload them to SendSpace if someone requests.

[Edit: typos]

[sms747]

Either they were opportunistic collaborators with the Japanese, or they surrendered and were colonised. Either way the Thais did nothing to be proud of in ww2.

[StreetCowboy]

Occupation is different from colonisation. The Japanese occupation did not change the government or the population in Thailand. Nor, ultimately, did the German occupation of France, nor the Channel Islands. On the other hand, India, North America were changed irrevocably by colonisation by Britain and Spain, amongst others.

SC

[sms747]

But some say it was not even occupied, when it clearly was

[AYJAYDEE]

Either they were opportunistic collaborators with the Japanese, or they surrendered and were colonised. Either way the Thais did nothing to be proud of in ww2.

what would you expect they should do? side with european colonial powers,who had forceably taken asian lands, over another asian nation? why the hell would they?

[sms747]

Either they were opportunistic collaborators with the Japanese, or they surrendered and were colonised. Either way the Thais did nothing to be proud of in ww2.

what would you expect they should do? side with european colonial powers,who had forceably taken asian lands, over another asian nation? why the hell would they?

Most resisted invading armies longer than a day, where was all that Thai pride about not giving up an inch (more) of territory then? They could have allied themselves to western democracies, instead they chose to kow tow to the Japanese, a dishonourable and cowardly decision.

[metisdead]

Off topic posts have been removed as well as a reply to a post made within the quoted post.

[JusMe]

what would you expect they should do? side with european colonial powers,who had forceably taken asian lands, over another asian nation? why the hell would they?

They could have taken the same route as Denmark and Belgium during WWII. They did not welcome the Germans but resisted, knowing that they didn't have the strength to do much more than delay the inevitable.

[simple1]

Either they were opportunistic collaborators with the Japanese, or they surrendered and were colonised. Either way the Thais did nothing to be proud of in ww2.

what would you expect they should do? side with european colonial powers,who had forceably taken asian lands, over another asian nation? why the hell would they?

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

[JusMe]

Thailand was occupied by the Japanese from 1941 onwards, during WWII.

Followed by a lot of other rubbish, basically the result of failing to learn, even from Wikipedia.

I'll give it the response it deserves:

[JusMe]

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.

[thailiketoo]

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.

In other words - Collaborators - but what about 'The Bridge over the River Qwai??'

Once again they were just passing through -this time to support their forces in Burma.

Bear in mind that in those days there was nothing much in Thailand. The Japanese were far more intent on conquering the British colonies ( Malaya, Singapore, Burma, even targeted India and Australia) and Dutch Indonesia. The Brits and the Dutch had put decent infrastructure in place, there were coffee, tea and rubber plantations, mining industry etc.

In Thailand there was only rice....

Japan stationed 150,000 troops in Thailand.

Meanwhile, Japan stationed 150,000 troops on Thai soil. As the war dragged on, the Japanese increasingly dealt with Thailand as a conquered territory rather than as an ally. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan%E2%80%93Thailand_relations#World_War_II:_occupation_and_alliance

[thailiketoo]

Occupation is different from colonisation. The Japanese occupation did not change the government or the population in Thailand. Nor, ultimately, did the German occupation of France, nor the Channel Islands. On the other hand, India, North America were changed irrevocably by colonisation by Britain and Spain, amongst others.

SC

You are comparing the occupation of France with Thailand a Japanese ally during WWII? Well lets look at the casualties French 550,000 dead. Thailand 7,600 dead. The Japanese neither occupied nor colonized Thailand.

The Japanese were in Thailand like MacArthur was in Australia. The Aussies didn't like it, but not much they could do about it.

[sms747]

150.000 troops invaded and not occupied huh. some splitting of hairs that

[thailiketoo]

150.000 troops invaded and not occupied huh. some splitting of hairs that

"Japan meanwhile had stationed 150,000 troops on Thai soil" (stationed means staying and building barracks and things like that)

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

[sms747]

The ones flogging people to death on the railway were not in barrcks

[7by7]

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.

In other words - Collaborators - but what about 'The Bridge over the River Qwai??'

You seem to be basing your opinion on the book and the film. Both works of fiction which bear absolutely no relationship with actual events!

From the Thai-Burma Railway and Hellfire Pass website.

When the Japanese launched their attack on Malaya on 7–8 December 1941 they demanded that the Thai government grant them free passage for their troops through Thailand. Since it was clear that the British and the United States, from whom Thailand had sought assurances of support in the months before war, had no capacity to assist Thailand, the government of Phibun Songkram capitulated. Thai troops resisted the landing of Japanese troops on Thai territory for only a matter of hours.

In late December 1941 Thailand signed an agreement with the Japanese and then on 25 January 1942 declared war on Britain and the United States. It was a decision which split the government with the Thai foreign minister Direk Chaiyanam and the liberal leader Pridi Phanomyong advocating resistance against the Japanese. Overseas Thai diplomats and ex-patriots also opposed what they saw as a Japanese occupation of Thailand and formed the Seri Thai (Free Thai) movement.

In Thai accounts of the war the alliance with the Japanese is depicted — not unreasonably — as a pragmatic accommodation to the realities of power balances in the Asia-Pacific. It was a ‘devil’s choice’ in which the only option available to the Thais, if they wished to preserve their sovereignty and some semblance of independence, was to collaborate with the Japanese. Indeed when the war ended Thailand, which installed a more liberal government with Seri Thai connections, in 1944, was ‘cleared of any war guilt’ and moved quickly into the US sphere of influence.

[thailiketoo]

The ones flogging people to death on the railway were not in barrcks

Did you really not understand what I meant. People sleep in barracks. An army on the move would not build barracks.

[JusMe]

In Thai accounts of the war the alliance with the Japanese is depicted

The crux of the presentation is in those first three words. We all know just how knowledgeable and respectful Thais are about history, particularly but not exclusively, their own.

[thailiketoo]

In Thai accounts of the war the alliance with the Japanese is depicted

The crux of the presentation is in those first three words. We all know just how knowledgeable and respectful Thais are about history, particularly but not exclusively, their own.

No we all don't. History is written by the winners that I know. That being said I think the Seri Thai fantasy and the non declaration of war against the USA are two of the best fiction stories on the INTERNET.

[JusMe]

History is written by the winners that I know. That being said I think the Seri Thai fantasy and the non declaration of war against the USA are two of the best fiction stories on the INTERNET.

We are in clear agreement on this. True, history is usually written by the winners, although there are a good number of accounts which have become available from the losers as well.

"The Seri Thai" fantasy is perhaps the easiest way of describing it. I've said many times that the Seri Thai were amongst the best equipped, best coordinated, best communicating, and least effective of all anti-Axis resistance forces during WWII. They did rescue some downed aircrew and handed them to the Thai military, saving them from Japanese hands; and they reported targets and bomb damage on the ports in Bangkok.

They were preparing for government at the end of the war, but it finished so suddenly there was no chance for them to take over. They were permitted a "victory" parade in Bangkok and were then disarmed.

The story of the non declaration of war is heartwarming, and such a sympathetic (pathetic?) account will always have its adherents.

[tropo]

Wikipedia provides a detailed chronology that disagrees with you, including this:

Please, please, please - let's never use Wikipedia as an authoritative source. It's written by a few people, often with their own political agendas to fulfill.

Always go to other sources, and you'll find that in any controversial topic, Wikipedia can be incredibly biased and slanted.

What if Wiki is referring to their own outside sources (the References on the bottom of the page)?

35 references to be exact. Someone has done their homework. I would suggest that if anyone refutes what has been written in the Wiki article, they should make it clear what is incorrect.

Not everyone who writes historical articles in wiki has an agenda.

[belg]

thailand was only a buffer

kept uncolonised by france or britain

[thailiketoo]

thailand was only a buffer

kept uncolonised by france or britain

Don't forget Portugal.

[JusMe]

35 references to be exact. Someone has done their homework. I would suggest that if anyone refutes what has been written in the Wiki article, they should make it clear what is incorrect.

Not everyone who writes historical articles in wiki has an agenda.

True, not everyone has an agenda, but trying to differentiate is very difficult.

Someone has made a list of 35 references. Whether they've done the homework is not necessarily obvious.

Wiki can be a good introduction, but once you've got those 35 references, then you can go and do your own research.

Start with the two doctoral theses I posted information about.

[tropo]

35 references to be exact. Someone has done their homework. I would suggest that if anyone refutes what has been written in the Wiki article, they should make it clear what is incorrect.

Not everyone who writes historical articles in wiki has an agenda.

True, not everyone has an agenda, but trying to differentiate is very difficult.

Someone has made a list of 35 references. Whether they've done the homework is not necessarily obvious.

Wiki can be a good introduction, but once you've got those 35 references, then you can go and do your own research.

Start with the two doctoral theses I posted information about.

Yes, but understand that the average Joe on here, myself included, is not going to dedicate time to in depth studies of this topic and Wiki is the best go-to reference we have. If you feel some of the info is in error, please enlighten us... or point us in the direction of some available references on line.

I feel the Wiki article was quite well done.