Learned some Thai History today - WW2

[AYJAYDEE]

only to some, as is any term used for any race, get over it. You post to see your name. In fact, some have only called it "insulting" in recent times. I notice you don't deny calling other nations by they abbreviated name, grow up, it's people like you that create a "politically" correct world simply for their own reasons, before that every one was happy, another case of the noisy minority getting their way. In fact if the japs didn't go to war the turn would not have gained the "insulting" image of today, prior to WW2 if was accepted. The term itself goes back to the 19th century. So, what you call "insulting" today could quite easy be acceptable again tomorrow. I might point out that the word "jap" is not consider derogatory in Singapore.

I think you should leave out the personal stuff

[thailiketoo]

This Betty McKenzie schtick is laughable - her actions were foolish, and Thailand is still paying the price to this very day. It was merely the fact that the State Department professionals were overrun that Thailand managed to squeak out of a rightful reckoning.

She saved millions of Thais from starvation. Check the initial demands for rice and the actual rice paid. What State Department professionals were overrun? Check rightful reckoning with the terms of the Atlantic Charter.

No I don't actually expect you to actually read anything to educate yourself about the happenings of WWII. Stereotypic myths are much easier to learn and talk about.

But I'll make it easy for you. 1. How much rice was the initial demand from Thailand as war reparations? 2. How much was actually paid?

Below are some points of the Atlantic Charter.

1. no territorial gains sought by the United States or the United Kingdom;

2. territorial adjustments must be in accord with wishes of the people;

3. the right to self-determination of peoples;

4. trade barriers lowered.

http://www.atlanticcharter.ca/backgroundinfo.php

No, I don't think the Betty McKenzie thing is laughable. She saved Thailand from the same fate as Germany after WW I that led to the fascism of WW II.

Quote from Betty, "Well then we did save Thailand, but in many other ways we violated our statement that America would help people that would fight for their own freedom, because we went right in after the war and helped the French take back what was still Indochina in their terms, and helped the Dutch take back Indonesia, and so on and so on. And so we violated everything we'd said again there."

http://home.comcast.net/~dmckroot/thailand.htm

It is good people now realize what actually happened during and after WW II with the Atlantic Charter and Breton Woods and Betty McKenzie. WW II was more than a war against fascism it was a war against enslaving people regardless of who was the master.

Parts of the war we are still fighting.

Edited August 21, 2014 by thailiketoo

[AYJAYDEE]

This Betty McKenzie schtick is laughable - her actions were foolish, and Thailand is still paying the price to this very day. It was merely the fact that the State Department professionals were overrun that Thailand managed to squeak out of a rightful reckoning.

She saved millions of Thais from starvation. Check the initial demands for rice and the actual rice paid. What State Department professionals were overrun? Check rightful reckoning with the terms of the Atlantic Charter.

No I don't actually expect you to actually read anything to educate yourself about the happenings of WWII. Stereotypic myths are much easier to learn and talk about.

But I'll make it easy for you. 1. How much rice was the initial demand from Thailand as war reparations? 2. How much was actually paid?

Below are some points of the Atlantic Charter.

1. no territorial gains sought by the United States or the United Kingdom;

2. territorial adjustments must be in accord with wishes of the people;

3. the right to self-determination of peoples;

4. trade barriers lowered.

http://www.atlanticcharter.ca/backgroundinfo.php

No, I don't think the Betty McKenzie thing is laughable. She saved Thailand from the same fate as Germany after WW I that led to the fascism of WW II.

Quote from Betty, "Well then we did save Thailand, but in many other ways we violated our statement that America would help people that would fight for their own freedom, because we went right in after the war and helped the French take back what was still Indochina in their terms, and helped the Dutch take back Indonesia, and so on and so on. And so we violated everything we'd said again there."

http://home.comcast.net/~dmckroot/thailand.htm

It is good people now realize what actually happened during and after WW II with the Atlantic Charter and Breton Woods and Betty McKenzie. WW II was more than a war against fascism it was a war against enslaving people regardless of who was the master.

Parts of the war we are still fighting.

britain, france and the nether lands fought against OTHERS enslaving people

[wilcopops]

As smotherb so clearly pointed out in Post 53, Beware of Wikipedia.

It can be a good place to begin some research, but only a beginning. It must be looked at critically and never as a source of definitive wisdom.

You don't have to "beware" of wiki, you need to know how to research. It is something I learned at my Universities and it is not something you can do without instruction in one form or another.

I'm always frustrated on this forum by people who google for information and clearly have no idea how to sort the3 wheat from the chaff.

As you say wiki and other encyclopaedias can be starting pints, whether or not they are good is up to the researcher to work out for him/herself.

what people repeatedly fail to do on Thaivisa is use a bit of common sense when researching - e.g - is this the latest thinking?, are the sources credible? etc....

[wilcopops]

An old American Plane (Mustang?) was found and dug out of a field in Lam Luk Ka (Bangkok) 1-2 years ago.

It's now on show in the Don Muang Airforce Museum.

Someone google and put up the results. I remember that it was tracked back and the pilot's details and flight details etc were all found. I remember the pilot's history was an interesting one.

I found this more interesting than the rest of the bickering about Thailand and WW 2. Here is the link to a TV thread about the P-51: http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/474266-wwii-p-51-found-in-pathum-thani/

However I can't find that the Mustang is on display at the Royal Thai Air Force Museum in Bangkok.

I only know that it's there because we saw it there around 6 months ago.

The whole museum is very well done, free, and a good day out.

You can't miss that display as the massive props have completely been bent back and twisted.

"The whole museum is very well done, free, and a good day out." - what a way to sum up the Japanese campaign in Burma.

[thailiketoo]

This Betty McKenzie schtick is laughable - her actions were foolish, and Thailand is still paying the price to this very day. It was merely the fact that the State Department professionals were overrun that Thailand managed to squeak out of a rightful reckoning.

She saved millions of Thais from starvation. Check the initial demands for rice and the actual rice paid. What State Department professionals were overrun? Check rightful reckoning with the terms of the Atlantic Charter.

No I don't actually expect you to actually read anything to educate yourself about the happenings of WWII. Stereotypic myths are much easier to learn and talk about.

But I'll make it easy for you. 1. How much rice was the initial demand from Thailand as war reparations? 2. How much was actually paid?

Below are some points of the Atlantic Charter.

1. no territorial gains sought by the United States or the United Kingdom;

2. territorial adjustments must be in accord with wishes of the people;

3. the right to self-determination of peoples;

4. trade barriers lowered.

http://www.atlanticcharter.ca/backgroundinfo.php

No, I don't think the Betty McKenzie thing is laughable. She saved Thailand from the same fate as Germany after WW I that led to the fascism of WW II.

Quote from Betty, "Well then we did save Thailand, but in many other ways we violated our statement that America would help people that would fight for their own freedom, because we went right in after the war and helped the French take back what was still Indochina in their terms, and helped the Dutch take back Indonesia, and so on and so on. And so we violated everything we'd said again there."

http://home.comcast.net/~dmckroot/thailand.htm

It is good people now realize what actually happened during and after WW II with the Atlantic Charter and Breton Woods and Betty McKenzie. WW II was more than a war against fascism it was a war against enslaving people regardless of who was the master.

Parts of the war we are still fighting.

britain, france and the nether lands fought against OTHERS enslaving people

French/Indochina? Dutch/Indonesia. And then, India, Palestine, Malaya, Kenya, Cyprus, Aden, Radfan, Brunei, Borneo, Sarawak.

Post 1945: The History of British Military Conflicts since 1945

http://www.spiritofremembrance.com/page/post-1945-the-history-of

Edited August 21, 2014 by thailiketoo

[IAMHERE]

It was either that or get slaughtered. I cant understand why westerners are surprised by this. why would they expect thai loyalty to western governments? The lure of the "East Asian Co-prosperity Sphere" would have made perfect sense to a south-east asian nation.

And with all the Japanese investment in Thailand today it seems to have been a good move for Thailand overall.

[Saan]

To prevent Thailand from becoming a Japanese colony? But nevermind, just roll over and give up without a fight. Apparently the Thai women were quite pleased having lots of Jap soldiers to service...

Personally, with the exception of the Seri Thai,the behavior of Thailand during WW2 was disgraceful.

the asians didnt understand how japan would treat them at that time. the thais and the indonesians believed the japanese propoganda about the East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere. and they did know enough not to trust the west as they had the examples of vietnam, laos, cambodia, malaya, burma , philipines, and indonesia. why on earth would anyone trust that bunch!?

and please stop referring them as japs

The Asians certainly misjudged the Nips (is that better than Japs) as about 90,000 died on the Burma railway. About 12,400 Allies died.

yes they did. and that is an insulting term

Just using the parlance of the time.

But why is Aussie, Kiwi, Pom, Yank, Canuck, Paddy etc not insulting and Nip (Nipponese) insulting?

[jinners]

My great uncle was in Burma during WWII, He said the Thais were good soldiers. He had a lot of respect for the Japanese and the Thai soldiers after the war.

My Farther was in Burma during WWII and said the Japanese were barbaric. Plenty of evidence around to support that too.

[Saan]

Old saying: "the bamboo that bends with the wind does not break"

However, portions of the RTG during WW II also cooperated with the UK SOE and the U.S. OSS so at the end of the war, Thailand was "saved" from harsh reparations by the Allies.

Mac

Well actually by the US as Britain and Australia wanted to enforce War reperations on Thailand but the US wanted to form a sphere of influence round the pacific and vetoed this.

It was the French who pushed the US to keep the British moving into Thailand after the war. They were frightened that Britain's sphere of influence would be too great if was to spread from India and Burma and into Thailand next door to their colonies of Cambodia and Laos. The French always like a channel between themselves and the British.

[Saan]

My great uncle was in Burma during WWII, He said the Thais were good soldiers. He had a lot of respect for the Japanese and the Thai soldiers after the war.

One of my old college teachers was a prisoner of the Japanese in Burma during WW2. He was forced to work on the Burma Thai railroad and hated the soldiers for their brutality toward the prisoners and watching so many of his comrades die horribly. He was scarred for life by what he experienced.

In Singapore, where I spend most of my time, the Japanese 'disappeared' thousands of Chinese (as many of 50,000 taken from their families, never to be seen again) and tortured 100s more to death. Actions not really deserving of respect in my book...

My uncle was never captured so his respect was the fact that the Thai and Japanese soldiers would kill him if they could because they were effective soldiers. I thought that much would be obvious.

I think it is worth mentioning that many of the Japanese and American soldiers and sailors were friends later in life. Also many of the Japanese soldiers that committed atrocities were arrested and tried in court. I am going to let the veterans of WWII judge the people who fought in the war.

This is a fascinating post.

My father was in the Australian Army and fought the Japanese up through the Islands. He ended up in Japan where he stayed during the occupation. He made friends with a Japanese family, whose men included soldiers, and that friendship lasted until his death.

[GaryB1263]

My great uncle was in Burma during WWII, He said the Thais were good soldiers. He had a lot of respect for the Japanese and the Thai soldiers after the war.

My Farther was in Burma during WWII and said the Japanese were barbaric. Plenty of evidence around to support that too.

Didn't read the thread?

Prior to my post we were discussing whether the Thias would fight or not. My uncle's exact words were: You had to watch out..those little bastards would kill you. They were good soldiers. end quote.

[thailiketoo]

Old saying: "the bamboo that bends with the wind does not break"

However, portions of the RTG during WW II also cooperated with the UK SOE and the U.S. OSS so at the end of the war, Thailand was "saved" from harsh reparations by the Allies.

Mac

Well actually by the US as Britain and Australia wanted to enforce War reperations on Thailand but the US wanted to form a sphere of influence round the pacific and vetoed this.

It was the French who pushed the US to keep the British moving into Thailand after the war. They were frightened that Britain's sphere of influence would be too great if was to spread from India and Burma and into Thailand next door to their colonies of Cambodia and Laos. The French always like a channel between themselves and the British.

I very much doubt that since the Brits were broke after the war and everybody knew that. The Anglo-American Loan Agreement was a post World War II loan made to the United Kingdom by the United States on 15 July 1946, and paid off 29 December 2006.The loan was negotiated by John Maynard Keynes on behalf of the United Kingdom from the United States and Canada at the end of World War II. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-American_loan

Not until the Great Depression and the Franklin Roosevelt era did the US government became serious about debt relief, with a series of policies that refinanced distressed home mortgages, reformed and recapitalized banks, extended relief to bankrupt consumers, financed a huge war debt at below-market interest rates, and wrote off some of the international debts of allies and enemies alike. (Britain, America’s closest ally, received near-total forgiveness of wartime Lend-Lease debt.)

In the 1940s, after a brief flirtation with World War I–style reparations, the occupying powers agreed to behave differently: they wrote off 93 percent of the Nazi-era debt and postponed collection of other debts for nearly half a century.

So Germany, whose debt-to-GDP ratio in 1939 was 675 percent, had a debt load of about 12 percent in the early 1950s—far less than that of the victorious Allies.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2013/may/09/debt-we-shouldnt-pay/

[IAMHERE]

Old saying: "the bamboo that bends with the wind does not break"

However, portions of the RTG during WW II also cooperated with the UK SOE and the U.S. OSS so at the end of the war, Thailand was "saved" from harsh reparations by the Allies.

Mac

Not if Churchill had his way Thailand was to be declared an "enemy of the people" by him ,only Trueman saved their skin

Actually it was an American lady named Betty. Thais should watch the the video.

It makes a nice story that in 1946, then 31 year-old American Betty Mckenzie 'saved Thailand from the British Empire' and preserved its independence.

However, as one Thai poster comments under the video, after the Second World war America used Thailand as a bulwark against communism in the region, locating its airbases there and using them to drop thousands of tonnes of TNT on neighbouring countries.

eg during the Vietnam War, about 80% of all USAF air strikes over North Vietnam originated from air bases in Thailand.

So at second glance, it wasn't quite so altruistic.

In 1946 some Americans were already anticipating the need for Thai airstrips to drop bombs on Vietnam twenty years into the future. Darn near psychic them yanks.

[Eliot Rosewater]

My great uncle was in Burma during WWII, He said the Thais were good soldiers. He had a lot of respect for the Japanese and the Thai soldiers after the war.

One of my old college teachers was a prisoner of the Japanese in Burma during WW2. He was forced to work on the Burma Thai railroad and hated the soldiers for their brutality toward the prisoners and watching so many of his comrades die horribly. He was scarred for life by what he experienced.

The Japanese at the time were bloodthirsty maniacs bent on worldwide domination; allied with some of the worst European regimes to ever wield power.

They are VERY lucky they only received 2 A-bombs, and were allowed to rebuild under American occupation. This quite surprised them actually, as they thought the Americans would surely punish them in a much, much worse way.

I highly doubt; had the situation been reversed, that they would have done the same thing.

For an interesting read, check out "The Man in the High Castle" by PK Dick. An amazing award winning book.

[h90]

My great uncle was in Burma during WWII, He said the Thais were good soldiers. He had a lot of respect for the Japanese and the Thai soldiers after the war.

My Farther was in Burma during WWII and said the Japanese were barbaric. Plenty of evidence around to support that too.

yes the individual solders behalf bad.....but who know how the others were. As the book of history is always written by the winner.

[AYJAYDEE]

This Betty McKenzie schtick is laughable - her actions were foolish, and Thailand is still paying the price to this very day. It was merely the fact that the State Department professionals were overrun that Thailand managed to squeak out of a rightful reckoning.

She saved millions of Thais from starvation. Check the initial demands for rice and the actual rice paid. What State Department professionals were overrun? Check rightful reckoning with the terms of the Atlantic Charter.

No I don't actually expect you to actually read anything to educate yourself about the happenings of WWII. Stereotypic myths are much easier to learn and talk about.

But I'll make it easy for you. 1. How much rice was the initial demand from Thailand as war reparations? 2. How much was actually paid?

Below are some points of the Atlantic Charter.

1. no territorial gains sought by the United States or the United Kingdom;

2. territorial adjustments must be in accord with wishes of the people;

3. the right to self-determination of peoples;

4. trade barriers lowered.

http://www.atlanticcharter.ca/backgroundinfo.php

No, I don't think the Betty McKenzie thing is laughable. She saved Thailand from the same fate as Germany after WW I that led to the fascism of WW II.

Quote from Betty, "Well then we did save Thailand, but in many other ways we violated our statement that America would help people that would fight for their own freedom, because we went right in after the war and helped the French take back what was still Indochina in their terms, and helped the Dutch take back Indonesia, and so on and so on. And so we violated everything we'd said again there."

http://home.comcast.net/~dmckroot/thailand.htm

It is good people now realize what actually happened during and after WW II with the Atlantic Charter and Breton Woods and Betty McKenzie. WW II was more than a war against fascism it was a war against enslaving people regardless of who was the master.

Parts of the war we are still fighting.

britain, france and the nether lands fought against OTHERS enslaving people

This has to be the most naive comment of the thread so far.....when did you study history? Primary school in 1920?

ask the malays, viets, laos, khmers , indians and indonesians how they felt about the benevolent euros. they were all for freedom EXCEPT for the ones they dominated!

[thailiketoo]

ask the malays, viets, laos, khmers , indians and indonesians how they felt about the benevolent euros. they were all for freedom EXCEPT for the ones they dominated!

Since the Viets fought against the UK/US/French and Japanese in 1946 I think it is fair to say they didn't like the UK/US/French or Japanese. I don't think the Indians and Burmese and Malaysian people liked the Brits. And I don't think the Indonesians liked the Dutch. Laos and Cambodia I don't think liked the French after WWII.

[thailiketoo]

yes the individual solders behalf bad.....but who know how the others were. As the book of history is always written by the winner.

Normally I would agree with you but Thailand and the Japanese are doing a pretty good job of re writing the history of WWII at least in their schools.

[AYJAYDEE]

ask the malays, viets, laos, khmers , indians and indonesians how they felt about the benevolent euros. they were all for freedom EXCEPT for the ones they dominated!

Since the Viets fought against the UK/US/French and Japanese in 1946 I think it is fair to say they didn't like the UK/US/French or Japanese. I don't think the Indians and Burmese and Malaysian people liked the Brits. And I don't think the Indonesians liked the Dutch. Laos and Cambodia I don't think liked the French after WWII.

that was kinda my point. the euros talked a great story about people's right to freedom, UNLESS they happened to live in one of their colonies.

[Ricardo]

Isn't this really just a question if real-politik? You do what is best for your country, even if you are faced with a shit sandwhich. Sometime you just chew furiously and smile while doing so. That it gained Malaysian territory no doubt was an incentive. But given the shoddy job the Brits did in protecting Malaya and Singapore, what incentive was there to stand up a fight?

"But given the shoddy job the Brits did in protecting Malaya and Singapore, what incentive was there to stand up a fight"

But the collapse of the British forces didn't happen until after that, so cannot have been a factor, in the Thai government's earlier decision ?

Unless the Japanese shared their own intelligence, which included captured-documents from a British ship sunk in the Indian Ocean in 1940 by a German raider, saying that the Imperial General Staff felt they would be unable to reinforce Malaya.

One good source is "Forgotten Armies, Britain's Asian Empire & The War with Japan", by Christopher Bayly and Tim Harper, paperback-edition published 2005 by Penguin.

From page 108 onwards, it describes the British plan 'Matador', to make a "pre-emptive strike into southern Thailand, to secure the borders of Malaya ... to occupy key air and sea bases around Singora that would, in theory, allow air cover of the northern approaches to the Malay peninsula."

However when the Japanese invasion-fleet was spotted, by an Australian plane flying out of Kota Bahru at 3pm on 6th December, 300 miles off the coast of Malaya, 'Matador' was not immediately launched because the sighting was considered insufficient evidence of Japan's hostile intent !

"A Catalina flying boat approaching the fleet on the morning of 7th December was shot down by a Japanese naval Zero." Landings at Kota Bahru began at 1.35 am on the 8th December, several hours before the attack on Pearl Harbour, and the rest is history.

A fascinating read, the book covers events through to the dropping of the Bomb, and the end of the war. A companion book (also in Penguin) covers the end of the British South-East Asian Empire, and succession to independence, of those countries.

[Ricardo]

This Betty McKenzie schtick is laughable - her actions were foolish, and Thailand is still paying the price to this very day. It was merely the fact that the State Department professionals were overrun that Thailand managed to squeak out of a rightful reckoning.

She saved millions of Thais from starvation. Check the initial demands for rice and the actual rice paid. What State Department professionals were overrun? Check rightful reckoning with the terms of the Atlantic Charter.

<snip for brevity>

It is perhaps worth mentioning why the British were demanding the rice, it wasn't just as some arbitrary economic/political punishment, for Thailand.

There had been widespread famines throughout the former British South East Asian Empire (also in China & what was then known as Tonkin) during the war, especially as the fighting disrupted the previous trade-patterns of Thai/Burmese imported-rice helping to feed Malaya & India. So the Thai rice was required immediately elsewhere, to help alleviate this desperate situation, thus Thai lives may only have been saved at the expense of others'.

But would Betty McKenzie have been aware of any of this ?

[samran]

Isn't this really just a question if real-politik? You do what is best for your country, even if you are faced with a shit sandwhich. Sometime you just chew furiously and smile while doing so. That it gained Malaysian territory no doubt was an incentive. But given the shoddy job the Brits did in protecting Malaya and Singapore, what incentive was there to stand up a fight?

"But given the shoddy job the Brits did in protecting Malaya and Singapore, what incentive was there to stand up a fight"

But the collapse of the British forces didn't happen until after that, so cannot have been a factor, in the Thai government's earlier decision ?

Unless the Japanese shared their own intelligence, which included captured-documents from a British ship sunk in the Indian Ocean in 1940 by a German raider, saying that the Imperial General Staff felt they would be unable to reinforce Malaya.

One good source is "Forgotten Armies, Britain's Asian Empire & The War with Japan", by Christopher Bayly and Tim Harper, paperback-edition published 2005 by Penguin.

From page 108 onwards, it describes the British plan 'Matador', to make a "pre-emptive strike into southern Thailand, to secure the borders of Malaya ... to occupy key air and sea bases around Singora that would, in theory, allow air cover of the northern approaches to the Malay peninsula."

However when the Japanese invasion-fleet was spotted, by an Australian plane flying out of Kota Bahru at 3pm on 6th December, 300 miles off the coast of Malaya, 'Matador' was not immediately launched because the sighting was considered insufficient evidence of Japan's hostile intent !

"A Catalina flying boat approaching the fleet on the morning of 7th December was shot down by a Japanese naval Zero." Landings at Kota Bahru began at 1.35 am on the 8th December, several hours before the attack on Pearl Harbour, and the rest is history.

A fascinating read, the book covers events through to the dropping of the Bomb, and the end of the war. A companion book (also in Penguin) covers the end of the British South-East Asian Empire, and succession to independence, of those countries.

The whole British defense - leading up to - the Japanese invasion was arguably plain for all to see.

Australian PM Curtin had repeatedly asked for reinforcements to Singapore, re-deploying Australian troops there. It was rebuffed by Churchill. Blind freddy, and yes, even someone with a semblence of military knowledge in the Thai government could have probably guessed that Singpore was there for the taking. Even if they couldn't however, I guess my question still stands.

What was in it for Thailand to stand up and fight the Japanese? I ask this from a real-politik perspective rather than any moral or chest thumping perspective, which to my assessment, is how sovereign nations usually weigh up their options.

[thailiketoo]

She saved millions of Thais from starvation. Check the initial demands for rice and the actual rice paid. What State Department professionals were overrun? Check rightful reckoning with the terms of the Atlantic Charter.

<snip for brevity>

It is perhaps worth mentioning why the British were demanding the rice, it wasn't just as some arbitrary economic/political punishment, for Thailand.

There had been widespread famines throughout the former British South East Asian Empire (also in China & what was then known as Tonkin) during the war, especially as the fighting disrupted the previous trade-patterns of Thai/Burmese imported-rice helping to feed Malaya & India. So the Thai rice was required immediately elsewhere, to help alleviate this desperate situation, thus Thai lives may only have been saved at the expense of others'.

But would Betty McKenzie have been aware of any of this ?

I believe the majority of the famines occurred when Burma was captured by the Japanese for example the Bengali famine of 1943 or the Hanoi famine of 1945.

Betty would also have been aware of the Anglo American loan agreement. Keynes estimated that Britain spent £2,000 million on policing and administering the Empire. This expenditure was largely responsible for the country’s post-war financial difficulties.

in 1946 Britain’s national debt stood at about 250 per cent of GDP and when the loan was not directed to the essential task of rebuilding our industrial capacity but squandered on a futile attempt to prop up a crumbling empire and support the obsolete role of world policeman.

http://www.workers.org.uk/features/feat_1213/loan.html

So in answer to your question did the Thais who grew the rice starve to give rice to other nations? No they didn't.

A lot of money was misspent at the conclusion of WW II as the colonial powers tried to put Humpty Dumpty back together again and it wasn't going to happen.

[thailiketoo]

Isn't this really just a question if real-politik? You do what is best for your country, even if you are faced with a shit sandwhich. Sometime you just chew furiously and smile while doing so. That it gained Malaysian territory no doubt was an incentive. But given the shoddy job the Brits did in protecting Malaya and Singapore, what incentive was there to stand up a fight?

"But given the shoddy job the Brits did in protecting Malaya and Singapore, what incentive was there to stand up a fight"

But the collapse of the British forces didn't happen until after that, so cannot have been a factor, in the Thai government's earlier decision ?

Unless the Japanese shared their own intelligence, which included captured-documents from a British ship sunk in the Indian Ocean in 1940 by a German raider, saying that the Imperial General Staff felt they would be unable to reinforce Malaya.

One good source is "Forgotten Armies, Britain's Asian Empire & The War with Japan", by Christopher Bayly and Tim Harper, paperback-edition published 2005 by Penguin.

From page 108 onwards, it describes the British plan 'Matador', to make a "pre-emptive strike into southern Thailand, to secure the borders of Malaya ... to occupy key air and sea bases around Singora that would, in theory, allow air cover of the northern approaches to the Malay peninsula."

However when the Japanese invasion-fleet was spotted, by an Australian plane flying out of Kota Bahru at 3pm on 6th December, 300 miles off the coast of Malaya, 'Matador' was not immediately launched because the sighting was considered insufficient evidence of Japan's hostile intent !

"A Catalina flying boat approaching the fleet on the morning of 7th December was shot down by a Japanese naval Zero." Landings at Kota Bahru began at 1.35 am on the 8th December, several hours before the attack on Pearl Harbour, and the rest is history.

A fascinating read, the book covers events through to the dropping of the Bomb, and the end of the war. A companion book (also in Penguin) covers the end of the British South-East Asian Empire, and succession to independence, of those countries.

The whole British defense - leading up to - the Japanese invasion was arguably plain for all to see.

Australian PM Curtin had repeatedly asked for reinforcements to Singapore, re-deploying Australian troops there. It was rebuffed by Churchill. Blind freddy, and yes, even someone with a semblence of military knowledge in the Thai government could have probably guessed that Singpore was there for the taking. Even if they couldn't however, I guess my question still stands.

What was in it for Thailand to stand up and fight the Japanese? I ask this from a real-politik perspective rather than any moral or chest thumping perspective, which to my assessment, is how sovereign nations usually weigh up their options.

I think you have to go back 15 months (1940) when Thailand attacked French Indochina and with the assistance of the Japanese won the war and territorial concessions that Thailand felt it deserved.

I think Phibun did this to cement his position as a national leader and put the country on a war footing with him in charge.

The resolution of the conflict was received with wide acclaim among the Thai people and was looked upon as a personal triumph for Phibun. For the first time, Thailand had been able to extract concessions from a European power

Thailand was clearly an aggressor in the beginning stages of WWII. The proof is it's attack against the French in October of 1940.

France ceded the following provinces to Thailand from Cambodia:

• Battambang and Pailin, which were reorganized as Phra Tabong Province;
• Siem Reap, Banteay Meanchey and Oddar Meanchey, which were reorganized as Phibunsongkhram Province;
• Preah Vihear, which was merged with part of Champassak Province of Laos to form Nakorn Champassak Province;

and from Laos:

• Xaignabouli, including part of Luang Prabang Province, which was renamed Lan Chang Province;
• a part of Champassak Province west of the Mekong River, which became Nakorn Champassak Province.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-Thai_War

Edited August 21, 2014 by thailiketoo

[FritsSikkink]

What grates on many westerners is that after Thailand capitulated and let the Japs in to build their death camps and railways, they had the gall to include the line "we're not afraid to fight" in their national anthem. I mean the Filippinos put up more of a fight but the actions of the Seri Thai helped a little.

You don't know what you are talking about. They didn't capitulate and fought many wars with Burma.

[Jonmarleesco]

They didn't technically take the Japanese side. The Japanese walked in - invaded - leaving the Thais to decide on fight or flight. The government of the time decided on an accomodation, issuing a typically Thai wishy-washy declaration of war, which the US dismissed, while the British took the opposing view.

But a number of Thais did resist. And many died building the Death railway - go and visit the Kanchanaburi war museum.

Edited August 21, 2014 by Jonmarleesco

[thailiketoo]

They didn't technically take the Japanese side. The Japanese walked in - invaded - leaving the Thais to decide on fight or flight. The government of the time decided on an accomodation, issuing a typically Thai wishy-washy declaration of war, which the US dismissed, while the British took the opposing view.

But a number of Thais did resist. And many died building the Death railway - go and visit the Kanchanaburi war museum.

On January 5, 1941, .....Thai Burapha and Isan Armies launched their offensive on Laos and Cambodia. French response was instantaneous, but many units were simply swept along by the well-equipped Thai forces......

Japan stepped in to mediate the conflict. A Japanese-sponsored "Conference for the Cessation of Hostilities" was held at Saigon and preliminary documents for a cease-fire between the governments of General Philippe Pétain's Vichy France and the Kingdom of Siam were signed aboard the cruiser Natori on January 31, 1941

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-Thai_War

On December 14, 1941, a mutual offensive-defensive alliance pact between the two countries (Japan and Thailand) was signed The agreement, revised on December 30, gave the Japanese full access to Thai weapon equipment and to Thai railways, roads, airfields, naval bases, warehouses, communications systems and barracks.

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

[prodriver]

They didn't technically take the Japanese side. The Japanese walked in - invaded - leaving the Thais to decide on fight or flight. The government of the time decided on an accomodation, issuing a typically Thai wishy-washy declaration of war, which the US dismissed, while the British took the opposing view.

But a number of Thais did resist. And many died building the Death railway - go and visit the Kanchanaburi war museum.

No Thais died building the "Death "railway.

The only Thais that got involved in any construction of the railway was an agreement entered into with the Japanese to build the rail bed from Nong Pladuk to Kanchanaburi and a truck road from Kanchanaburi towards the Three Pagodas. Due to the procrastination of the Thais the Japanese took over the whole construction project.

This information was given to me by Sir Rod Beattie, former curator of the War Grave cemeteries in Kanchanaburi and current Director of the museum adjacent to the main cemetery in Kanchanaburi town.

[Rorri]

AYJAYDEE, on 21 Aug 2014 - 08:31, said:

Rorri, on 21 Aug 2014 - 07:53, said:

only to some, as is any term used for any race, get over it. You post to see your name. In fact, some have only called it "insulting" in recent times. I notice you don't deny calling other nations by they abbreviated name, grow up, it's people like you that create a "politically" correct world simply for their own reasons, before that every one was happy, another case of the noisy minority getting their way. In fact if the japs didn't go to war the turn would not have gained the "insulting" image of today, prior to WW2 if was accepted. The term itself goes back to the 19th century. So, what you call "insulting" today could quite easy be acceptable again tomorrow. I might point out that the word "jap" is not consider derogatory in Singapore.

I think you should leave out the personal stuff

Then maybe you need to refrain from criticising others. No one is perfect AYJAYDEE, not even you.