Learned some Thai History today - WW2

[katana]

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.

Strawman argument. They wanted to make sure they had influence over the country and in the region for when the need arose rather than another power such as the UK.

The video states @3:04:

"Betty McKenzie efforts and American democracy preserved Thailand's independence", although it was a funny kind of independence that meant they had USAF bases in the country for many years.

And if you look at all the bombing the US did to Thailand's neighbours such as Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia in the 1960s and 70s, they made good use of their airbases there.

[thailiketoo]

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.

Strawman argument. They wanted to make sure they had influence over the country and in the region for when the need arose rather than another power such as the UK.

The video states @3:04:

"Betty McKenzie efforts and American democracy preserved Thailand's independence", although it was a funny kind of independence that meant they had USAF bases in the country for many years.

And if you look at all the bombing the US did to Thailand's neighbours such as Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia in the 1960s and 70s, they made good use of their airbases there.

Straw**** arguement. 1. Thailand was at war with the countries that America bombed. 2. Thailand asked for US help via SEATO treaty. 3. Thailand had soldiers fighting a war in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia when the USA was doing the bombing.

[wilcopops]

To poo-poo the idea of the US and the allies having territorial aims after the war is just daft.

Everything they did was to establish themselves as the dominant poet in this region. US has seldom indulged in direct invasion outside its own borders, but this doesn't make it any less imperialistic or colonial than other powers past and present.

[thailiketoo]

To poo-poo the idea of the US and the allies having territorial aims after the war is just daft.

Everything they did was to establish themselves as the dominant poet in this region. US has seldom indulged in direct invasion outside its own borders, but this doesn't make it any less imperialistic or colonial than other powers past and present.

I would agree with that. The US wanted into the trade that was restricted to the British Empire,

hence the Bretton Woods system and before that the Atlatic Charter. The chief features of the Bretton Woods system were an obligation for each country to adopt a monetary policy that maintained the exchange rate by tying its currency to the U.S. dollar and the ability of the IMF to bridge temporary imbalances of payments.

[Thongkorn]

The United States are the only Country ever to make money from War. They did not do a lot for Britain in terms of favoures, On the last day of the war The lease lend ships where turned back because the war was over. But Britain never sent America the bill for standing alone for two years keeping Germany pegged back from attacking The American mainland, which Germanyy did on a few occasions.

[thailiketoo]

The United States are the only Country ever to make money from War. They did not do a lot for Britain in terms of favoures, On the last day of the war The lease lend ships where turned back because the war was over. But Britain never sent America the bill for standing alone for two years keeping Germany pegged back from attacking The American mainland, which Germanyy did on a few occasions.

1. The U.S. charged for them, usually at a 90% discount. Large quantities of undelivered goods were in Britain or in transit when Lend-Lease terminated on 2 September 1945.

Britain wished to retain some of this equipment in the immediate post war period. In 1946, the post-war Anglo-American loan further indebted Britain to the U.S. Lend-Lease items retained were sold to Britain at 10% of nominal value, giving an initial loan value of £1.075 billion for the Lend-Lease portion of the post-war loans. Payment was to be stretched out over 50 annual payments, starting in 1951 and with five years of deferred payments, at 2% interest. The final payment of $83.3 million (£42.5 million), due on 31 December 2006 (repayment having been deferred in the allowed five years), was made on 29 December 2006 (the last working day of the year).

After this final payment Britain's Economic Secretary to the Treasury, Ed Balls, formally thanked the U.S. for its wartime support.

2. Germany could not mount an amphibious attack across the English channel how do you figure they would have made it across the Atlantic?

3. UK military deaths WWII 383,800. American military deaths, 407,000. You should be ashamed for dishonoring the US and UK dead who fought together as brothers during the WWII.

4. Lend lease was provided free of charge if the supplies were used during the war such as bullets and any equipment that was destroyed. After the war what was not destroyed was returned to the USA or bought at 10% of the original price.

5. Most American families were effected by WWII and mine was no exception as I had relatives who perished delivering food to Britain when your country was close to starvation. I had close family members who landed on the beaches or Normandy.

6. Thank your lucky stars that America is America instead of other countries who were neutral or not active in the defense of the Allied cause.

Edited August 21, 2014 by thailiketoo

[Thongkorn]

you forget the islands America took from Britain in repayment. also do some resurch three German U boats reached the American shores and torpedoed some ships. This was kept Quite during the war, Britain was Americas first line of defense.

Edited August 21, 2014 by Thongkorn

[siamsomjit]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

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.

French?

[thailiketoo]

you forget the islands America took from Britain in repayment. also do some resurch three German U boats reached the American shores and torpedoed some ships. This was kept Quite during the war, Britain was Americas first line of defense.

It wasn't kept quiet and a Japanese sub also shelled the West coast. A few subs are not an invasion threat. Britain was not Americas first line of defense. The Atlantic and Pacific oceans were America's first line of defense.

A little research on lend lease will confirm that the great majority of it was given free of charge and your government borrowed The Anglo-American Loan Agreement after World War II a loan made to the United Kingdom by the United States on 15 July 1946, and paid off 29 December 2006.

Get your facts straight. Every bullet you shot was free. Britain borrowed big bucks primarily to support British overseas expenditure in the immediate post-war years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-American_loan

Edited August 21, 2014 by thailiketoo

[Thongkorn]

If Britain had fallen, Germany would have concentrated on Russia, then America was next. you are partly correct the Atlantic oceans where a form of defense for America while British War ships in the pacific and Atlantic sunk and harassed German War ships. from attacking America.

Edited August 21, 2014 by Thongkorn

[AYJAYDEE]

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.

there's a big difference between criticizing a post and criticizing a poster

[Pattszero]

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.

Here we go again with the same dribbling garbage. When you were posting under the name KerryK you posted the same laughable claim. Thailand was an enemy state - the UK required rice for starving parts of India and Burma. The UK requested a requisition from the Thai stock to feed it's citizens.

Thailand had the largest stock of rice of any country in the world. It could easily have spared the requisite amount. There was no shortage or starvation in Thailand - and the other Thai crops were untouched. The notion that Thailand was on the edge of famine is an out and out lie.

The problem with guys like you - no matter when you post under your KerryK, Chiang Mai Kelly, or current guise - is that you can't help go back over the same old schtick time and time again. Don't post your poisonous lies on here and expect to go unchallenged

[thailiketoo]

If Britain had fallen, Germany would have concentrated on Russia, then America was next. you are partly correct the Atlantic oceans where a form of defense for America while British War ships in the pacific and Atlantic sunk and harassed German War ships. from attacking America.

How many troops invaded Britain? Do you have any idea about the conduct of the war? Germany stayed on it's side of the channel and the Brits did the same until the Americans got there. Oh BTW America did invent a war ending bomb that didn't require any troops at all.

Germany did not have the ability to invade Britain and Russia at the same time. Ships don't attack America it is 3,366 km wide. What are you talking about? All it takes is one little torpedo to sink the biggest British battleship. WWII was a carrier war. Germany did not have the ability to mount an amphibious invasion of America, no way no how. America could have stood alone thanks to Atomic technology. Britain and Russia both needed American equipment to wage a successful war. Sorry, but that's a fact jack.

[Thongkorn]

Ever heard of the V2 rockets, by the way the America spirited the scientists away from being hanged , suppose that was good old American technology along with the Jet engine. I don't suppose you ever heard of Telmark, in Denmark, where Britons soldiers destroyed the heavy water to stop Germany building the atomic bomb, long before America could, your just anti British. end of discussion, see why most of the world hate America.

[wilcopops]

To poo-poo the idea of the US and the allies having territorial aims after the war is just daft.

Everything they did was to establish themselves as the dominant poet in this region. US has seldom indulged in direct invasion outside its own borders, but this doesn't make it any less imperialistic or colonial than other powers past and present.

I would agree with that. The US wanted into the trade that was restricted to the British Empire,

hence the Bretton Woods system and before that the Atlatic Charter. The chief features of the Bretton Woods system were an obligation for each country to adopt a monetary policy that maintained the exchange rate by tying its currency to the U.S. dollar and the ability of the IMF to bridge temporary imbalances of payments.

US wanted military power - supremacy - in the region........they funded Japan's recovery and Thailand's and anyone - regardless of their ethics - so long as they weren't communist.

a lot of what the US did in S.E. Asia was out of pure paranoia about communism, most of it totally unfounded. They meddled in all sorts of governments just to keep someone "on their side" in power. A lot of the instability in the region is down to US meddling.

[Docno]

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.

The Japanese treated western POWs and civilians quite atrociously. The Chinese had it even worse, however. Both those living (and dying) in China--Rape of Nangking sound familiar--and the Chinese diaspora in SE Asia. Also remember that many more Asians died in the construction of the Death Railroad than Westerners, and they died at proportionally higher rate.

Edited August 21, 2014 by Docno

[JusMe]

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.

I managed to exchange some information a number of years back with Rod Beattie, but have no idea when he acquired the "Sir."

I think I vaguely remember that he was of Australian heritage, but when was he knighted?

[thailiketoo]

Ever heard of the V2 rockets, by the way the America spirited the scientists away from being hanged , suppose that was good old American technology along with the Jet engine. I don't suppose you ever heard of Telmark, in Denmark, where Britons soldiers destroyed the heavy water to stop Germany building the atomic bomb, long before America could, your just anti British. end of discussion, see why most of the world hate America.

Range of V2 rockets was 200 miles, hardly capable of reaching America from Germany. If the Germans could have produced an Atomic bomb they would have. It cost about 26 billion in todays dollars. The Germans didn't have the money. Germany spent 272 billion on weapons the USA 341 billion and Britain 120 billion.

By the end of 1941 it was already apparent that the German nuclear weapon project would not make a decisive contribution to ending the German war effort in the near term, and control of the project was relinquished by the Heereswaffenamt (HWA, Army Ordnance Office) to the Reichsforschungsrat (RFR, Reich Research Council) in July 1942.

Telemark? Within 6 months the Germans had rebuilt the plant and it was destroyed by US bombers. It didn't make much difference anyway as the Germans were o where close to making an A bomb.

Science, Sense & Nonsense

By Dr. Joe Schwarcz

I'm not anti British. If you want to discuss war you have to have some idea of the costs. British 120 billion, Soviet Union 192 billion, the USA 341 billion. That should put things into perspective.

[thailiketoo]

To poo-poo the idea of the US and the allies having territorial aims after the war is just daft.

Everything they did was to establish themselves as the dominant poet in this region. US has seldom indulged in direct invasion outside its own borders, but this doesn't make it any less imperialistic or colonial than other powers past and present.

I would agree with that. The US wanted into the trade that was restricted to the British Empire,

hence the Bretton Woods system and before that the Atlatic Charter. The chief features of the Bretton Woods system were an obligation for each country to adopt a monetary policy that maintained the exchange rate by tying its currency to the U.S. dollar and the ability of the IMF to bridge temporary imbalances of payments.

US wanted military power - supremacy - in the region........they funded Japan's recovery and Thailand's and anyone - regardless of their ethics - so long as they weren't communist.

a lot of what the US did in S.E. Asia was out of pure paranoia about communism, most of it totally unfounded. They meddled in all sorts of governments just to keep someone "on their side" in power. A lot of the instability in the region is down to US meddling.

The Marshall Plan (officially the European Recovery Program, ERP) was the American initiative to aid Europe, in which the United States gave $17 billion (approximately $160 billion in 2014 dollars) in economic support to help rebuild European economies after the end of World War II in order to prevent the spread of Soviet Communism. The plan was in operation for four years beginning in April 1948. The goals of the United States were to rebuild war-devastated regions, remove trade barriers, modernize industry, and make Europe prosperous again.T he phrase "equivalent of the Marshall Plan" is often used to describe a proposed large-scale rescue program.

America offered $US 3.75bn (US$57 billion in 2014) and Canada contributed another US$1.19 bn (US$16 billion in 2014), both at the rate of 2% annual interest.^[8] With the interest instead of paying the original loan amount the United Kingdom ended up paying a total of $7.5bn (£3.8bn) to the US and US$2 bn (£1bn) to Canada.

Additionally, Britain's lend-lease balance was written off for $650 million (US$8,515 million in 2014).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-American_loan

[simple1]

Below is an article that summarises UK WW1 & 11 war debts. BTW note that in 1950, as reported elsewhere, UK national debt stood at twice (200 per cent) the gross domestic product (GDP) of the UK as one of the outcomes of WW11.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4757181.stm

In 1941/1942 it was acknowledged by the US that UK scientific knowledge for war related technology was generally two years in advance of the US. At that time the scientific knowledge transfer from the UK to the US was provided at no charge, without pre-conditions, to encourage closer relations with the US. However, Roosevelt excluded the UK from any advances made in the development of nuclear weapons technology for a number of years; also endeavoured to deny the UK access to technology gains for the development of a UK nuclear energy industry.

The history of scientific knowledge transfer and co-operation with the UK, or rather the resistance by the US during WW11, is covered extensively in ‘Churchill’s Bomb’ by Graham Farmelo. As a side note Churchill was an enthusiastic supporter of biological weapons and at one time proposed attacking Germany with anthrax bombs, but was not supported by the military establishment

Edited August 22, 2014 by simple1

[thailiketoo]

Below is an article that summarises UK WW1 & 11 war debts. BTW note that in 1950, as reported elsewhere, UK national debt stood at twice (200 per cent) the gross domestic product (GDP) of the UK as one of the outcomes of WW11.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4757181.stm

In 1941/1942 it was acknowledged by the US that UK scientific knowledge for war related technology was generally two years in advance of the US. At that time the scientific knowledge transfer from the UK to the US was provided at no charge, without pre-conditions, to encourage closer relations with the US. However, Roosevelt excluded the UK from any advances made in the development of nuclear weapons technology for a number of years; also endeavoured to deny the UK access to technology gains for the development of a UK nuclear energy industry.

The history of scientific knowledge transfer and co-operation with the UK, or rather the resistance by the US during WW11, is covered extensively in ‘Churchill’s Bomb’ by Graham Farmelo. As a side note Churchill was an enthusiastic supporter of biological weapons and at one time proposed attacking Germany with anthrax bombs, but was not supported by the military establishment

Your link has nothing to do with what you wrote,

You wrote, "In 1941/1942 it was acknowledged by the US that UK scientific knowledge for war related technology was generally two years in advance of the US. At that time the scientific knowledge transfer from the UK to the US was provided at no charge, without pre-conditions, to encourage closer relations with the US. However, Roosevelt excluded the UK from any advances made in the development of nuclear weapons technology for a number of years; also endeavoured to deny the UK access to technology gains for the development of a UK nuclear energy industry."

Where did that come from? Sounds like something one would hear in a London Pub as opposed to a scholastic source.

Since the 1958 US-UK Mutual Defence Agreement, the United States and the United Kingdom have cooperated extensively on nuclear security matters.

The UK has not run a programme to develop an independent delivery system since the cancellation of the Blue Streak missile in 1960. Instead it has purchased US delivery systems for UK use, fitting them with warheads designed and manufactured by the UK's Atomic Weapons Establishment and its predecessor.

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

Edited August 22, 2014 by thailiketoo

[norfolkc]

This country has a very checkered history during WW11 and a lot of information on this will never be released also the most north that the Japs landed was Sengora now known as Songkhla this town was a hot bed of Jap spys before and leading up to the war there is a museum on Ko Yor island that has alot of infomation about the area during this time

[simple1]

Below is an article that summarises UK WW1 & 11 war debts. BTW note that in 1950, as reported elsewhere, UK national debt stood at twice (200 per cent) the gross domestic product (GDP) of the UK as one of the outcomes of WW11.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4757181.stm

In 1941/1942 it was acknowledged by the US that UK scientific knowledge for war related technology was generally two years in advance of the US. At that time the scientific knowledge transfer from the UK to the US was provided at no charge, without pre-conditions, to encourage closer relations with the US. However, Roosevelt excluded the UK from any advances made in the development of nuclear weapons technology for a number of years; also endeavoured to deny the UK access to technology gains for the development of a UK nuclear energy industry.

The history of scientific knowledge transfer and co-operation with the UK, or rather the resistance by the US during WW11, is covered extensively in ‘Churchill’s Bomb’ by Graham Farmelo. As a side note Churchill was an enthusiastic supporter of biological weapons and at one time proposed attacking Germany with anthrax bombs, but was not supported by the military establishment

Your link has nothing to do with what you wrote,

You wrote, "In 1941/1942 it was acknowledged by the US that UK scientific knowledge for war related technology was generally two years in advance of the US. At that time the scientific knowledge transfer from the UK to the US was provided at no charge, without pre-conditions, to encourage closer relations with the US. However, Roosevelt excluded the UK from any advances made in the development of nuclear weapons technology for a number of years; also endeavoured to deny the UK access to technology gains for the development of a UK nuclear energy industry."

Where did that come from? Sounds like something one would hear in a London Pub as opposed to a scholastic source.

Since the 1958 US-UK Mutual Defence Agreement, the United States and the United Kingdom have cooperated extensively on nuclear security matters.

The UK has not run a programme to develop an independent delivery system since the cancellation of the Blue Streak missile in 1960. Instead it has purchased US delivery systems for UK use, fitting them with warheads designed and manufactured by the UK's Atomic Weapons Establishment and its predecessor.

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

Just because you're not aware of some aspects of UK/US relations does not make it a pub conversation.

I was referring to the period during WW11, not after. The info is from 'Churchill's Bomb' (if you're that interested, read it) that includes references to documented correspondence. It is touched upon in the link below, but does not specfically reference timeline advantages. I know it has been mentioned elsewhere, I'm sure you can use your Google skills to locate. Also look up Tube Alloys, UK code name for nuclear weapons research in WW11 as well as the Quebec Agreement that addressed US reluctance to share scientific research.

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

Edited August 22, 2014 by simple1

[loppylugs1]

Gordon Bennett.

Must go lay some flowers on uncles grave in Burma soon,leave it any longer may well be joining him 6 foot under

Died fighting the Japs

[wilcopops]

To poo-poo the idea of the US and the allies having territorial aims after the war is just daft.

Everything they did was to establish themselves as the dominant poet in this region. US has seldom indulged in direct invasion outside its own borders, but this doesn't make it any less imperialistic or colonial than other powers past and present.

I would agree with that. The US wanted into the trade that was restricted to the British Empire,

hence the Bretton Woods system and before that the Atlatic Charter. The chief features of the Bretton Woods system were an obligation for each country to adopt a monetary policy that maintained the exchange rate by tying its currency to the U.S. dollar and the ability of the IMF to bridge temporary imbalances of payments.

US wanted military power - supremacy - in the region........they funded Japan's recovery and Thailand's and anyone - regardless of their ethics - so long as they weren't communist.

a lot of what the US did in S.E. Asia was out of pure paranoia about communism, most of it totally unfounded. They meddled in all sorts of governments just to keep someone "on their side" in power. A lot of the instability in the region is down to US meddling.

The Marshall Plan (officially the European Recovery Program, ERP) was the American initiative to aid Europe, in which the United States gave $17 billion (approximately $160 billion in 2014 dollars) in economic support to help rebuild European economies after the end of World War II in order to prevent the spread of Soviet Communism. The plan was in operation for four years beginning in April 1948. The goals of the United States were to rebuild war-devastated regions, remove trade barriers, modernize industry, and make Europe prosperous again.T he phrase "equivalent of the Marshall Plan" is often used to describe a proposed large-scale rescue program.

America offered $US 3.75bn (US$57 billion in 2014) and Canada contributed another US$1.19 bn (US$16 billion in 2014), both at the rate of 2% annual interest.^[8] With the interest instead of paying the original loan amount the United Kingdom ended up paying a total of $7.5bn (£3.8bn) to the US and US$2 bn (£1bn) to Canada.

Additionally, Britain's lend-lease balance was written off for $650 million (US$8,515 million in 2014).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-American_loan

....your point being?

[thailiketoo]

Below is an article that summarises UK WW1 & 11 war debts. BTW note that in 1950, as reported elsewhere, UK national debt stood at twice (200 per cent) the gross domestic product (GDP) of the UK as one of the outcomes of WW11.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4757181.stm

In 1941/1942 it was acknowledged by the US that UK scientific knowledge for war related technology was generally two years in advance of the US. At that time the scientific knowledge transfer from the UK to the US was provided at no charge, without pre-conditions, to encourage closer relations with the US. However, Roosevelt excluded the UK from any advances made in the development of nuclear weapons technology for a number of years; also endeavoured to deny the UK access to technology gains for the development of a UK nuclear energy industry.

The history of scientific knowledge transfer and co-operation with the UK, or rather the resistance by the US during WW11, is covered extensively in ‘Churchill’s Bomb’ by Graham Farmelo. As a side note Churchill was an enthusiastic supporter of biological weapons and at one time proposed attacking Germany with anthrax bombs, but was not supported by the military establishment

Your link has nothing to do with what you wrote,

You wrote, "In 1941/1942 it was acknowledged by the US that UK scientific knowledge for war related technology was generally two years in advance of the US. At that time the scientific knowledge transfer from the UK to the US was provided at no charge, without pre-conditions, to encourage closer relations with the US. However, Roosevelt excluded the UK from any advances made in the development of nuclear weapons technology for a number of years; also endeavoured to deny the UK access to technology gains for the development of a UK nuclear energy industry."

Where did that come from? Sounds like something one would hear in a London Pub as opposed to a scholastic source.

Since the 1958 US-UK Mutual Defence Agreement, the United States and the United Kingdom have cooperated extensively on nuclear security matters.

The UK has not run a programme to develop an independent delivery system since the cancellation of the Blue Streak missile in 1960. Instead it has purchased US delivery systems for UK use, fitting them with warheads designed and manufactured by the UK's Atomic Weapons Establishment and its predecessor.

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

Just because you're not aware of some aspects of UK/US relations does not make it a pub conversation.

I was referring to the period during WW11, not after. The info is from 'Churchill's Bomb' (if you're that interested, read it) that includes references to documented correspondence. It is touched upon in the link below, but does not specfically reference timeline advantages. I know it has been mentioned elsewhere, I'm sure you can use your Google skills to locate. Also look up Tube Alloys, UK code name for nuclear weapons research in WW11 as well as the Quebec Agreement that addressed US reluctance to share scientific research.

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

From your book, Churchill's Bomb. "simultaneously inviting the Soviet Foreign Minister Molotov to a summit meeting and authorising the production of the British H-Bomb, both without Cabinet approval.

Churchill's ambivalent attitude to weapons of mass destruction sheds an ironic light on recent events. Despite his musings during the 1930s on the need for international control of the putative atomic bomb, in 1943 he brushed aside the anxieties of scientists such as the father-figure of nuclear research, Niels Bohr, claiming that it was just a bigger bomb and "made no difference to the principles of war".

He was also prepared to use anthrax against the Germans and was only prevented by supply problems. Of this he wrote, "it is absurd to consider morality". Noting that the bombing of civilian cities was once thought inadvisable and now "everybody does it", he went on, "It is simply a question of fashion changing".

No wonder Roosevelt didn't give him much information.

From what I had posted it should be easy to discern that I think that the USA and UK were at war after the first enemy, Germany was dispatched. The USA was responsible for 55% of production in the West at the end of the WWII and wanted access to the British Empire to sell goods and services. The UK did not want to give it. So they had another Battle. The Battle of Bretton Woods and the US won.

Trade in the 1930s became largely restricted to currency blocs (groups of nations that use an equivalent currency, such as the "Sterling Area" of the British Empire). These blocs retarded the international flow of capital and foreign investment opportunities. First the Atlantic Charter and then Bretton Woods changed the dominance of the Pound and the US Dollar became the world's reserve currency.

http://www.marketskeptics.com/2008/12/how-dollar-became-worlds-reserve.html

Simply the Brits wanted an empire to mine raw materials and sell them back to the colonies as finished products. In other words money not enslavement was the goal of empire. The USA wanted the same thing but didn't need colonies for raw materials because it had them already they just wanted access to world markets.

The Battle of Bretton Woods:

John Maynard Keynes, Harry Dexter White, and the Making of a New World Order

Winner of the 2013 Spear's Book Award in Financial History

Co-Winner of the 2014 Bronze Medal in Economics, Axiom Business Book Awards

One of The Motley Fool’s (John Reeves) 10 Great Books on American Economic History

One of Financial Times (FT.com) Best History Books of 2013

One of Bloomberg News’ Top Business Books of 2013

One of Kirkus Reviews’ Best Nonfiction Books of the Year for 2013 in Business and Economics

One of Bloomberg/Businessweek Best Books of 2013, as selected individually by Fredrik Erixon, Scott Minerd, Olli Rehn and Alan Greenspan

Featured in The Sunday Times 2013 Holiday Roundup

Shortlisted for the 2013 800-CEO-READ Business Book Awards in Finance & Economics

Shortlisted for the 2014 Lionel Gelber Prize, Lionel Gelber Foundation

Shortlisted for the 2014 Arthur Ross Book Award, Council on Foreign Relations

[thailiketoo]

The Marshall Plan (officially the European Recovery Program, ERP) was the American initiative to aid Europe, in which the United States gave $17 billion (approximately $160 billion in 2014 dollars) in economic support to help rebuild European economies after the end of World War II in order to prevent the spread of Soviet Communism. The plan was in operation for four years beginning in April 1948. The goals of the United States were to rebuild war-devastated regions, remove trade barriers, modernize industry, and make Europe prosperous again.T he phrase "equivalent of the Marshall Plan" is often used to describe a proposed large-scale rescue program.

America offered $US 3.75bn (US$57 billion in 2014) and Canada contributed another US$1.19 bn (US$16 billion in 2014), both at the rate of 2% annual interest.^[8] With the interest instead of paying the original loan amount the United Kingdom ended up paying a total of $7.5bn (£3.8bn) to the US and US$2 bn (£1bn) to Canada.

Additionally, Britain's lend-lease balance was written off for $650 million (US$8,515 million in 2014).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-American_loan

....your point being?

The US rehabilitated the UK and Europe and Asia after WWII with the inflows of cash and loans. They did this to establish markets for their goods.

The post above explains the battle of Bretton Woods after WWII. John Maynard Keynes was a heavyweight and the leading economist of the time so the UK didn't go into the battle poorly represented although they did lose.

[wilcopops]

The Marshall Plan (officially the European Recovery Program, ERP) was the American initiative to aid Europe, in which the United States gave $17 billion (approximately $160 billion in 2014 dollars) in economic support to help rebuild European economies after the end of World War II in order to prevent the spread of Soviet Communism. The plan was in operation for four years beginning in April 1948. The goals of the United States were to rebuild war-devastated regions, remove trade barriers, modernize industry, and make Europe prosperous again.T he phrase "equivalent of the Marshall Plan" is often used to describe a proposed large-scale rescue program.

America offered $US 3.75bn (US$57 billion in 2014) and Canada contributed another US$1.19 bn (US$16 billion in 2014), both at the rate of 2% annual interest.^[8] With the interest instead of paying the original loan amount the United Kingdom ended up paying a total of $7.5bn (£3.8bn) to the US and US$2 bn (£1bn) to Canada.

Additionally, Britain's lend-lease balance was written off for $650 million (US$8,515 million in 2014).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-American_loan

....your point being?

The US rehabilitated the UK and Europe and Asia after WWII with the inflows of cash and loans. They did this to establish markets for their goods.

The post above explains the battle of Bretton Woods after WWII. John Maynard Keynes was a heavyweight and the leading economist of the time so the UK didn't go into the battle poorly represented although they did lose.

We are talking about Thailand in WW2 - UK was already in debt to the US from financial aid during the war. It certainly wasn't just "markets" that US was after, it was political and military power.

[thailiketoo]

The Marshall Plan (officially the European Recovery Program, ERP) was the American initiative to aid Europe, in which the United States gave $17 billion (approximately $160 billion in 2014 dollars) in economic support to help rebuild European economies after the end of World War II in order to prevent the spread of Soviet Communism. The plan was in operation for four years beginning in April 1948. The goals of the United States were to rebuild war-devastated regions, remove trade barriers, modernize industry, and make Europe prosperous again.T he phrase "equivalent of the Marshall Plan" is often used to describe a proposed large-scale rescue program.

America offered $US 3.75bn (US$57 billion in 2014) and Canada contributed another US$1.19 bn (US$16 billion in 2014), both at the rate of 2% annual interest.^[8] With the interest instead of paying the original loan amount the United Kingdom ended up paying a total of $7.5bn (£3.8bn) to the US and US$2 bn (£1bn) to Canada.

Additionally, Britain's lend-lease balance was written off for $650 million (US$8,515 million in 2014).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-American_loan

....your point being?

The US rehabilitated the UK and Europe and Asia after WWII with the inflows of cash and loans. They did this to establish markets for their goods.

The post above explains the battle of Bretton Woods after WWII. John Maynard Keynes was a heavyweight and the leading economist of the time so the UK didn't go into the battle poorly represented although they did lose.

We are talking about Thailand in WW2 - UK was already in debt to the US from financial aid during the war. It certainly wasn't just "markets" that US was after, it was political and military power.

The UK was in debt so the USA pumped billions into the UK economy (Anglo American Loan 1946).

As for military and political power SEA I'd refer you to the SEATO treaty 1954. SEATO was based in Thailand.

It is worth noting this is the time period when Mao took over China. Millions were dying and he was killing sparrows so bugs ate all the crops and created famine. It was a rough time in Asia.

The average Western 12 year old could tell you there would be famine if you killed all the sparrows but what was the West to do? Maybe resisting communism was a priority? Unless of course killing millions (people not sparrows) was OK?

Mao's Great Leap Forward 'killed 45 million in four years' Edited August 22, 2014 by thailiketoo

[submaniac]

I am reading 6 pages of posts here, and more understanding of the historical context needs to be discussed. A large part of Thailand’s “alliance” with Japan was the result of the military dictatorship of Plaek Phibunsongkhram who had seized control of Thailand both from the Thai populace and the Thai monarchy.

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

Thailand's position during the war is very similar to that of Italy or Vichy France. For Italy, it was not so much the Italian people’s idea to join Hitler as it was the idea of the dictator in control (Mussolini). During WWII, the French had organized a resistance to the German occupation For Thailand, the decision to ally with Japan was the decision of the dictator that had seized power by military coup.

Prior to 1932, Thailand was an absolute monarchy. In 1932, a military coup, of which Plaek Phibunsongkhram was a leader, seized control of Thai government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1932_Siamese_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat

Thus in 1932, Plaek Phibunsongkhram became commander of what was then known as the Royal Siamese Army, and became prime minister of Thailand.

In 1933, a rebellion (the “Boworadet Rebellion”, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boworadet_Rebellion) led by a Royal Thai Prince attempted to remove the government of Phibunsongkhram from power. After the rebellion had been crushed , the reigning Thai Monarch, King Prajadhipok (Rama VII) abdicated.

In 1935, Prince Ananda Mahidol (Rama VIII, older brother of HM King Bhumibol Adulyadej, Rama IX) became King. At the time of his ascension, Ananda Mahidol was 10 years old, and a student in Switzerland.

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

Plaek Phibunsongkhram himself was a facist, which explains Thailand's position in World War II. In 1939 Phibunsongkhram changed the name of the country from “Siam” to Thailand (So that’s how that happened, in case you’re wondering.) In 1941, Phibunsongkhram joined Thailand among the nations which supported the Axis .

On January 25, 1942, Phibunsongkhram gave the order declaring war on Britain and the United States. (However, the Thai ambassador to the United States refused to deliver the declaration of war to the United States, as a result the United States never declared war on Thailand.)

Despite the fact that Phibunsongkhram had allied with Japan, there was a resistance among the Thai people. The Seri Thai—the “Free Thai”--was an underground movement opposed to Phibunsongkhram and opposed to the Japanese.

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

One of the leaders of the Seri Thai was Pridi Banomyong.

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

Pridi Banomyong was codenamed “Ruth” by the allies, and assisted in providing intelligence to the Allies to fight the Japanese. It should be noted that Pridi Banomyong was the regent of King Ananda Mahidol, Rama VIII. So during World War II, it was the King’s own regent that was assisting the allies in defiance of the government of Phibunsongkhram.

It should also be noted that during World War II, the Seri Thai operated in parallel to the official Thai government and operated a network which forwarded intelligence to the Allies, as well as assisting the rescue and return of downed allied airmen.

See also: http://www.rideasia.net/motorcycle-forum/thailand-information/5665-seri-thai-free-thai-thailand-during-world-war-ii.html

As the tides of war were turning against Japan, in June 1944, the Seri Thai succeeded in ousting Phibunsongkhram from power.

After the war ended in 1945, HM Ananda Mahidol (Rama VIII) returned to Thailand. HM Ananda Mahidol was now becoming mature enough to govern and was very popular among the Thai people. On June 9, 1946—four days before he was scheduled to return to Switzerland to continue his studies for a doctor of laws--HM King Ananda Mahidol (Rama VIII) was found deceased in the Royal Palace with a gun shot wound.

The death of the King caused turmoil in the country. In November 1947, army officers under the control of Phibunsongkhram seized control of Thai government (again). Despite numerous coup d’etat attempts, Phibunsongkhram remained in power until 1957 when a coup led by Field Marshall Sarit Thanarat finally removed Phibunsongkhram.

Phibunsongkhram was forced into exile in Japan, where he died in 1963. During Phibunsongkhram’s time in power, he attempted to reduce the power and authority of the Thai monarchy.

It was Sarit Thanarat who made efforts to restore the authority of the Thai monarchy.

I quote from Wikipedia on Sarit Thanarat:

“Under Sarit, the public role of the Thai monarchy, which had been restricted by Phibun, was allowed to resume. Sarit arranged for King Bhumibol Adulyadej to attend public ceremonies, visit the provinces, patronise development projects and personally present diplomas to Thailand's government university graduates, helping to bring the monarchy closer to the people and raising the stature of the king to that of high reverence.”

“Sarit's relationship with King Bhumibol was evident when the King ordered 21 days of official mourning in the palace after his death, with Sarit's body lying in state under royal patronage for 100 days and their Majesties the King and Queen attending his cremation on March 17, 1964.”

Edited August 22, 2014 by submaniac