Learned some Thai History today - WW2

[Jip99]

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.

Thais are not afraid to fight.

They just seem to have the problem of joining the side of the losers!

I must have missed the Japs' victory celebrations !

[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

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

So you retract your pub talk accusation? BTW well done for reading all 457 pages of the book in a matter of hours.

It was Roosevelt who was constantly trying to go behind Churchill for direct negotiations with the Soviets. In 1943 they had yet to agree the implications and future policy impact on the use of nuclear weapons. However, Roosevelt and Churchill agreed they would jointly approve the use of nuclear weapons against an enemy.

It was Atlee, after WW11, who gave the go ahead to develop and build UK nuclear weapons. Churchill & after him, Atlee, were strictly against sharing any nuclear weapons info with the Soviets, it was a few of the idealistic scientists who wished to do so, this was officially banned.

Edited August 22, 2014 by simple1

[thailiketoo]

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.

Seri Thai underground did not get started until 1944. War ended in 1945.

It was June 1944 before any of [Lt. Col. Nicol] Smith’s agents managed to cross the Thai border. Two were killed by Thai policemen—who apparently were after their valuables—and six more were arrested and incarcerated in the jail of the Criminal Investigations Division (CID) in Bangkok.

OSS records make clear that the military intelligence gathered in Thailand had relatively little value to the United States.

http://khonkaen.ws/what-did-the-free-thai-movement-seri-thai-accomplish-during-world-war-ii

French Resistance casualties around 60,000.

Thai Resistance casualties I think 13, I could be wrong but it wasn't very many.

Edited August 22, 2014 by thailiketoo

[thailiketoo]

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

So you retract your pub talk accusation? BTW well done for reading all 457 pages of the book in a matter of hours.

It was Roosevelt who was constantly trying to go behind Churchill for direct negotiations with the Soviets. In 1943 they had yet to agree the implications and future policy impact on the use of nuclear weapons. However, Roosevelt and Churchill agreed they would jointly approve the use of nuclear weapons against an enemy.

It was Atlee, after WW11, who gave the go ahead to develop and build UK nuclear weapons. Churchill & after him, Atlee, were strictly against sharing any nuclear weapons info with the Soviets, it was a few of the idealistic scientists who wished to do so, this was officially banned.

Speaking of sharing nuclear weapons info with the Soviets in January 1950, Fuchs confessed that he was a spy. He was sentenced to fourteen years' imprisonment and stripped of his British citizenship. He was released in 1959, after serving nine years and emigrated to the German Democratic Republic (East Germany), where he was elected to the Academy of Sciences and the SED central committee. He was later appointed deputy director of the Institute for Nuclear Research in Rossendorf, where he served until he retired in 1979.

Sorry but I wouldn't have shared atomic information with anyone either. I think that was a sound military move.

The book about the bomb sounded to me like bar talk, sorry. I didn't know, "He (Churchill) was also prepared to use anthrax against the Germans and was only prevented by supply problems. I don't know if I believe it.

Edited August 22, 2014 by thailiketoo

[thailiketoo]

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.

Phibun was very popular. Before the Japan alliance in 1940 Thailand invaded French Indochina Franco/Thai war (Victory Monument). The French gave Thailand:

• 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.

At the end of WWII Phibunsongkhram was put on trial at Allied insistence on charges of having committed war crimes, mainly that of collaborating with the Axis powers. However, he was acquitted amidst intense public pressure. Public opinion was still favourable to Phibunsongkhram, as he was thought to have done his best to protect Thai interests. His alliance with Japan had Thailand take advantage from Japanese support the expansion of Thai territory in Malay and Burma.

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

Edited August 22, 2014 by thailiketoo

[simple1]

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

So you retract your pub talk accusation? BTW well done for reading all 457 pages of the book in a matter of hours.

It was Roosevelt who was constantly trying to go behind Churchill for direct negotiations with the Soviets. In 1943 they had yet to agree the implications and future policy impact on the use of nuclear weapons. However, Roosevelt and Churchill agreed they would jointly approve the use of nuclear weapons against an enemy.

It was Atlee, after WW11, who gave the go ahead to develop and build UK nuclear weapons. Churchill & after him, Atlee, were strictly against sharing any nuclear weapons info with the Soviets, it was a few of the idealistic scientists who wished to do so, this was officially banned.

Speaking of sharing nuclear weapons info with the Soviets in January 1950, Fuchs confessed that he was a spy. He was sentenced to fourteen years' imprisonment and stripped of his British citizenship. He was released in 1959, after serving nine years and emigrated to the German Democratic Republic (East Germany), where he was elected to the Academy of Sciences and the SED central committee. He was later appointed deputy director of the Institute for Nuclear Research in Rossendorf, where he served until he retired in 1979.

Sorry but I wouldn't have shared atomic information with anyone either. I think that was a sound military move.

The book about the bomb sounded to me like bar talk, sorry. I didn't know, "He (Churchill) was also prepared to use anthrax against the Germans and was only prevented by supply problems. I don't know if I believe it.

Totally off topic:

Churchill had a record of being a bastard, a well known bigot and racist. He approved the use of poison gas against the Iraqis when they rebelled against British rule. Also in the British intervention in the Rusian civil war and wanted to deploy in other places. As I said before was also pro biological weapons. Aside from the restriction on the availability of anthrax in WW11 there was a strong push back by his military advisors. More detail at:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/shortcuts/2013/sep/01/winston-churchill-shocking-use-chemical-weapons

[thailiketoo]

Totally off topic:

Churchill had a record of being a bastard, a well known bigot and racist. He approved the use of poison gas against the Iraqis when they rebelled against British rule. Also in the British intervention in the Rusian civil war and wanted to deploy in other places. As I said before was also pro biological weapons. Aside from the restriction on the availability of anthrax in WW11 there was a strong push back by his military advisors. More detail at:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/shortcuts/2013/sep/01/winston-churchill-shocking-use-chemical-weapons

I didn't know that.

[willyumiii]

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.

Thais are not afraid to fight.

They just seem to have the problem of joining the side of the losers!

I must have missed the Japs' victory celebrations !

Jip99 my friend....

I think you missed more than you realize.

The thread is about the fact that the Thais sided with the Japanese ( not Japs ) in WWII!

The Japanese lost, if you haven't heard yet.

Did you bother to read the OP's thread yet?

[prodriver]

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?

Rod Beattie is indeed Australian. He received the MBE at the tail end of last year from Prince Charles.

Incidentally, he also received a knighthood from the Dutch back in 2010 and the Order of Australia medal in 2012

[Jip99]

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.

Thais are not afraid to fight.

They just seem to have the problem of joining the side of the losers!

I must have missed the Japs' victory celebrations !

Jip99 my friend....

I think you missed more than you realize.

The thread is about the fact that the Thais sided with the Japanese ( not Japs ) in WWII!

The Japanese lost, if you haven't heard yet.

Did you bother to read the OP's thread yet?

So, to understand your post correctly........ the Thais were not allied with the Japs (who lost) because the Thais have a problem joining losers ??

[tifino]

a Thai married me

[Robby nz]

Just got back from Nam Tok Sam Lan National Park in Saraburi where there was quite a large Japanese base and observation post during the war.

Saw several Japanese pottery shards and other signs of occupation in a fairly remote part of the forest.

There are also 3 cemeteries with a fair number of Japanese graves and memorials, all pretty much unkept, as per these photos of one of the cemeteries :

Thought at the time that it was a tourist opportunity missed as it could be marketed as the Japanese version of the Kanchanaburi war cemetery.

[JusMe]

the most north that the Japs landed was Sengora now known as Songkhla

Samut Prakan - well north of Songkhla

[JusMe]

Rod Beattie is indeed Australian. He received the MBE at the tail end of last year from Prince Charles.

Incidentally, he also received a knighthood from the Dutch back in 2010 and the Order of Australia medal in 2012

Thanks for that. I hadn't been keeping up. Glad to hear that Rod is getting some well deserved honours.

[sustento]

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.

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.

The cavity magnetron taken to the USA by the Tizard mission:

"In fact, it was so important a development that the official historian of the Office of Scientific Research and Development, James Phinney Baxter III, wrote: "When the members of the Tizard Mission brought the cavity magnetron to America in 1940, they carried the most valuable cargo ever brought to our shores.""

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6331897.stm

[JusMe]

This is especially to those who seem to worship Wikipedia, some like submaniac:

Approach anything from Wiki with great skepticism, particularly anything about Thailand. It's got a consistent attitude that shows Thailand as both heroic and a victim, but nothing else.

For example, look at the language it uses - invasion and occupation of Thailand by the Japanese.

If you knock on my front door and I invite you in, provide dinner, show you the way to the back door, help you over the fence to attack my neighbour (even join you on some expeditions), can anyone really claim that you have invaded my home? Only if you're an apologist for Thailand 1941. And for those who suggest Thailand had no choice confronting overwhelming force - Belgium, Holland, Luxembourg, etc.

And look at the difference between alliance and occupation. Singapore was occupied; Burma was occupied; Malaya (consider especially the Chinese Malays) was occupied; Thailand was an ally of Japan. To understand the difference between alliance and occupation, look at Italy (particularly norther) between early 1943 and later in the year; or look at Hungary between early and late 1944. Both had been allies of Germany but became occupied, and conditions changed significantly. There was never any need for change in Thailand, as it was never occupied by Japan, but was an ally.

[AYJAYDEE]

This is especially to those who seem to worship Wikipedia, some like submaniac:

Approach anything from Wiki with great skepticism, particularly anything about Thailand. It's got a consistent attitude that shows Thailand as both heroic and a victim, but nothing else.

For example, look at the language it uses - invasion and occupation of Thailand by the Japanese.

If you knock on my front door and I invite you in, provide dinner, show you the way to the back door, help you over the fence to attack my neighbour (even join you on some expeditions), can anyone really claim that you have invaded my home? Only if you're an apologist for Thailand 1941. And for those who suggest Thailand had no choice confronting overwhelming force - Belgium, Holland, Luxembourg, etc.

And look at the difference between alliance and occupation. Singapore was occupied; Burma was occupied; Malaya (consider especially the Chinese Malays) was occupied; Thailand was an ally of Japan. To understand the difference between alliance and occupation, look at Italy (particularly norther) between early 1943 and later in the year; or look at Hungary between early and late 1944. Both had been allies of Germany but became occupied, and conditions changed significantly. There was never any need for change in Thailand, as it was never occupied by Japan, but was an ally.

Given the choice between occupation and becoming an ally, why wouldnt they choose ally?

[tahaan]

Just got back from Nam Tok Sam Lan National Park in Saraburi where there was quite a large Japanese base and observation post during the war.

Saw several Japanese pottery shards and other signs of occupation in a fairly remote part of the forest.

There are also 3 cemeteries with a fair number of Japanese graves and memorials, all pretty much unkept, as per these photos of one of the cemeteries :

jap graves.JPG jap shrine.JPG jap shrine 1.JPG

Thought at the time that it was a tourist opportunity missed as it could be marketed as the Japanese version of the Kanchanaburi war cemetery.

Those graves look Chinese. They do not look like the remaining Japanese memorials that I've seen in Hong Kong or Singapore.

[Thongkorn]

Churchill was a man among men, he saw the second world war coming long before many others. When Britain had cracked the enigma code. ( Not as the American film ), He new Coventry was goiung to be bombed but had to keep silent because the code breakers where giving information to allied Submarines , Planes and shipping so they could sink the German U boats. So all you see is not what you think. also he wanted to carry on and fight Russia, but the Yanks did not have the will to do so, So really Russia today is of Americas making.

[simple1]

Churchill was a man among men, he saw the second world war coming long before many others. When Britain had cracked the enigma code. ( Not as the American film ), He new Coventry was goiung to be bombed but had to keep silent because the code breakers where giving information to allied Submarines , Planes and shipping so they could sink the German U boats. So all you see is not what you think. also he wanted to carry on and fight Russia, but the Yanks did not have the will to do so, So really Russia today is of Americas making.

Mods: Thanks for permitting this dialogue.

Without doubt Churchill had many leadership qualities, but he also made many errors of judgement. e.g. he was against the invasion of Normandy as he was of the opinion it would be a disaster based upon his experience with Gallipoli. You may be interested to know he forecast the development of nuclear weapons (based upon science in the 1920s) well in advance of other politicians.

The truth regards the bombing of Coventry.

http://www.winstonchurchill.org/learn/myths/myths/1561-coventry-what-really-happened-

Edited August 22, 2014 by simple1

[AYJAYDEE]

Churchill was a man among men, he saw the second world war coming long before many others. When Britain had cracked the enigma code. ( Not as the American film ), He new Coventry was goiung to be bombed but had to keep silent because the code breakers where giving information to allied Submarines , Planes and shipping so they could sink the German U boats. So all you see is not what you think. also he wanted to carry on and fight Russia, but the Yanks did not have the will to do so, So really Russia today is of Americas making.

they wouldnt have beat russia unless they used the bomb

[simple1]

Churchill was a man among men, he saw the second world war coming long before many others. When Britain had cracked the enigma code. ( Not as the American film ), He new Coventry was goiung to be bombed but had to keep silent because the code breakers where giving information to allied Submarines , Planes and shipping so they could sink the German U boats. So all you see is not what you think. also he wanted to carry on and fight Russia, but the Yanks did not have the will to do so, So really Russia today is of Americas making.

they wouldnt have beat russia unless they used the bomb

Plus huge domestic political resistance to continue the war and attack an ally with God knows how many more casualties

[IMA_FARANG]

At the time the British forces in Malaya were the real Japanese target.

Thailand was just an unimportant sideshow, a stepping stone to the real prize of eliminating the British military power in South East Asia.

Then on to the spoils, Indonesia and the oil fields there.

And of course, Rubber from the Rubber trees of Malaya, and Singapore for it's port and shipping hub.

Within 24 hours of the start of the war the Japanese Air Force and the Japanese Navy eliminated the two most powerful British Naval ships in South East Asia, basically crippling the British forces outside of Malaya and Singapore.

Without those British Naval forces the Thais had no hope of any serious defense against the Japanese.

As a "sweetener" to cooperation with the Japanese, they offered to "allow" the Thai military to take territory in Laos they claimed from the French ..... France now being occupied by the Japanese ally of Nazi Germany.

The Thai PM was a military man, and he knew very well the Japanese would simply run over him if they had a need to.

With British military power in Southeast Asia the Thai prime minister bowed to the inevitable, and tried to get the best deal he could in a losing situation for Thailand.

By the way, as a technical point, the Thai ambassador to the U.K. followed his instructions from Thailand and passed on the declaration of war against the U.K. The U.K. then followed suit, and decaled a state of war with Thailand.

However, the Thai ambassador to the U.S. resigned hid post on being told to declare war against the U.S.

Therefore the U.S. never actually declared a state of war against Thailand existed.

So, technically, the U.S. was never at war with Thailand.

Another small point, but one of great pride to my Thai girlfriends family.

Her father during WWII was a member of the Seri Thai group in Thailand that opposed the Japanese occupation.

The family had a certificate of commendation that he and his group aided the escape of allied pilots that went down on missions against the Japanese over Thailand during WWII.

The provided intelligence to the Allied forces in Burma on Japanese locations and activities in Thailand during that war.

[IMA_FARANG]

Churchill was a man among men, he saw the second world war coming long before many others. When Britain had cracked the enigma code. ( Not as the American film ), He new Coventry was goiung to be bombed but had to keep silent because the code breakers where giving information to allied Submarines , Planes and shipping so they could sink the German U boats. So all you see is not what you think. also he wanted to carry on and fight Russia, but the Yanks did not have the will to do so, So really Russia today is of Americas making.

they wouldnt have beat russia unless they used the bomb

Plus huge domestic political resistance to continue the war and attack an ally with God knows how many more casualties

------------------------

Although it wasn't known in 1945 and not declassified for almost 30 years later, the U.S, did not actually have another Atomic Bomb to use then.

The Manhattan Project that developed the A Bomb only built three working bombs and one non-working prototype for research purposes.

One working bomb was used at the test explosion.

The two working bombs left were used in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan.

At the end of the war the U.S. had no working bombs left to use.

[simple1]

Churchill was a man among men, he saw the second world war coming long before many others. When Britain had cracked the enigma code. ( Not as the American film ), He new Coventry was goiung to be bombed but had to keep silent because the code breakers where giving information to allied Submarines , Planes and shipping so they could sink the German U boats. So all you see is not what you think. also he wanted to carry on and fight Russia, but the Yanks did not have the will to do so, So really Russia today is of Americas making.

they wouldnt have beat russia unless they used the bomb

Plus huge domestic political resistance to continue the war and attack an ally with God knows how many more casualties

------------------------

Although it wasn't known in 1945 and not declassified for almost 30 years later, the U.S, did not actually have another Atomic Bomb to use then.

The Manhattan Project that developed the A Bomb only built three working bombs and one non-working prototype for research purposes.

One working bomb was used at the test explosion.

The two working bombs left were used in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan.

At the end of the war the U.S. had no working bombs left to use.

Interesting. Wiki states there was an additional unused bomb available - no matter. Lucky for the US and allied forces they won the game of bluff!

[harrry]

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

So you retract your pub talk accusation? BTW well done for reading all 457 pages of the book in a matter of hours.

It was Roosevelt who was constantly trying to go behind Churchill for direct negotiations with the Soviets. In 1943 they had yet to agree the implications and future policy impact on the use of nuclear weapons. However, Roosevelt and Churchill agreed they would jointly approve the use of nuclear weapons against an enemy.

It was Atlee, after WW11, who gave the go ahead to develop and build UK nuclear weapons. Churchill & after him, Atlee, were strictly against sharing any nuclear weapons info with the Soviets, it was a few of the idealistic scientists who wished to do so, this was officially banned.

Speaking of sharing nuclear weapons info with the Soviets in January 1950, Fuchs confessed that he was a spy. He was sentenced to fourteen years' imprisonment and stripped of his British citizenship. He was released in 1959, after serving nine years and emigrated to the German Democratic Republic (East Germany), where he was elected to the Academy of Sciences and the SED central committee. He was later appointed deputy director of the Institute for Nuclear Research in Rossendorf, where he served until he retired in 1979.

Sorry but I wouldn't have shared atomic information with anyone either. I think that was a sound military move.

The book about the bomb sounded to me like bar talk, sorry. I didn't know, "He (Churchill) was also prepared to use anthrax against the Germans and was only prevented by supply problems. I don't know if I believe it.

Do you believe this then?

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

or this?

http://www.julianlewis.net/essays-and-topics/3805:the-plan-that-never-was-churchill-the-anthrax-bomb-1982-02-01

Edited August 23, 2014 by harrry

[thailiketoo]

Churchill was a man among men, he saw the second world war coming long before many others. When Britain had cracked the enigma code. ( Not as the American film ), He new Coventry was goiung to be bombed but had to keep silent because the code breakers where giving information to allied Submarines , Planes and shipping so they could sink the German U boats. So all you see is not what you think. also he wanted to carry on and fight Russia, but the Yanks did not have the will to do so, So really Russia today is of Americas making.

German military texts enciphered on the Enigma machine were first broken by the Polish Cipher Bureau, beginning in December 1932. This success was a result of efforts by three Polish cryptologists, Marian Rejewski, Jerzy Różycki and Henryk Zygalski, working for Polish military intelligence. Rejewski "reverse-engineered" the device, using theoretical mathematics and material supplied by French military intelligence.

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

You wrote, "So all you see is not what you think. also he wanted to carry on and fight Russia, but the Yanks did not have the will to do so, So really Russia today is of Americas making." Absolute 100% BS.

Who knows I and every other historian may be wrong. Stalin is pretty much given credit for the Russia we see today.

Edited August 23, 2014 by thailiketoo

[thailiketoo]

This is especially to those who seem to worship Wikipedia, some like submaniac:

Approach anything from Wiki with great skepticism, particularly anything about Thailand. It's got a consistent attitude that shows Thailand as both heroic and a victim, but nothing else.

For example, look at the language it uses - invasion and occupation of Thailand by the Japanese.

If you knock on my front door and I invite you in, provide dinner, show you the way to the back door, help you over the fence to attack my neighbour (even join you on some expeditions), can anyone really claim that you have invaded my home? Only if you're an apologist for Thailand 1941. And for those who suggest Thailand had no choice confronting overwhelming force - Belgium, Holland, Luxembourg, etc.

And look at the difference between alliance and occupation. Singapore was occupied; Burma was occupied; Malaya (consider especially the Chinese Malays) was occupied; Thailand was an ally of Japan. To understand the difference between alliance and occupation, look at Italy (particularly norther) between early 1943 and later in the year; or look at Hungary between early and late 1944. Both had been allies of Germany but became occupied, and conditions changed significantly. There was never any need for change in Thailand, as it was never occupied by Japan, but was an ally.

Given the choice between occupation and becoming an ally, why wouldnt they choose ally?

They were a defacto ally before occupation was an issue. Franco/Thai war 1940. Japanese fought on the Thai side during the war.

Edited August 23, 2014 by thailiketoo

[AYJAYDEE]

This is especially to those who seem to worship Wikipedia, some like submaniac:

Approach anything from Wiki with great skepticism, particularly anything about Thailand. It's got a consistent attitude that shows Thailand as both heroic and a victim, but nothing else.

For example, look at the language it uses - invasion and occupation of Thailand by the Japanese.

If you knock on my front door and I invite you in, provide dinner, show you the way to the back door, help you over the fence to attack my neighbour (even join you on some expeditions), can anyone really claim that you have invaded my home? Only if you're an apologist for Thailand 1941. And for those who suggest Thailand had no choice confronting overwhelming force - Belgium, Holland, Luxembourg, etc.

And look at the difference between alliance and occupation. Singapore was occupied; Burma was occupied; Malaya (consider especially the Chinese Malays) was occupied; Thailand was an ally of Japan. To understand the difference between alliance and occupation, look at Italy (particularly norther) between early 1943 and later in the year; or look at Hungary between early and late 1944. Both had been allies of Germany but became occupied, and conditions changed significantly. There was never any need for change in Thailand, as it was never occupied by Japan, but was an ally.

Given the choice between occupation and becoming an ally, why wouldnt they choose ally?

They were a defacto ally before occupation was an issue. Franco/Thai war 1940. Japanese fought on the Thai side during the war.

all the more reason to ally to japan.

[thailiketoo]

At the time the British forces in Malaya were the real Japanese target.

Thailand was just an unimportant sideshow, a stepping stone to the real prize of eliminating the British military power in South East Asia.

Then on to the spoils, Indonesia and the oil fields there.

And of course, Rubber from the Rubber trees of Malaya, and Singapore for it's port and shipping hub.

Within 24 hours of the start of the war the Japanese Air Force and the Japanese Navy eliminated the two most powerful British Naval ships in South East Asia, basically crippling the British forces outside of Malaya and Singapore.

Without those British Naval forces the Thais had no hope of any serious defense against the Japanese.

As a "sweetener" to cooperation with the Japanese, they offered to "allow" the Thai military to take territory in Laos they claimed from the French ..... France now being occupied by the Japanese ally of Nazi Germany.

The Thai PM was a military man, and he knew very well the Japanese would simply run over him if they had a need to.

With British military power in Southeast Asia the Thai prime minister bowed to the inevitable, and tried to get the best deal he could in a losing situation for Thailand.

By the way, as a technical point, the Thai ambassador to the U.K. followed his instructions from Thailand and passed on the declaration of war against the U.K. The U.K. then followed suit, and decaled a state of war with Thailand.

However, the Thai ambassador to the U.S. resigned hid post on being told to declare war against the U.S.

Therefore the U.S. never actually declared a state of war against Thailand existed.

So, technically, the U.S. was never at war with Thailand.

Another small point, but one of great pride to my Thai girlfriends family.

Her father during WWII was a member of the Seri Thai group in Thailand that opposed the Japanese occupation.

The family had a certificate of commendation that he and his group aided the escape of allied pilots that went down on missions against the Japanese over Thailand during WWII.

The provided intelligence to the Allied forces in Burma on Japanese locations and activities in Thailand during that war.

1. You wrote, "As a "sweetener" to cooperation with the Japanese, they offered to "allow" the Thai military to take territory in Laos they claimed from the French." Not so.

Before the Japan alliance and the start of WWII in the Pacific, in 1940 Thailand invaded French Indochina Franco/Thai war (Victory Monument). The French gave Thailand:

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.

2. You wrote, "The provided intelligence to the Allied forces in Burma on Japanese locations and activities in Thailand during that war." Not so. Seri Thai were not operational till 1944. OSS records make clear that the military intelligence gathered in Thailand had relatively little value to the United States.

http://khonkaen.ws/w...ng-world-war-ii

3. You wrote, " However, the Thai ambassador to the U.S. resigned his post on being told to declare war against the U.S. Therefore the U.S. never actually declared a state of war against Thailand existed. Not so. Ambassadors don't get to change the course of world wars. The US dropped thousands of pounds of bombs on Thailand during the war. You don't continually bomb a country for 3 years unless you are at war.

The USA froze the assets of Thailand in US banks. If you want to know what really happened pursue the course of that frozen money. Follow the money always tells the truth. All Thai diplomats were arrested and interned and shipped back to Thailand on a boat in exchange for American diplomats in Thailand.

When the final history of the Seri Thai gets written it will probably reflect it was a PR organization started by people who realized Thailand was on the wrong side of the war and needed a way out before war reparations were demanded causing chaos and starvation, not to mention the loss of the Jade Buddha that France wanted at the end of the war.

Edited August 23, 2014 by thailiketoo