Thailand in WW2

[AYJAYDEE]

Thailand then, and I believe now, were " Fence Riders" switching sides at any point

that indicated their original favorites might lose.

why would thailand side with western countries?

[Norvid]

138 post is a lie. Polish underground, civil population, christian convents saved thousands of Jews playing with their own life (for that all family was shot by Germans) and some underground fighters like Home Army (AK) had small Jewish fighting force within their ranks. 138 post, if you want to publish something here make it according to historical facts and not insinuation, otherwise you are just anti-Polish spreading false information on the net. The smallest Jewish uprising (200 plus on 500 000 population) in Warsaw Ghetto was supplied by Home Army (AK) in all armaments and some fighters where from this group as well.

So stop spreading anti-Polonism nonsense you deviant "historian".

[poweratradio]

Smurskter wrote as the OP: Ok, so I know that officially Thailand was part of the Axis during WW2, but did they really have any involvement?...from what I know, it was simply a way to satisfy their Japanese occupiers and sort of a "we don't want any trouble, so we will be on your "side." I know Kanchaburi and Ao Manao had some historic significance but can any history buffs explain to me what sort of role Thailand had during the conflict??

First, the Japanese were not occupiers. They transited the country and were supplied here, as well as running their own prisoner camps, but did not occupy Thailand, which maintained its fully functional and independent government, military and police.

They did it all to simply satisfy the Japanese as they didn't want any trouble? Sure, just like the Belgians and Dutch and Luxemburgers (and others) did when the Germans came knocking? Sorry, we know we can't actually defeat you so we'll join you, participate in the fight against the Allies, declare war against them, and be your fully agreed and participating ally.

Thailand thought it had an opportunity to join the winners and gain from it. Turned out wasn't quite true. And Pridi managed to operate between both sides to come out ahead at the end. While a member of the elite and enjoying the Japanese presence, he also headed the Seri Thai, ostensibly a resistance force but actually his private army for use after the war ended. Happened so fast he wasn't able to manage that, and ended up being exiled from Thailand.

WOW! Is this sarcasm or are you thinking your stating fact here with >>>>> Sure, just like the Belgians and Dutch and Luxemburgers (and others) did when the Germans came knocking? Sorry, we know we can't actually defeat you so we'll join you, participate in the fight against the Allies, declare war against them, and be your fully agreed and participating ally.<<<<<<<<< I surely know many Dutch & Belgians & OTHERS who would take issue with this idiocy spewing.

War baby From dutch warbride

[JusMe]

WOW! Is this sarcasm or are you thinking your stating fact here with >>>>> Sure, just like the Belgians and Dutch and Luxemburgers (and others) did when the Germans came knocking? Sorry, we know we can't actually defeat you so we'll join you, participate in the fight against the Allies, declare war against them, and be your fully agreed and participating ally.<<<<<<<<< I surely know many Dutch & Belgians & OTHERS who would take issue with this idiocy spewing.

Well, despite your response, at least you did pick up on the obvious fact that I was being sarcastic in saying the Lowland countries "joined" the invading Nazis. Yeah - complete sarcasm, in order to point out the difference between those small countries which really had no power to stop the invasion of their countries, versus what Thailand did in actually joining the Axis forces.

[thailiketoo]

Thailand then, and I believe now, were " Fence Riders" switching sides at any point

that indicated their original favorites might lose.

They didn't like the French because France stole territory from them and they had a war with France in 1940. They didn't like the British because the Brits stole land from them. They didn't like Burma because of many older wars against Ayutthaya. The Americans froze their assets in the USA and stopped shipping them fighter planes. They asked the Allies for war supplies to fight the Japanese but were refused. They didn't like the Chinese who were on the Allied side. Probably the biggest reason was the anti Chinese sentiment then prevalent in Thailand.

There were the economic reasons as the Japanese were helping them with war supplies and getting back territory they considered Thai and of course the Opium crop which the Thais increased in the Shan states (Burma) from 8 to 36 tons (or close to that); Opium was legal then. 1940 and 41 were low points for the Allied powers as Britain had lost Prince of Wales and Repulse off Singapore and the Germans sunk the Hood.

What Thailand did in 1941 made sense but in 1943 it made sense to try and reverse the process. It should be remembered Burma lost 250,000 people during WW2 and Thailand lost 2000. To illustrate what resistance would have cost in terms of lives.

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

Thailand had a battle tested Army/air force/tanks/artillery of 56,000 that might have stopped or slowed down the Japanese invasion of Singapore but that is another story. Could Thailand and the British in Singapore have stopped the Japanese in their tracks in 1941? Interesting thought. Thailand had a larger army than the Japanese army that invaded Singapore. And the Thai army knew how to fight as they had just defeated the French on the ground with tanks, troops and so on. I think most historians agree that the French Navy was better but the Thai army was the better army (Franco Thai War).

Edited December 14, 2014 by thailiketoo

[kerrysum]

Guess it all depends on whom one talks to... And also what area of Thail;and, that one would refer to...... I have heard some different stories from old people in many northern parts of Thailand.

I called them the old tales, of the village.... But the Thais did suffer inmany ways during this time period, as they did during Viet Nam.... JUst my thoughts......

[Smurkster]

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

Guess it all depends on whom one talks to... And also what area of Thail;and, that one would refer to...... I have heard some different stories from old people in many northern parts of Thailand.

I called them the old tales, of the village.... But the Thais did suffer inmany ways during this time period, as they did during Viet Nam.... JUst my thoughts...... width=20 alt=wai.gif> width=20 alt=wai.gif>

they certainly didn't suffer in anywhere near the same extent of their Indochinese neighbors

[GuestHouse]

National Geographic and Getty Images have collections of photographs from Thailand during WWII, the publication of some of these in Thailand would very likely land the publisher in prison.

I'd suggest being very careful discussing the full extent of Thailand's part in that conflict.

[Jools]

Yep....a Thai taxi driver told me this. I wanted to go to the Indian temple. He called it "Wat Khek".

To support another OP - when I say prisoners of war I'm not being Eurocentric - most of them were not whites- the word farang means foreigner. Thousands of Indonesians where shipped here - the Dutch had a propensity to recruit Mollucans (an old colonial trick use one tribe or group of islanders to persecute the rest) - a large number of the troops captured in Singapore, Malaysia and Burma were Indian - also all their Non-Commissioned Officers were Punjabi (another colonial trick - getting another religion to manage simple Hindis who joined the British army to avoid the grinding poverty). By the way the Japanese also used the same technique some of the nastiest camp guards were Korean.

The word 'falang' means caucasian. It is a racial term.

Indonesians are not falang.

Indians are 'khek' not falang.

[thailiketoo]

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

Guess it all depends on whom one talks to... And also what area of Thail;and, that one would refer to...... I have heard some different stories from old people in many northern parts of Thailand.

I called them the old tales, of the village.... But the Thais did suffer inmany ways during this time period, as they did during Viet Nam.... JUst my thoughts...... width=20 alt=wai.gif> width=20 alt=wai.gif>

they certainly didn't suffer in anywhere near the same extent of their Indochinese neighbors

How did Thailand suffer during the Vietnam war? USA aid and infrastructure building during the Vietnam war brought Thailand out of third world status and made Thailand the " so called Tiger of Asia" at the time.

[Thongkorn]

Thailand then, and I believe now, were " Fence Riders" switching sides at any point

that indicated their original favorites might lose.

They didn't like the French because France stole territory from them and they had a war with France in 1940. They didn't like the British because the Brits stole land from them. They didn't like Burma because of many older wars against Ayutthaya. The Americans froze their assets in the USA and stopped shipping them fighter planes. They asked the Allies for war supplies to fight the Japanese but were refused. They didn't like the Chinese who were on the Allied side. Probably the biggest reason was the anti Chinese sentiment then prevalent in Thailand.

There were the economic reasons as the Japanese were helping them with war supplies and getting back territory they considered Thai and of course the Opium crop which the Thais increased in the Shan states (Burma) from 8 to 36 tons (or close to that); Opium was legal then. 1940 and 41 were low points for the Allied powers as Britain had lost Prince of Wales and Repulse off Singapore and the Germans sunk the Hood.

What Thailand did in 1941 made sense but in 1943 it made sense to try and reverse the process. It should be remembered Burma lost 250,000 people during WW2 and Thailand lost 2000. To illustrate what resistance would have cost in terms of lives.

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

Thailand had a battle tested Army/air force/tanks/artillery of 56,000 that might have stopped or slowed down the Japanese invasion of Singapore but that is another story. Could Thailand and the British in Singapore have stopped the Japanese in their tracks in 1941? Interesting thought. Thailand had a larger army than the Japanese army that invaded Singapore. And the Thai army knew how to fight as they had just defeated the French on the ground with tanks, troops and so on. I think most historians agree that the French Navy was better but the Thai army was the better army (Franco Thai War).

Don't know where you got your information on. About Thailand hating, Britain or Germany,

It was Britain and Germany

who stopped France from invading in the late 1800, the thai king came to London to ask for help from queen Victoria.

[thailiketoo]

Thailand then, and I believe now, were " Fence Riders" switching sides at any point

that indicated their original favorites might lose.

They didn't like the French because France stole territory from them and they had a war with France in 1940. They didn't like the British because the Brits stole land from them. They didn't like Burma because of many older wars against Ayutthaya. The Americans froze their assets in the USA and stopped shipping them fighter planes. They asked the Allies for war supplies to fight the Japanese but were refused. They didn't like the Chinese who were on the Allied side. Probably the biggest reason was the anti Chinese sentiment then prevalent in Thailand.

There were the economic reasons as the Japanese were helping them with war supplies and getting back territory they considered Thai and of course the Opium crop which the Thais increased in the Shan states (Burma) from 8 to 36 tons (or close to that); Opium was legal then. 1940 and 41 were low points for the Allied powers as Britain had lost Prince of Wales and Repulse off Singapore and the Germans sunk the Hood.

What Thailand did in 1941 made sense but in 1943 it made sense to try and reverse the process. It should be remembered Burma lost 250,000 people during WW2 and Thailand lost 2000. To illustrate what resistance would have cost in terms of lives.

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

Thailand had a battle tested Army/air force/tanks/artillery of 56,000 that might have stopped or slowed down the Japanese invasion of Singapore but that is another story. Could Thailand and the British in Singapore have stopped the Japanese in their tracks in 1941? Interesting thought. Thailand had a larger army than the Japanese army that invaded Singapore. And the Thai army knew how to fight as they had just defeated the French on the ground with tanks, troops and so on. I think most historians agree that the French Navy was better but the Thai army was the better army (Franco Thai War).

Don't know where you got your information on. About Thailand hating, Britain or Germany,

It was Britain and Germany

who stopped France from invading in the late 1800, the thai king came to London to ask for help from queen Victoria.

I didn't say anything about Thailand hating Germany although they did appropriate land from the Germans living in Thailand as a result of being at war with them in WWI. Perlis, Kedah, Kelantan and Terengganu were given to Thais in 1941 because of past territorial claims you can look it up. Thailand had to give them back after losing WW2. When Thailand went to war with France, Free France was an ally of the British.

Thais asked the British, Americans and Japanese for weapons for defense and Both the UK and USA refused. As a result of many things Siam did the Brits wanted to extract large war reparations from them.

[smotherb]

Although I realize this is far from an academic forum, I am still amazed at the numbers of people who seem to think wikipedia is reliable for important information-

Wikipedia Founder Discourages Academic Use of His Creation

Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia compiled by a distributed network of volunteers, has often come under attack by academics as being shoddy and full of inaccuracies. Even Wikipedias founder, Jimmy Wales, says he wants to get the message out to college students that they shouldnt use it for class projects or serious research.

Speaking at a conference at the University of Pennsylvania on Friday called The Hyperlinked Society, Mr. Wales said that he gets about 10 e-mail messages a week from students who complain that Wikipedia has gotten them into academic hot water. They say, Please help me. I got an F on my paper because I cited Wikipedia and the information turned out to be wrong, he says. But he said he has no sympathy for their plight, noting that he thinks to himself: For God sake, youre in college; dont cite the encyclopedia.

Mr. Wales said that leaders of Wikipedia have considered putting together a fact sheet that professors could give out to students explaining what Wikipedia is and that it is not always a definitive source. It is pretty good, but you have to be careful with it, he said. Its good enough knowledge, depending on what your purpose is.

In an interview, Mr. Wales said that Wikipedia is ideal for many uses. If you are reading a novel that mentions the Battle of the Bulge, for instance, you could use Wikipedia to get a quick basic overview of the historical event to understand the context. But students writing a paper about the battle should hit the history books.

Posted on Monday June 12, 2006 | Permalink |

[thailiketoo]

Although I realize this is far from an academic forum, I am still amazed at the numbers of people who seem to think wikipedia is reliable for important information-

Wikipedia Founder Discourages Academic Use of His Creation

Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia compiled by a distributed network of volunteers, has often come under attack by academics as being shoddy and full of inaccuracies. Even Wikipedias founder, Jimmy Wales, says he wants to get the message out to college students that they shouldnt use it for class projects or serious research.

Speaking at a conference at the University of Pennsylvania on Friday called The Hyperlinked Society, Mr. Wales said that he gets about 10 e-mail messages a week from students who complain that Wikipedia has gotten them into academic hot water. They say, Please help me. I got an F on my paper because I cited Wikipedia and the information turned out to be wrong, he says. But he said he has no sympathy for their plight, noting that he thinks to himself: For God sake, youre in college; dont cite the encyclopedia.

Mr. Wales said that leaders of Wikipedia have considered putting together a fact sheet that professors could give out to students explaining what Wikipedia is and that it is not always a definitive source. It is pretty good, but you have to be careful with it, he said. Its good enough knowledge, depending on what your purpose is.

In an interview, Mr. Wales said that Wikipedia is ideal for many uses. If you are reading a novel that mentions the Battle of the Bulge, for instance, you could use Wikipedia to get a quick basic overview of the historical event to understand the context. But students writing a paper about the battle should hit the history books.

Posted on Monday June 12, 2006 | Permalink |

So what is your problem? Seems if you found an inaccuracy in something posted you would mention it.

I think most of the Seri Thai stuff on Wiki is in error. Right they got a bunch of supplies but no one trusted their information or intent so they actually did almost nothing during the war. If I was some kind of authority I would question the sources.

[smotherb]

Although I realize this is far from an academic forum, I am still amazed at the numbers of people who seem to think wikipedia is reliable for important information-

Wikipedia Founder Discourages Academic Use of His Creation

Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia compiled by a distributed network of volunteers, has often come under attack by academics as being shoddy and full of inaccuracies. Even Wikipedias founder, Jimmy Wales, says he wants to get the message out to college students that they shouldnt use it for class projects or serious research.

Speaking at a conference at the University of Pennsylvania on Friday called The Hyperlinked Society, Mr. Wales said that he gets about 10 e-mail messages a week from students who complain that Wikipedia has gotten them into academic hot water. They say, Please help me. I got an F on my paper because I cited Wikipedia and the information turned out to be wrong, he says. But he said he has no sympathy for their plight, noting that he thinks to himself: For God sake, youre in college; dont cite the encyclopedia.

Mr. Wales said that leaders of Wikipedia have considered putting together a fact sheet that professors could give out to students explaining what Wikipedia is and that it is not always a definitive source. It is pretty good, but you have to be careful with it, he said. Its good enough knowledge, depending on what your purpose is.

In an interview, Mr. Wales said that Wikipedia is ideal for many uses. If you are reading a novel that mentions the Battle of the Bulge, for instance, you could use Wikipedia to get a quick basic overview of the historical event to understand the context. But students writing a paper about the battle should hit the history books.

Posted on Monday June 12, 2006 | Permalink |

So what is your problem? Seems if you found an inaccuracy in something posted you would mention it.

I think most of the Seri Thai stuff on Wiki is in error. Right they got a bunch of supplies but no one trusted their information or intent so they actually did almost nothing during the war. If I was some kind of authority I would question the sources.

The point is credibility.

[thailiketoo]

Although I realize this is far from an academic forum, I am still amazed at the numbers of people who seem to think wikipedia is reliable for important information-

Wikipedia Founder Discourages Academic Use of His Creation

Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia compiled by a distributed network of volunteers, has often come under attack by academics as being shoddy and full of inaccuracies. Even Wikipedias founder, Jimmy Wales, says he wants to get the message out to college students that they shouldnt use it for class projects or serious research.

Speaking at a conference at the University of Pennsylvania on Friday called The Hyperlinked Society, Mr. Wales said that he gets about 10 e-mail messages a week from students who complain that Wikipedia has gotten them into academic hot water. They say, Please help me. I got an F on my paper because I cited Wikipedia and the information turned out to be wrong, he says. But he said he has no sympathy for their plight, noting that he thinks to himself: For God sake, youre in college; dont cite the encyclopedia.

Mr. Wales said that leaders of Wikipedia have considered putting together a fact sheet that professors could give out to students explaining what Wikipedia is and that it is not always a definitive source. It is pretty good, but you have to be careful with it, he said. Its good enough knowledge, depending on what your purpose is.

In an interview, Mr. Wales said that Wikipedia is ideal for many uses. If you are reading a novel that mentions the Battle of the Bulge, for instance, you could use Wikipedia to get a quick basic overview of the historical event to understand the context. But students writing a paper about the battle should hit the history books.

Posted on Monday June 12, 2006 | Permalink |

So what is your problem? Seems if you found an inaccuracy in something posted you would mention it.

I think most of the Seri Thai stuff on Wiki is in error. Right they got a bunch of supplies but no one trusted their information or intent so they actually did almost nothing during the war. If I was some kind of authority I would question the sources.

The point is credibility.

So what is your problem? What do you think is not credible? A day is a unit of time. In common usage, it is an interval equal to 24 hours. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day Everything on wiki? Your post makes no sense unless you tell us what is not credible.

[Jackson86]

i love thailand but as far as WW2 is concerned, I dislike thailand for siding with Japan.

[AYJAYDEE]

i love thailand but as far as WW2 is concerned, I dislike thailand for siding with Japan.

why would they have sided with countries practising asian colonialism?

[thailiketoo]

i love thailand but as far as WW2 is concerned, I dislike thailand for siding with Japan.

why would they have sided with countries practising asian colonialism?

You mean like Japan?

Japanese colonialism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_colonialism

[smotherb]

Although I realize this is far from an academic forum, I am still amazed at the numbers of people who seem to think wikipedia is reliable for important information-

Wikipedia Founder Discourages Academic Use of His Creation

Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia compiled by a distributed network of volunteers, has often come under attack by academics as being shoddy and full of inaccuracies. Even Wikipedias founder, Jimmy Wales, says he wants to get the message out to college students that they shouldnt use it for class projects or serious research.

Speaking at a conference at the University of Pennsylvania on Friday called The Hyperlinked Society, Mr. Wales said that he gets about 10 e-mail messages a week from students who complain that Wikipedia has gotten them into academic hot water. They say, Please help me. I got an F on my paper because I cited Wikipedia and the information turned out to be wrong, he says. But he said he has no sympathy for their plight, noting that he thinks to himself: For God sake, youre in college; dont cite the encyclopedia.

Mr. Wales said that leaders of Wikipedia have considered putting together a fact sheet that professors could give out to students explaining what Wikipedia is and that it is not always a definitive source. It is pretty good, but you have to be careful with it, he said. Its good enough knowledge, depending on what your purpose is.

In an interview, Mr. Wales said that Wikipedia is ideal for many uses. If you are reading a novel that mentions the Battle of the Bulge, for instance, you could use Wikipedia to get a quick basic overview of the historical event to understand the context. But students writing a paper about the battle should hit the history books.

Posted on Monday June 12, 2006 | Permalink |

So what is your problem? Seems if you found an inaccuracy in something posted you would mention it.

I think most of the Seri Thai stuff on Wiki is in error. Right they got a bunch of supplies but no one trusted their information or intent so they actually did almost nothing during the war. If I was some kind of authority I would question the sources.

The point is credibility.

So what is your problem? What do you think is not credible? A day is a unit of time. In common usage, it is an interval equal to 24 hours. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day Everything on wiki? Your post makes no sense unless you tell us what is not credible.

Did you not read the cited post I made or the comments of Larry Wales, wikipedia's founder? Less than creditable contributors write articles for wikipedia; you too my friend could update a post therein. Consequently, you cannot rely on the information presented in wikipedia. You don't have to take my word for it. Contact any creditable university or maybe even a decent newspaper to see their view of wikipedia supported material.

[AYJAYDEE]

i love thailand but as far as WW2 is concerned, I dislike thailand for siding with Japan.

why would they have sided with countries practising asian colonialism?

You mean like Japan?

Japanese colonialism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_colonialism

so why would they side with the western colonialists over the japanese?

[thailiketoo]

i love thailand but as far as WW2 is concerned, I dislike thailand for siding with Japan.

why would they have sided with countries practising asian colonialism?

You mean like Japan?

Japanese colonialism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_colonialism

so why would they side with the western colonialists over the japanese?

They wouldn't but the reason was not colonialism as both the Allies and Axis were colonialists.

Edited December 15, 2014 by thailiketoo

[AYJAYDEE]

They wouldn't but the reason was not colonialism as both the Allies and Axis were colonialists.

lol! now our resident expert is channeling the thinking of the thai government in the 1940's!!

[smotherb]

i love thailand but as far as WW2 is concerned, I dislike thailand for siding with Japan.

why would they have sided with countries practising asian colonialism?

You mean like Japan?

Japanese colonialism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_colonialism

Not really, although Japan was colonizing, it was the power du jour in Asia during the '30's and '40's. Culturally, the British and the French were the 'farang' colonialsts and the Japanese were the Asian brothers. Additionally, the Thais were more pro Japan due greatly to the discontent from late 19th century dealings with the British--which cost Siam parts of Malaysia and Burma--and dealings with the French--which cost control of Laos and Cambodia. Japan offered a possibility of getting them back. However, as they did in WWI, Thailand switched to the winning side in the latter part of the war.

[thailiketoo]

Not really, although Japan was colonizing, it was the power du jour in Asia during the '30's and '40's. Culturally, the British and the French were the 'farang' colonialsts and the Japanese were the Asian brothers. Additionally, the Thais were more pro Japan due greatly to the discontent from late 19th century dealings with the British--which cost Siam parts of Malaysia and Burma--and dealings with the French--which cost control of Laos and Cambodia. Japan offered a possibility of getting them back. However, as they did in WWI, Thailand switched to the winning side in the latter part of the war.

No they didn't. Thailand was defeated and occupied by the British Army. I think it was the 7th Indian Infantry Division in Bangkok. Thailand was forced to give back the territory it stole during the war and pay war reparations. Not as much war reparations as the British initially asked for due to an intervention by the USA.

After Japan surrendered some Thai politicians claimed the declarations of war against the USA and UK were unconstitutional and the declaration of war was repealed. And if you believe that I got some property I want to sell you.

A good example of Wiki being wacky is the post war re write that enables an ambassador to countermand the instructions of a head of state and not declare war on another country. Little mention of why the war reparations asked for by the Brits and French were not granted and whom did Thailand surrender to after WW2. One day Thailand and the UK were at war and the next day the 7th Indian infantry invaded Thailand and the next thing Wiki reports is a cocktail party. Ya sure.

Edited December 15, 2014 by thailiketoo

[GR8fun in LOS]

Not really, although Japan was colonizing, it was the power du jour in Asia during the '30's and '40's. Culturally, the British and the French were the 'farang' colonialists and the Japanese were the Asian brothers. Additionally, the Thais were more pro Japan due greatly to the discontent from late 19th century dealings with the British--which cost Siam parts of Malaysia and Burma--and dealings with the French--which cost control of Laos and Cambodia. Japan offered a possibility of getting them back. However, as they did in WWI, Thailand switched to the winning side in the latter part of the war.

The Japanese appeared to be the strongest power in the Pacific in the early 1940's and the government led by General Phibun wished to return Siam to it's former borders before the European powers particularly France and Great Britain had nibbled away at the borders to prevent complete colonisation / takeover in the period around Rama V & Rama IV in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. The Thai Government not being renowned even now for their long term planning, picked the wrong horse for the Long Term.

THe Thai-Burma Railway or "Death Railway was to provide a method to transport troops and supplies, from Thailand to Burma, to avoid the sea routes around the coast. The British had considered this same option in the very early 20th century but decided not to proceed due to the vagaries of cost, climate, terrain and weather.

The Japanese completed the railway in about 15 months with the assistance of Prisoners of War and indentured Asian labour coming from areas including the now Indonesia, Malaya, Burma and surrounding areas but not Thai. Please see the 2 attachments to provide more accurate details about the route and the deaths. There were many more Asian deaths than POWs. This information was gathered at the "Hell Fire Pass Museum just out of Kanchanaburi; which I recommend anybody with an interest in Death Railway / Japanese treatment of POWs should visit.

I have been a number of times and it is a very moving experience particularly on ANZAC Day. One time I walked the path from the museum through the Konyu Cutting and further with a serving THai military officer, in his early 50s, both of us using the headphones provided in Thai and English. He told me he had no idea about what had happened there.

I hope the summary was not to long winded; but helps to explain what happened and how the Thai education system has managed to ignore what was an important time in recent history.

[thailiketoo]

Not really, although Japan was colonizing, it was the power du jour in Asia during the '30's and '40's. Culturally, the British and the French were the 'farang' colonialists and the Japanese were the Asian brothers. Additionally, the Thais were more pro Japan due greatly to the discontent from late 19th century dealings with the British--which cost Siam parts of Malaysia and Burma--and dealings with the French--which cost control of Laos and Cambodia. Japan offered a possibility of getting them back. However, as they did in WWI, Thailand switched to the winning side in the latter part of the war.

The Japanese appeared to be the strongest power in the Pacific in the early 1940's and the government led by General Phibun wished to return Siam to it's former borders before the European powers particularly France and Great Britain had nibbled away at the borders to prevent complete colonisation / takeover in the period around Rama V & Rama IV in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. The Thai Government not being renowned even now for their long term planning, picked the wrong horse for the Long Term.

THe Thai-Burma Railway or "Death Railway was to provide a method to transport troops and supplies, from Thailand to Burma, to avoid the sea routes around the coast. The British had considered this same option in the very early 20th century but decided not to proceed due to the vagaries of cost, climate, terrain and weather.

The Japanese completed the railway in about 15 months with the assistance of Prisoners of War and indentured Asian labour coming from areas including the now Indonesia, Malaya, Burma and surrounding areas but not Thai. Please see the 2 attachments to provide more accurate details about the route and the deaths. There were many more Asian deaths than POWs. This information was gathered at the "Hell Fire Pass Museum just out of Kanchanaburi; which I recommend anybody with an interest in Death Railway / Japanese treatment of POWs should visit.

I have been a number of times and it is a very moving experience particularly on ANZAC Day. One time I walked the path from the museum through the Konyu Cutting and further with a serving THai military officer, in his early 50s, both of us using the headphones provided in Thai and English. He told me he had no idea about what had happened there.

I hope the summary was not to long winded; but helps to explain what happened and how the Thai education system has managed to ignore what was an important time in recent history.

One thing you forgot was the Thais increased opium production in The Shan states during WW2 (Burma) that they conquered from 8 to 36 tons and that is the reason they did what they did in the first place. I know I'm cynical but one always gets the truth if one follows the money in this case the price of 36 tons of opium.

Edited December 15, 2014 by thailiketoo

[GR8fun in LOS]

Not really, although Japan was colonizing, it was the power du jour in Asia during the '30's and '40's. Culturally, the British and the French were the 'farang' colonialists and the Japanese were the Asian brothers. Additionally, the Thais were more pro Japan due greatly to the discontent from late 19th century dealings with the British--which cost Siam parts of Malaysia and Burma--and dealings with the French--which cost control of Laos and Cambodia. Japan offered a possibility of getting them back. However, as they did in WWI, Thailand switched to the winning side in the latter part of the war.

The Japanese appeared to be the strongest power in the Pacific in the early 1940's and the government led by General Phibun wished to return Siam to it's former borders before the European powers particularly France and Great Britain had nibbled away at the borders to prevent complete colonisation / takeover in the period around Rama V & Rama IV in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. The Thai Government not being renowned even now for their long term planning, picked the wrong horse for the Long Term.

THe Thai-Burma Railway or "Death Railway was to provide a method to transport troops and supplies, from Thailand to Burma, to avoid the sea routes around the coast. The British had considered this same option in the very early 20th century but decided not to proceed due to the vagaries of cost, climate, terrain and weather.

The Japanese completed the railway in about 15 months with the assistance of Prisoners of War and indentured Asian labour coming from areas including the now Indonesia, Malaya, Burma and surrounding areas but not Thai. Please see the 2 attachments to provide more accurate details about the route and the deaths. There were many more Asian deaths than POWs. This information was gathered at the "Hell Fire Pass Museum just out of Kanchanaburi; which I recommend anybody with an interest in Death Railway / Japanese treatment of POWs should visit.

I have been a number of times and it is a very moving experience particularly on ANZAC Day. One time I walked the path from the museum through the Konyu Cutting and further with a serving THai military officer, in his early 50s, both of us using the headphones provided in Thai and English. He told me he had no idea about what had happened there.

I hope the summary was not to long winded; but helps to explain what happened and how the Thai education system has managed to ignore what was an important time in recent history.

[thailiketoo]

Not really, although Japan was colonizing, it was the power du jour in Asia during the '30's and '40's. Culturally, the British and the French were the 'farang' colonialists and the Japanese were the Asian brothers. Additionally, the Thais were more pro Japan due greatly to the discontent from late 19th century dealings with the British--which cost Siam parts of Malaysia and Burma--and dealings with the French--which cost control of Laos and Cambodia. Japan offered a possibility of getting them back. However, as they did in WWI, Thailand switched to the winning side in the latter part of the war.

The Japanese appeared to be the strongest power in the Pacific in the early 1940's and the government led by General Phibun wished to return Siam to it's former borders before the European powers particularly France and Great Britain had nibbled away at the borders to prevent complete colonisation / takeover in the period around Rama V & Rama IV in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. The Thai Government not being renowned even now for their long term planning, picked the wrong horse for the Long Term.

THe Thai-Burma Railway or "Death Railway was to provide a method to transport troops and supplies, from Thailand to Burma, to avoid the sea routes around the coast. The British had considered this same option in the very early 20th century but decided not to proceed due to the vagaries of cost, climate, terrain and weather.

The Japanese completed the railway in about 15 months with the assistance of Prisoners of War and indentured Asian labour coming from areas including the now Indonesia, Malaya, Burma and surrounding areas but not Thai. Please see the 2 attachments to provide more accurate details about the route and the deaths. There were many more Asian deaths than POWs. This information was gathered at the "Hell Fire Pass Museum just out of Kanchanaburi; which I recommend anybody with an interest in Death Railway / Japanese treatment of POWs should visit.

I have been a number of times and it is a very moving experience particularly on ANZAC Day. One time I walked the path from the museum through the Konyu Cutting and further with a serving THai military officer, in his early 50s, both of us using the headphones provided in Thai and English. He told me he had no idea about what had happened there.

I hope the summary was not to long winded; but helps to explain what happened and how the Thai education system has managed to ignore what was an important time in recent history.

Why did you answer your own post and then post it twice? Did I miss something?

[GR8fun in LOS]

Sorry it was my 1st post and I <deleted> up so to speak I was trying to highlight the previous quote. Sorry guys

Edited December 18, 2014 by metisdead
Profanity