Editorial/Opinion I - Japan and Thailand during World War II

Looking back from today, Japan's relationship with Thailand was a very lucrative, secretive, and hypocritical one. In 1941, Thailand had emerged from a revolution ending centuries of absolute monarchy in the country. The king, His Majesty Ananda Mahidol, a minor, was a studying in Switzerland, and his regent was a communist, M.R.W Pridi Phanomyong. The country was led by Phibun Luangsongkhram, another Hitler, Mussolini, or Tojo.

Siam's uneasy alliance with Japan during World War II has been overlooked by both Japanese and Siamese historians. Siam was under Japanese occupation from 1940 and 1945, but its government was allowed to control the military and the people between those years. Siam conquered areas of French Indochina (western Laos and western Cambodia) as well as parts of extreme northeastern Burma (the Shan states).

In 1945, the Thai turned against the Japanese. The Free Thai movement heralded by the royal Chakri dynasty, and funded by Americans, British, French, and also Thai leftists, supported by the then ruling social-liberal Democrat Party and also Pridi's social-democrats (who were tired of the right-wing movement of the ruling People's Party) supplied the Allies with intelligence reports.

Do you think if Japan had actually conquered and taken control in Thailand (like it did to French Indochina [Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia] in March 1945) would the war have ended faster? What is your opinion?

Good info first off. second, I don't think it would of mattered. nothing would of ended the war sooner than what happened.

Thanks. =)

I know quite a lot about Thai and Japanese relations throughout history. Okay, so for the scores.

1 - it wouldn't make a difference
0 - it would

Thank you very much Hiroshi66 for this very insightful thread.

I was never aware that Thailand were among the tainted imperialist countries that exerted expansionist power in 20th century Asia. Now I am a better man with one less piece of ignorance to overcome, this is great!

Now to your question. In view of my limited knowledge of Thai-Japansese history, I wonder if my opinion counts at all. But simple logic wants to tell me that if Siam was capable of military aggression in Indochina, then a hostile Saimo-Japanese relationship would naturally have left its mark on the evolution of WWII.

(Am I making any sense? I'm being waaaay too simplistic. Actual history used to be reality back then. Reality can never be so simple. Hey, I'm using simple logic again! Help! :sorry: )

So if you ask me, I would vote for 0: it would have made a significant difference in that Japanese would have had to divide its military, administrative, and financial resources between Siam and Burma, instead of fighting one war on a single Burmese front.

Even if (after?) Siam is overtaken, the swamps, the jungles, the meek and friendly Siamese (my prejudice from the friendly skies, or was it Singaapore Airlines?) would have been no good to Japan in a time of war. So staying out of Siam worked to Japan's best interests by all means.

(Another hasty generalization. I'm glad I didn't go into histoical studies. I'm just too simple. And I never would have made it as a historian. Ah, lack of intelligence!!) This is the best I can do given my lack of information!

Live long and Prosper! A friendly message from you alien comrade, Lexico.

Why aren't people responding to this interesting thread? I'm surprised, really!
Maybe you can rephrase post #3 and turn it into a poll!
Or you could use a catchy title like "War Imminent! Thailand Invades Vietnam!"

Actually, no one's replied to my Most Ambitious Thread yet, so you're not doing that bad here!!

^^

Thanks for the kind words, lexico. I appreciate it that you liked my editorial. I kind of side with you - it would have made a difference. We'll discuss it more. Thanks!