26

I read a Wikipedia article about military history of Thailand and it left me a taste of anti-Thai bias.

It is known that Thailand in 1940 (after the fall of Paris and establishment of Vichy government) assaulted nearby French colonial possessions in an attempt to restore own sovereignty.

This event described in Wikipedia as a "war of aggression". Yet it is difficult for me to see it as an aggression rather than an anti-colonial war, especially given that Thailand was returning the previously-lost territories. The assault on France is described as an attack on an Allied country, but it seems to me very much doubtful as Vichy France can be equally well considered a part of the Axis.

Furthermore, Wikipedia discribes the Thai government of Plaek Phibunsongkhram who was in office at the time as "fascist" which claim also looks quite doubtful (for example I never saw a definitely pro-Axis government of Japan being called "fascist"). The Thai government at the time kept good relations with the Great Britain and other allied powers.

Later, in 1941 Thailand was invaded by Japan in an attack, coordinated with the attack on Perl Harbor. Although the resistance of Thai army was minimal (even though there were some points of fierce fighting), this definitely puts Thailand in the set of countries attacked by the Axis.

After the invasion Thailand surrendered and joined the Axis as a puppet state (with Japanese occupation continuing).

Yet there was quite successful and numerous underground resistance movement. Wikipedia says that this resistance movement is the only reason for rehabilitation of Thailand. I am still curious why Thailand being a conquered country needs "rehabilitation" at all?

Rodrigo de Azevedo
  • 1
  • 1
  • 12
  • 25
Anixx
  • 32,728
  • 13
  • 90
  • 183
  • 9
    Raise issues in the wikipedia talk page if you still think there is a problem with the page (a taste of anti-Thai bias say) after this has been answered. – Nathan Jan 04 '13 at 18:26
  • 3
    Looks like you're right, the wiki paragraph there does sound rather biased. Note also this: "The war ended indecisively. Disputed territories in French Indochina ceded to Thailand.". Sounds to me more like the Thai won actually. – Felix Goldberg Jan 04 '13 at 21:10
  • @FelixGoldberg that's just standard French spin to prevent admitting defeat... again... – Ryathal Jan 04 '13 at 21:33
  • They needed "rehabilitation" to avoid heavy reparations and gain political concessions from the US. From the Japanese Occupation wiki page - "As a result of the contributions made to the Allied war efforts by the Free Thai Movement, the United States, which unlike the other Allies had never officially been at war with Thailand, refrained from dealing with Thailand as an enemy country in postwar peace negotiations." – RI Swamp Yankee Jan 10 '13 at 18:27
  • 2
    @RI Swamp Yankee the US never dealt with Thailand as an enemy country whether it is due to Free Thai or not. Three countries raised objections agains Thailand joining the UN after the war, for different reasons: France (who understandably demanded the return of the land), the USSR (who demanded abolishing the anti-Communist legislation, a reason not directly connected with WWII) and Great Britain which indeed considered that Thailand was at war with them. The position of Britain is the less understandable of them all. – Anixx Jan 10 '13 at 18:37
  • 1
    How do you mean? They declared war on Britain, and gave material and military aid to British enemies while seizing British property (sawmills, mostly). This is all covered, with references, in the wiki articles referenced. (Questions on the legitimacy of colonial empire aside.) – RI Swamp Yankee Jan 10 '13 at 18:46
  • @RI Swamp Yankee they were under occupation. Similarly France was occupation, but Britain did not demand war reparations from her. Also as I said, the British could easily consider the war declaration void because it was not signed by the regent as required. – Anixx Jan 10 '13 at 18:49
  • 3
    I thought thailand was never colonized? – user4951 Mar 31 '13 at 09:19
  • I have read the article and its correct in all aspects. –  Feb 13 '15 at 11:44
  • France's colonies during WWII, weren't subjugated by Vichy France. General De Gaule was quite famous for his fight in Africa, I'd really doubt Vichy would have any political power outside of its part of France. – LamaDelRay Dec 10 '18 at 09:06

2 Answers2

13

The Thais had a puppet government that followed the will of the Japanese (such as declaring war on the Allies). That made them nominally, at least, an Axis power. Also, Thailand allowed its territory to be used by the Japanese as a springboard for their invasions of Burma (Myanmar) and the East Indies (modern Indonesia).

Even so, Thailand contributed few troops or other supplies to Japan during World War II. Thus, their "participation" on the Axis side was treated (and viewed) as "symbolic." The role of "Free" (dissident) Thais in resisting the Japanese somewhat mitigated the stigma that was attached to the official Thai government for its actions during the war.

Tom Au
  • 104,554
  • 17
  • 253
  • 530
7

The fascist government of Thailand was pressured into declaring war on the Allies by the Japanese, who strong-armed their way into Thailand to build military bases and roads. The Thai government went along, hoping that this would appease the Japanese, who would leave after the war. (You'd think they would have heard of Manchuko or Korea...)

Here is the Wiki article on the Japanese Occupation of Thailand that explains it.

RI Swamp Yankee
  • 11,192
  • 47
  • 57
  • 3
    Was not Thailand already occupied by the Japanese at the time? That is the government was a puppet one (possibly like in Denmark, China etc). – Anixx Jan 04 '13 at 19:26
  • @Anixx I believe they had a (very little) bit more independence than the Vichy - control over their military and a free hand in domestic affairs, etc. At least, at first... – RI Swamp Yankee Jan 04 '13 at 20:21
  • but weren't they completely occupied unlike Vichy? – Anixx Jan 04 '13 at 20:24
  • By the way, it seems that the declarations of war were void because the king's regent Pridi Banomyong refused to sign them. The queen consort Rambai Barni lived in Britain and headed the resistance movement. – Anixx Jan 05 '13 at 00:59
  • @Anixx - They weren't completely occupied until much later in the war; the situation was similar to Bulgaria's entry to the Triparte Pact - reluctant allies at gunpoint. The Thai people were even pro-Japanese for a time, especially after their success against the European powers in the region; it wasn't until 1942 when the Japanese began to turn the screw with the formation of the Thailand Garrison Army. Also, as Thailand was a fascist military dictatorship at the time, what the royals and their regents did or did not sign off on was irrelevant. – RI Swamp Yankee Jan 07 '13 at 15:27
  • 6
    What are the grounds to call it "fascist"? – Anixx Jan 07 '13 at 18:05
  • @Anixx - A militarist, ultranationalist authoritarian dictatorship with ties to the business class that was contemporaneous with and allied to other Fascist governments - what else could you possibly call it? I don't mean Fascist as a pejorative, I mean it was a textbook example of the concept. The wiki article on Phibun should help clarify this, and also provides more background on Thailand's involvement with the Japanese and the Axis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plaek_Phibunsongkhram – RI Swamp Yankee Jan 07 '13 at 18:33
  • 3
    many countries were dictatorships at the time. For example, I never heard even of Finland being callar "fascist". Similarly, Japan and Kuomintang China. – Anixx Jan 07 '13 at 18:43
  • 5
    @ Anixx - Finland remained a democracy throughout the interwar and WWII period. That's probably why it wasn't called "Fascist." The KMT definitely was Fascist: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Shirts_Society – RI Swamp Yankee Jan 10 '13 at 18:35
  • 1
    Finland was a military dictatorship since 1939. – Anixx Jan 10 '13 at 18:40
  • "Despite the bitter civil war, and repeated threats from fascist movements, Finland became and remained a capitalist democracy under the rule of law. By contrast, nearby Estonia, in similar circumstances but without a civil war, started as a democracy and was turned into a dictatorship in 1934." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Finland – RI Swamp Yankee Jan 10 '13 at 18:53
  • 1
    my advice is not to believe Wikipedia everywhere. – Anixx Jan 10 '13 at 18:59
  • OK. Here's a book on 20th Century Dictatorship - http://books.google.com/books?id=KnvJO9yfvEAC&lpg=PA78&dq=finnish%20dictatorship%20during%20wwII&pg=PA293#v=onepage&q&f=false – RI Swamp Yankee Jan 10 '13 at 19:42
  • 1
    the book only reflects the pro-Finnish sympathies of the Western historiography. – Anixx Jan 10 '13 at 19:52
  • 3
    @Anixx Interesting that you think Finland became a military dictatorship the same year the USSR invaded. Reminds me of the Soviets naming the Berlin wall the Anti-Fascist Defence Rampart. Are you understanding the conflict and that era through Stalinist histiography? Because that's the only interpretation which fits your argument? "During Joseph Stalin's rule, Soviet propaganda painted Finland's leadership as a "vicious and reactionary Fascist clique"." –  Oct 04 '16 at 09:31
  • 1
    @inappropriateCode come on, get along with the facts. By any objective measure Finland was a dictatorship: the elections suspended, all power in the hands of self-proclaimed fieldmarshal (newly-introduced rank), who became Commander in Chief in 1939 and refused to resign from this position in violation of constitution after Winter War. He made the president a figurehead, like in Germany, Italy, Romania. In 1944 when the president resigned, Mannerheim became president unconstitutionally, with parliament act, bypassing even electoral college where he only got 146 of 300 votes. – Anixx Oct 04 '16 at 14:26
  • 1
    @Anixx What you say may be true, but without good citation it's not substantiated. –  Oct 04 '16 at 14:33
  • 1
    @inappropriateCode you need citation for the facts I mentioned or the opinion that he was a dictator? You hardly can find the later in English because English-language propaganda strives to portray it like democratic Finland was invaded by the dictatorial USSR when in fact it was not different from the most countries of the time: Hungary, Romania, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Germany, Greece, Austria, Estonia. – Anixx Oct 04 '16 at 14:39
  • 2
    @Anixx Which American propaganda bureau was responsible for enforcing all English Language sources to comply on rewriting Finish history? This is Soviet-era fantasy at best, wild-eyed conspiracy theory at worst. You're double-and-tripling down on bad history. – RI Swamp Yankee Oct 04 '16 at 15:54
  • 1
    @RI Swamp Yankee I do not know how American propaganda works (or do you claim there is non in America?) but if they claim Finland was not a dictatorship under Mannerheim, in contradiction with the mentioned facts (I am sure they even do not teach these facts in schools so to hide them from the public), it is obviously, propaganda. One can form own opinion based on the facts though. – Anixx Oct 04 '16 at 16:11
  • 1
    @Anixx A decent source or two to elaborate upon what you've said, any of that. English-language propaganda? Lol what. I mean, even if we just consider Northern Ireland, there's a host of opinion and propaganda on multiple sides of the same local conflict, and there's intense debate, for example, in the UK between the left and right wing, just as in the USA. And indeed between people discussing history in countries like India and South Africa with many fluent English speakers contributing to academia, journalism, with their own agendas and biases. –  Oct 04 '16 at 17:13
  • So... I don't see how a vast English-language conspiracy would be possible, because there's been LOTS of contrary publications to just the mainstream American opinion, never mind other sorts of divides and conflicts within the anglosphere at various levels. It's just impossible for there to be a unified front. Imagine if the IRA was singing the same tune as the British government? Never mind more exotic different groups like Indian nationalists or South African Boers. They just can't all share the same biases and values. –  Oct 04 '16 at 17:16
  • Look at examples, like debates in the USA between William Buckley and Noam Chomsky (a few of them on youtube). Completely different and very public disputes! –  Oct 04 '16 at 17:21
  • 1
    This debate about Finland in 1939 would be great in a separate question... – Evargalo Dec 19 '18 at 16:28