Talk:Thailand in World War II

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Military history (Rated Start-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Thailand (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Thailand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Thailand-related articles on Wikipedia. The WikiProject is also a part of the Counteracting systematic bias group aiming to provide a wider and more detailed coverage on countries and areas of the encyclopedia which are notably less developed than the rest. If you would like to help improve this and other Thailand-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Thailand during World War II[edit]

Why is this article being redirected to Thailand during World War II without any discussion? What's going on? -- Y not? 15:44, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Thailand was not occupied[edit]

Hey I don't think we can say thailand was occupied by japan. Thailand ceased fire during the fight and let the japanese troop pass. Thailand had its own government throu out WW2. There was only invasion, but no territory was occupied!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:38, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

The result of the Invasion of Thailand was cease fire. And how the heck did Japan occupy Thailand?? Though Japan had a lot political influence on Thailand but Thailand did not fall within the meaning of "occupied territory" at that time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:52, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Biased in Contents without the evidence[edit]

This content "In fact, Japanese troops garrisoning throughout the country viewed Thailand as a "colony" rather than an "ally."[5][6]" couldn't be found in the given references. Also, it appears in Spanish page which posted exactly in same English. Please check the references carefully, in fact, " Ultimately, the primary aim was to ensure the resolution of Thailand's sovereignty and establish an independent nation that would be regarded as an equal by the Allies."

As I responded on my talk page, although the lack of a definitive reference for the existing content is somewhat troubling, the substitution of a phrase detailing the aims of the anti-Japanese underground as if they were the aims of the Japanese occupation itself is a greater problem. Fat&Happy (talk) 05:26, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Commanders of Japanese Forces in Thailand[edit]

—[World Statesmen — Thailand] —Pawyilee (talk) 07:11, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Suggest renaming[edit]

I suggest that this article be renamed Thailand in World War II in order to better reflect its scope. Though Thailand was practically occupied by Japan, it retained its government and wasn't wholly passive during the entire affair. --Paul_012 (talk) 17:10, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Although I note you have already changed the title, I think the renaming is appropriate. Japan did not occupy Thailand in the manner of, say, Malaya or Singapore. Thailand was closer to an ally with an agreement between both Japan and Thailand, as well as Thailand forces participating in action with the Japanese in northern Burma. NealeFamily (talk) 09:05, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Japanese occupation of Thailand or not?[edit]

The following exchange is copied from WT:WikiProject Thailand#Japanese occupation of Thailand or not? --Paul_012 (talk) 12:24, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

A debate has arisen about the naming of the page about Thailand during World War 2. There are apparently two views, one which I tend to subscribe to is that the Japanese did not occupy Thailand, and the other that they did. This has led to the question about the articles name.

My reasoning is that, from historic sources, the Thai government of the time initially informally agreed to the Japanese armies transiting through Thailand for their invasions of both Burma and Malaya. When the Japanese requested (to all intents and purposes in the form of an ultimatum) consent the government delayed responding and the Japanese entered Thailand anyway. By midday of that same day the Thai government consented to the Japanese passage and allied themselves with the Japanese.

From my reading it appears that the Thai government was left to govern the country and rewarded (if that is an appropriate term) for their co-operation with the northern Malay states and some Burmese territory. I am interested to know what project members think, whether this is a controversial matter, and what title is appropriate for the article. NealeFamily (talk) 22:49, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Can't comment on the rest, but so far as I know Britain had already surrendered control of the northern Malay states long before WWII.....remember reading about that, I th ink during some readings on Mongkut here in Wikipedia.....and why any land deal the Japanese made would have been honoured by the Allies after the war I just can't see. Britain and Thailand had already come to terms about that, as I recall in relation to a territory swap elsewhere; I'll see if I can find that again.....and yeah no doubt this is a touchy issue overall. Ally or occupied or "?" what exactly....language is political, and so are titles.....Skookum1 (talk) 04:22, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Skookum1 - the more I have read the more I felt that there could be differing views. Hopefully contributors can cite reliable sources to support the for and against. The article may need to reflect both versions. NealeFamily (talk) 04:53, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
I understand that may be keen to revert the move, since indef-blocked user Pelaisse was previously engaged in POV-pushing on the topic. However, my reasoning (as given on the article talk page) still stands. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:55, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
PS Filing a formal RM on the talk page would probably be the best venue for such discussion. Can't say I'm interested in participating though. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:58, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 18:04, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Japanese occupation of ThailandThailand in World War II – Per the above two sections. See also ༆'s comments on NealeFamily's talk page. May I also note that while yes, Pelaisse's edits were biased and POV-pushing, they should be irrelevant to this discussion. Thailand technically retained its independence during the war, and this fact was highly relevant to national politics and international diplomacy towards the end of the war (including Britain's demands for reparations, etc). I don't have direct access to Reynolds's book, which is the most-cited in the article, but its description reads:

This fascinating study... examines the circumstances and strategies that led Thailand into a wartime alliance with Japan, Tokyo`s efforts to integrate Thailand into the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere, and Thai maneuvers to resist Japan`s embrace. Finally, it explains how, during the latter stages of the war, the Thai were able to maintain relations with the Japanese while surreptitiously establishing links with the Allies.

Evidently, occupation is at the very least a large oversimplification. Paul_012 (talk) 12:24, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. "Occupation" is not the most accurate or the most common descriptive of the period, even in countries hostile to Japan and Thailand at that time. —  AjaxSmack  14:23, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There WERE Japanese troops stationing throughout Thailand since the start of the war until 1945. And Japan viewed Thailand as a colony rather than an ally [1]. But yet japan didn't interfere in Thailand's internal affairs. [2] [3] - Check out the edit history of this page. It was first expanded by IP 207. Comparing the original contents created by IP 207 and what they are now, the whole thing has been changed around 90%. At first, the contents of IP 207 only discusses the Japanese occupation. Then after that, certain some people showed up and edits almost the entire article. They replaced words with different tones that make people consider the article discuss other aspects of the period. They faded the details about the military occupation. - Furthermore, from the edit history, the new users just recently edited the article; I suspect User:Pelaisse has came back. In this case, we might have to split the article. If we have "Thailand during World War II", it will discuss every aspects including the political history and military campaigns. But there will be an article that only discuss the Japanese occupying forces in the country and that is this article for. ༆ (talk) 06:54, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
    I'm not sure it's necessary to limit the contents of the article to its original scope. Why not expand its scope to include the other aspects as well? It can always be split when it gets too long. --Paul_012 (talk) 07:20, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. The Japanese had been advised by the Thai Prime Minister that they could pass through the country. When they sought to do so the Prime Minister had become unavailable and so the Japanese forced there way through. The Thai government then granted its consent with the return of the Prime Minister. So technically the Japanese invaded, but occupation? I don't think the word covers the situation as, apart from Japanese troops being stationed there, they did not rule the country in the same way as say Malaya or the Phillipines. Thailand was allowed to maintain its government and armed forces, and occupy parts of Malaya and ambodia (although it could be said they merely got back territory the British and French had taken from them earlier). Never the less that was done with Japanese sanction. I don't see enough to make occupation the right description of relationship. NealeFamily (talk) 05:50, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Did 1945 uprising happen?[edit]

The artice states "By the beginning of 1945, preparations were actively being pursued for a rising against the Japanese occupiers." and goes on to give details of those preparations, but it does not say if the uprising happened. We are next told of a new government. Could someone clarify this and provide details of what did happen?--agr (talk) 10:44, 9 September 2013 (UTC)