|
|
Post by justiniano on Sept 7, 2024 16:26:11 GMT
What institutional drift would Thailand go through, while being occupied for as long as Japan was, by the US following ww2 due to being a a full blown Axis power, rather than just an ally?
Given the U.S. influence on Japan's postwar reconstruction, I think Thailand would adopt a similar shift toward democracy, a market-based economy, and Western-style governance structures, with the king being deposed. Possibly ending up with something like Italy's political institutions.
|
|
corjomc
Petty Officer 2nd Class
Posts: 30
Likes: 6
|
Post by corjomc on Sept 24, 2024 11:23:30 GMT
May not the presence of a US military being right next door effect the war in Indochina?
Could a border incident lead to earlier American involvement in that conflict?
Does the large American presence being so nearby make the North Vietnamese hesitant in their early actions and goals?
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832 
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Sept 25, 2024 15:57:03 GMT
I think it would need fairly big changes, both in Thailand and also in the US. You would probably need something like a fascist movement that gains control in Thailand and follows policies that copy those of Japan and the European fascists. This would prompt an interest in an occupation to impose reforms that the winners weren't convinced the Thais would carry out themselves.
It would also need some reason for the US to view Thailand as important for its political/security interests. For one thing it was very much a backwater OTL to all the primary allied powers so when pro-western elements overthrew the pro-fascists ones the allies couldn't see any reason to occupy it. I can't really see from its geographical location the US being likely to have fought there, let alone be interested in occupying it for any period of time. Unless possibly you have an earlier start to the cold war along with the communists winning in China being perceived as a threat to US interests so they want a friendly Thailand and also need to defend it and have a desire to reform it politically.
Its possible that some other great power could have the role of occupying and de-fascifying Thailand but I can only really see two options here, Britain or a KMT China. However Britain is an exhausted power that is withdrawing from its main colonies in the region. Possibly if things go considerably better for Britain with no fall of Malaya and Burma and Thailand later occupied/liberated by the UK? However even then I don't think there would be the interest in taking responsibly for reforming Thailand given everything else Britain had on its plate by the end of the war. Also I think a KMT China is unlikely to have the power to be willing to intervene and such an intervention, given historical tensions between the two would likely prompt bitter Thai resistance. Plus I think you specifically want the US to do the occupying and political reform.
Anyway initial thoughts on an interesting question.
|
|
|
|
Post by Max Sinister on Sept 25, 2024 16:52:45 GMT
They did force e.g. the Chinese minority to adopt Thai names, in 1938. Which are really derived from Sanskrit. But that's not all-out fascist. They'd have to do worse. And even then they could claim that they had been under Japanese pressure.
|
|
gillan1220
Fleet admiral
I've been depressed recently. Slow replies coming in the next few days.
Posts: 12,609
Likes: 11,326
|
Post by gillan1220 on Nov 9, 2024 16:35:42 GMT
I don't think the U.S. had more resources to put Thailand under their occupation. Japan and southern Korea was the focus. The U.S. also had millions of troops in the Philippines since most of these would not return home until 1946. The Philippines was also going to be independent in a year's time so the U.S. focused on that.
|
|
