Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T14:05:29.042Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Thai-Japanese Relations at the Start of the Pacific War: New Insight into a Controversial Period

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 April 2011

William L. Swan
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Thailand's relations with Japan during the months surrounding the outbreak of the war in the Pacific are a topic of controversy in Thai historiography; and despite a growing number of studies which have endeavoured to explain, or at least shed light on, the rapid shift in Thai policy from neutrality on 8 December 1941 to an alliance and then declaration of war on the side of Japan by 25 January 1942, little progress or development in the debate has taken place over the decades since the war. This unsatisfactory situation has been largely due to the very limited knowledge available about the diplomatic activities that took place between Thailand and Japan during the period in question. The bulk of our information to date has come from records and recollections of Thais and Europeans involved in the events, and this has concentrated almost entirely on the activities and interplay of Thais and Europeans. The result has been to relegate Japan's presence in events of the period to some dimly perceived undertakings conducted by sinister characters who were nothing more than Thailand's enemies bent on absorbing that country into Japan's new East Asian order. The following article is an effort to redress this imbalance somewhat by directing attention toward Thai-Japanese relations. I have relied greatly on a number of dispatches that passed between Bangkok and Tokyo during the autumn of 1941. Some of the most important of these are available only from “Magic”, the files of intercepted and deciphered Japanese diplomatic messages accumulated by the United States government. The Japanese Foreign Ministry archive files on diplomatic correspondence with Thailand are extremely incomplete, and none of the messages I used from “Magic” are contained in the Japanese files.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Southeast Asian Studies , Volume 18 , Issue 2 , September 1987 , pp. 270 - 293
Copyright
Copyright © The National University of Singapore 1987

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 I have to thank Dr. Ben Batson of the National University of Singapore for having brought this valuable but obscure document to my attention.

2 Flood, E. Thadeus, “Japan's Relations with Thailand: 1928–1941” (Ph.D. diss., University of Washington, 1967), esp. pp. 323–26, 568–70, 586–89.Google Scholar

3 Asada Shunsuke, “Wanitto no higeki” [“The Tragedy of Wanit”], Minnami, no. 2 (Showa 29, Jan. 1954), pp. 5–6.

4 Ibid., pp. 12–13.

5 Chayanam, Direk, Thai kap songkhram lok khrang thi song [Thailand and the Second World War], v. 1 (Bangkok: Phrae Phithaya, 2510 [1967]), pp. 166–87.Google Scholar

6 Santaputra, Charivat, Thai Foreign Policy 1932–1946 (Bangkok: Thammasat University, 1985), p. 254.Google Scholar

7 Woodward, Llewellyn, British Foreign Policy in the Second World War, v. 2 (London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1971), p. 172.Google Scholar

8 Crosby, Josiah, Siam: The Crossroads (London: Hollis & Carter, 1945), pp. 102–103.Google Scholar

9 Bangkok Chronicle, 22 Aug. 1941, p. 1; Wichit's address is quoted in full.

10 Edict in Phibunsongkhram, Anan, Chomphon P. Phibunsongkhram [Field Marshal P. Phibunsongkhram], v. 2 (Bangkok: Montri Press, 2518 [1975]), p. 91.Google Scholar

11 Thailand and Japan had raised their legations to the status of embassies in August 1941. Tsubogami arrived in Bangkok on 3 September.

12 See for example dispatches from Asada and Tsubogami (4 Sept., 22 Oct. 1941) in The “Magic” Background of Pearl Harbor (Washington, D.C.: Department of Defense, 1977), v. 2 Appendix, p. A–639, and v. 4 Appendix, p. A-508Google Scholar; also dispatches from Tamura (18 and 25 Oct. 1941) in Bōeichō Senshishitsu [Self-Defence Agency, War History Room], Senshi Sōsho — Marei Shinkō Sakusen [War History Series — The Malay Invasion] (Tokyo: Asakumo Shimbunsha, Showa 41 [1966]), pp. 148–49, and in “Magic”, v. 4 Appendix, p. A-504.

13 Message on 4 Sept. from Asada in “Magic”, v. 2 Appendix, p. A-639.

14 Tamura Hiroshi, “Taikoku kankei Tamura bukan memo sono 2” [”Tamura memorandum no. 2 on Thailand”], unpaged, prepared for Prince Mikasa, 17 April 1942.

15 Dispatches from Tamura, see fn 12 above.

16 This information was alluded to in a footnote appended to a “Magic” deciphered dispatch in “Magic”, v. 4 Appendix, p. A-525.

17 Message in Bōeichō, Marei Shinkō, pp. 148–49, also in “Magic”, v. 4 Appendix, pp. A-504-A-505.

18 “Magic”, v. 4 Appendix, pp. A-518–A-519.

19 Bōeichō, Marei Shinkō, pp. 149–50.

20 See footnote appended to “Magic” deciphered dispatch in “Magic”, v. 4 Appendix, p. A-525.

21 Both Tsubogami messages in “Magic”, v. 4 Appendix, pp. A-524–A-525, A-529.

22 “Magic”, v. 4 Appendix, pp. A-529–A-530.

23 “Magic” had decoded his name as “Min”.

24 Phibun's opinion at this cabinet meeting was contained in a document of accusation dated 12 January 1946 which was submitted to the court at his war crimes trial. See Kham hai kantosan achayakonsongkhram khong Phraworawongthoe Phraong-chao Athitthipapha lae Nai Thawi Bunyaket korani Chomphon P. Phibunsorigkhram [Testimony Given to the Court by Prince Athitthipapha and Thawi Bunyaket at the War Crimes Trial of Field Marshal P. Phibunsongkhram] (Bangkok: Samnakphim Chirawannuson, 2526 [1983]), p. 80.

25 28 Nov. message from Tsubogami in “Magic”, v. 4 Appendix, p. A-536.

26 Tamura, “memo sono 2”, unpaged.

27 “Magic”, v. 4 Appendix, pp. A-536–A-537.

28 Tsubogami considered the situation now so grave that on the last day of November he requested permission from Tokyo to destroy all but the embassy's telegraphic codes. See “Magic”, v. 4 Appendix, p. A-538.

29 Asada, “Wanitto”, Minnami, no. 4 (June 1954), p. 3. Also the recollections of KatsunoToshio, Japanese consul in Songkhla, who was among the small group privy to the secret document. He recalled three possible commencement dates being mentioned: 5, 8 and 15 December. See Seikō, Hatakeyama, Zoku: Hiroku rikugun Nakano gakkō [Continuation: Secret Memoirs of the Nakano Army Espionage Schoof] (Tokyo: Horiuchi Press, Showa 46 [1971]), p. 110.Google Scholar

30 Tamura, “memo sono 2”, unpaged.

31 Charivat, Thai Foreign Policy, p. 274.

32 Tamura, “memo sono 2”, unpaged. Flood, who relied on a secondary Thai source, surmised that Tsubogami also met Phibun on 2 December and urged him to cooperate with Japan. See Flood, “Japan's Relations”, pp. 683–84. Flood's Thai source, however, provided no definite date for this supposed meeting, and I could find no Japanese source that mentioned it.

33 Bōeichō, MareiShinkō, p. 150.

34 4 Dec. message from Tsubogami in “Magic”, v. 4 Appendix, pp. A-539–A-540.

35 Bōeichō, Marei Shinkō, p. 151.

36 Woodward, British Foreign Policy, v. 2, p. 174.

37 Charivat, Thai Foreign Policy, p. 279.

38 Woodward, British Foreign Policy, v. 2, p. 175. Charivat, Thai Foreign Policy, pp. 260–61 for more details regarding this message.

39 Tamura, “memo sono 2”, unpaged; Iwaichi, Fujiwara, F. Kikan (Tokyo: Hara Shobō, Showa 41 [1966]), pp. 87–88Google Scholar. Fujiwara, who was in the military attaché's office when Wanit arrived, says this happened on the morning of the 7th; but because of the contemporaneousness of Tamura's memorandum, I have relied on the date (6 Dec.) given in that document.

40 See in particular Phibun's postwar letter of explanation in Bu'ang raek prachathipatai [The Beginnings of Democracy] (Bangkok: Samnakkhao Haeng Prathet Thai, 2517 [1974]), pp. 426–47Google Scholar where he relates no such story as Tamura told. Asada likewise did not mention any such border incident.

41 Anan, Chomphon P., v. 2, pp. 222–23.

42 Kham hai kantosan, pp. 1–4; Siri Premchit, Chiwit lae ngan khong Phonru'atri Thawan Thamrongnawasawat [The Life and Work of Rear Admiral Thawan Thamrongnawasawat] (no publisher and no date), pp. 351–53 for pertinent section of the cabinet meeting minutes.

43 However on the afternoon of the 7th, when Asada contacted Wanit about Phibun's whereabouts, the latter told the consul-general that Phibun was at Aranyaprathet. See Asada, “Wanitto”, Minnami, no. 4 (June 1954), p. 13.

44 Kham hai kantosan, pp. 4–5; Siri, Chiwit Thawan, pp. 354–55 for Adun's report.

45 Kham hai kantosan, p. 2; Siri, Chiwit Thawan, p. 353.

46 Minutes for this liaison conference are in Inaba Masao, et al., Taiheiyō sensō e no michi, bekkan, “shiryōhen” [The Road to the Pacific War, appendix volume, “documents section”] (Tokyo: Asahi Shimbunsha, Showa 38 [1963]), pp. 580–83; Nobutaka Ike, Japan's Decision for War (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1967), pp. 239–43.

47 Minutes of this liaison conference in Inaba, Taiheiyō senso, pp. 587–90; Ike, Japan's Decision, pp. 253–54, but which does not provide the “Essentials of Policy Towards Thailand”.

48 The possibility of Phibun disappearing at the crucial moment was in the minds of some Japanese in Bangkok, and during his brief return to Tokyo for consultation in late November, Asada had discussed the possibility with Foreign Minister Togo. See Asada, “Wanitto”, Minnami, no. 4 (June 1954), p. 8.

49 Direk, Thai kap songkhram lok, v. 1, p. 197.

50 Buʼang Raek, p. 433.

51 Thawi's comment in Direk, Thai kap songkhram lok, v. 1, p. 353; Wichit's is in Wichit Wichitwathakan, “Lang chak prakat songkhram” [“Behind the Scenes of the Declaration of War”], first published in 1949 and reprinted in Tu Thong, 1 no. 1 (Oct. 2513 [1970]), p. 16.

52 The four options are those recorded in the minutes of the cabinet meeting on the morning of 8 December.

53 Minutes of the emergency cabinet meeting of 7–8 December 1941 in Kham hai kantosan, pp. 1–33; Siri, Chiwit Thawan, pp. 351–78.

54 Direk, Thai kap songkhram lok, v. 1, p. 197.

55 Ibid., p. 198.

56 Prayun Phamonmontri is an example of a prominent Thai who has made such a postwar allegation, in his memoirs Chiwit ha phaen din khong khaphachao [My Life Through Five Reigns] (Bangkok: Samnakphim Bannakit, 2518 [1975]), p. 466Google Scholar where Prayun also reproduces what he claims is Churchill's telegramme.

57 Minutes of the cabinet meeting on the afternoon of 8 December in Kham hai kantosan, pp. 34–41; Siri, Chiwit Thawan, pp. 379–85. For remarks regarding Churchill's telegramme, see pp. 37 and 382.

58 An incomplete and perhaps censored reproduction of the agreement is given in Thamsook Numnonda, Thailand and the Japanese Presence, 1941–1945, Research and Discussions Series no. 6 (Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 1977), p. 100. Her source for the English copy of the agreement is said to have come from the Japanese Foreign Ministry archives.

59 Kham hai kanlosan, p. 28; Siri, Chiwit Thawan, p. 374.

60 Asada, “Wanitto”, Minnami, no. 5 (Oct. 1954), pp. 2–4.

61 Ibid., p. 4.

62 Flood, “Japan's Relations”, pp. 716–20 makes a serious error in claiming that Phibun was out at Don Muʼang to meet Iida where the two of them along with Tamura held a most extraordinary gathering during which Phibun totally committed himself and Thailand to Japan's cause. Flood misquotes the date of this meeting given in his source, a Tamura memorandum (“Taikoku kankai Tamura bukan memo sono 3”) which shows that it took place on 9 Jan. 1942, not 9 Dec. 1941 as Flood thought. Also it did not take place at Don Muʼang nor was Iida present.

63 Minutes of this cabinet meeting in Kham hai kantosan, pp. 42–58; Siri, Chiwit Thawan, pp. 385–98.

64 Tsubogami described this meeting in a 12 December message to Tokyo. Message in Hattori Takushirō, Dai tōa sensō zenshi [Complete History of the Greater East Asia War] (Tokyo: Hara Shobō, Showa 56 ʻ[1981]), p. 232Google Scholar. The earlier four-volume edition give the message in v. 2, p. 36.

65 Minutes of this cabinet meeting in Kham hai kantosan, pp. 59–73; Siri, Chiwit Thawan, pp. 398–409.

66 Asada, “Wanitto”, Minnami, no. 5 (Oct. 1954), p. 4.

67 Kham hai kantosan, pp. 9 and 12; Siri, Chiwit Thawan, pp. 357 and 360.

68 Bangkok Times, 12 Dec. 1941, p. 2.

69 Bangkok Chronicle, 13 Dec. 1941, p. 1.

70 Bangkok Times, 15 Dec. 1941, p. 3.

71 Bangkok Times, 17 Dec. 1941, p. 3. The announcement mistakenly said Pridi was replacing Chao Phraya Phichayon Yothin.

72 Bangkok Times, 18 Dec. 1941, p. 3; Bangkok Chronicle, 18 Dec. 1941, p. 1.

73 Bangkok Times, 19 Dec. 1941, p.3

74 Bangkok Chronicle, 20 Dec. 1941, p. 1.

75 Bangkok Times, 22 Dec. 1941, p. 1; Bangkok Chronicle, 22 Dec. 1941, pp. 1 and 6.

76 Bangkok Times, 22 Dec. 1941, p. 3; Bangkok Chronicle, 22 Dec. 1941, p. 1.

77 Bangkok Times, 23 Dec. 1941, p. 1; Bangkok Chronicle, 23 Dec. 1941, p. 4.

78 The Times and Chronicle newspapers reported on many of these activities during the week following the signing.

79 Thamsook, Thailand and the Japanese Presence, pp. 6–7.

80 Bangkok Times, 10 Jan. 1942, p. 1.

81 This incident is related by Thawi in Direk, Thai kap songkhram lok, v. 1, pp. 361–62; Buʼang Raek, pp. 315–16.

82 Thamsook, Thailand and the Japanese Presence, p. 9.

83 Ibid., pp. 8–9 which quotes from Malai Simpo, 25 Jan. 1943.

84 Ibid., p. 8 which cites Malai Simpo, 26 Jan. 1943.

85 Bangkok Times, 27 Jan. 1942, p. 1.

86 Bangkok Times, 30 Jan. 1942, p. 3; Bangkok Chronicle, 30 Jan. 1942, pp. 1 and 4.

87 Bangkok Chronicle, 30 Jan. 1942, p. 1.

88 Bangkok Chronicle, 30 Jan. 1942, p. 2; Bangkok Times, 30 Jan. 1942, p. 3.