- 著者
-
市川 健二郎
- 出版者
- 東南アジア学会
- 雑誌
- 東南アジア -歴史と文化-
- 巻号頁・発行日
- vol.1982, no.11, pp.65-78, 1982
Extremely divergent opinions about the Thailand's declaration of war against the United States and Britain in 1942 have been represented among nations in Thailand, Japan, the U. S. and Britain, since the period of World War II. In Thailand, Phibul Songkhram, the wartime Prime Minister who declared the war, cooperated with Japan in the early stage of the war, wishing to get back the border territories of British Burma and Malaya, but by the end of the war, has became critical for the Japanese policy to promote the idea of Great East Asia Coprosperity Sphare for the Japanese sakes. While, Pridi Phanomyong, the Regent in the wartime Thai Royal Palace, led the anti-Japanese Free Thai movement, on which he imitated the Free France Force of the General Charles de Gaule of the same time and desired to establish his anti-Japanese Thai Government in exile in vain, because of the strategic disapproval of the United Nations. On the day after VJ Day, Pridi issued a proclamation repudiating the declaration of war against the U. S. and Britain which was null and void. The U. S. approved it, but Britain did not accept it. Thai centric ways of thinking of these political leaders during and just after the war, have continued until today and Thai scholars of these years are still used to be explained the same ways of evaluation for their study on the wartime history as these political leaders did in the past ages.<br>As to the assessment of the declaration of war viewed from the U. N. side, the U. S., and Britain in the early period of the war marched in line and did not make any declaration of war against Thailand, but, by the end of the war, Anglo-American confrontation has emarged for the treatment of Thai-land's situation in the postwar period. The U. S. wanted to support the Southeast Asian peoples without making any concession to the demand of Britain and France, while Britain planned to impose economic and military controls of Thailand after the war. One of the Thai scholars today regards such U. S. policy as “altruism” and British policy as “oppression”, while a British scholar today standes on the British side and insist on the “Thai people's astonement before absolution” for their responsibility of the declaration of war. The egocentric ways of thinking which is common to both side, therefore, deserve to be given special attention. Comparative studies on the background of these divergent opinions which caused confrontation of historical aspects between Thailand and Britain, will be helpful for understanding cultural conflict on the subject.