Thoughts on Burmese - Thai union

I am tossing up thorughts for a TL and considered having a Thai - Burmese union similar to Austria - Hungary in Europe. Personally I feel the only way this works is if one power conquers the other.

Now if these two countries were joined, how would it work in practice?
 
Yeah... I was thinking about how they were going to pacify the region perhaps employing them as a frontier force similar to the Brits with their frontier regiments in India.

For me if they can modernise it would be fascinating particularly if they go down the CP path for WW 1.
 
Err, you do know that *Siam and *Burma have spent almost a half a millennium now at each other's throats.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burma–Thailand_relations

If there was going to be a union, it would have to be by conquest (as you correctly pointed out), it would be very brutal and it would not have lasted very long.

Mayhaps some kind of Buddhist theocracy?

... but then there is the problem of China, which saw Burma as its vassal.
 
Here's a crazy idea: Burma avoids British colonization. Through a series of wars and diplomatic manoevering, China prevents Indochina from falling under French control, yet still loses influence.

Meanwhile, a Meiji Restoration begins in Siam. By the early 20th century, Siam is respected by Europeans as a power in its own right. Siam deftly stays neutral during WWI, but Burma and Cambodia gradually fall under the influence of European powers.

A combination of anti-European sentiment and economic troubles leads to the rise of a Thai fascist leader in the late 1920s. Said fascist leader proclaims the superiority of the Thai people, enthusiastically embraces Buddhism, and promises to liberate fellow Buddhist countries from European domination. Thai-backed nationalist movements appear in Burma and Cambodia. It becomes clear that Thailand seeks a Buddhist Empire.

When Hitler comes to power, the Thai fascist leader demands German assistance against Britain and France. Initially Hitler declares Buddhism to be compatible with the Aryan Race and agrees to aid Thailand. German-Thai relations turn sour before *WW2, but not before Thailand had built a German-trained army with a matching industrial base. To this day many believe the fascist leader foresaw WW2 years in advance and carefully used Hitler.

Anti-European rebellions, funded by Thailand, break out in Burma and Cambodia. With war raging in Europe and in China, the Thai army "comes to the assistance" of these rebels; Britain and France are in no position to challenge the Thai invasion. Japan attempts to recruit the *Buddhist Empire as an ally; this offer is kindly rebuffed and instead the US views the *Buddhist Empire as a potential ally against Japan. Japan invades Vietnam on schedule, leading to the US embargo on oil exports.

Japan makes its blitzkrieg on schedule. Japanese propaganda tries to incite Khmer and Burmese separatism, yet this backfires due to Japan's sheer brutality. Instead, the *Buddhist Empire gains legitimacy among its people. Vast amounts of American aid keep the Burma Road open to China throughout the war.

WW2 ends. The *Buddhist Empire is exhausted but united. With the Cold War looming, the US sees the proto-fascist *Buddhist Empire as an ally, and provides large quantities of military and economic aid.

Today, the *Buddhist Empire is a monarchy whose King is also head of the established Sangha. The average Burmese sees the average Khmer and Thai as a fellow countryman, albeit speaking a different language. There are free elections and free speech, though there are unspoken red lines that can't be crossed. The fascist leader who made the *Empire possible is seen similarly to Ataturk: he's generally revered for building a strong nation and his diplomatic skills, but it's also acknowledged he had his faults. At the UN, Muslim countries frequently introduce resolutions accusing it of Buddhist chauvinism and oppressing Muslims. The military, which declares itself the guarantor of the Buddhist character of the state, is often accused of lining its pockets and subverting elected politicians.
 
Last edited:
Uhh Hitler still comes to power in a situation where early 19th Century British conquests in Arakan and Tenasserim don't happen?
 
Though EternalCynic has termed his post as a crazy idea, I view it as an interesting seed of a thread. If he could expand his story as a new thread I think it could develop as a great TL. Though the empires that covered Burma and Thailand in the past were enemies, the enmity need not linger on into the present age. As far as I know such a legacy of hatred, similar to the one between China and Japan or China and Vietnam, do not exist between Burma and Thailand. When past rivalries between old empires are recalled, long periods of enmity existed between Cholas and Pandyas, Pallavas and Chalukyas, Vijayanagar and Bahmani, and many other kingdoms in India. Those stories are all forgotten now. Burma and Thailand share a common religion and many aspects of their cultures. Along with Laos and Cambodia they could form a union and it could be a topic of discussion similar to the Malaysia-Indonesia Union which periodically comes up in AH discussion.
 
A good point to be remembered is that the Black King took Naresuan as a hostage and raised him as a son.

Surprisingly despite his predations the Black King is remembered positively by the Thais today. A thought I have is that have is that if we take that one step further and have a Prince marrying a Princess from either dynasty. My thought is simply I would like to see a larger SE Asian country develop in the late 19th and 20th century independently.
 
Meanwhile, a Meiji Restoration begins in Siam.

Thailand, like damned near every other country people like to substitute can not 'pull a Meiji', the economic and industrial booming of the Meiji Restoration was only possible because Japan had a strong, unified financial system and had had light industries for nearly a century already and proto-industries for centuries; all the Meiji did was invest more in the existing things and remove legal barriers which allowed the pre-existing industry and financial capitol to take off.
 
It would be doubtful for my proposed Thailand - Burma union to industrialise to the scale of Meiji Japan. They could improve literacy, create a light industrial base, but nothing as significant as Japan's achievements. My personal opinion would be a Siam from OTL on steroids.
 
It would be doubtful for my proposed Thailand - Burma union to industrialise to the scale of Meiji Japan. They could improve literacy, create a light industrial base, but nothing as significant as Japan's achievements. My personal opinion would be a Siam from OTL on steroids.

That's definately doable.

On the general subject I think gradual absorption is the best bet that is Thailand annexes/absorbs what is IOTL the Burmese Panhandle then the Shan and eventually gets the rest later, maybe through being rewarded some for aiding Britain and/or creating an ideology to override the historic animosity leading to the remainder of Burma being liberated and given some degree of autonomy to satisfy them.
 
To use a western analogy,

What you are asking for is akin to a France/Germany union.

Just barely doable ... if a great deal of violence and/or weird political and religious systems are in play.
 
If there is some kind of Buddhist Empire, it would probably be the ally of Japan considering they're the same religion. I think Thailand and Burma both have a hard enough time dealing with the ethnicities within their borders rather than tacking on an a totally different nation. Not that it would be impossible, if Thailand does industrialize and has European allies it could probably do it. It would need a fleet, probably need railroads, and even with that I would imagine the control would be very loose over burma.
 
If there is some kind of Buddhist Empire, it would probably be the ally of Japan considering they're the same religion.

Same religion?

Yes and no.

They are both 'Buddhist', but Thailand (as well as Burma and Cambodia, but not Vietnam) practice Theravada Buddhism, or rather, Theravada Buddhism with admixtures of Hinduism and traditional folk beliefs.

Japan, on the other hand, is largely a syncretic mix of Mahayana Buddhism and Shintoism, with adherents swinging more to one end or the other depending or their particular religious sect.

It's kinda like saying Catholics and Mormons belong to the same religion, but more so.
 
If there is some kind of Buddhist Empire, it would probably be the ally of Japan considering they're the same religion. I think Thailand and Burma both have a hard enough time dealing with the ethnicities within their borders rather than tacking on an a totally different nation. Not that it would be impossible, if Thailand does industrialize and has European allies it could probably do it. It would need a fleet, probably need railroads, and even with that I would imagine the control would be very loose over burma.

Japan has traditionally practiced syncretic beliefs (and is now majority Atheist retaining religious cultural customs) and religion in and of itself has never been a main issue to the point that their would be alliance based on it.

If anywhere was going to ally with it it'd be Cambodia, as Cambodia, along with Thailand and Burma forms the Heart of Buddhism in terms of demographics.
 
That's right the Thailand / Burma and of course the former Mekong Kingdoms in Cambodia and Laos. Their version of Buddhism is a curious mix of several influences particularly hinduism.

This is before we get into linguistic links between all of the countries.
 
If there is some kind of Buddhist Empire, it would probably be the ally of Japan considering they're the same religion. I think Thailand and Burma both have a hard enough time dealing with the ethnicities within their borders rather than tacking on an a totally different nation. Not that it would be impossible, if Thailand does industrialize and has European allies it could probably do it. It would need a fleet, probably need railroads, and even with that I would imagine the control would be very loose over burma.

Religion does not magically make alliances possible. catholic France allied with the Muslim Ottomans against the Catholic Hapsburgs.

Alliances are formed for strategic purposes.

In any case Japanese and Thai Buddhism are very, very different.
 
That's right the Thailand / Burma and of course the former Mekong Kingdoms in Cambodia and Laos. Their version of Buddhism is a curious mix of several influences particularly hinduism.

This is before we get into linguistic links between all of the countries.

Laos is historically part of the Thai sphere, and in fact Lao-speakers in Thailand far outnumber the population of Laos itself. Khmer and Burmese are not even in the same language family.

So if Thailand and Burma were to be in a union for a sustainable period, a revolutionary ideology combining what they have in common - a sort of Theravada Buddhist fascism - is required. After Indian independence, Ceylon will probably develop close relations with this Buddhist empire, which will marginalize the Tamil minority even further.

Assuming the Communists win the Chinese Civil War and North Vietnam turns communist, and Vietnam turns into the OTL bloodbath, expect the US to pump vast amounts of aid into the Buddhist Empire.

It's entirely possible that after the Cold War, the US will no longer support the Buddhist Empire, and it goes the way of Yugoslavia.
 
You don't need a revolutionary ideology to hold together different languages and ethnicities. Just look at India.

I'm not sure if *India would have been possible pre-colonization though. At least not as a multi-ethnic state rather than as an Empire of one nation over the others. And I don't think a post-colonial union was what the OP had in mind...
 
Top