Thoughts on Burmese - Thai union

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...

I think it is a common misconception that India was never unified as a country before the establishment of the British Raj. True India was not politically unified as often as China. But several empires that came up in the subcontinent had brought large areas under their control for long periods. It may be noted that the area of the present Republic of India is 12 35 526 sq.miles(32 87 263 sq.kms).
The Maurya Empire founded around 320 B.C.E. covered an area of 19 30 511 sq.miles (50 00 000 sq.kms). The entire subcontinent except the southern and eastern tips were included in the Empire under Ashoka the Great. The Gupta Empire (13 51 358 sq.miles), the Pala Empire (17 76 070 sq.miles), the Chola Empire (13 89 968 sq.miles), the Mughal Empire (17 37 460 sq.miles) etc. covered larger areas than the present Republic. The Satavahana Empire, the Vijayayanagar Empire, the Maratha Empire etc, though were comparatively smaller also had brought large portions of the country under their rule.
Thus India was brought under one "chchatra"(umbrella) of an emperor several times in her long history.It was this common experience shared by the people of different religions, speaking different languages and following different customs and rituals that formed the foundation for the nation called 'India'.
 
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.

Well that is just about a butterfly genocide.
 
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.
Well, there were periods when Burma and China fought each other, so I would guess that any Thai-Burmese union must take place when Sino-Burmese ties are at their absolute lowest, so that way China plays no part in a conflict.

Thailand was also seen as a vassal, but I don't think there were any Sino-Thai wars, so I assume Thailand is seen as the more loyal vassal. It might be easier to have a Thai conquest of Burma than the other way around.
 
Thailand was also seen as a vassal, but I don't think there were any Sino-Thai wars, so I assume Thailand is seen as the more loyal vassal. It might be easier to have a Thai conquest of Burma than the other way around.

It helps than Thailand does'nt actually border China and, vassal or not, most of the countries tat do border China would'nt exactly be supportive of Chinese troops marching through their country.
 
Top