WI Thailand war with japan.

In OTL, We did war with japan(Temporary, Allied forces wont help thailand defend) but japaneese armies are simply too strong so that we decided to join them in the end
I could think of some possible scenerio:
Pridi is choosen instead of Field Marshal P and worked toward democratic reform(No thainification and less revanchism), While alligning with allies in hope of getting something
Serithai coup and lead thailand against japan(some sort of gorrilla warfare)
British being useful and help thailand delay japaneese landing
Possible Consequence:
Democratic Thailand with less nationalism(Still have monarchy)
Diactorship and Various warlords installed and infleunced by japan
Thailand being battleground between allies and axis, Become axis/allies puppets after ww2 end
Same thailand, Field Marshal installed and promoted nationalism but later kicked out by serithai
Greater Thailand, Allies being generous and dont want to deal with their colony(Thainification in former colony or Other pattani-like provinces)
What do you think?
 
In World War I Siam remained neutral in the beginning & only joined when it was clear that Allied would win the war. This has brought tremendous result to them. After the war end they reaped the benefit of being in the winning side. They managed to renegotiate unequal treaty and became a real independent nation.

Anyone who was in charge in WWII would probably pursue the same strategy. Why going against the strategy that was proven so successful in the past? In OTL they only joined Axis when they were forced to do so after they were defeated by the IJA.

This was a very realistic strategy because Thailand was very weak militarily. So being opportunistic was really their only option. If you want a Thailand/Siam which is more proactive, this ATL Thailand/Siam must be militarily strong. The only way to do that is to have different modernization. Siam OTL modernization was a mirror image of Japan. While Siam focused on things such as forcing people to wear Western clothes, Japan focused more on building strength and industrialization. So by WWII you had Thailand where people wore Western clothes but the country was very weak, versus Japan where many people still wore traditional clothes but the country was industrialized & strong.
 
In World War I Siam remained neutral in the beginning & only joined when it was clear that Allied would win the war. This has brought tremendous result to them. After the war end they reaped the benefit of being in the winning side. They managed to renegotiate unequal treaty and became a real independent nation.

Anyone who was in charge in WWII would probably pursue the same strategy. Why going against the strategy that was proven so successful in the past? In OTL they only joined Axis when they were forced to do so after they were defeated by the IJA.

This was a very realistic strategy because Thailand was very weak militarily. So being opportunistic was really their only option. If you want a Thailand/Siam which is more proactive, this ATL Thailand/Siam must be militarily strong. The only way to do that is to have different modernization. Siam OTL modernization was a mirror image of Japan. While Siam focused on things such as forcing people to wear Western clothes, Japan focused more on building strength and industrialization. So by WWII you had Thailand where people wore Western clothes but the country was very weak, versus Japan where many people still wore traditional clothes but the country was industrialized & strong.
So, Thailand need an industrial revolution instead of "Thainification"
That would be possible if we have industrialist leaders and more profressional from the west
Thanks for the respond btw, But i think thainification is more than "wearing western clothes". Its more about creating thai national identity which play a huge role in our history afterward(Otherwise we would have seperationist and local nobles running around like burmar)
 
Top