Could Thailand have become an inustrialized power like Japan and could Madagascar have resisted colonisation?

[IrishBlood]

Rather than create two threads, I'll merge them into one as they deal with similar themes.

(1) I know the main reason Thailand survived was because of shrewed diplomacy by the Thai monarchy and the desire for the British and French to have a Thai rump state to act as a buffer between their colonies to prevent further conflict. But would it have been possible for Thailand to industrialize to the same degree that Japan did (within reason) in order to be considered a regional 'power' and be left alone by European powers?

I acknowledge the fact that Thailand had no where to expand to acquire new resources and was boxed in by the worlds two greatest empires, where as Japan was able to take what they wanted from a much weaker China and Russia, but to what extent did the Thai leadership attempt to modernize and why were they successful/unsuccessful?

(2) Madagascar is a huge island and at the time of the French invasion was a relatively united 'Merina' kingdom where the main areas of urban settlement were inland, thus were somewhat unaffected by 'gunboat diplomacy', forcing the French to launch a full invasion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_...car_expedition.

The Madagascar people to my knowledge were relatively advanced by African standards and had more in common with many Malay kingdoms rather than African ones. Decent standard rifles and cannons were produced in an armaments foundry made by the British and British advisors gave training and familiarity with European military tactics.

Radama's modernisation drive thus incorporated a certain degree of westernisation. The London Missionary Society was permitted to establish itself, and as a consequence made rapid inroads in court and in society at large. They founded schools along with churches, devised a Latin alphabet for the Merina dialect of Malagasy and established a printing press. Up to 500 000 converts to the Anglican, Presbyterian, Congregational churches were made. A side effect of their encouragement of Merina literacy was the diffusion of Merina culture and dialect throughout the island (Columbia Encyclopedia 2005, US State Department 2005).

http://www.content.eisa.org.za/old-p...dom-c1650-1828

Here's an example of Merina Kingdom troops with modern(ish) rifles and canon and British Style uniform for the officers.



Expulsion of Europeans in an attempt to resist modernity and preserve Madagaly culture led to increased tensions, a decrease in trade and a halt to modernization. Could this have been prevented by better diplomacy or a possible Adawa style victory over the French?

[IrishBlood]

No one has any interest at all then????

[Caligula's_Horse]

No one has any interest at all then????

I think its less lack of interest, and more no one has a clue what to answer. 1800's Thailand and Madagascar aren't exactly common knowledge, even among the history buffs that frequent this board.

This is a discussion I certainly wouldn't mind having, except that to even start, I'd need to do several hour's worth of research just to get a context of what I'm talking about.

[ArmoredCore]

I think you have to understand that modernization was a tool of imperial colonial European power, especially in the early industrial era. It would have been impossible for any of the even more advanced cultures of the time to independently industrialize themselves to the same level as the European powers without outside influence. There was too much in the way of technical know how, natural resources and social organization required to create industrial scale weapons and infrastructure to match or even surpass European powers. Not to mention the main reason for colonial expansion in the first place was to acquire the land and resources necessary to make large scale industrialization possible. And therefore, no small culture with little or no trade and contacts with outside territories could begin to match the European industrial juggernaut. European imperial strategy is and was inherently about global networks of trade and commerce as the epitome of the modern age, versus more primitive local disconnected societies of the past, even though most ancient societies did feature regional trade networks from a very remote period.

The Japanese are well known as being supreme imitators of western technology and during the late 1800s to early 1900s many Western countries allowed in a great many Japanese students to study. And they then promptly began breaking down and understanding every inch of everything they could find until they were able to reproduce an exact copy themselves. And the West actually helped the Japanese to do this, quiet as it is kept, so it really wasn't an 'indigenous' development after all. As can be seen in the fact that the Japanese later became allies of the West in WWI.
And not only did they send students to the West (where they were allowed in by the westerners), they also had westerners in their western oriented Education system.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educat...mpire_of_Japan

[Condottiere 40K]

A lot of countries wanted modernization, without intellectual colonization that accompanied it.

Japan and the Japanese shouldn't be unique, and yet somehow they manage it. While on one hand the deep humiliation of Perry's Black ships should have caused a rejection of Western influences, which did occur in some quarters, they were embraced in others, together with the recognition as to how that would increase both their respective faction's power and influence, and ultimately, the nation's, with the goal of regional influence and resisting actual colonization.

It also helped that they were at the ends of the earth.

There are some similarities with the Thais, in that the monarchy was a very revered institution, but more hands on. It could be just that the Japanese were always prepared to be innovative given the opportunity, if you compare their performance from late Victorian through post Great War reconstruction to the modern era, and how influential European concepts and fashion were on their society, to the point that you can still see the effects on their art today.

They've also gotten over the Geisha image, whereas the Thais seemed to build their modernization around it.

[Aikanár]

Moved from the VV main to the Alternate History subforum.

[PikeStance]

In order to answer it you have to have some understanding of geography and economics.

On order for a region to develop it has to have a large population. This increases specialization and causes innovation. Thailand is a heavily dense and mountainous/ hlly terrain. It is not capable of sustaining large population. Moreover, the crops it produce isn't the best. It can produce rice, which second behind wheat for protein, but it has limited location where it can be produce. This reduces the population significantly. One advantage of Europe is through the Columbian Exchange, it create rich diet. This is in turn led to a rise in population and the impetus for migration to colonized the Americas. This had two effects; The Americas (later Africa and India) provided much needed raw materials, and second, it gave a market for goods. This is what would fuel the industrial revolution in the 19th century. Thailand had no such advantage. Essentially, Thailand didn't industrialized because Thailand didn't need to. The system that was in place was adequate to sustain its population. To put it another way; why would a Thai business man, pool resources to produce a god in large quantities if no need was there.

[IrishBlood]

I think you have to understand that modernization was a tool of imperial colonial European power, especially in the early industrial era. It would have been impossible for any of the even more advanced cultures of the time to independently industrialize themselves to the same level as the European powers without outside influence. There was too much in the way of technical know how, natural resources and social organization required to create industrial scale weapons and infrastructure to match or even surpass European powers. Not to mention the main reason for colonial expansion in the first place was to acquire the land and resources necessary to make large scale industrialization possible. And therefore, no small culture with little or no trade and contacts with outside territories could begin to match the European industrial juggernaut. European imperial strategy is and was inherently about global networks of trade and commerce as the epitome of the modern age, versus more primitive local disconnected societies of the past, even though most ancient societies did feature regional trade networks from a very remote period.

The Japanese are well known as being supreme imitators of western technology and during the late 1800s to early 1900s many Western countries allowed in a great many Japanese students to study. And they then promptly began breaking down and understanding every inch of everything they could find until they were able to reproduce an exact copy themselves. And the West actually helped the Japanese to do this, quiet as it is kept, so it really wasn't an 'indigenous' development after all. As can be seen in the fact that the Japanese later became allies of the West in WWI.
And not only did they send students to the West (where they were allowed in by the westerners), they also had westerners in their western oriented Education system.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educat...mpire_of_Japan

Well that gives the impression that modernization could be achieved provided the government/nation was willing to embrace western modernization and providing there was a Western power willing to act as a teacher.

Thailand succeeded in avoiding colonization by playing England and France off each other, while giving up large areas of territory it knew would be impossible to hold if a war was to break out. This proved enough to ensure Thai survival, but not enough to actually make Thailand a modern power by any stretch of the imagination.

What I want to know is what were the barriers to Thailand becoming like Japan? Was it a lack cultural or political will power or a lack of a foreign benefactor?

In the Paknam incident where French ships successfully broke through Thai naval defences to use 'gunboat diplomacy' on the Thai capital in 1893, Dutch and Danish admirals were in charge of the Thai defence. Clearly Thailand had no problem with either accepting or getting Western help and perhaps thats a crucial factor for why they managed to retain independence, but what were the differences between them and Japan which allowed Japan to become a superpower, but not Thailand?

With regards to Madagascar, the Merina Kingdom enjoyed the extensive support of the British, but poor diplomacy and xenophobia resulted in the expulsion of the British in favor of French business interests, ultimately leading to the French conquest.

Considering the French conquest didn't occur until 1895, if the Merina kingdom had used better diplomacy and taken better lessons from the achievements of Japan could the outcome of Madagascar's history have been radically different? The Merina monarchy did not seem too opposed to western ideals considering their king dressed like this in the 1850's;



Also bear in mind the French invasion occurred a mere 9 years before WW1. If the Merina monarchs had managed to successfully modernize while playing British and French interests (possibly Portuguese interests as well in this case) off each other, could they have forestalled the invasion by another decade? If they had I certainly cant imagine the French government, or the league of nations, being in the mood for any more colonial adventures post WW1.

That said its not inconceivable that the French or British may have invaded for practical military reasons as occurred in WW2, however I cant imagine the Merina kingdom refusing to co-operate in allied attempts to hunt down German uboat and surface raiders. The Merina kingdom had hardly any connections with the Germans, but plenty of reasons to stay on the good side of the British and French, so I dont think its inconceivable to imagine the Merina kingdom joining the allies in a limited fashion in the hopes of gaining some post war concessions. Hell, the Thai's did it! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siam_in_World_War_I

[Cyclops]

Thailand had a stable monarchy, rather than the tense shogun/Emperor stand off in pre-Meiji Japan that motivated change on a big scale. I think Japan enjoyed a much greater degree of education than Thailand and exponentially greater than Madagascar: a shift from Japanese/Confucian to western systems (difficult as it was) would be easier than building a system from almost nothing.

Siam/Thailand performed extremely well keeping its independence in a racist and predatory European expansion phase. To ask for a Japanese miracle there as well is probably too stiff: Madagascar is out of the running I'm afraid.

[Condottiere 40K]

Japan was a pressure cooker, insularity and Shogunic repression kept the lid on.

There always seems to have been an imperialistic ambition lurking, with Korea being the stepping stone to the rest of East Asia, combined with British containment of Russia.

At some point, the British would have wanted a direct rail connection with Singapore.

Island nations appear to need a compulsion to dominate trade routes or expand, in order to ensure their security.

[hellheaven1987]

Thailand is a heavily dense and mountainous/ hlly terrain. It is not capable of sustaining large population.

So is Japan.

The answer to OP's question is no anyway, as Japan's modernization is quite abnormal overall.

[PikeStance]

So is Japan.
The answer to OP's question is no anyway, as Japan's modernization is quite abnormal overall.

Seriously! Japan is NOT a tropical climate! There is NOTHING abnormal about Japan's development. There laws of economic doesn't just disappear where needed. Of course economic principles do not act outside of political context. Japan had a demand for foreign imports and thus an export market as well. Its initial "protectionist" policies actually enable the manufacturing industry to mature.

[hellheaven1987]

Japan is NOT a tropical climate!

Japan is largely a hilly/mountainous country that has few plains, and most its population is concentrated on those few plains.

There is NOTHING abnormal about Japan's development. There laws of economic doesn't just disappear where needed. Of course economic principles do not act outside of political context. Japan had a demand for foreign imports and thus an export market as well. Its initial "protectionist" policies actually enable the manufacturing industry to mature.

I would apologize using harsh word "abnormal", although I would not call planned economy is the natural form of economic development.

[PikeStance]

Japan is largely a hilly/mountainous country that has few plains, and most its population is concentrated on those few plains.

Are you really going to make the same silly comparison or do I have to keep saying that the climate is significantly different?

I would apologize using harsh word "abnormal", although I would not call planned economy is the natural form of economic development.

I am not a fan of protectionism as well. It has both aided and hindered economic development.

[hellheaven1987]

Are you really going to make the same silly comparison or do I have to keep saying that the climate is significantly different?

Thailand is a heavily dense and mountainous/ hlly terrain.

Your original statement has little to do with climate, nor is there evidence suggesting tropical climate cannot support large population.

I am not a fan of protectionism as well. It has both aided and hindered economic development.

Planned Economy and Protectionism are two different things.

[Condottiere 40K]

At which point we have the Khmer Empire.

However, climate change does.

[hellheaven1987]

At which point we have the Khmer Empire.

Or today's Bangladesh, or even that ing Nigeria (has more men than Russia did).

[PikeStance]

Your original statement has little to do with climate, nor is there evidence suggesting tropical climate cannot support large population.

From MY OP

Post# 7 Thailand is a heavily dense

I implied it!

The follow- up post

Post #12 Seriously! Japan is NOT a tropical climate!

I was explicit!

I have no idea why you think tropical climate is ideally suited for agriculture=, but it isn't. The areas best for agriculture exist only in the river basins. The best techniqued used in tropical regions is slash and burn. however, tnis leads to soil degradation and produces less volume. There is also limited amount of crops that can grow sustainably in a tropical regions. This restrict the diet and is a contributor to the lack of growth of the population relative to more productive regions and climates.

Planned Economy and Protectionism are two different things.

This ISN'T political discussion! Whether or not it was planned is immaterial. The fact is Japan was successful in preventing foreign competition from inhibiting its economic growth.

[IrishBlood]

Ok, I can acknowledge that the respective populations of Japan, Thailand and Madagascar all played a significant part in their respective developments and attempts at modernization.

According to this, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...lation_in_1900 (Its wikipedia I know, but meh!) Japan had a population of 42 million in 1900, larger than both the UK and France. This clearly gave them the need for large scale production and consumption of modern goods and the means by which to fund/produce modernization.

Thailand being a pretty well developed south east Asian nation on the road to modernization only had a population of 7.2 million in 1900, so I think this supports Pike Stances points regarding tropical climates inability to support large populations.

Madagascar, despite being a bit larger than Thailand, only had a population of 2.7 million by 1900. This gap remains even today as Madagascar currently has a population of 22 million compared to Thailand's 66 million, and Japans 126 million.

After doing some research it seems fair to say that Thailand actually managed to do pretty well for itself all things considered. The Siamese Empire did lose half of its lands, but these were areas it had been constantly fighting over with Vietnam and Burma and had won and lost them many times. Siam did not have complete control of many of these areas and they were considered to be a bit of a 'wild west' so to speak and were often underdeveloped with many regions not greatly contributing to the Royal treasury etc, so their loss was more of a blow to prestige than anything else. Siam did not lose any of its core Thai areas and as a result remained pretty ethnically united and was by no means crippled or reduced to tributary status as were many of the comparable Indian Kingdoms and Principalities that were eventually absorbed by the British.

I dare say that European control of Chinese coastal cities and regions was more damaging to China than the loss of the Siamese empire was to Thailand. By 1925 all the unfair trade agreements were repealed and Thailand was able to act as a modern nation and conducts its own affairs as it saw fit without having to worry about any more colonial adventures by the now extremely war weary and bankrupt British and French. Thailand did not suffer from any major revolt or civil war and the brief war fought with France in the 1800's led to significant loss of territory, but relatively little loss of life or destruction. Thailand was able to train and equip a modern army that was on par with many contemporary European military's in proportion to their size and finances. The Thai Military even managed to crush France's colonial troops in Indo-China (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-Thai_War) before being betrayed and invaded by their Japanese allies.

China on the other hand had suffered numerous devastating defeats in costly wars against the Western Powers, was still under great economic restraints by Western Powers post WW1, was riven by civil war/rebellions, crippled by warlords and did not regain the lost cities until well after WW2, not to mention having to deal with Japan, so in my opinion I think the Siamese Empire/Thailand managed to ride out the storm of the colonial era far better than any other Asian nation bar Japan.

So fair enough, Thailand most likely achieved the best deal it could have and was unlikely to ever industrialize to the same extant as Japan. What then of Madagascar? Could Madagascar have emulated Thailand and used better diplomacy to play the UK and France off each other while doing more to embrace modernization? As I said earlier, if Madagascar managed to hold on to its independence for another 9 years, then chances are its sovereignty may have been inadvertently been saved by WW1.

[Condottiere 40K]

It seems to me that Thailand was always politically fragile since the Great War, don't really know prewar.

And rice farming is basically assured if you have enough water, and going by China and Japan, does seem to be able to support massive populations.