No, Siam could maintain its independence.
Thailand. By the way, Thailand's ancient name is Siam and Siam means Smiling People. Rather nice don't you think?
Yes. During the 18th century, Siam (which is now Thailand) established control over the majority of land that is now Laos. In 1828, the Vientiane Lao rebelled, but were unsuccessful. Laos became part of Siam. Siam had control over Laos until the French invaded Vietnam. In the early 1900s, Laos was absorbed into French Indochina thanks to treaties with Siam. So yes. Laos was part of Thailand (known then as Siam) for approximately 80 years.
The French had fought there from 1946 to 1954; 1st Indochina War or French Indochina War.
Mongkut had realized that in order for Siam to be considered equal or even better than the Modernized world Siam must be able to meet or surpass their modern technology.
Brazil was not part of French Indochina before world war 2.
France. These countries came to be known as French Indochina.
Thailand/Siam was the only country in Southeast Asia to have never been colonized.
Yes, it's the area composed of the countries Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia. It used to be a French colony called French Indochina.
France ruled it, and this is why it was called "French" Indochina.
French Indochina
Siam decided to be neutral so the British or french couldn't get his land. then he modernized his country after that.That was the result of British and French agreement used Siam as the buffer
Invasion of French Indochina happened on 1940-09-26.