answersLogoWhite

0


Best Answer

No it wasn't, only country in that region not to be imperialised! No it wasn't, only country in that region not to be imperialised! No it wasn't, only country in that region not to be imperialised!

User Avatar

Wiki User

16y ago
This answer is:
User Avatar
More answers
User Avatar

Wiki User

11y ago

Several reasons. Partly is was because of the very clever manoeverings of the Siam King (King Munkut - Rama IV) - known outside thailand as the King in the King and I/Anna and the King (which is almost entirely fictitious by the way). The King cleverly played the British off against the other powers that be at the time (Britain was the supreame super-power then).

It also made sense for the imperial powers to have a place in Asia that was common ground (like Switzerland was during WW2 where enermies could meet on neutral ground). Siam was in the centre of the Indo-China trade route and a very important position at the time buffering the powers of British India/Burma, French Indo-China and the Dutch colonies; as well as China herself in the north.

Even so a fait bit of Thai land was seeded to these powers - Burma grew, Malaysia, Cambodia, etc.

This answer is:
User Avatar

Add your answer:

Earn +20 pts
Q: Was Thailand imperialized
Write your answer...
Submit
Still have questions?
magnify glass
imp