In those days in 1942 Thailand was a constitutionally-based monarchy with a king over the government. In ancient times this country was called Jamu and was a Burmese colony. In Japanese literature the character tai (Thai) was used but Thai in Siamese was a contraction of Pratet Thai which means ‘Thai monarch’. At the start of the Second World War, Prime Minister Phibun's pro-British party held the reins of government. For strategic reasons Japan had to demand transit over Thai soil. On the Cambodian border her Army watched its chance and made increasingly threatening demands for transit. Prime Minister Phibun quickly agreed to cooperate with the Japanese Army, and consequently with the start of hostilities a switch from the British to the Japanese side became urgent and advantageous to Thailand. However, this provided a superficial change and in 1945, with the war turning to Japan's disadvantage, she changed back in the end to a pro-British diplomatic stance. In South-East Asia at the time I think it would not have helped her to stay as she was, a nation which had yet to establish her standing in the world.

In the Spring of 1942, when the Thai-Burma Railway was begun, this country co-operated on the construction. The Japanese Army in its prosecution of the war found no obstacles in the way of its military transportation, co-operating with Thai National Railways. Between Banpong and Kanchanaburi the building of the roadbed, and between Kanchanaburi and Wanyai the re-modelling of the highway on Thai-side were planned to be apportioned out with the Thai, but the plan did not work out. It seems that the prisoners-of-war received intelligence from England itself, and from the outside world they had reports from a pro-British organization's secret manoeuvres, and beginning in 1945 the targets for bombing in the Kanchanaburi area were indicated by partisans. It seemed evident that Japan had no friends.

The Thai usually brag about their country's superiority, their feelings run high, their manner is that of being sticklers for prestige. In weighing up the pros and cons of their behaviour one must record that the educational standards of some of their officials were high but the practice of bribery among them persisted.