¹ The number of Chinese residents in Thailand at the time is difficult to pinpoint. A Chinese estimate in 1934 was 2,500,000, while the Thai government issued a figure of 610,000 in 1937. The smaller number is a count of Chinese aliens, while the larger includes culturally Chinese individuals born in Thailand and thereby holding Thai citizenship. Because Chinese have emigrated to Thailand over a long period of time, if those with Chinese ancestry who had assimilated into Thai society were counted, the figure would be even larger. The British financial adviser to the Thai government, W.A.M. Doll estimated in the 1930s that the Chinese controlled 90 per cent of the commercial economy in Thailand. See “Taikoku kakyō genjō oyobi dō” (The Circumstances and Activities of Overseas Chinese in Thailand), Jōhō (Intelligence) 27 (1 Jul. 1944): 84–85, A700 9–9–4, Japan Foreign Ministry Archives (hereafter, JFMA) and Landon, Kenneth P., The Chinese in Thailand (reprint edition; New York: Russell and Russell, 1973), p. 144Google Scholar.

² The Thai government's nationalist program is described in Landon, The Chinese in Thailand and Skinner, G. William, Chinese Society in Thailand (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1957), pp. 261–72Google Scholar.

³ Generally I have followed Skinner's precedent in using the Wade-Giles transliteration of the Mandarin version of Chinese names. Chiang Kai-shek is an exception in that it is an aberrant, but commonly-used transliteration. In the case of names of Sino-ThaifromSouth China, any commonly used alternative transliteration and/or Thai name follows in parentheses.

⁴ Taikoku kakyō genjō oyobi dō”, Jōhō 27 (1 Jul. 1944): 84–85, A700 9–9–4, JFMA.

⁵ A fine new study covering this era is Murashima Eiji, ”Tai Kakyō no seiji katsudō: 5/30 undō kara Nitchū sensō made” (Political Activities of Overseas Chinese in Thailand from the May 30th Incident to the Sino-Japanese War), in Tōnan Ajia Kakyō to Chūgoku: Chūgoku kizoku ishiki kara kajin ishiki e (Overseas Chinese in Southeast Asia and China: From Attachment to China to Consciousness as Local Residents) (Tokyo, 1994), pp. 264–364.

⁶ Asada to Canton, 17 Oct. 1940, SRDJ 7352, RG 457 and Interview C-981, 18 Dec. 1944, Folder 116, Box 9, Entry 105, RG 226, U. S. National Archives (hereafter, USNA). Record Group (RG) 457 contains translations of intercepted Japanese messages.

⁷ Asada to Tokyo, 23 May 1941, Department of Defense, The “Magic” Background to Pearl Harbor (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1978), 2: A588.

⁸ Tsubokami to Tokyo, 24 and 26 Sep. 1941; Toyoda to Bangkok, 4 Oct. 1941; and Togo to Bangkok, 6 Nov. 1941 in ibid., 3: A650 and A658, and 4: A516.

⁹ Tsubokami to Tokyo, 20 Nov. 1941, SRDJ 16935, RG 457, USNA.

¹⁰ Skinner, Chinese Society in Thailand, p. 272; Bangkok Times, 9 Dec. 1941; and Murashima Eiji, “Nittai dōmei to Tai Kakyō” (The Thai-Japanese Alliance and the Overseas Chinese in Thailand), Keisei Daigaku Ajia-Taiheiyō Kenkyū (Keisei University Asian-Pacific Research) 19 (1996): 51.

¹¹ Iwata Reitetsu, who headed the Japanese Embassy's propaganda effort, gave Doll's figure of 90 per cent Chinese control of the Thai economy (cited in note one) in emphasizing the extent of Chinese dominance. His chief aide in efforts to manipulate Chinese opinion, Fujishima Ken'ichi, upped the figure to 95 per cent. Iwata's comment appears on page “f” and Fujishima's on page 126 of Fujishima's memoir, Gekidō suru sensō no urabanashi (A Little-Known Story from the War of Upheaval) (Bangkok: Koukusai Insatsu Yūgen Koshi, 1977).

¹² Skinner, Chinese Society in Thailand, p. 272, and Bangkok Times, 15 Dec. 1941.

¹³ Bangkok Times, 24–26 Dec. 1941; Murashima, “Nittai dōmei to Tai Kakyō”, p. 51; and Suehiro Akira, Capital Accumulation in Thailand, 1855–1985 (Tokyo: Centre for East Asian Cultural Studies, 1989), p. 166.

¹⁴ Bangkok Times, 29 Dec. 1941 and Gaimudaijin kambo ninjika [Personnel Section Foreign Minister's Secretariat], Gaimushō nenkan [Foreign Ministry Yearbook] (Tokyo: Gaimushō, 1953), p. 312. On Tōa Dōbun Shoin, see Reynolds, Douglas R., “Chinese Area Studies in Prewar China: Japan's Toa Dobun Shoin in Shanghai, 1900–1945”, Journal of Asian Studies 95,5 (Nov. 1986): 945–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁵ Bangkok Times, 29 Dec. 1941 and 3 Jan. 1942.

¹⁶ Tsubokami to Tokyo, 31 Dec. 1941, A700 6–9–3, JFMA and Bangkok to Tokyo, 26 Aug. 1945, SRDJ 110551–53, RG 457, USNA. Taiwan had long been a centre of activities promoting Japanese activities in the region. The Japanese navy had maintained a strong interest in the south and governors general of the colony traditionally were retired naval officers. One naval advocate of a southern strategy referred to Taiwan as “the stronghold of the southward advance”. See Sumio, Hatano, “The Japanese Navy and the Development of Southward Expansion”, in International Commercial Rivalry in Southeast Asian in the Interwar Period, ed. Shinya, Sugiyama and Guerrero, Milagros C. (New Haven: Yale Southeast Asian Studies, 1994), pp. 95–108Google Scholar.

¹⁷ Fujishima, Gekidō sum sensō no urabanashi, unnumbered preface page with author's biographical data, and pp. 10–14.

¹⁸ Ibid., pp. g and 126–30.

¹⁹ Ibid., pp. 130,136. Bangkok to Taihoku (Taipei), 15 Dec. 1942, SRDJ 29290, RG 457, USNA stated: “We expect to need interpreters who can handle interpreting Thai into both Fukienese and Cantonese. As the people born in Formosa naturally speak Fukienese and Cantonese, we would like o t have you make arrangements to send six of Fukien lineage and two of Canton lineage to act in this capacity.” Likewise, Bangkok to Taihoku, 4 Mar. 1943, SRDJ 32436, RG 457, USNA requested 25 Taiwanese interpreters for the army. Despite their importance to the Japanese program, however, the Taiwanese in Thailand found much to complain about. Their hopes that they would enjoy special status in Thailand as Japanese subjects were dashed. Instead they found the Thai authorities and resident Chinese treated them with “contempt on the grounds that they are not really Japanese”. One attempt to alleviate this problem was a move to drop the word “Taiwan” from the name of the local Taiwanese Association. Also, they were discriminated against by what Fujishima termed “narrow-minded” Japanese. Fujishima even had to make a personal appeal to the Japanese commander t o gain Taiwanese businessmen the right to participate in Japan's military supply program. See Bangkok to Taihoku, 14 Jun. 1943, SRDJ 39718, RG 457, USNA and Fujishima, Gekidō sum sensō no urabanashi, pp. 145–48.

²⁰ Fujishima, Gekidō suru sensō no urabanashi, pp. 131–36. In a newspaper article, published 16 years after the war, Maki Kensuke, an operative of the Japanese army espionage school, the Nakano Gakko, who visited Thailand for two weeks, suggested that Chang Ying-tzu was a Chungking spy. Fujishima doubted this and speculated that Maki was using his imagination to make his story more interesting. Fujishima includes Maki's article in his book (pp. 224–34) and his comments on it are found on p. 223. Her picture appears on p. 227. Among other things, Fujishima notes that the writer had her name and the name of the newspaper they published wrong. The story is made more intriguing by the fact that after the war she married a Japanese named Andō, a second-generation Japanese resident of Singapore. He was employed by the postwar British occupation force in Thailand as an interpreter, and she also went to work for them, helping in the search for Japanese deserters. Decades later Fujishima had heard that her husband had died and she was living with their children in Vientiane, Laos where she had a small bookstore and restaurant (pp. 134–35).

²¹ Bangkok to Tokyo, 10 May 1942, SRDJ 22408; Aoki to Bangkok, 25 May 1943, SRDJ 37328; and Tokyo to Bangkok, 18 Jun. 1945, SRDJ 103651–52, RG 457, USNA. By way of comparison, the 1945 budget for such machinations in Indochina was set at 200,000 yen. See Tokyo to Saigon, 20 Jun. 1945, SRDJ 103659, RG 457, USNA.

²² Bangkok Times, 28 Feb. 1942 and “Taikoku Kakyō genjō oyobi dō”, Jōhō 27 (1 Jul. 1944): 85, A700 9–9–4, JFMA.

²³ Murashima, “Nittai dōmei to Tai Kakyō”, pp. 51, 53; Suehiro Akira, Capital Accumulation in Thailand, 1855–1985, pp. 111–12,118,122,160; and Murashima, “Tai Kakyō no seiji katsudō: 5/30 undo kara Nitchu sensō made”, p. 281.

²⁴ Fujishima, Gekidō sum sensō no urabanashi, p. 150.

²⁵ Interview C-289, 18 Dec. 1944, File 116, Box 9, Entry 105, RG 226, USNA.

²⁶ Bangkok Times, 8 Jun. 1942; Tsubokami to Tokyo, 11 Jun. 1942, A600 1–2–7, vol. 2, JFMA; Bangkok Chronicle, 27 Jan. 1943; Manot Wutthatit Report, OSS XL14550, RG 226, USNA; and Murashima, “Tai Kakyō no seiji katsudō: 5/30 undō kara Nitchū sensō made”, p. 287 and “Nittai dōmei to Tai Kakyō”, p. 54. Murashima emphasizes that the Japanese were not involved in the arrests and that the defendants were prosecuted for their opposition to Phibun's regime. The release of these political prisoners on 9 September 1945 is reported in XL37114, RG 226, USNA.

²⁷ Bangkok to Tokyo, 19 Feb. 1944, SRDJ 57649, RG 457, USNA and “Taikoku Kakyō genjō oyobi dō”, Jōhō 27 (1 Jul. 1944): 85–86, A700 9–9–4, JFMA; Murashima, “Tai Kakyō no seiji katsudō: 5/30 undō kara Nitchū sensō made”, p. 362; and Interview C-981, 18 Dec. 1944, Folder 116, Box 9, Entry 105, RG 226, USNA.

²⁸ Coughlin, Richard J., DŌuble Identity: The Chinese in Modern Thailand (Hong Kong: University of Hong Kong Press, 1960), pp. 156–57Google Scholar, 186; and Lusey to DŌnovan, 23 May 1942, Box 4, M. Preston Goodfellow Papers, Hoover Institution, Stanford, California, which notes that Tai Li's organization had developed a device that enabled agents to convert a regular receiver into a clandestine transmitter.

²⁹ Zenkoku Kenyūkairenaikai [The Nationwide Alliance of Kempei Associations], Ninon Kempei seishi [The True History of the Japanese Kempei] (Tokyo: Kempei Kenyukairenaikai, 1976), pp. 949–50,954; Aketo, Nakamura, Hotoke no shireikan [The Buddha's Commander] (Tokyo: Shuhosha, 1958), pp. 119-20Google Scholar; Murashima, “Nittai dōmei to Tai Kakyō”, p. 53; Miles to Metzel and Leggett, n.d. but c. Dec. 1942, Box 2, Naval Group China, RG 38, USNA; and Milton E. Miles, A Different Kind of War (Garden City, NY: DŌubleday, 1957), pp. 180–81.

³⁰ Tokyo to Bangkok relaying Nanking's message, 14 Dec. 1941, SRDJ 18285–86; Nanking to Peking, 16 Dec. 1941, SRDJ 17810; and Tokyo to Bangkok, 20 Dec. 1941, SRDJ 17939, RG 457, USNA.

³¹ Tokyo to Bangkok, 20 Dec. 1941, SRDJ 17939 and Bangkok to Tokyo, 9 Jan. 1942, SRDJ 18781–83, RG 457, USNA. An American missionary educator with long experience in Thailand told the Office of Strategic Services (Interview C-981, 18 Dec. 1944, File 116, Box 9, Entry 105, RG 226, USNA) after his repatriation that the Chinese residents “hope fervently that China will insist on having her own legation in Thailand” when in a sufficiently powerful position to dō so. They were confident, he added, that: “Some day China will force Thailand to let Chinese government representatives be established in the country, to look after the interests of the Chinese nationals.” Also see Victor Purcell, The Chinese in Southeast Asia, 2nd ed. (Londōn: Oxford University Press, 1965), pp. 134–35.

³² Tsubokami to Tokyo, 25 Dec. 1941, A700 9–6–3, JFMA; and Bangkok to Tokyo, 9 Jan. 1942, SRDJ 18781–83 and Bangkok to Tokyo, 23 Jan. 1942, SRDJ 19297, RG 457, USNA. On the matter of monetary remittances to China, a sore subject among Thai nationalists who viewed them as directly draining wealth from Thailand, the Bangkok Embassy later complained of difficulties in trying to determine whether the destinations of remittances were in fact in occupied areas. It was suggested that Tokyo control the remittances centrally, and determine the status of the destination point before the money was permitted to go through. See Bangkok to Tokyo, 19 Jun. 1943, SRDJ 39168, RG 457, USNA.

³³ Tokyo to Bangkok, 14 Jan. 1942, SRDJ 18898, RG 457, USNA and “Kakyō taisaku yoryo” (Outline of Countermeasures Toward the Overseas Chinese), Nampogun sakusen kankei shiryo (Operations-related DŌcuments of the Southern Army), Nansei zempan 16–2–31, National Institute for Defense Studies (NIDS), Tokyo.

³⁴ Ishii to Tokyo, 20 May 1942, SRDJ 022748 and Tokyo to Bangkok, 21 May 1942, SRDJ 022819, RG 457, USNA.

³⁵ Tōgō to Bangkok, 22 May 1942, SRDJ 022845 and Tōgō to Nanking, 19 Jun. 1942, SRDJ 024023, RG 457, USNA; and Tsubokami to Tokyo, 22 Jun. 1942, A700 9–63, JFMA.

³⁶ Tōgō to Bangkok, 23 Jul. 1942, SRDJ 025005, RG 457, USNA.

³⁷ Tsubokami to Tokyo, 13 Aug. 1942, A700 9–6–3, JFMA.

³⁸ Tōjō to Bangkok, 2 Sep. 1942, SRDJ 026175 and Tokyo to Bangkok relaying a message from Shigemitsu in Nanking, 30 Sep. 1942, SRDJ 026911, RG 457, USNA.

³⁹ Fujishima, Gekidō sum sensō no urabanashi, pp. 132–33, 141. Fujishima claims that on occasion General Nakamura intervened at his request to obtain the release of Chinese arrested by the Kempeitai.

⁴⁰ Panee Bualek, “Botbat khong phokha bon sen thang say marana” [The Role of Merchants on the “Death Railway”], Thammasat University Journal, 21,2 (May-Aug. 1995): 44–49, and Murashima, “Nittai dōmei to Tai Kakyō”, pp. 57–58.

⁴¹ Bangkok to Tokyo, 1 Apr. 1943, SRDJ 34729, RG 457, USNA and Panee, “Botbat khong phokha bon sen thang say marana”, pp. 49–55.

⁴² Panee, “Botbat khong phokha bon sen thang say marana”, pp. 49–55; Bangkok to Tokyo, 22 May 1943, SRDJ 37282, RG 457, USNA; and Skinner, Chinese Society in Thailand, pp. 274–75. No dōubt the most problematic “rumors” concerned the outbreak of cholera which wrought havoc i n the work camps along the railway and even reached Bangkok in late June (Bangkok Chronicle, 28 Jul. 1943).

⁴³ Panee, “Botbat khong phokha bon sen thang say marana”, pp. 55–56; Murashima, “Nittai dōmei to Tai Kakyō”, p. 59; and Bangkok to Tokyo, 20 Aug. 1943, SRDJ 42607, RG 457, USNA.

⁴⁴ Ibid.; Bangkok to Tokyo, 25 Oct. 1944, SRDJ 76479, RG 457, USNA; and “Taikoku Kakyō genjō oyobi dō”, Jōhō (Intelligence) 27 (1 Jul. 1944): 85, A700 9–9–4, JFMA.

⁴⁵ Murashima, “Nittai dōmei to Tai Kakyō”, pp. 67–68.

⁴⁶ Bangkok Post, 29 Jan. 1947.

⁴⁷ Bangkok Post, 4 Jan. 1988, and Suehiro, Capital Accumulation in Thailand, p. 158.

⁴⁸ Bangkok to Tokyo, 23 Jun. and 4 Jul. 1944, SRDJ 63843 and 66538, RG 457, USNA; and Fujishima, Gekidō susru sensō no urabanashi, pp. 148—53.

⁴⁹ Bangkok to Tokyo, 12 Mar. 1945, SRDJ 94064–65, RG 457, USNA and Fujishima, Gekidō sum sensō no urabanashi, pp. 157–59.

⁵⁰ Bangkok to Tokyo, 12 Mar. 1945, SRDJ 94064–65, RG 457, USNA and Fujishima, Gekidō sum sensō no urabanashi, pp. 155–56. Fujishima states in his memoir that the compromise with Mitsubishi was worked out after he had appealed to Col. Tsuji Masanobu at military headquarters. However, this seems to have been a lapse of memory on Fujishima's part since the diplomatic message cited above indicates at that a fifty-fifty division had been agreed on 9 March, almost three months before Tsuji transferred to Thailand.

⁵¹ Ibid., p. 86.

⁵² Interview C-981, 18 Dec. 1944, File 116, Box 9, Entry 105, RG 226, USNA.

⁵³ Murashima, “Nittai dōmei to Tai Kakyō”, p. 55.

⁵⁴ Tsubokami to Tokyo, 4 Aug. 1942, A799 9–6–3, JFMA.

⁵⁵ Manot Wutthatit report, October 1944, XL14550, RG 226 and “Political Conditions in Thailand”, 22 Sep. 1944, 892.00/9–3044, RG 59, USNA.

⁵⁶ Bangkok to Tokyo, 28 May 1943, SRDJ 37514, RG 457, USNA. This point is also made in “Taikoku Kakyō genjō oyobi dō”, Jōhō 27 (1 Jul. 1944): 86, A700 9–9–4, JFMA and Fujishima, Gekidō sum sensō no urabanashi, p. 138.

⁵⁷ Bangkok Times, 18 Mar. 1942; Bangkok to Nanking, 15 Feb. 1944, SRDJ 53348, RG 457, USNA; and 'Taikoku Kakyō genjō oyobi dō”, Jōhō 27 (1 Jul. 1944): 85, A700 9–9–4, JFMA. The two officials who visited in 1942 were identified as Singapore-born Chong Yong-fook, an official of the Nanking government's Overseas Department, and his assistant Liu Choong-yuan. They stopped in Bangkok enroute from Saigon to Singapore.

⁵⁸ Fujishima, Gekidō sum SensŌ no urabanashi, pp. 84, 86.

⁵⁹ Phraya Prichanusat is one of the more interesting figures in wartime Thailand. A graduate of Manchester University in England and a former headmaster of Vajiravudh College, he was widely believed to have been influenced by Japan's military successes. One of his sons, Prasat, was sent, amid much fanfare in the Japanese press, to study in Japan in April 1942, along with the son of Prince Wan Waithayakon. Both, however, returned before the end of the war. Phraya Prichanusat himself made a tour of Japan in his capacity as President of the Thai Newspaper Association in mid-1943 in the company of Publicity Bureau Chief Phairot Chayanam. Another son, Kusa, was studying in the United States when the war broke out and participated in Free Thai operations with the American Office of Strategic Services. Kusa was captured by Thai police after being landed by submarine in southern Thailand in late 1944 and spent the rest of the war in detention. Yet another son of Phraya Prichanusat, Anan, has recently twice served as prime minister of Thailand.

⁶⁰ Bangkok to Tokyo, 21 and 22 Oct. 1943, SRDJ 44911 and 45142, RG 457; Manot Wutthatit Report, Oct. 1944, OSS XL14550, RG 226, USNA; and Phathanothai, Sirin, Dragon's Pearl (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1994), pp. 33–34Google Scholar.

⁶¹ According to the Bangkok Chronicle of 26 Feb. 1944, Ch'en's decoration was the “third class of the Most Noble Order of the Crown of Thailand”.

⁶² “Taikoku Kakyō genjō oyobi dō”, Jōhō 27 (1 Jul. 1944): 87, A700 9–9–4, JFMA.

⁶³ For more detailed treatment of the change of government, see Reynolds, E. Bruce, Thailand and Japan's Southern Advance, 1940–1945 (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1994), ch. 7Google Scholar.

⁶⁴ Bangkok Chronicle, 10 Aug. 1944; Bangkok to Tokyo, 8 Nov. 1944, SRDJ 82395–96, RG 57, USNA; and Fujishima, Gekidō sum sensō no urabanashi, pp. 139–44. According to Fujishima, the Chinese community credited his intervention with Khuang for a relaxation of the laws restricting various occupations to Thai nationals only.

⁶⁵ Bangkok to Tokyo, 17 Nov. 1944, SRDJ 80009–14, RG 457, USNA.

⁶⁶ Suehiro, Capital Accumulation in Thailand, pp. 220, 412–17. Suehiro's own evidence seems t o contradict his statement (p. 134) that during the wartime era collaboration between “Thai-national Chinese businessmen and political leaders … did not develop further after 1943.…”

⁶⁷ Bangkok to Tokyo, 17 Nov. 1944, SRDJ 80009–14, RG 457, USNA; Manot Wutthatit report, XL 14550, and various dōcuments in folder 3382, Box 199, Entry 154, RG 226, USNA.

⁶⁸ Bangkok to Tokyo, 31 Mar. 1945, SRDJ 96389–91; Bangkok to Tokyo, 6 May 1945, SRDJ 113518–28; Bangkok to Tokyo, 7 Jun. 1945, SRDJ 102527–35, and MAGIC Diplomatic Summary, SRS 1753, 8 Aug. 1945, RG 457, USNA. Also, Skinner, Chinese Society in Thailand, p. 277, and Zenkoku Kenyūkairenaikai, Ninon Kempei seishi, p. 960.

⁶⁹ Ishii to Taihoku, 10 May 1943, SRDJ 36238 and Bangkok to Taihoku, 27 Apr. and 3 May 1944, SRDJ 88802–04 and 60064, RG 457, USNA.

⁷⁰ Bangkok to Tokyo, 12 Aug. 1944; Tokyo to Bangkok, 14 Aug. 1944, SRDJ 72113 and 70424, RG 457, USNA; and Fujishima, Gekidō sum sensō no urabanashi, pp. 154–55. Fujishima misdates his trip to Tokyo as 1943.

⁷¹ Taihoku to Bangkok, 14 Sep. 1944, SRDJ 72594–95 and Bangkok to Tokyo, 21 Nov. 1944, SRDJ 79818–19, RG 457, USNA.

⁷² Bangkok to Tokyo, 8 and 19 Dec. 1944, SRDJ 82163–64 and 84661; Bangkok to Taihoku, 9 Apr. 1945, SRDJ 97817–18; and Bangkok to Tokyo, 14 Jun. 1945, SRDJ 104071, RG 457, USNA. Also, Fujishima, Gekidō sum sensō no urabanashi, p. 154. Bangkok to Tokyo, 26 Jul. 1945, SRDJ 107803–06, RG 457, USNA placed Khao Phap's circulation at 5,500, far below the peak of 13,000 copies per day.

⁷³ Taihoku to Bangkok, 13 Apr. and 18 Jul. 1944, SRDJ 57477 and 66114; and Taihoku to Tokyo, 29 May 1945, SRDJ 101953–54, RG 457, USNA.

⁷⁴ Bangkok to Tokyo, 28 May 1945, SRDJ 102770–72, RG 457, USNA.

⁷⁵ Tokyo to Bangkok, 23 Jun. 1945, SRDJ 103972, RG 457, USNA. Tsuji's intervention is described in Reynolds, Thailand and Japan's Southern Advance, p. 223. When the Japanese surrender came in mid-August, the embassy hastened to dispose of the newspaper companies (Bangkok to Tokyo, 26 Aug. 1945, SRDJ 110551–53, RG 457, USNA). Under a secret agreement, the Japanese president of Khao Phap, Uematsu Hideo, temporarily signed the company over to the Thai editor-in-chief and a Japanese with Thai citizenship, Kawakita Tomio. Meanwhile, Fujishima and other Japanese personnel withdrew fromChung-yuan Pao, turning it over to local Chinese management and distributing 65,000 baht of cash on hand to the employees. Finally, the Japanese sought to keep Bangkok Nippo publishing as long as possible as a means of communication with Japanese residents.

⁷⁶ Zenkoku Kenyūkairenaikai, Nihon Kempei seishi, p. 954; Nakamura, Hotoke no shireikan, pp. 119–21; Murashima, “Nittai dōmei to Tai Kakyō”, p. 68; and Military History Section, U.S. Far East Command, “Thailand Operations Record” (1953), inWar in the Pacific, vol. 6, ed. DŌnald S. Detwiler and Charles B. Burdick (New York: Garland, 1980), p. 18.

⁷⁷ Bangkok to Tokyo, 14 Jun. 1945, SRDJ 103351–54, RG 457, USNA. Khuang apparently was quite successful in ingratiating himself with the Chinese. An American political report of mid-July 1946 (Stanton to Washington, 892.00/7–1646, RG 59, USNA) reported that the Nationalist Chinese Embassy in Bangkok had expressed concern that the extensive financial backing wealthy Chinese were providing to Khuang (at that time Pridi was prime minister and Khuang was a leader of the opposition) might harm Thai-Chinese relations.

⁷⁸ Siren to Opero, 16 Aug. 1945, Folder 802, Box 66, Entry 136, RG 226, USNA; Coughlin to Thai Comm., 17 Aug. 1945, William DŌnovan Microfilm, Reel 130, U.S. Army Military History Institute, Carlisle Barracks, Pennsylvania; Kensho, Fukino, Wasureenu Chenmai [Unforgettable Chiang Mai] (Tokyo: Kōyō Shuppansha, 1983), pp. 143–44Google Scholar; and Yamamoto to Tokyo, 6 Sep. 1945 in Teisen to gaikoken teishi [The End of the War and Loss of the Right to Conduct Diplomacy], ed. Eto Jun and Hatano Sumio (Tokyo: Kōdansha, 1986), p. 274. Quoting the Thai English-language newspaper Democracy of 22 Oct. 1945, an intelligence report compiled by Dwight Bulkley dated 22 Dec. 1945 (XL 37108, RG 226, USNA) suggests that Ch'en's killer (Ping) was himself shot during an unsuccessful escape attempt.

⁷⁹ Dwight H. Bulkley, “Chinese-Thai Friction in Bangkok”, 22 Dec. 1945, XL 37108 and Bulkley memorandum, 9 Dec. 1945, XL 37112, RG 226, USNA.

⁸⁰ Ibid., and Thai Foreign Ministry to Washington Legation, 19 Oct. 1945 in Box 59, Records of the U.S. Legation in Bangkok, RG 54, National Records Centre, Suitland, MD. Ironically, Sanguan, who had been in China and the West as a Free Thai agent during the war, would later be sent to Nanking as the Thai ambassadōr to the Nationalist government. As two OSS officers have recalled, during this period Sanguan packed a .45 calibre revolver and a tommy gun in a bag for self-protection. Ripley, Dillon, “Incident in Siam”, Yale Review 36 (Winter, 1947): 272Google Scholar, and Alexander MacDŌnald Interview, Bangkok, 9 Nov. 1987. His brother Krachang had gone to China with him in 1943 and remained there when Sanguan was sent to the United States. Pridi sought, many years later — not long after he moved to Paris following a long period of exile in the People's Republic of China — to absolve the Communist Party of blame for the violence. He laid the blame on “Overseas Chinese chauvinists” of the right-wing variety. See Phanomyong, Pridi, “The Underground Kingdōm of Siam”, Bangkok Post, 26 Nov. 1974Google Scholar.

⁸¹ Dwight H. Bulkley, “Chinese-Thai Friction in Bangkok”, 22 Dec. 1945, XL 37108, RG 226, USNA.

⁸² Ibid., and Robert W. Lawson, “General Impression of the Situation in Bangkok”, 9 Oct. 1945, Folder 274, Box 24, Entry 110, RG 226, USNA.

⁸³ Ibid.

⁸⁴ Bangkok Post, 22 Sep. 1947. Presumably thesefiguresonly included Chinese victims. According t o Dwight H. Bulkley, “Chinese-Thai Friction in Bangkok”, 22 Dec. 1945, XL 37108, RG 226, USNA, at least nine Thai were killed.

⁸⁵ Hewison, Kevin, Bankers and Bureaucrats: Capital and the Role of the State in Thailand (New Haven: Yale University Southeast Asian Studies, 1989), pp. 66–76Google Scholar.

⁸⁶ Suehiro, Capital Accumulation in Thailand, pp. 133–34, 154.

⁸⁷ Ibid., p. 154, and Hewison, Bankers and Bureaucrats, p. 88.