I am trying to gain more of an understanding of the conditions that allowed communist groups or governments to gain popular support in countries in Southeast Asia (Laos and Vietnam in particular) but I want to try and remove the threat of force aspect from the equation.
Were there propaganda techniques or other methods of convincing the common citizen to join their cause that were at all unique to the time and place that are notable or are they very similar stories to China or Russia?
It is impossible to know with absolute certainty what “Siam” would look like now culturally and politically if it remained untouched by European colonialism and Communism. What would motivate a Lao person of the time to espouse removing their government in favor of the Communists beyond simply “economic factors”?
Obviously impoverished areas became breeding grounds for communist revolutions. But, as far as I can tell, every single one of those movements started off as “populist” movements and then all became authoritarian regimes with the same exact problems. Did the monarchies and communist regimes amount to the same thing for the average citizen in the end?
Hi there. I can’t speak much for Laos and Vietnam because I’m no expert on either one of those two countries, but as for Siam, I have personally studied a large extent of proto-Thailand and the intricate politics which turned essentially a collection of unruly vassal states into a highly centralised and relatively modern nation which avoided colonialism, and the politics all the way up to the present-day. A minor disclaimer in that I am not a historian, merely a student with a deep passion for the subject, and a large interest in the politics and history of Southeast Asia. I’ll be able to provide sources for what I write though, and hopefully this will be good enough for the mods here. A book I’ll recommend off the bat (though it does focus on military history) is this one as I found the essays inside to offer valuable insight rarely found in many other books of the same kind.
When considering the position of the Vietnamese and Lao monarchies and the rise of Communism in these countries, one has to first understand that these regimes were considered collaborators with the French by most of their populace. While the legitimacy of the Chakri monarchy in Thailand was cemented through commonly perceived resistance of colonialism (Wyatt, Baker & Phongpaichit), the other two institutions were not so lucky in the sense they largely were seen as enforcers of a brutal colonial regime by their people. When Communist groups such as the Viet Minh emerged as resistance to the ‘colonial oppressors’ during the nascent rise of Indochinese nationalism in the 1940s, many simply just rallied to the side that promised to overthrow French rule. Again, I’m not a particular expert on Lao or Vietnamese history and this information I’ve gotten from history books primarily written about Thailand, so perhaps a more knowledgeable commenter can verify this.
Regarding Siam, you first have to understand how Siam operated up until the reforms of King Chulalongkorn the Great (Rama V of the Chakri Dynasty). Siam still operated under the Palace Law and the Thammasat, essentially a feudal constitution which detailed the rights of citizens and aristocrat alike, alongside being the common law of the Kingdom of Ayutthaya, drafted in the late 15th century by King Trailok. When Ayutthaya fell, the successor Rattanakosin state under newly crowned King Buddha Yotfa Chulaloke (Rama I Chakri) consolidated this ancient manuscript of laws into the Three Seals Law, which somewhat modernized the text but still left many archaic institutions in place - the Chatusadom: the ancient four ministries of Na, Wang, Wien and Klang were still in place and Siam was largely decentralized - more of a collection of feudal states and tributaries rather than the modern nation-states which were now beginning to rise in Europe (Baker and Phongpaichit, The Palace Law of Ayutthaya).
The reforms brought on by King Chulalongkorn turned the old system on its head, curbed the powers of the ancient aristocracy from the prominent Bangkok nobles such as the Bunnags all the way to the Princes of Chiang Mai who had largely ruled undisturbed, only required to travel down to Bangkok annually to pay lip service and tribute to the King of Siam. Now, the King appointed governors and split the army into distinct units with specific areas to govern. Common Siamese law would now be observed in all regions of the kingdom, not just in what is now Central Thailand, and every part of daily life from education, healthcare, transportation and defense to the very cultural identity of these territories were under the direct authority of the Chakri monarchy, who began to shape in to their image in the name of ‘progress and modernization’. This obviously provoked a strong reaction from many of the lords and princes all over Siam which sometimes manifested violently (i.e the Front Palace Crisis which led to the dissolution of the office of Uparaja, or Front Palace/Vice-King of Siam or the Vientiane rebellion) or diplomatically (i.e the case of Lan Na pursuing closer ties with the British which led Chulalongkorn to take Princess Dara Rasmi of Chiang Mai as one of his consorts to bind the house of Chiang Mai to the Chakri Dynasty). It becomes less historical and more so political to assert whether or not these reforms were necessary - proponents argue that it was required to create a modern Siam, a view I personally generally agree with, while others will argue that they essentially led to the cementation of Chakri absolutism and the destruction of various cultures in favour of pan-Thaism and Central Thai cultural hegemony, a view I also awkwardly agree with to a certain extent. Overall, your opinion on these reforms will largely depend on your political stance and views on the Thai institutions in general. But I digress.
When you ask what a modern Siam would have looked like, the simple answer would be it would be vastly different from any country you see in Southeast Asia right now politically. Colonialism was the fuel which Chakri kings used to establish the modern way we think of the kingdom all the way from Rama III to Rama IX (Rama III’s dying words were to beware not the ancestral enemies of Yuan (Vietnam) and P’ma (Burma), but rather the colonial empires which would conquer them). Chakri kings were only spurred on to centralise because they acknowledged the threat of colonialists who would attack if given any opportunity to do so. No longer could Siam face this enemy the old-fashioned-way with steel and diplomacy, and any concessions which needed to be made would have to be. Territories were only retained based on relative ease of rule - many right-wing militarists in the Thai army questioned Chulalongkorn’s decision to trade the larger Cambodian provinces of Phra Tabong (Battambang) and Siam Nakhon (Siem Reap) in favor of French-occupied Trat and Chantaburi, but the answer is simple. Trat and Chantaburi were easier to govern and closer to Bangkok than the two former provinces, and thus were more valuable because they did not provide the threat of rebellion or dissidence which would have invited in European colonialism. I’d even argue that the impact of colonialism can be felt today, and were the major roots of the 1932 Siamese Revolution and Pibulsongkhram’s ultranationalist regime and ultimately his collaboration with the Japanese. Thai foreign policy since has essentially been in response to European colonialism - Chualongkorn sending his many sons abroad to study in the UK, France, German Empire, Russian Empire etc, joining World War I in the hopes of renegotiating trade treaties, briefly allying with Japan in the hopes of reclaiming former territories (though the involvement of the aristocracy and left-wing intellectuals in resisting that is a whole other essay). Incidents like the Paknam Crisis or the shootout with Phra Yot Muang Kwang severely damaged Thai national pride, yet were instrumental in turning Siam into a centralised nation-state. Without them, Siam would largely just remain a feudal kingdom. None of the Chakri monarchs were unintelligent men: they saw what happened to the monarchs of Burma and knew that the same fate would befall them should their country fall to a European colonial power so they actively resisted this in as much a bid for self-preservation as patriotism and duty.
Modern Siam untouched by colonialism would be a fuedal state with a variety of cultures. Siam was essentially a melting pot for various immigrants and exiles (Van Roy) and it was only because of colonialism that a unified central Thai culture and language came to replace the distinct regional cultures and dialects in hopes of proving it was a ‘civilised state’. Perhaps it would be larger had the Lao princes and Cambodian lords remained loyal, though Siamese grip on these territories were tenuous at best. Ultimately, I can not say for certain because the effect of colonialism in Southeast Asia has defined its history for centuries, and Siam is no exception.
If you have any further questions on Siamese history or Thailand during the Cold War, please do not hesitate to ask. My sincere apologies for not being able to provide any more insight into Laos or Vietnam, I simply do not feel confident enough to answer.
Sources
(Sorry I couldn’t provide better formatted sourcing, I’m abroad on mobile right now)