Talk:1932 Siamese coup d'état
|WikiProject Thailand||(Rated Start-class)|
Coup d'état or Revolution?
Should we not call this 'Siamese Revolution of 1932'? My understanding is that a coup is a mere change in the head of government, while a revolution is a more radical change in the type of government, in this case from absolute monarchy to "democracy" (more accurately: constitutional monarchy with underlying oligarchy, then military dictatorship, alternate with periods of democracy -- but it was still a change in the government type). --Jakris 17:35, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- No, I think coup is the correct term. A revolution would have to be more widespread and result in fundamental changes in the economic order, which the Siam coup did not, despite Pridi's best efforts. Read the wiki article on Coup d'etat and you'll see it applies in several places.
- I'm a little more concerned that the last paragraph indicates that there may be some conflicting political opinions about the 1932 Coup, yet contrary opinions are not indicated in the main body. Jberkus 05:58, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
Took out the codswallop about the ghost near the bridge.
I think this word might be the misunderstanding in Thai vocab. As a Thai, I' ve never heard the word "Khana Ratsadorn" before. The words, "ราษฎร์" and "ราษฎร" are the same meaning as "People."
- General meaning of "people" is ราษฎร (Ratsadorn or Rasadon)
- For the name of groups or roads, they always use ราษฎร์ (Rat or Ras) which is the same meaning.
So I remove this part out.
The people behind the coup called themselves the People's Party ("Khana Ratsadorn" - คณะราษฎร; the Party is more commonly and mistakenly called "Khana Rat" - คณะราษฎร์).
No, the name of the group is "Khana Ratsadorn". The abovementioned paragraph said it correctly:
- " Party is more commonly and mistakenly called "Khana Rat" - คณะราษฎร์ "
-- 220.127.116.11 11:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Where is this article from?
This article doesn't read like a Wikipedia article - it reads like an essay or a chapter from a book. It also doesn't list its references. I'm assuming good faith, but must ask the editors to double check their sources, and if need be, re-write the contents of the article in such a way that respects the copyrights of any original works. Patiwat 19:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Recently I wrote Thai coup on 1932 in ja: and then found this coup caused only one who had injured. His Official name is Phraya Sena-Songkhram or Momrajawongse I Nobawongse who is a son of a grandchildren of Monkut and was a commander of division 1 of Royal Thai Army when the coup take place. I know this information from the book, "People of Modern Asia 6 - Pibun" published by Iwanami Shoten and written by Dr. Murashima Eiji. I think this book is reliable since he mentions cremation books and memoirs of the member of People's party, and other official archives, as references. Anyway this book is written in Japanese and may not be verified by most of w:en: readers. Thus I show the  and  for readers' verification.--Anan 15:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
coup or revolution
I agree with Khun Jakris that the event should be called revolution more than a mere coup. The argument that coup is merely a change of the head of government and the revolution is the change in fundamental economic system may not exactly be the full definition of both terms. I tend to agree that coup d'etat implies the change of the head of the government, as this French word means to take the power of the state, hence anyone doing so generally has the principle aim to be the subsequent head of the government, therefore he or she takes the power of the state. Meanwhile, the term revolution offer a broad meaning of the the changes; sudden or not remains to be argued, but it is not necessary focus on the economic fundamental only. This 1932 change, rather as I see it had been seeded since all these Thai students sent overseas to study in England, France and Germany, where they were exposed to the environments that had had many revolutions especially England and France which had brought their crowns under common man rules. The changes in 1932 in Siam imported such idea and politically it has brought the monarchy under parliament similarly to that of France and England. If one were to specifically focus on economic principle, the Siamese mode of production and the relationship of the people within the economic society had also fundamentally changed from that of the Feudal state to Capitalist one in a way although there has been an evolutionary changes of these since King Rama V already but the 1932 changes has fundamentally shift these basic principle of politico-economic relations of the people in the society greatly. I support the term "Revolution". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yotsiri (talk • contribs) 07:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC).