Let me give you a little history lesson here Vanessa
Thailand is the ONLY and I repeat ONLY country in South East Asia that was NEVER under European colonial rule.
There are in reality two reasons for this.
1. The Thai King opened up for foreigners, both for trade and cultural exchange, Portugese traders went and came frequently, and England and Frence has embasies there. Thais were introduced to science and new thinking and tools wich was unknown for Asians at that time.
Since the official "reasons" for Europeans to collonise a foreign nation was to make them "civilise" since they were only "barbarians"
The Thai King choose himself to "civililise" his nation on his own.
2. England and France like usual had a VERY turbulent relationship.
England controled west Asia, all the way from India and to Myangmar (Burma) While France was Vietnam and all the way to Cambodia and down to Indonesia if I'm not horribly miscorrect.
France was the world power that wanted Siam /Thailand) the most, no question about that. But if France controled Siam them they would be a border neighbours. At a time of war that isn't desired. Plus the King of Siam had made a good relation with England, meaning if France invaded Siam, they would declare war with England.
England on the other hand wanted to "use" Siam as a buffer state. Meaning that Siam were to remain independent as a Nation and becoming a fine huge border that seperated Englanf and France in Asia.
On the other hand the ONLY think you would have been correct about is that France DID take Khemer (Cambodia) away from Siam. But never Siam itself.
Hope this was a little helpfull.
So Ong-Kot what are my history grades? lol