Laos territory in the late 19th to early 20th century

c***@gmail.com

2018-03-10 05:41:28 UTC

From what I read, Laos territory in the late 19th to early 20th century

Then, when the French came to colonize Muang Lao in 1893, only
Luangprabang principality was in somewhat Lao hands. The rest was
originally administered as either part of Annam or Cochinchina. In
another word, aside from Luangprabang and some areas around it, Muang
Lao ceased to exist. A year later, the initial organization of Laos was
Laokao
p.s. For those who are interested in seeing the map of Laos territory
ceding by various decrees, please check it out at
http://angelfire.com/folk/laorevolution

Get the year Right, not 1893, but 1868 counting from Auguste Parvie meeting with King OUN Kham, 1893 was the year of Thai-French Fraud on Laos. You've been deceived by crooked Siam/Thai.

What proof? Go look at the THai crooks' new name Chanthaburi(the old Laotian name is Chantaboun, below Pattaya). I got all the Maps, and Prima-facie Even Thai admitted it that the French Cathedral there was built 10+years before 1893. Siam defrauded Laos between 1868 and 1893, even until these days. They defraud Laos King OunKham, and kidnapped our Kings and kept them in A-Yuthia (old name in the map).

I have old maps of French Indochina, as well as British old map. Laos border was near A-Yuthia, near Lopburi, Lanna, Chiangmai Lampang were part of Laos, including Isan. The Maps you see now online are all fraudulent Maps created by Siam or their PuppetMasters (wiki, or Google). You should always look for map older than 1870's if you want to know the Truth.

The French claimed in Wiki that they came to conquer Vietnam in 1845, so it makes sense, due to Seashore and Opium War 1 and 2 routes to China Seashore. The British and France started Opium War with China in the earlier 1800's. They got tired fighting with each other in North America, so in 1763, they signed a peace Treaty, to team together to rob the little countries for their economic reasons.

For me, it's easy to trace all the past events, because I have a time-traveling machine to go back in time to inspect the hearts of Siam Kings, French leaders, Laos Kings, British leaders, etc.. Everything matched the maps perfectly.

Do we have any power to get them back? Yes, 1-4 options. We got lots of resources, including new high-tech. We don't need mil intervention, the natural disaster will kill them automatically, including all the crooks used to abuse Laos in the old days. Laonorks should make peace with Laonai and forget problem #4. Focus on problem #1(Land theft), #2(damagesA), #3(damagesB). #4(consq.conflict with pathetla) should be ignored or resolve.

Stop all the west and east scams, know your enemies in America, which is the British-USA (foreigners, Dpst). Real Americans are called "American Republic", defraud 160 years ago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathedral_of_the_Immaculate_Conception,_Chanthaburi

JP.

c***@gmail.com

2018-03-10 06:40:23 UTC

From what I read, Laos territory in the late 19th to early 20th century

could go in many directions. First, if we thought of Muang Lao as the
land formed by Chao FaNgum, its territory would extend over the Khorat
plateau to the west. As to the east, it would rightly cover
SipSongChuTai. As for the north, it had a legitimate claim over
SipSongPanna and, for the south, it would extend to the northern part
of Cambodia around the present day Stung Treng. Not the least, it would
cover the Darlac and Kontum plateau of South Vietnam. Second, if we
thought of Muang Lao as the partition of three Lao main principalities,
then anything could go.
Then, when the French came to colonize Muang Lao in 1893, only
Luangprabang principality was in somewhat Lao hands. The rest was
originally administered as either part of Annam or Cochinchina. In
another word, aside from Luangprabang and some areas around it, Muang
Lao ceased to exist. A year later, the initial organization of Laos was
being modified. Khammouane and Song Khone were detached from Annam as
also Xiengkhouand from Tonking in 1895 and Sam Neua in 1903 to Laos.
Because of the outbreak of the revolts in the Bolovens plateau (April
1901- October 1907) and in Savannakhet (April and May 1902), the 1904
decrees deprived Laos of the Darlac plateau and of Stung Treng, with
its large Lao population living along the Sekong, Se Sane and Se Srepok
rivers and of the Kontum plateau in 1905.

From the Siamese-Franco treaty of 1904, the towns of Sayaboury and

Champassak were attached to Laos. Three years later, the French
retroceded the territory of Dan Sai to Siam. And, therefore, the Laos
as we know of today came into its present form.
My take is that Laos territory could go in different directions. Of the
ideal position, it could replicate the territory formed by Chao FaNgum
in 1353. This reasoning is based on the condition that France insisted
on demanding the Korat plateau as belonging to the former LanXang.
Also, that when France could insist of annexing SipSongPanna to Muang
Lao from China. And not the least that France had the Lao interest in
mind by ceding Sipsongchuthai which it incorporated to Tonking in 1888,
and not ceding the southern Lao territory to Cochinchina and Cambodia.
Of the worst scenario, Laos could be left with only the principality of
Luangprabang. Only through forces that came into play either the events
in Vietnam, World War Two or the insight of some administrative French,
Laos was spared of the worst scenario.
Laos as of today, though flawed in many ways ethnically wise and
territorially wise, is somewhat a blessing. The only reason that it
still exists despite all odds is something all Lao should be proud of.
And, therefore, despite our various political stripes, we should try to
place the interest of Muang Lao above all else. That will be my
approach in my upcoming series on the Lao revolution. It will not be my
intention to put a blame on any side but to find the solution best
suited to the interest of Muang Lao and of Quon Lao for eons to come.
Laokao
p.s. For those who are interested in seeing the map of Laos territory
ceding by various decrees, please check it out at
http://angelfire.com/folk/laorevolution

Beyond Korat, please don't make any final decision with Siam. As they already betrayed Laos long ago before they pretended to play games on giving Laos to Siam by FRAUD. This is exactly what I saw in the Time-Traveling Machine. We got facts, tons of evidence of GREAT FRAUD by Siam and French. copied from French site:

http://www.alainbernardenthailande.com/article-131-l-ambassade-du-siam-de-1861-en-france-123390953.html

Rappel du contexte.

Rama IV a choisi une politique d’ouverture diplomatique et commerciale envers les pays occidentaux, qui, nous l’avons vu, prendra tout d’abord la forme de traités avec les Anglais (traité Bowring en 1855), les Américains (Townsend Harris en 1856), les Français (Charles de Montigny en 1856), les Danois en 1858, les Portugais en 1859, les Hollandais en 1860.

Cette politique faisait entrer le Siam dans l’ère moderne, avec un roi n’hésitant pas à mettre fin à des monopoles et privilèges séculaires, pour développer le commerce au Siam et s’ouvrir aux progrès technologiques et à la science, mais conscient des dangers représentés par les forces colonisatrices anglaises et françaises, et des conflits au sein de sa propre Cour.

(Cf. La 2ème guerre anglo-birmane de 1852 qui avait abouti à l’annexion de la basse-Birmanie, la seconde guerre de l’opium qui opposa la Chine à la France et au Royaume-Uni (1856-1860), la prise de Saïgon par les Français le 9 juillet 1859, la chute de Pékin le 13 avril 1860,

c***@gmail.com

2019-05-01 02:48:43 UTC

From what I read, Laos territory in the late 19th to early 20th century

could go in many directions. First, if we thought of Muang Lao as the
land formed by Chao FaNgum, its territory would extend over the Khorat
plateau to the west. As to the east, it would rightly cover
SipSongChuTai. As for the north, it had a legitimate claim over
SipSongPanna and, for the south, it would extend to the northern part
of Cambodia around the present day Stung Treng. Not the least, it would
cover the Darlac and Kontum plateau of South Vietnam. Second, if we
thought of Muang Lao as the partition of three Lao main principalities,
then anything could go.
Then, when the French came to colonize Muang Lao in 1893, only
Luangprabang principality was in somewhat Lao hands. The rest was
originally administered as either part of Annam or Cochinchina. In
another word, aside from Luangprabang and some areas around it, Muang
Lao ceased to exist. A year later, the initial organization of Laos was
being modified. Khammouane and Song Khone were detached from Annam as
also Xiengkhouand from Tonking in 1895 and Sam Neua in 1903 to Laos.
Because of the outbreak of the revolts in the Bolovens plateau (April
1901- October 1907) and in Savannakhet (April and May 1902), the 1904
decrees deprived Laos of the Darlac plateau and of Stung Treng, with
its large Lao population living along the Sekong, Se Sane and Se Srepok
rivers and of the Kontum plateau in 1905.

From the Siamese-Franco treaty of 1904, the towns of Sayaboury and

Champassak were attached to Laos. Three years later, the French
retroceded the territory of Dan Sai to Siam. And, therefore, the Laos
as we know of today came into its present form.
My take is that Laos territory could go in different directions. Of the
ideal position, it could replicate the territory formed by Chao FaNgum
in 1353. This reasoning is based on the condition that France insisted
on demanding the Korat plateau as belonging to the former LanXang.
Also, that when France could insist of annexing SipSongPanna to Muang
Lao from China. And not the least that France had the Lao interest in
mind by ceding Sipsongchuthai which it incorporated to Tonking in 1888,
and not ceding the southern Lao territory to Cochinchina and Cambodia.
Of the worst scenario, Laos could be left with only the principality of
Luangprabang. Only through forces that came into play either the events
in Vietnam, World War Two or the insight of some administrative French,
Laos was spared of the worst scenario.
Laos as of today, though flawed in many ways ethnically wise and
territorially wise, is somewhat a blessing. The only reason that it
still exists despite all odds is something all Lao should be proud of.
And, therefore, despite our various political stripes, we should try to
place the interest of Muang Lao above all else. That will be my
approach in my upcoming series on the Lao revolution. It will not be my
intention to put a blame on any side but to find the solution best
suited to the interest of Muang Lao and of Quon Lao for eons to come.
Laokao
p.s. For those who are interested in seeing the map of Laos territory
ceding by various decrees, please check it out at
http://angelfire.com/folk/laorevolution

http://www.alainbernardenthailande.com/article-131-l-ambassade-du-siam-de-1861-en-france-123390953.html
Rappel du contexte.
Rama IV a choisi une politique d’ouverture diplomatique et commerciale envers les pays occidentaux, qui, nous l’avons vu, prendra tout d’abord la forme de traités avec les Anglais (traité Bowring en 1855), les Américains (Townsend Harris en 1856), les Français (Charles de Montigny en 1856), les Danois en 1858, les Portugais en 1859, les Hollandais en 1860.
Cette politique faisait entrer le Siam dans l’ère moderne, avec un roi n’hésitant pas à mettre fin à des monopoles et privilèges séculaires, pour développer le commerce au Siam et s’ouvrir aux progrès technologiques et à la science, mais conscient des dangers représentés par les forces colonisatrices anglaises et françaises, et des conflits au sein de sa propre Cour.
(Cf. La 2ème guerre anglo-birmane de 1852 qui avait abouti à l’annexion
(Cf. La 2ème guerre anglo-birmane > de 1852 qui avait abouti à

Post by àº¥àº²àº§à»àºàº»à»àº²
Uni (1856-1860), la prise de >>Saïgon par les Français le 9 >>juillet 1859, la chute de Pékin le >>13 avril 1860,

Questionnable.

Post by àº¥àº²àº§à»àºàº»à»àº²
(traité Bowring en 1855)???

Questionnable also.

Commercial Treaty Between England and Siam in 1855 Really? That’s FRAUD. You guys used a lot of hand drawing’s we’re not going to believe your Fraud, Mr. Alain. The Camera was available at this period of time.

This new version of French conspiracy supports Siam to keep the returned stolen Land of laos. France has no authority of Lao’s land okay? We’re going to charge you for Fraud, just because you got kicked out, you shouldn’t revenge by bad deed.

We have evidences to prove that the British and French forced Siam King Rama 3 - 4 to reveal their secrecies on how they conquered a Larger Country(Laos) than Siam. The British conquered Burma in 1824, not any other years later cited by Alain_bblabla... Laos was robbed, pillaged by Siam Rama 1, not a legitimate battle since 1789. (Fraud , using Laos' force of Champasack (by false promise for a reward) to aid Siam to ransack Laos in the old days in 1778's. That's not a war, it was a Great crime and slavery).

In 1824, the British was the first to discover Siam's Great Fraud, Greediness and deceptions. That's why they had British-Siam disputes settled around 1825's by a Treaty or agreement that Siam will not get a piece of Burma. Bc Siam wanted a part of Burma, wrongfully claimed it helped England defeated Burma, when in fact it only helped the British with a little Elephant fleet. Siam didn't have any guns at that time. Only swords and elephants, the British army all used Canons (Big guns) and little guns. The 1824 profit of land dispute was written in French and Siam books as well, that their young Kings Rama 3 (- 4), had issues with the British and French, that they claimed these 2 westerners were a BIG Threat to Siam. Go ahead, searched, and save copies of your findings before the manipulators changing their stories, people. Even the French old doc’s said they moved their Army, Catholic preachers in 1839 to Asia to help the Brits fight with China, and spread their Religion. There was Luna Eclipse in 1939, making them believe the French were on a good journey. Go figure people. So that pre-deal between the French and England in 1939, gives you a clue why the British left Siam alone, and in 1855 ordered Rama 4 by force to reveal their secrecies of how Siam conquered a larger country such as Laos, and to return the stolen Land to laos, for France be their protector. Another clue is, Berlin was there to draw the Map from 1828 – 1860. These give you a clue, that England and France knew, there was a big dispute between Laos and Siam in 1824 – 1855, through the GIANT MAP, created by Germany. Remember Britain and France were enemies for 7-hundreds years, ppl said. Berlin was the middle man between the old 2 enemies. They fought in America as well in 1770's until 1783 after a Peace Treaty, they left N. America to exploit SE Asia.

People, don't believe the years cited by these French Fraudsters, living in Esan. They married (Laos) Esans, and had no respect for their wives.:
//www.alainbernardenthailande.com
Whatever Treaty this site alleged don't meet the truth. They contradicted themselves, and many books, and so much old evidences.

c***@gmail.com

2019-05-01 03:49:44 UTC

From what I read, Laos territory in the late 19th to early 20th century

could go in many directions. First, if we thought of Muang Lao as the

//www.alainbernardenthailande.com
Whatever Treaty this site alleged don't meet the truth. They contradicted themselves, and many books, and so much old evidences.

Okay Folks, here you go, I have evidence that talks about the first Burmese War with England in Asia, and Siam Rama 3, it was from this disputes of shared profit of land that England knew Siam likes to take neighboring lands by fraud or for free. This a report of Siam itself, from a saved Wikipedia:

-----------------------------

In 1822, British East India Company agent John Crawfurd's mission to Siam[5] laid the groundwork for a British request for Siamese support in the First Anglo-Burmese War, which broke out in 1824. Nangklao (Rama 3) provided fleets and elephants to rush through Burmese forests. He also sent Siamese armies to participate in the invasion of Burma since the British promised Siam the conquered lands. Phraya Chumporn ordered the forced migration of Mergui (a common practice in Southeast Asia regarding the newly-conquered lands), which had been conquered by the British. The British were frustrated at Phraya Chumporn's actions, and hostilities were heightened. Nangklao ordered the Siamese armies to leave to avoid further conflict.

In 1825, Henry Burney arrived to negotiate peace agreements. The Burney Treaty was the first treaty with the West in the Rattanakosin period. Its purpose was to established free trade in Siam and to greatly reduce taxation on foreign trading ships. That it accomplished the objectives is disputed.[8]
-------------------------------------

Beware people, the French Fraudsters living in your Land, married your women, and disrespect them by lying to support their greedy enemies.

It was from this period forward, that the British requested the German MAP makers to draw a GIANT MAPS of SE Asia, to find the truth, before England - France instigated Rama 3 - 4, on how Siam conquered a much larger country than theirs, in 1855.

The German GIANT MAP reveals who were the inhabitants at Southern China, to these areas: Chiangmai, Lanna, Korat, etc.. and the GERMAN MAP makers placed their findings of ethnics on their Giant MAP.

The answer is, there were a whole bunch of Laotians living there, that Siam took by Fraud and Ransacking. Named LAO YUEN -- in Chiangmai area, ---LAO PUN-KHAO, in Luang Prabang are downward to Esan, to Cambodia,--- LAO KHAO(PNOM)down to Cambodia,etc... so much details. Good job to Berlin, to expose the Fraud of 1800's.

c***@gmail.com

2019-05-01 03:53:07 UTC

From what I read, Laos territory in the late 19th to early 20th century

could go in many directions. First, if we thought of Muang Lao as the

//www.alainbernardenthailande.com
Whatever Treaty this site alleged don't meet the truth. They contradicted themselves, and many books, and so much old evidences.

-----------------------------
In 1822, British East India Company agent John Crawfurd's mission to Siam[5] laid the groundwork for a British request for Siamese support in the First Anglo-Burmese War, which broke out in 1824. Nangklao (Rama 3) provided fleets and elephants to rush through Burmese forests. He also sent Siamese armies to participate in the invasion of Burma since the British promised Siam the conquered lands. Phraya Chumporn ordered the forced migration of Mergui (a common practice in Southeast Asia regarding the newly-conquered lands), which had been conquered by the British. The British were frustrated at Phraya Chumporn's actions, and hostilities were heightened. Nangklao ordered the Siamese armies to leave to avoid further conflict.
In 1825, Henry Burney arrived to negotiate peace agreements. The Burney Treaty was the first treaty with the West in the Rattanakosin period. Its purpose was to established free trade in Siam and to greatly reduce taxation on foreign trading ships. That it accomplished the objectives is disputed.[8]
-------------------------------------
Beware people, the French Fraudsters living in your Land, married your women, and disrespect them by lying to support their greedy enemies.
It was from this period forward, that the British requested the German MAP makers to draw a GIANT MAPS of SE Asia, to find the truth, before England - France instigated Rama 3 - 4, on how Siam conquered a much larger country than theirs, in 1855.
The German GIANT MAP reveals who were the inhabitants at Southern China, to these areas: Chiangmai, Lanna, Korat, etc.. and the GERMAN MAP makers placed their findings of ethnics on their Giant MAP.
The answer is, there were a whole bunch of Laotians living there, that Siam took by Fraud and Ransacking. Named LAO YUEN -- in Chiangmai area, ---LAO PUN-KHAO, in Luang Prabang are downward to Esan, to Cambodia,--- LAO KHAO(PNOM)down to Cambodia,etc... so much details. Good job to Berlin, to expose the Fraud of 1800's.

Correction:

LAO KHA(PNOM)down to Cambodia,etc...
NOT LAO KHAO(PNOM)down to Cambodia,etc...

c***@gmail.com

2019-05-01 04:12:26 UTC