I read a Wikipedia article about military history of Thailand and it left me a taste of anti-Thai bias.
It is known that Thailand in 1940 (after the fall of Paris and establishment of Vichy government) assaulted nearby French colonial possessions in an attempt to restore own sovereignty.
This event described in Wikipedia as a "war of aggression". Yet it is difficult for me to see it as an aggression rather than an anti-colonial war, especially given that Thailand was returning the previously-lost territories. The assault on France is described as an attack on an Allied country, but it seems to me very much doubtful as Vichy France can be equally well considered a part of the Axis.
Furthermore, Wikipedia discribes the Thai government of Plaek Phibunsongkhram who was in office at the time as "fascist" which claim also looks quite doubtful (for example I never saw a definitely pro-Axis government of Japan being called "fascist"). The Thai government at the time kept good relations with the Great Britain and other allied powers.
Later, in 1941 Thailand was invaded by Japan in an attack, coordinated with the attack on Perl Harbor. Although the resistance of Thai army was minimal (even though there were some points of fierce fighting), this definitely puts Thailand in the set of countries attacked by the Axis.
After the invasion Thailand surrendered and joined the Axis as a puppet state (with Japanese occupation continuing).
Yet there was quite successful and numerous underground resistance movement. Wikipedia says that this resistance movement is the only reason for rehabilitation of Thailand. I am still curious why Thailand needs "rehabilitation" at all?