First part of Ethiopia's Axum obelisk arrives home from Italy

[Plotinus]

The Pope springs to mind there.

But I must say that the notion that a nation has the right to take what it wants from a defeated enemy provided it has definitely defeated them (and lacks that right otherwise) is very peculiar. That's a "might makes right" view at its baldest. If it's wrong for Italy to steal Ethiopia's obelisk, it is surely wrong whether or not Italy's armies beat Ethiopia's armies. Is it wrong for me to steal something from somebody's bag without their knowing, but all right provided I beat them up first?

 

[Xen]

"might makes right" view at its baldest.

"well, it seemed like a good idea at the time" (a pun at the facist government in italy, and we all know what facism is at its heart; might makes right)

 

[Kosez]

German Chancellors did it for a number of times. Pope did it. And that's it. I don't know any other.
Still we don't know how sencere pope was. Germans are sencere, we can't say they're not. But I don't know any other country that would feel sorry for what they did in past. Even worst: some nations feel, they've done nothing wrong in course of their history.

 

[wit>trope]

The Pope springs to mind there.

But I must say that the notion that a nation has the right to take what it wants from a defeated enemy provided it has definitely defeated them (and lacks that right otherwise) is very peculiar. That's a "might makes right" view at its baldest. If it's wrong for Italy to steal Ethiopia's obelisk, it is surely wrong whether or not Italy's armies beat Ethiopia's armies. Is it wrong for me to steal something from somebody's bag without their knowing, but all right provided I beat them up first?

If the war is a just war or believed in good faith to be a just war, then if you win, you should be able to take the obelisk. It's more like a duel where the winner gets to take something than your example where someone is just being a bully.

 

[Plotinus]

I don't see why. Surely they would only be able to take the obelisk if it was rightfully theirs to start with. So, for example, when Heraclius made war on Persia, he was justified in taking the True Cross from Ctesiphon because the Persians had nicked said True Cross in the first place when they captured Jerusalem. But surely he wouldn't have been justified in taking it otherwise no matter how "just" his war. For example, say that we agree that the war against Nazi Germany was a just war, it wouldn't follow that the Allies would be justified in plundering Berlin upon winning, would it? Two wrongs don't make a right, as my mother always mystifingly said.

 

[superisis]

Japan has apologized on occasion, to not to the extent of the Germans or that other SE Asian countries want them to.

 

[wit>trope]

I don't see why. Surely they would only be able to take the obelisk if it was rightfully theirs to start with.

You could look at is part of the penalty or punishment for losing the war. Kind of like the "loser pays" idea for tort reform where the loser of the lawsuit has to pay court costs. It's better than being permanently annexed.

For example, say that we agree that the war against Nazi Germany was a just war, it wouldn't follow that the Allies would be justified in plundering Berlin upon winning, would it?

Plundering everything would be wrong but if they just plunder the museums and stay away from the churches and widows, then I think it would be right.

Two wrongs don't make a right, as my mother always mystifingly said.

But it's not a wrong if it's right

 

[Plotinus]

You could look at is part of the penalty or punishment for losing the war. Kind of like the "loser pays" idea for tort reform where the loser of the lawsuit has to pay court costs. It's better than being permanently annexed.

But losing a war isn't a crime. A country doesn't get "punished" for it. It may get "punished" for starting an unjust war, so the Treaty of Versailles, for example, was presumably intended (or at least justified) in these terms. If a strong country aggressively invades a weak neighbour, I don't see how you can legitimately talk about the invaded country having to pay reparations as a "penalty" for losing the war, if, say, they never started it. It's just might makes right again. Your analogy of a court does not hold, because the rationale there is that if a suit fails, the person bringing it was making an unsubstantiated (and perhaps malicious) action, whilst if it succeeds, the person bringing it was justified in doing so and had a legitimate grievance. In other words, the person who loses in a courtroom is actually in the wrong and it is justifiable to charge the costs to them. This is because court cases are decided on the basis of who is actually right, at least in theory, not on the basis of who is more powerful. But wars are decided on the basis of who is most powerful. If you're saying that the winner of a war has the "right" to plunder the loser, then you are saying that such rights do come from mere military strength - in other words, the biggest bully can do what he likes.

Plundering everything would be wrong but if they just plunder the museums and stay away from the churches and widows, then I think it would be right.

So if it would be wrong to do nasty things to churches and widows, why would it be all right to steal everything from the museums? Why should historical artifacts be up for grabs when religious ones aren't?

 

[wit>trope]

But losing a war isn't a crime.
A country doesn't get "punished" for it. It may get "punished" for starting an unjust war, so the Treaty of Versailles, for example, was presumably intended (or at least justified) in these terms. If a strong country aggressively invades a weak neighbour, I don't see how you can legitimately talk about the invaded country having to pay reparations as a "penalty" for losing the war, if, say, they never started it. It's just might makes right again.

No it's not because we are only talking about wars which are believed by the victor to have been a just war for the victor. So if a country for no good reason wages war then it wouldn't have a right to any spoils. But if a country for a good reason wages war then it may have a right to spoils (ex Israel may have a right to the occupied territories).

In other words, the person who loses in a courtroom is actually in the wrong and it is justifiable to charge the costs to them. This is because court cases are decided on the basis of who is actually right, at least in theory, not on the basis of who is more powerful. But wars are decided on the basis of who is most powerful.

Wars are sometimes in part decided on the basis of who is believed to be right though as a nation which is right may be able to garner more support and economic and military aid from the international community (ex. the UK got aid from the US even before the US entered the war).

But you make a good point. However, the only difference between the court and the war is that in the court a third party judges who was right whereas in the war, one of the parties involved gets to have his judgment about who is right sustained by the victory. So in the court the "loser pays" is based on the judgment of a third party whereas in the war the "loser pays" is based on the judgment of the victor (which of course would favor the victor otherwise she wouldn't have waged the war since by supposition this is a war which is believed by the victor to be just)

So if it would be wrong to do nasty things to churches and widows, why would it be all right to steal everything from the museums? Why should historical artifacts be up for grabs when religious ones aren't?

The stuff in the churches belong to an entity separate from the country in which it resides. The war was against the country, not the church which is a separate entity with legal personality. Same might also be true for transnational corporations but I haven't thought about it enough to know.

 

[Kosez]

Stealing is a stealing, no matter what circumstances are. Maybe there are some kinds of stealing that legitimate, but stealing cause you won the war is not. Period!

 

[boredasyoulike]

Having lived in Ethiopia for many years I know how much this means to them and am happy they've got it back!