Knighthoods (+ WW2)

[David]

They were, of course, utterly amoral and unprincipled as Russia has pretty much always been, historically.

And the US hasn't been?

Actually, name one country that hasn't acted amorally for the bulk of its history. I'd be surprised if you could.

[pietillidie]

Yes, but would an alliance between Central America and the OPEC nations be more moral than a rebel axis of Micronesia, Indonesia and the Philippines?

For all the warm-hearted smiles of those Central Americans, I have my doubts. Island folk, as we know, are very laid back given the palm trees, and that tends to signal friendliness and joviality, themselves reliable proxies for morality.

And oil is all like gooey and black, for goodness' sake. And we know black signals evil. But the real the clincher is surely the coconuts: Not only is coconut water finally being recognised for its goodness, but you can use coconuts as percussion instruments. Enough said.

[Mugwump]

They were, of course, utterly amoral and unprincipled as Russia has pretty much always been, historically.

And the US hasn't been?

Actually, name one country that hasn't acted amorally for the bulk of its history. I'd be surprised if you could.

The US was founded as a democracy on the basis of the individualist principles espoused by Locke and it has functioned as such a republic, at least since the Civil War. As with the life of nearly every human being, there have been many, many lapses and historical lurches toward light and away from it ; but those principles of lofe liberty and the pirsuit of happiness underpinned Lincoln, and the Roosevelts (both of them), and its hostility to Nazi Germany and the Civil Rights movement and Communism and beyond. if you believe that a world governed by the principles of Russia over the last hundred years would be as congenial for you, or for humanity, then I think you are misguided.

[David]

I never said it would be. The question is whether the US, like Russia and every other nation state, tends to act amorally. After the old territorial wars, the Cold War and post-'90s conflicts, I'd be stunned if anyone were to seriously claim that the US is an exception to the rule (as opposed to one of the rule's most obvious examples).

[RudeBoy]

just be careful about the ww2 card - amongst the war heroes are Marshall Tito, Charles de Gaul, Stalin the biggest baddest bolshie of them all, MacArthur, Eisenhower and John Grey Gorton. While they are all war heroes, some of their other work, particularly that of Stalin, leaves a bit to be desired. There's also Ferdinand Marcos, a bit of a hero to some of Tony's friends, sadly it was discovered he made it all up.

Speaking of Stalin, tonight's news mentioned that today was the 70th anniversary of the allies liberation of Auschwitz concentration camp/slaughterhouse. What they failed to mention was that it was our allies, the Soviet Red Army, who liberated Auschwitz.

PS. While I am not an admirer of Stalin, who was a brutal dictator, it's worth remembering that the Russians lost about 25 million people fighting and eventually defeating the Nazis. They were the first to defeat the Germans at Stalingrad, which was the turning point in the war, beginning the slow, German retreat all the way to their eventual defeat and surrender to the Russians in Berlin. Without that incredible and heroic sacrifice of the Russians, the Nazis would no doubt have won the war. Because the Soviets were communists, it seems we rarely, if ever, can bring our selves to acknowledge the debt we owe them for defeating the Nazis in WWII.

It's only fair that they played their part since they were Nazi Germany's allies until mid 1941, joining in the thuggery to carve up Poland and invade Finland n 1939-1940. They were, of course, utterly amoral and unprincipled as Russia has pretty much always been, historically. Right through the rape of Berlin and the transformation of entire Eastern Eu nations into colonized holding camps.

I guess we all have our own take on history. Let's not forget that in 1938, the Soviets proposed a joint defence pact with Britain, France and Czechoslovakia, to oppose the Nazis, but this was rejected by the conservative British government. Only then, in desperation, did the Soviets enter a non-aggression pact with Germany, to buy themselves time to prepare their own defence. On the carve up of Poland, I have Polish Jewish friends, who are forever indebted to the Russians for saving their lives from the Nazi holocaust. They tell me that when the Russians entered Poland they immediately identified all Jewish people and safely moved them far from the front to save them.
I'm not a defender of Stalin, who was a brutal and murderous dictator, but I am a deep admirer of the Soviet Red Army for paying the highest price of any in defeating the Nazis, and thus saving the world from armageddon. Despite all the US and British war movies we've all seen, the fact is that over three quarters of the German war machine fought on the Eastern front against the Russians. The rest of the Allies fought the remaining quarter. That is simply fact.

[Mugwump]

^ good reply, RB. Noone can deny the courage and success of the Red Army or the dreadful suffering of the entire Russian people through the second world war. The Russian state, however, was, and remains, better than the Nazis but a horror of its own. If not for the salvation of Western Europe by the UK and US, i suspect Europe would still be living in its shadow.

[watt price tully]

Speaking of Stalin, tonight's news mentioned that today was the 70th anniversary of the allies liberation of Auschwitz concentration camp/slaughterhouse. What they failed to mention was that it was our allies, the Soviet Red Army, who liberated Auschwitz.

PS. While I am not an admirer of Stalin, who was a brutal dictator, it's worth remembering that the Russians lost about 25 million people fighting and eventually defeating the Nazis. They were the first to defeat the Germans at Stalingrad, which was the turning point in the war, beginning the slow, German retreat all the way to their eventual defeat and surrender to the Russians in Berlin. Without that incredible and heroic sacrifice of the Russians, the Nazis would no doubt have won the war. Because the Soviets were communists, it seems we rarely, if ever, can bring our selves to acknowledge the debt we owe them for defeating the Nazis in WWII.

It's only fair that they played their part since they were Nazi Germany's allies until mid 1941, joining in the thuggery to carve up Poland and invade Finland n 1939-1940. They were, of course, utterly amoral and unprincipled as Russia has pretty much always been, historically. Right through the rape of Berlin and the transformation of entire Eastern Eu nations into colonized holding camps.

I guess we all have our own take on history. Let's not forget that in 1938, the Soviets proposed a joint defence pact with Britain, France and Czechoslovakia, to oppose the Nazis, but this was rejected by the conservative British government. Only then, in desperation, did the Soviets enter a non-aggression pact with Germany, to buy themselves time to prepare their own defence. On the carve up of Poland, I have Polish Jewish friends, who are forever indebted to the Russians for saving their lives from the Nazi holocaust. They tell me that when the Russians entered Poland they immediately identified all Jewish people and safely moved them far from the front to save them.
I'm not a defender of Stalin, who was a brutal and murderous dictator, but I am a deep admirer of the Soviet Red Army for paying the highest price of any in defeating the Nazis, and thus saving the world from armageddon. Despite all the US and British war movies we've all seen, the fact is that over three quarters of the German war machine fought on the Eastern front against the Russians. The rest of the Allies fought the remaining quarter. That is simply fact.

Stalin saved my father, his brother & wife & 3 kids, my mother & her 2 other sibs & her parents when they managed to get across from Nazi Poland to Stalins Poland.

He knew full well the cost the Russians paid under not just WW2 but the others that Stalin murdered.

He was anti communist post war but sympathetic to socialist ideas. Lifelong ALP although partial to Howard by the end (he did develop a form of dementia) so he can be excused.

(More importantly, the baby sitter (both parents working) was Mrs Mack & she told my folks they had to have a footy team to barrack for & Collingwood was it)

[3.14159]

Actually, name one country that hasn't acted amorally for the bulk of its history. I'd be surprised if you could.

Nepal

[stui magpie]

Actually, name one country that hasn't acted amorally for the bulk of its history. I'd be surprised if you could.

Nepal

Swoosh, 3 points, nothing but net.

[David]

Hmm, let's Wiki this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nepal#History

In the mid-18th century, Prithvi Narayan Shah, a Gorkha king, set out to put together what would become present-day Nepal. He embarked on his mission after seeking arms and aid from India and buying the neutrality of bordering Indian kingdoms. After several bloody battles and sieges, notably the Battle of Kirtipur, he managed to conquer the Kathmandu Valley in 1769. A detailed account of Prithvi Narayan Shah's victory was written by Father Giuseppe who was an eyewitness to the war.

The Gorkha dominion reached its height when the northern India territories of Kumaon and Garhwal in the west to Sikkim in the east became under Nepal rule.

At its maximum extent, Greater Nepal extended from the Tista River in the east, to Kangara, across the Sutlej River in the west as well as further south into the Terai plains and north of the Himalayas than at present. A dispute with Tibet over the control of mountain passes and inner Tingri valleys of Tibet forced the Chinese Qing Emperor in Peking (now Beijing) to start the Sino-Nepalese War compelling the Nepalese to retreat and pay heavy reparations to Peking.

...

Slavery was abolished in Nepal in 1924. Nevertheless debt bondage even involving debtors' children has been a persistent social problem in the Terai. Rana rule was marked by tyranny, debauchery, economic exploitation and religious persecution.

Not sure about this one, 3.

Perhaps we should define what we mean by 'amoral' before going any further. I'm not talking about sociopathy or ruthless destruction here; all a country needs to display to be considered amoral is a general devotion to its own self-interest in all its affairs, no matter whoever else around the world may be hurt by its decisions. On that count, I think we're looking at 197-zip.

[sixpoints]

Im not au fait with their history, but Bhutan with it's Gross National Happiness index seems to be a nation at least attempting to act with an overriding moral purpose at the moment.
http://www.gnhbhutan.org/about/

[watt price tully]

Im not au fait with their history, but Bhutan with it's Gross National Happiness index seems to be a nation at least attempting to act with an overriding moral purpose at the moment.
http://www.gnhbhutan.org/about/

Bhutan is on the money. I don't know how tourism will affect it though.

Brought to my & other people's attention through this gem of a film / doco:

The Other Final: 2003

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-ayTDcpgfw

[sixpoints]

Im not au fait with their history, but Bhutan with it's Gross National Happiness index seems to be a nation at least attempting to act with an overriding moral purpose at the moment.
http://www.gnhbhutan.org/about/

Bhutan is on the money. I don't know how tourism will affect it though.

Brought to my & other people's attention through this gem of a film / doco:

The Other Final: 2003

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-ayTDcpgfw

Great doco/film about a unique event WPT.
Whilst the 2002 Soccer World Cup was on, a couple of Dutch guys organised that the two WORST teams in world soccer would play off. Bhutan (more concerned with happiness than competition) ranked 202 versus poor old Montserrat ranked 203. Montserrat had been blown apart and covered in ash by a volcano and was basically uninhabitable.
You got great insight into the cultures and issues faced in the two nations and from memory the two sides took their moment in the sun on the football field very seriously.

[watt price tully]

Im not au fait with their history, but Bhutan with it's Gross National Happiness index seems to be a nation at least attempting to act with an overriding moral purpose at the moment.
http://www.gnhbhutan.org/about/

Bhutan is on the money. I don't know how tourism will affect it though.

Brought to my & other people's attention through this gem of a film / doco:

The Other Final: 2003

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-ayTDcpgfw

Great doco/film about a unique event WPT.
Whilst the 2002 Soccer World Cup was on, a couple of Dutch guys organised that the two WORST teams in world soccer would play off. Bhutan (more concerned with happiness than competition) ranked 202 versus poor old Montserrat ranked 203. Montserrat had been blown apart and covered in ash by a volcano and was basically uninhabitable.
You got great insight into the cultures and issues faced in the two nations and from memory the two sides took their moment in the sun on the football field very seriously.

I was lucky enough & persistent enough to but it online when it came out on DVD many years ago - I was searching for ages to get it - it was on VHS for ages before they released the DVD -went to a German website I think.

First saw it on SBS late one night many moons ago.

[Mugwump]

^ amoral, in my mind, means having no ethical principles other than self-interest. All nations, like all human beings, act with self-interest or they will not survive. But the self can be defined upon an ethical principle or independent of one. In politics, there is probably only one major ethical principle : whether the state is subject to the people, or the reverse. Russia has almost unceasingly been based upon the latter, sadly.