Controversial Memorial

Did you know him?
I´ve never heard that he wrote/said sth anti-semtic. And I can´t imagine that
a real nazi will help chinese people, because in their eyes they were a lower race.

 

Fair comment, my remarks were misplaced when I referred to him as a Nazi-ambassador. he was an ambassador for Nazi Germany, that does not of course make him a Nazi and I apologise for any offense I have caused.

Because practically every other memorial is a memorial to the dead of the war, not just of one side and the nations concerned did not seak to hide from their roles in the war(s) concerned. Take the British remembrance service as an example. Every service I have attended has been to the dead of war, not the British dead, not the Commonwealth dead, but to the dead whether they be friend or foe.

A monument might take the form of a prominent soldier type, for example the Fallshirmjager, but it cannot be claimed that the majority of those who died based on or from the Phillipines were Kamikaze pilots.

This is a specific memorial to the Kamikaze pilots, acknowledging the sacrifice is fine, but if you're going to do that why not acknowledge the sacrifice of the Phillipino patriots or the US soldiers who died opposing them?

Because it is a tourist trap, pure and simple. It is designed to attract tourist money, not remember the dead, and as such it is deplorable.

 

No, but I know "Google"....

 

so how did you know that the para memorials isnt also to attrackt tourist
when is a memorial honorable and when just tourist attraction

so the kamikaze are criminals in your eyes or what?

 

i believe that the Kamikaze was a attempt by the Japanese army who new that they Had lost the war to kill as many Americans as they could. just because they did it during a war does not make them any better then the Hijackers or bombers on the Gaza stripe. so yes i think that the kamikaze was a war crime and should not be commemorated

 

When the source of all this discussion clearly states that this monument is emplaced purely to draw Japanese tourism towards the Phillipines, I'd say it's pretty clear that the monument is nothing more than a tourist attraction. Monuments like those in the Ardennes on the other hand were usually put there to remember the fallen. I don't understand why you fail to see the distinction between the tone of this monument and that of others. Please tell me what it is that keeps you from seeing this monument in the light in which most of us other members see it.

 

i dont know what is wrong with it just think about the money and tourist on d day bob etc.
and even if it is just to attrackt tourist its good for the phillis so the japs bring em more money to their country

and whats that criminal sh...t you are talking about what do you expect from the japs thast after midway guadalcanal or leyte the japs sit down and say ok we tried itn but know we had enough
your post tj really shows me that you have no idea of the japanese war culture or the bushido

 

Yes but that's not the point of a good monument, is it? Should it be? If the Japanese meant to help the Phillipines economically, they might as well invest some money in the infrastructure there or whatever, there's plenty of options other than this disgrace.

Of course it's not wrong that monuments attract tourists; what is wrong is a monument meant to attract tourists only, not to commemorate the fallen in any appropriate way. Do you think it is right for a monument to be built purely for the money, glorifying one side's suicide bombers while neglecting all the other victims of the war?

 

For all you know, on the evidence we've (not) seen, tj could be the world's leading authority on Bushido, tj expressed an OPINION, as have we all on this subject.

you're the one that raised the point about whether or not it was to be regarded as a criminal act, you got a reply and now you're angry? :lol:

 

Nearly done :cry:





The eagle was removed, so it´s just a piece of stone with a damaged "hounor plate".

 

That seems disrespectful to me, if it was decided that the Eagle should be removed then perhaps fair enough, but the plaque could have been repaired or replaced with an undamaged one.

 

Ah, me and my 'controversial' topics...

 

You really know how to pick them don't you... :lol:

 

Well, if the Japanese had had Mosquitoes...

 

Could the plaque have been dammaged because it says "....das Leben gabet für Grossdeutschland"(You gave your life for Greater Germany)....??
Maybe someone found that term offensive?

 

Grossdeutschland means just Great Germany and not Greater germany. Whats wrong with this ? I mean Great Britain is just the same

Regards,
Che.

 

I was merely pointing out that the term "Grossdeutschland" is often linked to the nazi period and therefore has a very negative connotation in most european countries.

 

We're called Great Britain because, historically, Brittany in northern France was also known as "Less Britain", it's a comment on size not quality :lol: