by Filipe Ramires » Thu Jun 21, 2007 5:20 am
First of all...there's hardly any comparison between Iwo Jima and Auschwitz. The first one was a battlefield where both sides had losses and Japan was defeated. The second one was a concentration/killing camp.
Second, it was the local population in Iwo Jima that demanded for Iwo Jima to retain the original name Iwoto again.
Third, Iwo Jima was part of Japan home soil until 1945 being under US administration until 1968 when it was handled back to Japan again. It is since then Japanese soil and they can do whatever they want, within the legal limits, to the island...including changing its name. Many countries did or do that...I don't see why Japan shouldn't do it.
Forth, regarding China's attitude. So moral they have that perhaps they should consider changing the name of Tianamenn Square and as far as I can tell Mao and the Communist Party have plenty of shrines dedicated to them...even being the Communisme the political regime that killed more people in all the 20th Century.
First of all...there's hardly any comparison between Iwo Jima and Auschwitz. The first one was a battlefield where both sides had losses and Japan was defeated. The second one was a concentration/killing camp.
Second, it was the local population in Iwo Jima that demanded for Iwo Jima to retain the original name Iwoto again.
Third, Iwo Jima was part of Japan home soil until 1945 being under US administration until 1968 when it was handled back to Japan again. It is since then Japanese soil and they can do whatever they want, within the legal limits, to the island...including changing its name. Many countries did or do that...I don't see why Japan shouldn't do it.
Forth, regarding China's attitude. So moral they have that perhaps they should consider changing the name of Tianamenn Square and as far as I can tell Mao and the Communist Party have plenty of shrines dedicated to them...even being the Communisme the political regime that killed more people in all the 20th Century.