http://sg.news.yahoo.com/050419/1/3s049.html

The first of three parts of the famed Axum obelisk, plundered by fascist Italy nearly 70 years ago, arrived home in Ethiopia.

An Antonov cargo plane carrying one-third of the huge, 160-tonne monument landed at Axum airport at 6:15 am (0315 GMT) on a flight from Rome, an AFP journalist reported. It is to be stored at the airport until the arrival of the remaining parts, expected by next week.

The long-awaited and much-delayed return of the 2,500-year-old, 24-meter (78-foot) funeral stele has now begun in earnest following more than a half century of wrangling between Rome and Addis Ababa.

The obelisk was taken by Italian troops as a prize of conquest in 1937 on the orders of dictator Benito Mussolini during his brief attempt to colonize Ethiopia.

Despite a 1947 agreement that called for its return, the monument has remained in Italy much to the anger of Ethiopia which had accused Rome of stalling on the earlier deal.

Until last year when it was dismantled by Italian experts in preparation for its journey home, the monument had stood outside the Rome headquarters of the UN Food and Agriculture Organization.

Earlier this month, after several false starts, Ethiopia announced with great fanfare that after years of waiting, the first piece would be returned to Axum on April 13 with the remaining two portions to come by April 23.

But three days later, it was forced to announce the return had been put on hold indefinitely due to "technical and logistic reasons."

Ethiopia plans elaborate celebrations drawing on both national pride and the country's anti-colonial history to mark its arrival and re-erection, expected to be completed by June or July.

Dubbed "Operation Restitution," the airlift will cost an estimated six million euros (7.7 million dollars), all of which is being paid by Rome.

For workers overseeing its arrival, the return of the obelisk has posed tremendous problems, not the least of which landing a plane laden with granite at a small, radarless airport at altitude where temperatures fluctuate wildly.

"To land the equivalent of 60 cars in a small airport at an altitude of 2,230 meters (7,316 feet) is an extremely complicated operation," said Italian civil engineer Simone Pietri Lattanze.

The interesting part is: If it is such a logistical nightmare, and has such had to be delayed again and again - how on Earth did they manage to get those obelisks to Italy in the late 30ies???

Fascist organisation. "If you don't fulfill the deadlines you will be disappeared".

Crude but effective. Also I doubt they were airlifted in the '30s.

probably by ship. If I recall correctly Abyssinia wasn't a land locked country in the mid 20th Century. Transported up the Red Sea, through the Suez then a nice long boat ride to italy.... although that does raise the question of why they don't just do that again, suppose with plane they can go from Rome to Addis Ababa directly however with boats they'd need to go through another country's port.

Laying yout hands on a genuine obelisk is a traditional way of telling the other nation you are a Great Power.;)

The Romans started. They brought them from Egypt but comissioned new ones to be carved and raised in Rome as well.

And later the Khedives of Egypt got into the bad habit of giving them away as presents to countries who's good side they wanted to get on.

That's how Ramses II's obelisk got to the Place de la Concorde in Paris, and the one they call 'Cleopatra's Needle' (she had nothing to do with it) ended up on the banks of the Thames.

I'm happy, but it took way too long. It won't be erected until September, though. :D

When were the other obelisks taken, and has Egypt ever demanded their return? It was a while ago, IIRC, so I'm guessing they're staying.

If your Ethiopian please don't be offended but when I read the article I was kinda liking the whole idea of returning the obelisk, thinking it was a nice thing to do, but then I got down near the botttom to this part:

"Dubbed "Operation Restitution," the airlift will cost an estimated six million euros (7.7 million dollars), all of which is being paid by Rome."

What a waste of money? LOL. Why not use that money to feed the poor in Italy or in Ethiopia?

If your Ethiopian please don't be offended but when I read the article I was kinda liking the whole idea of returning the obelisk, thinking it was a nice thing to do, but then I got down near the botttom to this part:

"Dubbed "Operation Restitution," the airlift will cost an estimated six million euros (7.7 million dollars), all of which is being paid by Rome."

What a waste of money? LOL. Why not use that money to feed the poor in Italy or in Ethiopia?
Yes, I am Ethiopian. It's not as if the 6 million euros would have been used to feed the poor in Ethiopia or in Italy if it had not been used for this operation. It is a matter of national pride and restoring what is rightfully ours. Where are you from, the U.S.? If the Statue of Liberty had been stolen by Japan or Germany, and they didn't return it, would you say that an operation to have it returned would be a waste of money?

Yes, I am Ethiopian. It's not as if the 6 million euros would have been used to feed the poor in Ethiopia or in Italy if it had not been used for this operation. It is a matter of national pride and restoring what is rightfully ours. Where are you from, the U.S.? If the Statue of Liberty had been stolen by Japan or Germany, and they didn't return it, would you say that an operation to have it returned would be a waste of money?

Would it have cost less than 6 million euros to just build a new obelisk in Ethiopia that looks just like the one in Italy? I think so. So it is a waste of money. How would you airlift the Statue of Liberty? I don't think it could be done. But let's say it could be done for 70 million dollars. I think that would be a big waste of money too. Fireworks are a waste of money also IMHO. They should only happen like once every 5 or 10 years at the most.

build a new obelisk? I think you're missing the point. the obelisk is 2 and a half THOUSAND years old. that'd be like saying "let's remake the Bayeaux tapestry" it's part of their history, it's theirs, and they want it back, I agree with Yom's comparison. I'm Scottish so I can relate to this slightly. During the First Wars of Independence the English moved into Scotland and pretty much ransacked the place, but in addition they were to Scoone (spelling) Abbey up in the north of Scotland and stole the Stone of Destiny. It's the stone which sits on a throne and on which nearly all previous Scottish Kings were corinated. They then took it down south. This wasn't so much a stone as an icon to all Scottish people and we wanted it back. and it took us nearly 700 nears to do it..... ok we didn't pay for it rather a few Scottish students went down and tried to steal it, but the principle's the same

and from my understanding the Egyptians won't ask for their stuff back. they were given as gifts (or bought) rather than this Obelisk, which was stolen.

When were the other obelisks taken, and has Egypt ever demanded their return? It was a while ago, IIRC, so I'm guessing they're staying.
The Paris one was put up in 1836.
I think the London one was later.

i could offend greatly and saying that defeating a country in war gives them full rights
over what they take, cant complian about what you coundent defend

(not personal just a diffrent point of view)

i could offend greatly and saying that defeating a country in war gives them full rights
over what they take, cant complian about what you coundent defend

(not personal just a diffrent point of view)
That's one of the fundamental principles of traditional European rights of war. Plunder used to be legal.

Which is why Sweden still refuses to give stuff back to the Czech taken in the 30 years war for example.

Obviously Italy could have held on to the obelisk and nobody would have been willing and able to do anything about it. But they saw things different, and so it's going back.

It may be progress?;)

besides. Rome has enought monuments (plenty of other obelisks too). And this one was not located in a great place. In fact where it was placed was sort of an insult to it. (It was located outside the FAO building, not on a piazza but next to a very trafficated road. Ugh)

Which is why Sweden still refuses to give stuff back to the Czech taken in the 30 years war for example.

Don't get me started about this. The university of Uppsala still owns the plundered library of my hometown Würzburg's university :mad:. But then...that was nothing compared to how the Bavarians plundered there 150 years later. We will never forget the later!

Ethopia has the full right to get their symbol back. Now, Russia, would you please return the Opel Motor Works of Brandenburg :p?

Uppsala is my university...:blush:;)

i would think aswell that if a country has to ask for something back...
and gets it back....it cannot feel as proud as before as to keeping it in the 1st place

Greece has lost its marbles... will Britain give them back?

I think Greece lost its marbels permanantley well before Britian got around to snatching artwork ;)

britain has half the world in their museums, when are they going to give those up

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4484813.stm

Ancient tombs found near obelisk

Archaeologists have found a vast new network of royal tombs in Ethiopia, near the site where the 1,700-year-old Axum obelisk is to be re-erected.

Experts using sophisticated imaging equipment discovered the burial chambers, even older than the obelisk, under a 1963 car park, said the UN.

The stone monoliths were originally erected to mark burial sites for deceased members of the aristocracy.

The final piece of the Axum obelisk was flown home from Italy on Monday.

The whole structure - seen as a national religious treasure - is to be re-erected in September following the Ethiopian rainy season.

The obelisk was stolen by fascist Italian troops in 1937.

'Cultural tourism'

The archaeological team which discovered the new burial sites was sent to Axum to prepare for the re-erection of the obelisk.

Unesco Director-General Koichiro Matsuura said it was likely that some of the tombs were still intact.

"The site is a royal necropolis used by several dynasties before the Christian era," Unesco said, adding that the network stretches far beyond the perimeter of the present World Heritage site.

"The opening of these new tombs to the public would represent, moreover, an additional asset for the site, which, by boosting cultural tourism, would contribute to the economic development of the country," Mr Matsuura said.

Well, we Italians have given back that obelisk... now...

- please (s'il vous plait), French frends, give us back Leonardo's "MONNA LISA" (just to begin... the list could be large... :evil: )
- (maybe more important) Swiss banks :thumbdown: give back Hebrews (dunno who, maybe some association which cares about this) LOTS of gold/money/other that Nazis plundered and put there...

Well, we Italians have given back that obelisk... now...

- please (s'il vous plait), French frends, give us back Leonardo's "MONA LISA" (just to begin... the list could be large... :evil: )
Err...
I actually think Lionardo himself sold that one to the king of France, so your quarrell would be with the not-so-patriotic artist.:mischief:

Honestly, France losing the Napoleonic wars did mean the return of most of the booty in 1815. Had 'la gioconda' been part of the plunder it would have been returned. :)

its all wingeing if you have lost something.......tough

Err...
I actually think Lionardo himself sold that one to the king of France, so your quarrell would be with the not-so-patriotic artist.:mischief:

Honestly, France losing the Napoleonic wars did mean the return of most of the booty in 1815. Had 'la gioconda' been part of the plunder it would have been returned. :)

Verbose is right and I was WRONG.

However, Congress in Wien said that "arts plundered" would have been returned, BUT a non-little part of this order wasn't effectively execute...

its all wingeing if you have lost something.......tough

says the man from the country that once stretched it's evil hand throughout the world and snatched the treasures of people from Ireland to Tasmania

However, Congress in Wien said that "arts plundered" would have been returned, BUT a non-little part of this order wasn't effectively execute...
Yeah, well, it's possible pre-unification Italy got screwed a bit in Vienna. The Austrians certainly picked up plenty of Italian territory.

yea im half italian and half scot and live in england......and since you live in canada
you should be grateful for its exsistance

edit: sorry for above statement i took great offence to the nonence that
england was evil....

If you were really sorry for saying that, you would delete it instead of leaving it up. I think Canada would have existed quite happily without the English - indeed, the early settlers would have been much better off without the English turning up and killing them all the time. Toronto, in any case, was founded by the French.

ah but present canada was created by the british and anything that has created you you should be happy with...

If you were really sorry for saying that, you would delete it instead of leaving it up. I think Canada would have existed quite happily without the English - indeed, the early settlers would have been much better off without the English turning up and killing them all the time. Toronto, in any case, was founded by the French.

I think not, the first permant settlement was an English, the French maintained a fur trading fort nearby for sometime but never settled the area.

build a new obelisk? I think you're missing the point. the obelisk is 2 and a half THOUSAND years old. that'd be like saying "let's remake the Bayeaux tapestry" it's part of their history, it's theirs, and they want it back, I agree with Yom's comparison.

Do you think the poor people who actually made the obelisk would have wanted 6 million euros spent to transport it? Or would these poor people who worked their backs off making it have wanted the 6 million spent to help out their fellow poor brothers and sisters? The answer is clear.

They could have just moved it to the Ethiopian embassy in Italy or put a plaque and Ethiopian flag near it -- they probably already had something like that.

they were given as gifts (or bought) rather than this Obelisk, which was stolen.

Apparently there's some dispute about whether it was stolen since it was taken after a war.

No real point arguing about it now that it's already been moved back. I am happy for the Ethiopians even though I still do think it was a waste of money. Maybe if it cost 5,000 euros to move it, it would have been a good idea. But 6 million euros? I'd rather have 6 million euros in the bank than have an obelisk in my backyard (unless I was able to sell the obelisk for more than 6 million euros of course)

if everyones asking for things back that they lost then I think england should start asking america for the 13 back......
o and while where at it italy should ask europe to bow down and call itself the roman empire

I remembered that Chinese also lost lots of works of art during 19th and 20th century.
Some of them are bought(not brought) back to China,by unofficial collectors.
Well,I think retrieving lost treasures is the right of nation,but it's not divine or absolute right.Not retrieving lost treasures,IMO,doesn't count as betrayal of country or anti-patriot.

good post plarq

Italy didn't win the war against Ethiopia/Abessinia. Italians had guns and poison gas, but Abessinians had a good tactic, they castrated captured Italian soldiers and let them free, so other soldiers quickly lost their will to fight for Duce's pride.

right....!..........but they still held it for a while........and thats beyond the point really

Italy didn't win the war against Ethiopia/Abessinia. Italians had guns and poison gas, but Abessinians had a good tactic, they castrated captured Italian soldiers and let them free, so other soldiers quickly lost their will to fight for Duce's pride.

??? I really don't understand...
Italia won the war.
Every war isn't good, mostly if it's an invading/colonialistic war.
But Italia fought that war exactly like EVERY Western power in Africa/Asia/Oceania/America, using his better militar technology.
I can't understand the Kosez 'apology' of Ethiopian methods (tactic??? castrating people is a tactic??? I'm really ignorant, I didn't know this... :mad: ) exactly like I condamn the use of poison gas.
I want remember to Kosez that Abissian received LARGE helps by GreatBritain and France. The "good" REAL tactic - guerrilla - was the UNIQUE tactic Abissians were able to use. And that wasn't able to avoid the DEFEAT.

You're all missing the point. Italy's decision was a nice gesture of reconciliation, not the fulfillment of international law. I suppose they didn't absolutely have to return it (and the 6 million euros would not have been given to Ethiopia at any rate) but they decided to. Good for them.

Eran, you're surely right. However there was already an agreement between Italia and Ethiopia: Italia would built a modern great hospital in Ethiopia, and kept the obelisk (or Obelix??? :D I'm turning crazy...), but I don't know how it ends this affair...

Italy didn't won the war, as they had to leave Ethiopia before the start of WW2. I don't know what are they teaching you in Italy, but Italy didn't colonize Ethiopia at all. They retreated. That is no way to win the war.
But it is a good thing to return the obelisk. Ethiopia is historically very important not only for Africa, but for all the world.

Italia keep Ethiopia, but only 5 years (1936-41).

Kosez, I don't know if you're a troller or what, but... oh, indeed I DON'T know what are teaching here in ItaliA, because I AM TOO IGNORANT to go to school... so I get infos (BEFORE to speak or to write, and if I'm wrong, I get other infos and apologize like I made in this thread, too) on the net...:
http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/mil/html/mh_017200_ethiopianwar.htm
http://www.icrc.org/Web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/iwpList219/A0B2CAE68823612241256C8700332B7B
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0107505.html
http://www.angelfire.com/ny/ethiocrown/HaileII.html

Final question: in Slovenia schools teach that Europe was discovered by Americans or that Cristoforo Columbo was a Slav (Slovenian, of course) ?
I'd like that kind of history, I'd reborn coming out of MY abyssal IGNORANCE...
Thanks for your enlightning post.

Italy didn't won the war, as they had to leave Ethiopia before the start of WW2. I don't know what are they teaching you in Italy, but Italy didn't colonize Ethiopia at all. They retreated. That is no way to win the war.
Since Mussolini wanted an empire, Italian armour and airforce (using gas to the horror of most of the world) made mince-meat of the Ethiopian forces in 1935-1936. Italy was in full control of the country in 1936-1941, with Emperor Haile Selassie in exile. The British had to send an army commanded by Orde Wingate in to restore him to the throne of Ethiopia in 1941. It wasn't one of the bigger of more hard-fought campaigns of WWII, but the Italians didn't leave willingly. The troops were interred in prison camps, and the Italian civilians were repatriated to Italy by the Red Cross.

You may be thinking of the half-assed attempt at an invadsion made by Italy in 1896, when they were defeated at Adowa?

That was my tought to, if he was really thinking about Adowa

I've doubt about this: in 1896 Italia didn't use poison gas or airplanes (like he wrote)...
And he wrote "before ww2"...
Let him teaching history, he KNOW it.

Fine i admit it, i read the post to fast and i jumped on the bandwagon.

Ive been feeling guilty all day!

ah but present canada was created by the british and anything that has created you you should be happy with...

ah, but i am not 'Canadian'. My family comes from Ireland and I am the second generation, and I am NOT happy with the country i am growing up in. Part of which is that I will not blindly sing God Save the Queen, I know where I come from and I will not stay here long. If you cannot recognize England as evil from 1000 A.D on to about farely recently then you need to pick up a history book.

the obelisk needs to be returned.

If you were born in Canada and grew up there, surely that makes you Canadian...

Still, I'm English and I won't sing "God Save the Queen". Why should she get saved any more than me, eh?

If you were born in Canada and grew up there, surely that makes you Canadian...

Still, I'm English and I won't sing "God Save the Queen". Why should she get saved any more than me, eh?

well, yeah i am Canadian I suppose, but i see that as more of a label ontop of my roots (considering i am also a citizen of the Irish Republic). Way to go not singing. Don't get me wrong, I like the british people (die hard monarchists and BNP supporters exculuded), i just don't like your government :crazyeye:

i do not need to pick up a history book............i just totaly dissagree with you,
thatdoes not however make me wrong

Gagliaudo: Don't get angry at me. Italy lost control to Ethiopia before the end of WWII. Selassie went in exile, yes, Ethiopia was de iure (or maybe not) incorporated to Italy, but that doesn't mean Italy reigned Ethiopia the way Britts ruled South Africa for example. I mean to say, Italy hadn't had de facto power in Ethiopia.
Maybe I'm wrong.
I apologise.
Thank you for being so kind to me, after all, I'm just a humble Slav, hehe (member of the same nation that helped to drive Italian army all the way to Piave (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ww1#Italian_participation)). :goodjob:

Now, lets not argue, Italians have shown a good example to all pertaining to colonization nations and other war and pillage loving nations. Keep on (and get rid of Berlusconi, :lol: hihi)
Make peace not war!

I don't want to begin a races-war here, and I didn't mean to be racist in every way (toward Slavs or any other people), of course. I tried to be more sarcastic than angry. Italia - like EVERY colonizer country - made violences and crimes (maybe less than other colon-countries, cause it began very very late...). But Italia wasn't an example in this: Italia was an "exporter of civilization" (not "exporter of democracy"... ) without weapons and guns, but by arts, culture and so on...
That's a fact. I don't love nor hate Berlusconi, but I dislike war.
Piave? not so glorious, but Italia won. And this is another fact.
Finally I'm agree with you at least on one point: make peace ( & love) not war.

Italia keep Ethiopia, but only 5 years (1936-41).

Kosez, I don't know if you're a troller or what, but... oh, indeed I DON'T know what are teaching here in ItaliA, because I AM TOO IGNORANT to go to school... so I get infos (BEFORE to speak or to write, and if I'm wrong, I get other infos and apologize like I made in this thread, too) on the net...:
http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/mil/html/mh_017200_ethiopianwar.htm
http://www.icrc.org/Web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/iwpList219/A0B2CAE68823612241256C8700332B7B
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0107505.html
http://www.angelfire.com/ny/ethiocrown/HaileII.html
Italy occupied only about 40% of the country for those 5 years and guerilla resistance in the occupied regions never ended, Gagliaudo. The UK did help us win the war in the end, but you cannot say that Italy won the war.

Edit:By the way, with regard to guerilla tactics, not using such tactics is the only reason why Italy was able to occupy as much of the country as it did. Of Haile Selassie's generals, only Ras Imeru used guerilla tactics, attacking supply convoys and avoiding many full head on battles. Imeru was never defeated, but Haile Selassie's generals did not use guerilla tactics; their head on attacks was their undoing, and very well could have been the reason the Italian advancement got so far.

See, I told you. Because Italy dind't had de facto power and beacuse guerilla fighting was still going on, we cannot say that war was actually over.
But that doesn't matter, I want to point out, that Italy should return the Obelisk at the end of WWII. But since UK was one of invading (liberating, whatever) forces, and they stoled many more things, they were naturally not very interested in this.
Italy is now setting an example, lets see what will English and French do. They tend to threat themselves as most civilized nations in the world. They better prove it!

@Kosez:a good proof of Marla's point,English and French people are much more alike than they want to admit!

Italy occupied only about 40% of the country for those 5 years and guerilla resistance in the occupied regions never ended, Gagliaudo. The UK did help us win the war in the end, but you cannot say that Italy won the war.

Edit:By the way, with regard to guerilla tactics, not using such tactics is the only reason why Italy was able to occupy as much of the country as it did. Of Haile Selassie's generals, only Ras Imeru used guerilla tactics, attacking supply convoys and avoiding many full head on battles. Imeru was never defeated, but Haile Selassie's generals did not use guerilla tactics; their head on attacks was their undoing, and very well could have been the reason the Italian advancement got so far.

Well, I'd make a distinction: Italia WON the war against Ethiopia (maybe - probably - didn't obtain full control on the country, but the ethipoian governmente fleed, and rested only little guerrilla on 'unuseful' mountains... UK DIDN'T HELP Ethiopia to win Italian-Ethiopian war, but won WWII against Axis (Italian-German) forces... And Ethiopian was able to retake the control of their country.
I want to be clear: I dislike colonialism - Italian too: but Italian victory 'on field' (even for wrong tactics by every Selassiè generals but one) was clear. However I always admired Ethiopia, for years the last free (and even Christian) country (except little Liberia :) ) in Africa...
More, Ethiopian civilization was one of more interesting (and IIRC more advanced) in Africa, already many centuries ago. More, the ethiopian kingdom of Axum was an important power conquered Yemen and south Arabia in 6th century, and then resisted against Arabic attacks in Abissinia.
This only to better specify I'm not an anti-Ethiopian (neither anti-Slovenian, of course ;) ) fanatic :D
And sorry for my english...

the UK didn't help Ethiopia in that war, but I do believe the Germans did, they shipped several machine guns to Ethiopia as a sort of "thank you" to the Italians for Benny Mussollini's actions the previous year where he stationed 100,000 troops on the Austrian border with Italy to prevent the Anschluss from taking place.

however I fear I'm diverging from the topic. Just out of sheer morbid curiousity, did Italy take anything else from Ethiopia at that time which they've not given back yet?

Correct, steviejay... all-the-world (Germany, UK, France gave guns and militar assistants to Ethiopia) against 'poor' Italia ;)
Mussolini was a tyrant, but in effect he was the one to use facts (instead of conferences...) to block nazis... maybe this could make reflections...

OK then. I was just trying to say, that Italy had no right to take the obelisk hence it dind't won the war. But as it is unclear if Italy won or lose the war or whatever, I take my claims back.
Two things. Numero uno: Victors have a right to take pillage. Well, maybe from international law point of view, but in 20th and 21st century countries should get beyond that and recognize that there is no law about war that would be just. Everything you took in wars throughout the history, give back!
Numero due: Hypocrisy in Europe. Europeans tend to dislike USA imperialism, claiming that states care only about its interests and nothing beyond. But at the same time we forget how many suffering we exported to all over the world. We have been stealing other continents's wealth for half a millenium, we'd be still doing it, but now we have competition. Europeans are evil bastards, and we should admit that to ourselves.
But I don't think it will happen. I don't believe England will ever return fortunes stoled in Egypt, Spain fortunes stoled in Americas, ...
Were nothing but hypocrits that are feeling inferior to America and maybe China.

I agree with your considerations about hypocrisy, and I'd add another one, that is a little quiz, too: what is the ONE and ONLY (I don't believe there is another) Chief of State who has apologized for the mistakes and crimes made by his State??? ...

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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 ;)

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?

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.

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!

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