65th anniversary of JV day

[papa_smurf]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10976603Let us not forget this often forgotten, important front.

"They fought and suffered around the world in ferocious conditions. They witnessed incomprehensible horrors."

[Platapus]

psst

VJ not JV

VJ is Victory over Japan
JV is Junior Varsity.

:D

[Gerald]

psst

VJ not JV

VJ is Victory over Japan
JV is Junior Varsity.

:D :ping:

[papa_smurf]

*edit Fixed the title - whoops

[Gerald]

*edit Fixed the title - whoops :yep:

[Jimbuna]

http://img37.imageshack.us/img37/526/victoryab.jpg (http://img37.imageshack.us/i/victoryab.jpg/)
http://photos.codlib.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/vj-day.jpg

[Platapus]

So I guess this means I can't play SH4 any more? :wah:

Seriously, it is good to celebrate the ending of a terrible war. May we never see the likes of this war again.

We must be doing something right for it seems that we are allies with almost everyone who was involved in this terrible war. :yep:

[The Third Man]

We must be doing something right ........

They are called existential weapons and they are nuclear. Nuclear weapons have kept major wars at bay for the longest period sinse almost forever.

[Takeda Shingen]

They are called existential weapons and they are nuclear. Nuclear weapons have kept major wars at bay for the longest period sinse almost forever.

Or, you could argue that nuclear weapons have been an underlying reason for almost every major conflict since 1945.

[The Third Man]

Or, you could argue that nuclear weapons have been an underlying reason for almost every major conflict since 1945.

I guess our definition of major conflict is different. If one looks at history the deaths in conflicts since the advent of nuclear tech., has always been on a much smaller scale with fewer powers involved, and by consequence less people dead.

There is the world many wish to live in, and the world that we do live in, and nuclear weapons have done much to save lives.

[ETR3(SS)]

They are called existential weapons and they are nuclear. Nuclear weapons have kept major wars at bay for the longest period sinse almost forever.Actually because of nuclear weapons we endured a 45 year period known as the Cold War. As a result several accidents almost wiped mankind from the face of the Earth.

[The Third Man]

Actually because of nuclear weapons we endured a 45 year period known as the Cold War. As a result several accidents almost wiped mankind from the face of the Earth.

Almost perhaps. But without them it would have certainly meant war. I give you WWI as an example. An arch-duke assasinated by an anarchistic Serbian gave us WWI. If Nukes existed do you think one man would cause a world war? As counter point JFK was assasinated by one Soviet expatriot. No war.

[Takeda Shingen]

I guess our definition of major conflict is different. If one looks at history the deaths in conflicts since the advent of nuclear tech., has always been on a much smaller scale with fewer powers involved, and by consequence less people dead.

There is the world many wish to live in, and the world that we do live in, and nuclear weapons have done much to save lives.

I'm pretty sure that anyone who served in Korea and Vietnam, as well as their families, would consider them to be major conflicts. Personally, I think that 2.8 million deaths in Korea and 5.2 million deaths in Vietnam speak for themselves.

Regarding fewer deaths from war since 1945, you should consider reading this. It may change your mind:

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm

As ETR already said, the Cold War was, at it's core, a series of wars and conflicts over who was going to put their nukes where. We had ours in western Europe. The Soviets would spend the next 40 years trying to achieve a reciprocal standing, resulting in the majority of the conflicts listed on the above website. Of course, we not even need to mention the Arab-Israeli conflicts, the invasion of Iraq, and issues with Pakistan, India, China, North Korea and Iran, all of which are directly rooted in the possession or manufacture of nuclear weapons.

In short, the use of the Fat Man and Little Boy bombs did indeed prevent a horrendous and bloody invasion of the Japanese homeland that would likely have made D-Day look miniscule by comparison, but claiming that nuclear weapons have reduced the need for nations to engage in warfare is fallacy.

[Betonov]

http://photos.codlib.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/vj-day.jpg

I better liked the watchmen (movie) version of this photo, when another woman kisses the nurse:salute:

[The Third Man]

I'm pretty sure that anyone who served in Korea and Vietnam, as well as their families, would consider them to be major conflicts. Personally, I think that 2.8 million deaths in Korea and 5.2 million deaths in Vietnam speak for themselves.

Regarding fewer deaths from war since 1945, you should consider reading this. It may change your mind:

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm

As ETR already said, the Cold War was, at it's core, a series of wars and conflicts over who was going to put their nukes where. We had ours in western Europe. The Soviets would spend the next 40 years trying to achieve a reciprocal standing, resulting in the majority of the conflicts listed on the above website. Of course, we not even need to mention the Arab-Israeli conflicts, the invasion of Iraq, and issues with Pakistan, India, China, North Korea and Iran, all of which are directly rooted in the possession or manufacture of nuclear weapons.

In short, the use of the Fat Man and Little Boy bombs did indeed prevent a horrendous and bloody invasion of the Japanese homeland that would likely have made D-Day look miniscule by comparison, but claiming that nuclear weapons have reduced the need for nations to engage in warfare is fallacy.

What are you really worried about when it comes to nuclear weapons? The cold war left no dead from nuclear blast. But the deterence it represents has allowed us to live some what fruitful and productive lives. Until recently.

The idea that the cold war was bad is bad in the purely empirical standard of logic. No one has used nukes in anger since 1945.

[ETR3(SS)]

Almost perhaps. But without them it would have certainly meant war. I disagree. If those same accidents had happened in a world without nuclear weapons, nobody would be clamoring to launch a retaliatory strike. Cooler heads would have prevailed.


I give you WWI as an example. An arch-duke assasinated by an anarchistic Serbian gave us WWI. If Nukes existed do you think one man would cause a world war? As counter point JFK was assasinated by one Soviet expatriot. No war.If the offended party is so determined, than yes, nukes be damned. If JFK or Khrushchev had been assassinated by a KGB or CIA agent, respectively, than the possibility of an ensuing nuclear war is very likely. As a counter counter point, Lincoln was assassinated after the end of the Civil War. No war.

[Takeda Shingen]

What are you really worried about when it comes to nuclear weapons? The cold war left no dead from nuclear blast. But the deterence it represents has allowed us to live some what fruitful and productive lives. Until recently.

The idea that the cold war was bad is bad in the purly empirical standard of logic. No Nuke bombs, no exentential wars.

I'm not worried about nuclear weapons at all. Are you worried about them? I simply stated that nuclear weapons have not mitigated the need for war; rather, they have exaserbated it. People lived productive lives before nuclear weapons, as they live them today, but stating that nuclear weapons are responsible for the standard of living may be a case of viewing history through rose-colored glasses.

[The Third Man]

I disagree. If those same accidents had happened in a world without nuclear weapons, nobody would be clamoring to launch a retaliatory strike. Cooler heads would have prevailed.


If the offended party is so determined, than yes, nukes be damned. If JFK or Khrushchev had been assassinated by a KGB or CIA agent, respectively, than the possibility of an ensuing nuclear war is very likely. As a counter counter point, Lincoln was assassinated after the end of the Civil War. No war.


War against an already defeated enemy. please. My example is much more pertainant and on point. You are just a poor cold warrior without the knowledge to make the correct decisions. Perhaps that is why you rose to that high rank of ETR3.

Nukes are good, in the right hands. Not in the hands of those who openly advocate the destruction of other nations.

[Takeda Shingen]

Nukes are good, in the right hands. Not in the hands of those who openly advocate the destruction of other nations.

Which is exactly why wars will continue to be fought over them. Nukes are here; you can't put the genie back in the bottle, but that does not make them 'good'.

[Oberon]

A nuke is neither good nor evil, it is a metal object with radioactive materials inside. Whoever uses the nuke, that's where the good or evil lies.

As the saying goes: "Guns don't kill people, people kill people."

[The Third Man]

Which is exactly why wars will continue to be fought over them. Nukes are here; you can't put the genie back in the bottle, but that does not make them 'good'.

The problem is that if it weren't nukes some other excuse would be used.

It is the nukes which keeps the other excuses from blossoming into world war. Look at it from that angle and your moment of clairity embrace you.

[The Third Man]

A nuke is neither good nor evil, it is a metal object with radioactive materials inside. Whoever uses the nuke, that's where the good or evil lies.

As the saying goes: "Guns don't kill people, people kill people."


:yeah:

I think that says it all.

I would like to add one thing.

You don't live in a world as you wish it to be. You live in a world as it is.

[Takeda Shingen]

The problem is that if it weren't nukes some other excuse would be used.

It is the nukes which keeps the other excuses from blossoming into world war. Look at it from that angle and your moment of clairity embrace you.

Unfortunately, that view doesn't really reconcile with history, does it? The fact is that is was nukes, it is nukes, and it will continue to be nukes. Meditate on that, Grasshopper.

[ETR3(SS)]

War against an already defeated enemy. please. My example is much more pertainant and on point. Perhaps you are right concerning Lincoln, but regarding JFK and Krushchev...


You are just a poor cold warrior without the knowledge to make the correct decisions. Perhaps that is why you rose to that high rank of ETR3.Wow. Just wow. Have we served together? Do you know anything about my service? What knowledge do I lack to make the "correct" decisions? Are you implying that I wouldn't use nuclear weapons if it came down to it? Because I can assure you that I had no qualms when it came to my job and would do my part in executing those orders if they were given. And as for my high rank of ETR3, I was ahead of the advancement curve seeing as I enlisted as an E-1.

[The Third Man]

unfortunately, that view doesn't really reconcile with history, does it? The fact is that is was nukes, it is nukes, and it will continue to be nukes. Meditate on that, grasshopper.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[Takeda Shingen]

Tell that to the soldiers crossing the beaches of Normandy.

Or the soldiers on the 38th Parallel
Or the soldiers of the Tet Offensive
Or the soldiers in the Bay of Pigs
Or the soldiers in Iraq
Or the soldiers in Afghanistan

Come on, this is just getting silly now.

[The Third Man]

Perhaps you are right concerning Lincoln, but regarding JFK and Krushchev...


Wow. Just wow. Have we served together? Do you know anything about my service? What knowledge do I lack to make the "correct" decisions? Are you implying that I wouldn't use nuclear weapons if it came down to it? Because I can assure you that I had no qualms when it came to my job and would do my part in executing those orders if they were given. And as for my high rank of ETR3, I was ahead of the advancement curve seeing as I enlisted as an E-1.

Wow. Just wow. Why are you so heated by my answer? Did I hit a cord?

Do you feel you could have done more in defense of your country? Do you feel guilty now because of your current feelings about nuclear deterence?

is it just because you feel your pride for the question?

I mean nothing bad. I'm just trying to share my opinion, and reconcile it with the answers.

[Takeda Shingen]

Wow. Just wow. Why are you so heated by my answer? Did I hit a cord?

Do you feel you could have done more in defense of your country? Do you feel guilty now because of your current feelings about nuclear deterence?

is it just because you feel your pride for the question?

I mean nothing bad. I'm just trying to share my opinion, and reconcile it with the answers.

Now, see, this is why people don't want to play with you, so to speak. You can't seem to interact with someone with an opposing viewpoint without insulting them. Why such anger?

[The Third Man]

Or the soldiers on the 38th Parallel
Or the soldiers of the Tet Offensive
Or the soldiers in the Bay of Pigs
Or the soldiers in Iraq
Or the soldiers in Afghanistan

Come on, this is just getting silly now.

None of which have had to deal with the effects of nukes. Thanks to the deterent they provide. Nukes are good.

[The Third Man]

Now, see, this is why people don't want to play with you, so to speak. You can't seem to interact with someone with an opposing viewpoint without insulting them. Why such anger?

I was just responding to the question.

Post #25 shows my attempt at being sporting.

[Takeda Shingen]

I was just responding to the question.

You are just a poor cold warrior without the knowledge to make the correct decisions. Perhaps that is why you rose to that high rank of ETR3.

That's no response. That's just plain insulting, and there is no need for it.

[ETR3(SS)]

Wow. Just wow. Why are you so heated by my answer? Did I hit a cord? Your answer isn't what caused me to become heated. I even admitted that you could be right about Lincoln. What caused me to become heated was your insult on my service.

Do you feel you could have done more in defense of your country? Do you feel guilty now because of your current feelings about nuclear deterence?I chose my job in the Navy and performed my duties, there was nothing more I could do to contribute. My feelings about nuclear deterrence have not changed since I joined the Navy.

[The Third Man]

That's no response. That's just plain insulting, and there is no need for it.


OK I'll give you that I was trying to get him to admit to the falacy of his argument, as a former ETR3. But it doesn't mean I ignore his service, or overtly insult him. If I have done so, sorry sweat heart, perhaps we can take the let me cry train to some place special for you.

[Takeda Shingen]

OK I'll give you that I was trying to get him to admit to the falacy of his argument, as a former ETR3. But it doesn't mean I ignore his service, or overtly insult him. If I have done so, sorry sweat heart, perhaps we can take the let me cry train to some place special for you.

And see, now you're going after me. You just can't play nice, can you? Really, I don't know why you take every discussion so personally.

I tried; I give up.

[The Third Man]

And see, now you're going after me. You just can't play nice, can you? Really, I don't know why you take every discussion so personally.

I tried; I give up.

You are correct of course. I'm bad all over.

[Platapus]

=The Third Man;1468661 The cold war left no dead from nuclear blast.

Perhaps some research into the number of deaths associated with exposing US Troops to Nuclear blasts would be in order.

[Ishmael]

Perhaps some research into the number of deaths associated with exposing US Troops to Nuclear blasts would be in order.

You could also say that about John Wayne, Susan Hayward and Agnes Moorhead who were filming "The Conqueror" downwind of the tests site too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3xwnjhAYn8

My Dad was in Noumea loading supplies for Operation Olympic when the surrender was announced. So, I fully support Truman's decision to drop the bombs or I wouldn't be here today. It was their use, ALONG with the rapid Red Army victory in Manchuria that precipitated the surrender, It also allowed the US to guarantee Japanese territorial integrity and prevent a divided Japan like Korea and Germany.

I also visited Hiroshima and Nagasaki when I was in Japan in the Navy WHILE I was Mk 114 Firing Petty Officer and saw the shadows of people burned into some of the few walls left standing after the blast. In fact, last year, I finally visited Trinity Site south of here near San Antonio, NM when they had the annual opening:

http://a.imageshack.us/img80/1729/trinity1.jpg

So, I got the "Places-that-got-nuked" Hat Trick.

In my humble opinion, only ONE group of people have EARNED the RIGHT to order nuclear weapons use. The Hibakusha, the survivors of the bombings. No other person, head of state, potentate or dictator has that right, anywhere.

[Sailor Steve]

If I have done so, sorry sweat heart, perhaps we can take the let me cry train to some place special for you.
Are you capable of having a decent discussion without resorting to personal insults? There was no need for that remark at all. No one has spoken to you that way.

[krashkart]

My thanks go out to the men and women that served in that war. You helped make a lot of things possible that otherwise would not have been. :salute:

[Sailor Steve]

And now it's time for me to ask the same question I ask every year, and see if anybody remembers:

VJ day marked the end of the fighting, but when did the war officially end?

[ETR3(SS)]

I'll take a stab at that, September 2, 1945 with the signing in Tokyo Bay onboard the USS Missouri.

[nikimcbee]

psst

VJ not JV

VJ is Victory over Japan
JV is Junior Varsity.

:D
Well played sir, you beat me to it:haha:

[Jimbuna]

And now it's time for me to ask the same question I ask every year, and see if anybody remembers:

VJ day marked the end of the fighting, but when did the war officially end?

Most people believe and accept that World War 2 was officially ended in late April/Early May 1945 in Europe with the success of the Allies and fall of Rome and Berlin in Europe and in September of the same year in the Far East, but there is also a theory that states that it did not actually "officially" end until far later - almost 45 years later, in fact!

The reason behind this theory is that, after the cessation of hostilities, Germany was divided into the two separate sovereign states of East and West Germany. Therefore the country which originally declared war on Britain, starting World War II (just "Germany") did not then exist.

The state of war between the ORIGINAL PROTAGONISTS of World War II - those being "Germany" and "Britain" could not therefore technically be "officially" declared as over until "Germany" itself (and not just East Germany or West Germany) existed properly and independently in it's own right, which did not happen until the east and west countries were re-unified into one sovereign state once again on October 3rd 1990.

Whichever theory is correct, what is true is that Germany and Japan (the 'Axis' forces) conceded defeat in the war and surrendered to the Allied forces in 1945, with the Japanese doing so later in the year - on September 2nd, so it is reasonable to assume that date as the end to World War II.

:smug::03:

[Raptor1]

And now it's time for me to ask the same question I ask every year, and see if anybody remembers:

VJ day marked the end of the fighting, but when did the war officially end?

VJ day did not really mark the end of the fighting; VJ day marks the day Japan announced it's surrender, organized resistance continued until August 23rd (IIRC) against the Soviets in Manchuria and the Kuril Islands. The last action was taken by September 1st with the Soviets occupying the Kurils and the actual surrender was signed on September 2nd.

So, officially: September 2nd, 1945.

[Sailor Steve]

I'll take a stab at that, September 2, 1945 with the signing in Tokyo Bay onboard the USS Missouri.
Not even close.:D

[Sailor Steve]

So, officially: September 2nd, 1945.
Nope.

[Raptor1]

Not even close.:D

If that's the case, September 12th, 1990.

[Sailor Steve]

If that's the case, September 12th, 1990.
I'll bite. What happened on that date? :06:

[Raptor1]

The 'Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany' was signed, in which the Allies formally ended their occupation of Germany which followed World War II.

Perhaps a better date would be January 25th, 1955, when the Soviets formally ended the state of war between them and Germany (The last country to do so, AFAIK).

[TLAM Strike]

And now it's time for me to ask the same question I ask every year, and see if anybody remembers:

VJ day marked the end of the fighting, but when did the war officially end?

VJ Day does not mark the end of the fighting in WWII, WWII finaly ended on October 21 1963 when the Polish Paramilitary Police killed Józef Franczak the last active member of the Żołnierze wyklęci (Cursed Soldiers) who were fighting the Communist occupation of their country.

Although I guess Japan finally surrendered in April 1980 when (http://www.wanpela.com/holdouts/index.html)Captain Fumio Nakahira was captured on Mindoro (http://www.wanpela.com/holdouts/index.html)

[ETR3(SS)]

Not even close.:DOk so what is the answer then?:06:

[mako88sb]

From Wikipedia:

"President Truman officially declared an end to hostilities by Presidential Proclamation on December 31, 1946"

Do you know the reason for this Sailor Steve?

[Gerald]

http://imgur.com/tGQ8T.jpg

:hmm2:

[Jimbuna]

Well whatever the date, looking at my post at #43 I'm thinking there will be some little known detail or technicality behind the answer.

One answer could be 'it's still not over' because as far as I know the small state of Andorra (perched in the mountains between Spain and France) never actually recognised or signed any peace treaty with Germany and are therefore still technically at war with her :hmmm:

[Gerald]

Well whatever the date, looking at my post at #43 I'm thinking there will be some little known detail or technicality behind the answer.

One answer could be 'it's still not over' because as far as I know the small state of Andorra (perched in the mountains between Spain and France) never actually recognised or signed any peace treaty with Germany and are therefore still technically at war with her :hmmm: response, good to know from a trustworthy source :DL

[TLAM Strike]

One answer could be 'it's still not over' because as far as I know the small state of Andorra (perched in the mountains between Spain and France) never actually recognised or signed any peace treaty with Germany and are therefore still technically at war with her :hmmm: I think that was from WWI no WWII. Andorra and the Kaiser finally declared peace in 1958.

[The Third Man]

Are there still allied troops in Germany, some 60+ years later?

[TLAM Strike]

Are there still allied troops in Germany, some 60+ years later?

You seriously asking? Have never heard of this place? (http://www.ramstein.af.mil/) :roll:

[Gerald]

You seriously asking? Have never heard of this place? (http://www.ramstein.af.mil/) :roll: :haha:

[The Third Man]

You seriously asking? Have never heard of this place? (http://www.ramstein.af.mil/) :roll:


So when John McCain said we may be in Iraq for 50 years it wasn't off base?

[TLAM Strike]

So when John McCain said we may be in Iraq for 50 years it wasn't off base?

We are still occupying the old Confederate states after 150 years aren't we? :haha:

[Ducimus]

"It is well that war is so terrible — lest we should grow too fond of it. "
Robert E. Lee

[Sailor Steve]

The 'Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany' was signed, in which the Allies formally ended their occupation of Germany which followed World War II.
That's a good one. Was it a real peace treaty, or just a formality? Well, they're all formalities in that respect, so I guess it doesn't matter.

Perhaps a better date would be January 25th, 1955, when the Soviets formally ended the state of war between them and Germany (The last country to do so, AFAIK).
Wow! I think you've got me beat! That was one I hadn't paid attention to.

Ok so what is the answer then?:06:
I suspect that Raptor1's second answer is better than mine. What I was actually going for was the Treaty of San Francisco, signed in September 1951 and in force in April 1952.
http://www.taiwandocuments.org/sanfrancisco01.htm

[Raptor1]

That's a good one. Was it a real peace treaty, or just a formality? Well, they're all formalities in that respect, so I guess it doesn't matter.


Of course it's a formality, any date after August 23rd is a formality of some sort.

It's considered by some to be the final peace treaty of the war in Europe, because it is the only one that included all major Allied powers (France, the UK, the US and the Soviet Union) and both East and West Germany.


I suspect that Raptor1's second answer is better than mine. What I was actually going for was the Treaty of San Francisco, signed in September 1951 and in force in April 1952.
http://www.taiwandocuments.org/sanfrancisco01.htm

I completely forgot about that one, actually. :damn:

[Ducimus]

You know, I find myself wondering how the Japanese treat VJ day. If i was to guess, id say they probably pretend like nothing ever happened.

[ETR3(SS)]

You know, I find myself wondering how the Japanese treat VJ day. If i was to guess, id say they probably pretend like nothing ever happened.
I'd put money on that.

[Jimbuna]

This Wiki link is claiming the final treaty wasn't signed until 1990:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_extended_by_diplomatic_irregularity

[Takeda Shingen]

Wow. The Punic Wars raged for 2100 years.

[Sailor Steve]

This Wiki link is claiming the final treaty wasn't signed until 1990:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_extended_by_diplomatic_irregularity
That's the one mentioned by Raptor1 in post #49. That link makes a good argument for it, though.

Wow. The Punic Wars raged for 2100 years.
"Raged"? More like simmered.

No, more like "Sat in a pot in the refrigerator and dreamed about simmering". :sunny:

[Jimbuna]

Wow. The Punic Wars raged for 2100 years.


I guess they both suffered from dementia as they aged and forgot about it :DL

[TLAM Strike]

I guess they both suffered from dementia as they aged and forgot about it :DL

Naw what happened was that the diplomats negotiating the treaty couldn't get any work done because they would snicker when ever someone said the word 'Punic'.

[frau kaleun]

Naw what happened was that the diplomats negotiating the treaty couldn't get any work done because they would snicker when ever someone said the word 'Punic'.

Why not, I snicker just reading it. Also, I'm eight years old.