Talk:Victory over Japan Day/Archive 1

Archive 1

No mention of RI?

As far as I know Rhode Island is the only place in the United States that still celebrates this as an official holiday (with the day off from work/state offices closed and everything). What's up with that? 131.128.96.47 19:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

VJ is coming up

Maybe this article could get expanded a bit, and nominated as the featured article on the 14th...? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twobitsprite (talk • contribs) 01:20, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Name?

I've got a problem with the name of this article. Of course VJ stands for Victory over Japan, but in the US at least, it's nearly universally called "V-J Day", and was from the beginning. Maybe it's different elsewhere? The date is also somewhat ambiguous:

"As President of the United States, I proclaim Sunday, September the second, 1945, to be V-J Day--the day of formal surrender by Japan. It is not yet the day for the formal proclamation of the end of the war nor of the cessation of hostilities. But it is a day which we Americans shall always remember as a day of retribution--as we remember that other day, the day of infamy."[1]

—wwoods 06:32, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Besides, the title is suggesting a US (so non-neutral) point of view. In Europe (or the Netherlands at least) it is sometimes called VJ day, but usually we speak of the surrender of Japan or the end of WW II. The date is set pretty firm on August 15 however. I think that in this case the losing party is setting the time table, so today it is.

For what it's worth, the official name in Australia is Victory in the Pacific (VP) Day. --Nick Dowling 09:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not! In 1995 the Australian Government issued a 50th anniversary commemorative medal with VJ-Day stamped on it. Also in 1946 the Melbourne Herald-Sun newspaper published a book "The Sixth Year of War in Pictures" and on pages 250 & 251 the day is called VJ-Day. This book is the last edition of six volumes on WWII.The Dart (talk) 19:29, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

What's in a name? But saw and thank you for those clarifying edits The Dart. Juan Riley (talk) 19:32, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Controversy?

"Nevertheless, the use of "VP Day" is a subject of controversy in Australia and is seen by some as an instance of political correctness." Since when? WookMuff 08:25, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I cannot speak to the when, but as to the why - "VP Day" is seen as whitewashing by the Japanese. Raul654 08:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

in australia? and i really honestly doubt the japanese could complain about whitewashing WookMuff 08:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstand me. The Japanese are the ones promoting the use of "VP day" over "VJ day". People, especially American/British/Australian veterans, don't like this, because it {looks like/is} whitewashing of history by the Japanese (who have a history of this sort of thing). Raul654 09:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

As mentioned in the article, its always been VP day here, both according to the War Memorial and my own memory (though the war memorial is more reliable as i am 27). I haven't heard anyone complain about it, and my friend whose grandfather was a POW in WWII has complained about everything else related to the japanese! WookMuff 09:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

VJ Day Kiss

I remember reading an article in the Daily Telegraph not too long ago about the identity of the VJ day kissers. They do not match the candidates given in the article, anyway here are some links. [2][3] As always, Google for more. - Hahnchen 14:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I seem to recall that the photograph was actually taken on V-E day in May and simply published as an end-of-war celebratory thing. Notice that the man is wearing blues instead of summer whites? Kensai Max 16:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Happy VJ day!

Hope you're having a good one! Mewchu11 01:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC) (Who actually IS from Rhode Island)

=this artikel is vandelised+

Im going to delete the alien vandalisem in this artekel

Hirohito??

Being that this is the Wikipedia for English speaking people, shouldn't the article refer to the Emperor of Japan at the time of their capitulation in 1945 as Hirohito since only the Japanese use his post-mortem ceremonial title of 'Showa'? CanadianMist 14:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you're right, so I'm being bold and changing the article. — PyTom 03:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Surrender of Japan

From my understanding, the surrender of Japan came the day following the second dropping of the Atomic Bomb. The article says that the surrender was initially on August 15. However, that would make the 2nd bomb dropped on the 14th, and the 1st on the 11th. I'm pretty sure the surrender happend on the 10th, as the 1st drop was on the 6th, 3 days later the 2nd bomb dropped and the surrender came the day following the second drop. Am i incorrect? It's what I have heared everywhere else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.83.146.58 (talk • contribs) 23:16, 30 May 2007

You're essentially correct. The Japanese government made the decision to surrender on the 10th. There were a few days of negotiations with the Allies over the terms, and the announcement was made on the 15th. See Surrender of Japan for more details.

—wwoods 15:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Hah. When I read the timeline in this article, I too was supprised to see the big gap between the 2nd atomic bomb and the announcement on the 15th. However after reading the Surrender of Japan article I see that yes, on the 10th the Emperor had made his mind up, but it's clear that nothing was clear until Aug 14 - when after yet again listening to the still divided "big six", he flat out asked them to prepare his speech and do as he asked. CraigWyllie 18:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you aware the Nipon Navy test fired it's Uranium Atomic bomb off the coast of Konan(jp)/Hungnam(kr) North Korea 12 August, 1945; the soviets did not detonate their espionaged Abomb device until 23 Sept 1949 (four years later,) this even after they confiscated all the Japanese abomb industrial materials/project from Korea in 1945. It might be surprising that the materials the US used in the Nagasaki Plutonium bomb were from the captured German Uboat 234 that was destined to supplement the Japanese Abomb projects (that the US had NO idea were even in existance.) http://www.kimsoft.com/korea/jp-hung.htm http://home1.gte.net/lbalders/nuclear.htm http://39th.org/39TH/hc/hc_japan_a_bomb.html Bhug (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC).

Where to start? The Japanese atomic weapons program was very primitive and never came close to producing a working bomb. Secondly, your cite is not a Reliable Source. This is basically hogwash. HammerFilmFan (talk) 00:56, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

George Mendonça

George Mendonça the sailor in the picture was portuguese.

POW massacres and Japanese suicides

Quote: " On August 15 & 16 some Japanese soldiers, devastated by the surrender, committed suicide; over 100 American prisoners of war were also executed. In addition, many Australian and English prisoners of war were illegally executed in Borneo, at both Ranau and Sandakan, by the Imperial Japanese Army"

While above statements are highly likely to be true, they are at the same time serious accusations. I put a "citation needed" tag in the article. Given that Japanese Imperal Forces conducted atrocities on a regular basis, I think it is reasonable to leave it in the article with the tag. However, if it cannot be referenced, it should be removed.

HagenUK (talk) 07:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Only in America?

May I ask why this article seems to suggest that this is only a US event? VJ day was, as usual, celebrated over here in the 51st state, with veteran memorials held in most major towns and cities and the event being reported in the press. Unless there's a very specific reason for having the opening few words, I'd like to see "In the United States..." removed. Any comments? Regards Psychostevouk (talk) 07:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Surrender-time concern

The Canberra Times of August 14, 1945 refers to VP Day This line cannot be correct at all, if the surrender was declared on 15th August 1945 in Japan. Australia is a little ahead of Japan time-zone wise. Could somebody look into it, please? Perhaps the surrender time could be quoted in GMT or UTC, to prevent ambiguities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.28.42.106 (talk) 04:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

USSR attack

This article said August 15 would be the end of WW2. I think it misleading, since it gives an impression there was no fight after that. It could be right for US army, but not for the others. In reality USSR attacked islands near to Hokkaido next week and has occupied, so August 15 was no end of fights. Should it be also noted in timeline? Thought? --Aphaia (talk) 07:22, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Opening sentence

I don't think the opening sentence of the article reads well, consider rewording for grammar structure.--Billymac00 (talk) 14:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism report

Looks like somebody defaced this page. Pasted below is information pasted from the first paragraph. There is no WWIIII and the dates has been changed.

"Victory over Japan Day (also known as Victory in the Pacific Day, vagina Day, or V-P Day) is a name chosen for the day on which the Surrender of Japan occurred, effectively ending World War IIII, and subsequent anniversaries of that event. The term has been applied to both the day on which the initial announcement of Japan's surrender was made in the afternoon of August 98, 2069, in Japan, and because of time zone differences, to August 394, 1234, (when it was announced in the United States, Western Europe, the Americas, the Pacific Islands, and Australia/New Zealand), as well as to September 2, 2011, when the signing of the surrender document occurred."

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.127.33.147 (talk) 03:17, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Looks like it's now been fixed. DMacks (talk) 03:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Another famous photo - Australia's "Dancing Man"

 Done

Like America's Kiss in Times Square photo, Australia has it's own end of the war photo dubbed the "Dancing Man", it shows a well dressed man leaping about in a Sydney street with other revellers, streamers and the like. After a few seconds of bounding about, he takes a bow and wanders off.

Peter Luck some 20 years ago had a documentary series on Australian TV and interviewed the camera-man who had filmed the footage of the dancing man. The camera-man recounted that by the time movie cameras had arrived, people were starting to disperse, so the camera-man asked a passing man to leap about which was filmed from the front of a tram and the legend of the dancing man was born.

To celebrate the 60th Anniversary of the end of the war, a circulating coin was struck with a representation of the dancing man. At the time a search was made to find the dancing man's identity, however, as some of the possible identities were by then dead, doubt surrounds the naming of one person who was at that time still alive.

Surely a famous image of the end of the war that resulted in a circulating coin should be included on the Article page.

Thanks, Timelord2067 (talk) 01:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Just noting that there is now a photograph of the Dancing Man in the article. --220 of ^Borg 13:04, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Shusen no hi(終戦の日)

It becomes the Special Occasion in general as the date of the end of World War II August 15 in Japan.

About it, with the item,described as the anniversary of Japan as fact.

I would like to describe the current facts.

Coincidentally, today is that day.

The worried, I was allowed to comment because it is not published the fact of Japan.

I am looking forward to comments everyone.--TA Yamada (talk) 02:26, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

huh?--Malerooster (talk) 13:08, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Important events in the last days

Key events in the last days before the surrender included the attempted coup, and the destruction of the last oil refinery. Though the war was going badly for Japan, in many ways it was not - Japan still held most of its occupied territories - only having lost the most economically insignificant parts, Philippines, Okinawa, islands of limited value. Japan was still winning the war in China, and crushing all opposition. Within Japanese politics, with the rivalry between the Navy and Army this meant the Navy had lost their war, but the Army had not. There were many who wanted to continue the war, as evidenced by the coup attempt. The elimination of the only available oil refinery, was an important blow for those who wanted to continue the war, more important then many other factors at this stage. It is an important part of the events that lead to surrender, arguably of more *military* importance than the two atomic bombings, which were among the most damaging bombing raids on Japan, but did not massively alter the military balance. Ottawakismet (talk) 16:10, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

The "last" oil refinery was not so important. During the war, Japan was never able to supply all of its oil needs through domestic refineries. Nobody in Japan was waiting until the last refinery was bombed.

Your notion that Japan's occupied territories were still important is quite interesting considering that Japan was cut off from them, strangled by a naval blockade. By August 1945 Japan was starving, unable to feed itself with food shipped from Korea, Manchuria, Thailand, etc.

At any rate, if you would like to have more leverage with this "last refinery" idea, you will have to support your text with a reliable source such as a book by a respected historian. Binksternet (talk) 16:20, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Also, this is not the article discussing why Japan surrendered. It is the article about various reactions to and observations of that surrender. If you find a reliable source to back up your idea, bring it to Talk:Surrender of Japan. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 16:23, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

So-called war crimes?

In the Commemoration section, in the section for the Netherlands, the last line reads:

To some, the remembrance has been tainted by revelations of so-called war crimes and other atrocities committed by Dutch military forces during the Indonesian colonial war 1945-1948, such as the case of the so-called Rawagede massacre.

I'm a brand new editor so I did some research and added the "neutrality is disputed" tags, especially since the appropriately cited article for the Rawagede massacre indicates that the Netherlands has issued a formally apology and awarded compensation to widows of the victims. It does say that no criminal investigation was started after the event occurred, but I think it's safe to say based on the actions of the nations involved that the crimes did in fact take place.

I am unsure of whether this warranted immediate removal but I wanted to bring attention to it.

Bavnah (talk) 14:06, 10 March 2014 (UTC)