VJ Kiss woman dies

#4
All good things come to an end.....

Iconic US VJ picture, I doubt many in the Western World can say they haven't seen it.

Question is of course did the matelow get to do the dirty?
 
#6
A 'VJ Kiss'? is that one of those new sexual proclivities?

Used in a context such as 'I met with Keith Vaz, whereby we returned to his apartment and he attempted to give me a VJ Kiss'[1].

[1] Allegedly. Note, other deviant[2] figures in the public domain are also available.

[2] Also allegedly.
 

_Chimurenga_

LE
Gallery Guru
#8
So the sailor kissing her wasn't "Doc" Bradley?
 
#10
Sad in that an era is passing. Soon there will be no one left alive who went through ww2.

Then we will all get the masses of bollux written by "researchers" trying to rewrite history safe in the knowledge that there's no one alive to challenge them or who cares to.
Sorry, I'm grumbly this morning.
 
#11
Sad in that an era is passing. Soon there will be no one left alive who went through ww2.

Then we will all get the masses of bollux written by "researchers" trying to rewrite history safe in the knowledge that there's no one alive to challenge them or who cares to.
Sorry, I'm grumbly this morning.
There will always be a Tropper - he wrote most of Churchill's speeches!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
#13
Then we will all get the masses of bollux written by "researchers" trying to rewrite history safe in the knowledge that there's no one alive to challenge them or who cares to.
I love you too. :-D

What's the other option? We lock history at say 50 years after the event, and it can never ever be challenged?

And here's a conundrum for you. Not so long ago I interviewed a veteran of D-day. He was part of the first wave, as a LCM crewman. Due to a small amount of German explosive he ended up stranded on the beach. He clearly and defiantly has the recollection of a German air attack.

Thing is, the only German air attack on D-day happened some distance away, according to the conventional history.

So do you believe the eyewitness and his account, or do you go for the "truth" as other eyewitness claim it? Would he be able to challenge conventional wisdom? Am I one of these "Bollux Researchers" you talk of, for airing his views?
 
#16
I love you too. :-D

What's the other option? We lock history at say 50 years after the event, and it can never ever be challenged?

And here's a conundrum for you. Not so long ago I interviewed a veteran of D-day. He was part of the first wave, as a LCM crewman. Due to a small amount of German explosive he ended up stranded on the beach. He clearly and defiantly has the recollection of a German air attack.

Thing is, the only German air attack on D-day happened some distance away, according to the conventional history.

So do you believe the eyewitness and his account, or do you go for the "truth" as other eyewitness claim it? Would he be able to challenge conventional wisdom? Am I one of these "Bollux Researchers" you talk of, for airing his views?
I trust you noted the quotes It was to highlight the difference between those that have an axe to grind and those who present facts, all of them, without an agenda.
.
How do you verify and corroborate ? If he's in the minority then the argument is that he was possibly wrong/mistaken/made it up.
But the only way you can check that is either by interview of other witnesses or reading accounts written after the event by those who were there from both sides.
In his defence, he could have seen low flying allied aircraft, mistaken them for German and thought he was under attack. There's enough friendly fire incidents to show that allied troops didn't always properly identify allied aircraft which sadly sometimes ended in blue on blue.
If we look at something like the bomber offensive in ww2, the topic can get quite emotive and viewed in a way that paints the bomber crews and Harris in the same light as the Himmler and the SS and the final solution. Now you and I know this is rubbish, but in the eyes of the modern generation with its surgical strike, minimum collateral damage expectations, carpet bombing does not sit well. In the absence of living bomber crew members, it would be easy to paint them in a negative light. Its not unknown for teachers to say to kids "do you think that was right ?" and there's that pressure to change a view or opinion.
 
#17
So do you believe the eyewitness and his account, or do you go for the "truth" as other eyewitness claim it? Would he be able to challenge conventional wisdom? Am I one of these "Bollux Researchers" you talk of, for airing his views?
Fair Point.

Many years ago, I started becoming interested in the stories of Far East POWs. Most people would probably be surprised at just how many autobiographical accounts were written.

Most of the books I read were written in the years immediately after the end of the war, many were probably written for the cathartic exercise.

But after sometime, I stopped reading accounts published after about 1965/70.

That's not to say there aren't any worthwhile books published after that time, but I found that a pattern started to emerge.

Sometimes the ghost-writer would spice things up a bit. sometimes authors would claim witnessing events that they couldn't possibly have seen, given that such events were well documented in near-contemporary accounts.

Were these more recent authors 'swinging the lamp' too much?
Is there such a thing as a false memory syndrome where people genuinely believe things that occurred to others, actually happened to them?
 
#18
In his defence, he could have seen low flying allied aircraft, mistaken them for German and thought he was under attack. There's enough friendly fire incidents to show that allied troops didn't always properly identify allied aircraft which sadly sometimes ended in blue on blue.
According to this guys account, the Fighter made an attack run and ended up in the drink, the pilot was rescued and ended up ashore. He actually held of on mentioning it because he was aware that according to conventional history the Germans only made one pass on D-day.

Ok, what about something more controversial :D
What if I was to claim that the Japanese had at least some heavy tanks during WWII, and they may have seen some form of limited deployment?
Or what if I claimed that the British Infantry tank doctrine actually started in 1925 and ended in 1949?

I'll admit the later is open to a massive argument both for and against, and the former the evidence is only partial and inconclusive to my mind, but it does hint it happened.
But hey hopefully it'll sell books!

Is there such a thing as a false memory syndrome where people genuinely believe things that occurred to others, actually happened to them?
What you mean to say is Eyewitnesses are bloody unreliable. And they are. Of course with documentation to back them up then it gets better.
 
#19
@Listy -

Luftflotte 3 - 6 Jun: flew 327 day sorties, mostly in the landing area, claimed 19 enemy aircraft shot down, lost 2 planes. 6/7 Jun: flew 217 night sorties in the landing area, claimed 4 ships hit, lost 18 planes. 7 Jun: flew 139 fighter and 34 bomber day sorties in the landing area, claimed 2 enemy fighters, lost 23 planes.

[Source: [MEHNER, Kurt (ed.). Die geheimen Tagesberichte der deutschen Wehrmachtführung im Zweiten Weltkrieg 1939-1945. 12 Bände. Osnabrück: Biblio Verlag, 1984-95. Band 10: Berichtzeit 1.3.1944 – 31.8.1944. ISBN 3-7648-1460-8. 722p. 47 maps. 1986.]
 
#20
To be fair the Luftwaffe over Normandy suffers from RAF over Dunkirk syndrome in most popular histories; If you can't see 'em they can't have been there.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
Taniwha Book Reviews 4
CrashTestDummy The NAAFI Bar 10
uncle_vanya The NAAFI Bar 14

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top