US VA reverses plan to ban iconic WWII kiss photo from medical sites - Only because of backlash after it went viral on Twitter

By Leo Shane III
Mar 5, 04:42 PM

1709687722255.png
In this Aug. 14, 1945 photo, a sailor and a woman kiss in New York's Times Square as people celebrate the end of World War II. This photo is of the same moment that photographer Alfred Eisenstaedt captured and first published in Life magazine. (Victor Jorgensen/Navy)

Veterans Affairs Secretary Denis McDonough is overruling plans to ban the famous Times Square kiss photo marking the end of World War II from all department health care facilities, a move criticized as political correctness run amok.

The ban was announced internally at VA medical facilities late last month in a memo from RimaAnn Nelson, the Veterans Health Administration’s top operations official. Employees were instructed to “promptly” remove any depictions of the famous photo and replace it with imagery deemed more appropriate.

“The photograph, which depicts a non-consensual act, is inconsistent with the VA’s no-tolerance policy towards sexual harassment and assault,” the memo stated.

“To foster a more trauma-informed environment that promotes the psychological safety of our employees and the veterans we serve, photographs depicting the ‘V-J Day in Times Square’ should be removed from all Veterans Health Administration facilities.”

The memo garnered public scrutiny after it was posted online by the X account EndWokeness on Tuesday.

1709687753510.png
GH6PJJiXEAAzf5Y.jpgGH6PJJgWEAAr64n.jpgGH6PJJiWgAAsXph.jpg
Tweet (Archive)

Just hours later, McDonough took to social media to reverse the memo.

“This image is not banned from VA facilities — and we will keep it in VA facilities,” said a post from his official X account. Department officials echoed in a separate statement that “VA will NOT be banning this photo from VA facilities.”

Officials said the memo should not have been sent out and was formally rescinded on Tuesday. They did not provide details of whether senior leaders were consulted on the matter ahead of Nelson’s memo.

The photograph was taken by journalist Alfred Eisenstaedt in New York City on Aug. 14, 1945, as Americans celebrated Japan’s surrender at the end of World War II. Other journalists, including military reporters, also captured the moment.

1709687776896.png
GH6kzgDWUAEMQtJ.png
Tweet (Archive)

The shot shows a U.S. sailor grabbing and kissing a woman he did not know amid a joyous, party atmosphere in Times Square. The identities of the individuals in the photo have been disputed over the years.

In her memo, Nelson noted that use of the photo in VA facilities “was initially intended to celebrate and commemorate the end of World War II and the triumphant return of American soldiers. However, perspectives on historical events and their representations evolve.”

Nelson wrote that the non-consensual nature of the kiss and “debates on consent and the appropriateness of celebrating such images” led to the decision. Senior leaders did not provide an explanation for the reversal.

VA officials could not provide details on how many facilities are currently displaying the photo and whether veterans have complained about use of the image.

McDonough has made veterans outreach and inclusion key priorities for the department over the last three years, including rewriting the VA motto with gender-neutral language.

Source (Archive)
 
How the heck do they know it was non-consensual? I mean, she doesn't look like she's struggling to me
I was told in University that this kiss was non-consensual because the real woman was eventually found and interviewed, and she said that she was grabbed by a random soldier and he forced a kiss on her. She said she never knew the guy, he hadn't asked, he just grabbed her and planted a kiss on her. So yeah... that would be considered non-consensual.
 
Wasn't it revealed that the photo was staged anyway?
Not sure but given most WW2 photos and even footage was staged after-the-fact I'm willing to believe it. The Iwo Jima flag and the Berlin flag raising are probably the most notable examples.

Hope this isn't staged though because it's cool as fuck.
Douglas_MacArthur_lands_Leyte1 - Jeremy Collins.jpg
 
I was told in University that this kiss was non-consensual because the real woman was eventually found and interviewed, and she said that she was grabbed by a random soldier and he forced a kiss on her. She said she never knew the guy, he hadn't asked, he just grabbed her and planted a kiss on her. So yeah... that would be considered non-consensual.
Well that makes sense. It's understandable why there are people who see this photo as non-consensual. Here's another image here:
Kissing_the_War_Goodbye.jpg
 
I was told in University that this kiss was non-consensual because the real woman was eventually found and interviewed, and she said that she was grabbed by a random soldier and he forced a kiss on her. She said she never knew the guy, he hadn't asked, he just grabbed her and planted a kiss on her. So yeah... that would be considered non-consensual.

As much as I trust the level headed, bastions of reason that are universities today, even that article states that the identities aren't clear. Do we actually *know* who she was? I'd be genuinely interested to know.
 
I was told in University that this kiss was non-consensual because the real woman was eventually found and interviewed, and she said that she was grabbed by a random soldier and he forced a kiss on her. She said she never knew the guy, he hadn't asked, he just grabbed her and planted a kiss on her. So yeah... that would be considered non-consensual.
"the real woman was eventually found" I've lost track of how many different men I've heard claimed to be the one in that photo
 
From what I've learned and read about over many years, the first picture was staged after the raising of the first flag, the middle one was staged after the raising of the second, and the last picture is the actual raising of the second flag.
Joe Rosenthal has said he wasn't even sure if he got the second flag-raising shot on camera, he didn't find out until a few days later that the picture actually turned out.
So when people asked if the flag-raising picture was staged/posed, he thought people meant the first one, not the second flag-raising picture.
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20240305_173818_Google.jpg
    Screenshot_20240305_173818_Google.jpg
    215.1 KB · Views: 4
  • Screenshot_20240305_173802_Google.jpg
    Screenshot_20240305_173802_Google.jpg
    190.9 KB · Views: 4
  • Screenshot_20240305_173735_Google.jpg
    Screenshot_20240305_173735_Google.jpg
    181.4 KB · Views: 4
As much as I trust the level headed, bastions of reason that are universities today, even that article states that the identities aren't clear. Do we actually *know* who she was? I'd be genuinely interested to know.
I have no idea if it's true, just letting you know what my professor told me and why the left/SJW crowd constantly say that this photo isn't wholesome. There is an argument to be made that it doesn't really look like a consensual kiss, if it was a wife/gf then why are the woman's arms not around him and so stiff? I can also believe that an overjoyed solider, especially back in those days, didn't think twice about forcing a kiss on the nearest woman.

That said, I don't know if they ever for sure confirmed the woman's identity. And even if they did, the way this story was told to me in University, it wasn't like the woman said she was traumatized by it, just that she didn't actually know the guy. So even if the story is true, I mean if the woman herself wasn't bothered by it then I don't really see the point of removing the photo.
 
Meanwhile I can't even get pain pills for my knee because the "doctor" sitting across from me, trying to "talk" to me, sounds like Apu with downs syndrome and I can't understand him. You know, all the fag flags, the orchestrated death of my nation, it wouldn't be so bad if I could just get fucking paid on time, and by the proper amount. But we can't even get that.
 
As much as I trust the level headed, bastions of reason that are universities today, even that article states that the identities aren't clear. Do we actually *know* who she was? I'd be genuinely interested to know.
My understanding is probably not. I doubt the photographer got their names, and it really doesn't show their faces. I can imagine a lot of people think they recognize them, though.
 
Well that makes sense. It's understandable why there are people who see this photo as non-consensual. Here's another image here
Right, but the spirit of the thing is it's one of spontaneous joy, and it perfectly encapsulates the emotions of millions of people. It that sense it's both a symbol of pure happiness and a product of a different time, and the need to interrogate that a century down the line comes from people who are determined to make everything about the past into a problem that justifies z zealous 'correction'.
 
How the heck do they know it was non-consensual? I mean, she doesn't look like she's struggling to me
I was told in University that this kiss was non-consensual because the real woman was eventually found and interviewed, and she said that she was grabbed by a random soldier and he forced a kiss on her. She said she never knew the guy, he hadn't asked, he just grabbed her and planted a kiss on her. So yeah... that would be considered non-consensual.
It gets better. There were multiple men and women who claimed to have been in the photo and we don't know for sure who it were.
 
Back