King Charles warns of war's 'true cost' at VJ Day's 80th anniversary
While fighting in Europe ended in May 1945, the conflict with Japan continued until it signalled its intention to surrender on August 15 that year after atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the United States.
Charles said the war's final act brought an "immense price" for Hiroshima and Nagasaki, one he prayed no nation would ever pay again.
Charles will be joined by his wife Queen Camilla, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, the Japanese ambassador and veterans for a National Service of Remembrance to pay tribute to those who were killed in the last three months of the war.
There will be a flypast featuring historic military planes, a two-minute silence at midday and famous buildings across the country will be lit up to mark the occasion.
The monarch used his six-minute address to highlight ongoing conflicts: "War's true cost extends beyond battlefields, touching every aspect of life, a tragedy all too vividly demonstrated by conflicts around the world today."
He said that in World War Two, nations that had never fought side by side learned to work together, proving "that in times of war and in times of peace, the greatest weapons of all are not the arms you bear, but the arms you link".
"That remains a vital lesson for our times," he added.
Starmer said in a statement the "country owes a great debt to those who fought for a better future, so we could have the freedoms and the life we enjoy today".
At dawn military bagpipers performed at The Cenotaph war memorial in central London, at Edinburgh Castle and the National Memorial Arboretum in central England where the service of remembrance will be held later, the government said.
A piper was also expected to perform at a Japanese peace garden to recognise the reconciliation between Britain and Japan in the decades since the war ended.
On Friday evening, dozens of buildings and locations across the country including Buckingham Palace, the Houses of Parliament, the Tower of London, and the White Cliffs of Dover will be illuminated to mark the anniversary.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
23 minutes ago
- The Independent
Unless he can fix things at home, Keir Starmer will get no credit for his diplomatic skill
All prime ministers end up being their own foreign secretary. Keir Starmer started off as one. He has been moderately successful in foreign affairs, but has gained no credit for it from the British electorate. He has played a role in rallying Europe to the defence of Ukraine. This bore fruit at what we might call the half-baked Alaska summit between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin. The meeting failed to end the war in Ukraine, but that also means that President Trump did not sell out the Ukrainian people, which he has threatened to do. We cannot be sure how important European voices, including the British one, were in holding the line, but it seemed as if the conference call Trump held with European leaders on Wednesday was a significant moment. The briefing from the Europeans was almost ecstatic: that the US president seemed to recognise that a peace on Putin's terms was unacceptable, and that it was Putin who was the obstacle to a fair settlement. Starmer has played a surprising role in organising that show of European unity. Surprising, because so many of those who wanted Britain to stay in the EU argued that leaving would diminish our standing in the world. On the contrary, Starmer's diplomacy has vindicated the Brexiteers who said we could be more nimble, more creative and more assertive outside. Precisely because Britain is not a member of the EU, Starmer was better able to overcome EU disunity by assembling his 'coalition of the willing' to pledge solidarity with Ukraine, backed up by plans for (some) higher European defence spending. He was able to do it because the British people are so supportive of the Ukrainian cause. That allowed him to finesse the two possible sticking points in giving practical expression to that support. As with a lot of opinion-poll findings, the British are very supportive of the Ukrainians until it starts to cost them a noticeable amount of money. We have thrown open our doors to 200,000 refugees, but higher taxes to pay for the Ukrainian war effort? Ni, dyakuyu. Luckily, Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, found an electorally painless way of increasing defence spending by simply switching money from the most unpopular Budget heading, namely foreign aid. The almost total silence since that announcement in March has been instructive: the great enlightened achievement of Tony Blair and David Cameron in meeting the UN target for foreign aid spending is something that, it turned out, almost nobody cared about. The other sticking point in support for Ukraine is the idea of sending troops to help repel Putin's aggression. That has been out of the question for all of Ukraine's allies: we are happy to supply arms and money, but Ukrainians must do the fighting. Yet British public opinion is sufficiently supportive that Starmer has been able to talk about deploying British forces to help deter further Russian aggression if there is a peace deal. It is unclear how or whether this would work, but it has helped focus attention on the difficult question of who would guarantee a settlement and how that would work. What was most surprising about Trump's statements after the Alaska summit – apart from referring to Mark Rutte as the 'highly respected secretary general of Nato' – was his promise that the US would provide 'robust security guarantees' to support Ukraine. All in all, then, and considering how badly the summit could have gone, given Trump's belief that the Ukrainians brought their troubles on themselves, his disdain for Nato and his desperation for a Nobel Peace Prize at any cost, the Alaska meeting went well. Starmer can take some credit as the leader of a nation that is an important ally of Ukraine and an enemy of aggression. But that is another limit to the sympathy the British people feel for the Ukrainian cause: they are not going to reward their own leader for giving their sentiments practical expression on the world stage. Just as they are not going to give Starmer credit for his handling of the US president on tariffs, which has allowed him to carve out a better deal for the UK than for any other country. Nor will they give Starmer credit for the deal with Emmanuel Macron by which France has accepted that Britain can send back some of the people crossing the Channel in small boats. My astonishment at Starmer's skill in securing this concession is heavily outweighed by most people's dismay that the boats keep coming. The British public has had enough of the boats and is not inclined to wait a year or more to see if the numbers being sent back can be increased to the point where they act as a deterrent. I remember the European Parliament election in 1999, when Tony Blair had saved the Muslim population of Kosovo from expulsion by Slobodan Milosevic, the Serbian dictator. It was a moment of shining moral leadership, by which Blair persuaded a divided Nato and a reluctant Bill Clinton to stand up to ethnic persecution, and which was a triumphant success. It was a success that brought him 15 minutes of adulation from the tabloid press, followed almost immediately by sullen complaints about traffic jams and trains not running on time. In the European election, held on the day that the Serbs withdrew, Labour did extremely badly. What reminded me of that election was a 'government source' quoted in The Times: 'World War Three is breaking out internationally; it's unreasonable for people to expect Keir to be caring about potholes.' Wrong, wrong, wrong. International leadership is well and good, but unless Keir can fix the potholes and stop the boats, it counts for nothing with the voters.
BBC News
24 minutes ago
- BBC News
Trump's ceasefire pivot will have caused dismay in Kyiv
No deal in Alaska. It was always the most likely and, in the absence of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, perhaps the most desirable US President Donald Trump's pivot away from the need for an immediate ceasefire, which he said beforehand he wanted, will have caused profound dismay in Kyiv and around position has long been that a ceasefire can only come in the context of a comprehensive settlement taking account of Russia's interests - and inevitably implies Ukraine's the position that Trump, once again, appears to have endorsed. ANALYSIS: What summit means for Trump, Putin and UkraineWATCH: How the Trump-Putin summit unfolded in 82 secondsVISUALS: The war-ravaged Ukrainian territories in mapsIN PICTURES: Trump rolls out the red carpet for Putin "It was determined by all that the best way to end the horrific war between Russia and Ukraine," he wrote on Truth Social, "is to go directly to a peace agreement."Ceasefires, he noted, "often times do not hold up".This appears to fly in the face of Ukraine's main demand, endorsed by all its European backers: that an unconditional ceasefire has to come it also buys Russia's Vladimir Putin time on the battlefield, where he is convinced he's winning."If Putin's military objective was to avoid immediate constraints on Russian operations in Ukraine then he appears to have succeeded," says Matthew Savill, the director of military sciences at the Royal United Services their brief press appearance last night, Putin warned Ukraine and the Europeans not to "throw a wrench" in the works of the unspecified progress he and Trump had that, for Kyiv and its allies, is precisely what Trump has done, undoing the achievements of what they all hoped was a successful preceding week of frantic diplomacy aimed at influencing the outcome in a reminder, as if one were needed, of Trump's tendency to echo the views of the last person to have his a short while this morning, European leaders will have held their breath, waiting to see if their efforts had borne fruit or been cast to his word before the summit, Trump got on the phone to Zelensky. The two men spoke for an hour, before being joined by European said the call was "long and substantive" and that he would travel to Washington on Monday for his first visit since the disastrous Oval Office encounter in February.A lot has happened since then, with Kyiv's European allies working assiduously to repair the damage and school Zelensky in the best ways of handling the capricious and volatile occupant of the White House."I am grateful for the invitation," Zelensky posted, adding "it is important that America's strength has an impact on the situation".But in a later post, after Trump's statement on Truth Social, Zelensky adopted a more urgent tone."Killings must stop as soon as possible," he said. "The fire must cease both on the battlefield and in the sky, as well as against our port infrastructure." Europe's "Trump whisperers" picked up this morning where they left off last highlighted the vital importance of involving Ukraine in conversations about its future but also paused, as they know they must regularly do, to show appreciation for Trump's efforts."President Trump's efforts have brought us closer than ever before to ending Russia's illegal war in Ukraine," said Sir Keir Starmer, the UK's prime said he welcomed what he called the "openness" of the US, along with Europe, to provide "robust security guarantees" for Ukraine in the event of a and when the fighting does eventually end, the precise nature of those guarantees will need to be spelled out in a great deal more detail than has so far been the case. Despite Europe's emerging role as Ukraine's principal military, economic and political backer, everyone knows Ukraine's future security cannot really be assured without the substantive backing of the her own comments on the Alaska summit, Italy's leader, Giorgia Meloni, said guarantees for Ukraine could be "inspired by Nato's Article 5" - the principle of collective defence signed on to by all Nato reports this morning suggested the idea of guarantees outside Nato but equivalent to Article 5 were discussed during the latest call between Trump and European in the wake of Trump's apparent about-face this morning, you can almost hear the sound of minds spinning across European London, the government appears to be putting on a brave face."If you can get that all done [a ceasefire and a peace agreement] in one go or in quick succession that's obviously a good thing," said a senior Downing Street source. "But we all want to see the fighting stop". Trump has walked away from the idea of an immediate ceasefire, no doubt informed by Putin's highly contentious account of how ceasefires broke down in the quasi-summit in Alaska already represented a cost-free win for Putin. The return of an international pariah to the international stage (albeit one festooned with unambiguous displays of American military might at the Elmendorf-Richardson airbase) and some of the trappings of a state threat of increased US sanctions on Moscow receded too, with Trump saying it may be two or three weeks before he even has to think about this raises a host of questions about what may greet Zelensky, both on Monday in Washington and when he finally finds himself in the room with Putin and advice does Trump have for the Ukrainian leader, Fox's Sean Hannity asked."Make a deal," came the blunt reply. "Russia's a very big power and they're not."
Telegraph
24 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Public think Labour will use new online laws for censorship
New laws will be used by the Government to censor content posted online, a majority of the public believe. There is strong backing for the aims of the Online Safety Act to protect children from online harms but deep scepticism about the consequences for people's privacy and whether it will work in practice, a major poll of more than 2,000 adults by Ipsos has revealed. While 69 per cent supported age verification for platforms hosting harmful content, half of those polled were not confident it will stop under-18s accessing it, according to the poll, published exclusively today by The Telegraph. More than six in 10 (61 per cent) believe the Act will lead to personal data being compromised and a similar proportion (58 per cent) expected increased government censorship. More than four in 10 say it will threaten free speech online. It follows The Telegraph's disclosure of a secretive 'spy' unit which has been used by the Government to target social media posts criticising migrant hotels and 'two tier policing'. Last week the US state department criticised the Online Safety Act over its potential impact on free speech as it warned the British Government had 'repeatedly intervened to chill speech' after the Southport attack. The Act also sparked a political row after Reform UK leader Nigel Farage pledged to repeal the Act as a threat to free speech, prompting Labour to accuse him of being on the side of sex offenders like Jimmy Savile. Keiran Pedley, Ipsos director of UK politics, said the poll exposed a 'significant paradox in public opinion'. 'While there is a clear and broad desire to protect children online, reflected in the strong support for age verification, this is matched by deep-seated scepticism about whether the Act can deliver on its promises,' he said. 'Data breaches and the potential for censorship are highlighted, as the public doubt these measures will be effective against tech-savvy young people. This creates a major challenge for platform operators and regulator, Ofcom: how to implement robust age assurance systems that the public actually trusts and is willing to use.' Nearly half (48 per cent) believe the Act will enable parents to better protect their children from online harms and 46 per cent said it will enable adults to more easily block inappropriate material. However, 44 per cent believe it will limit free speech online, against 40 per cent who do not. A similar proportion (43 per cent) fear it will limit adults' access to 'non-harmful' information online. Half of those polled (48 per cent) said they would be likely to submit proof of age to access a platform or website, against 30 per cent who would not. However, this dropped to 14 per cent for porn sites and 19 per cent for dating apps. More than half (56 per cent) were comfortable with using their email as proof of age but the public drew a line at financial information, with fewer than one in five saying they would use a credit card or banking information. Almost seven in 10 Britons (69 per cent) believed it would be easy for children and young people to get around safeguarding procedures by social media platforms. More than half (51 per cent) feared that it would lead to children using less safe parts of the internet such as the dark web. Nearly a quarter (24 per cent) admitted that they used a VPN when browsing the internet, a technology that enables users to encrypt their communications and hide their IP address. A similar proportion (22 per cent) said they had considered or downloaded a VPN since the introduction of the Online Safety Act. Despite this, four in 10 (40 per cent) believed the Act would prevent children and under 18s from seeing illegal or harmful material, although 52 per cent did not believe it would. While 37 per cent believed the legislation would make platforms and websites remove harmful and illegal content, 51 per cent did not.
