Harry echoes Diana's legacy in visit to Angolan minefield
He gave children in Cuito Cuanavale advice on avoiding detonating mines, telling them in Portuguese: 'Stop, go back and tell your elders.'
The duke was highlighting the threat of the munitions in Angola, the same nation Diana, Princess of Wales visited in 1997 to urge the world to ban the weapons.
On Tuesday he met Angola's President Joao Lourenco and welcomed the leader's intention to continue support for the removal of landmines left from the civil war that ended in 2002.
Months before she died in a car crash, Diana, wearing a protective visor and vest, walked through a minefield being cleared by the Halo Trust.
She strode through a cleared path in a Huambo minefield, and the images of her in body armour and a mask gave the anti-landmine campaign global recognition.
Harry, who also echoed Diana in a 2019 visit to an Angolan minefield, said: 'Children should never have to live in fear of playing outside or walking to school.
'Children should never have to live in fear of playing outside or walking to school,' said Prince Harry.
Today, the Duke of Sussex joined us in #Angola to meet families living near Africa's largest minefield – 28 years after his mother brought the issue to the world's attention. pic.twitter.com/Cl4iKOj2So
— The HALO Trust (@TheHALOTrust) July 16, 2025
'Here in Angola, over three decades later, the remnants of war still threaten lives every day.'
The Angolan government is the Halo Trust's largest donor in the south-western Africa country.
A new three-year contract between the Angolan government and the Halo Trust was discussed during the meeting with Mr Lourenco.
Later that day, at a reception hosted by the British Embassy, Harry spoke with business leaders about maintaining partnerships in humanitarian work.
He said: 'The Angolan government's continued commitment is a powerful testament to Halo's success in saving lives and reducing humanitarian risk.
The Duke also helped us deliver life-saving risk education messages to children in Cuando province, southern #Angola.
He repeated phrases in Portuguese including 'stop, go back and tell your elders' to prevent children from detonating deadly landmines and explosives. pic.twitter.com/y89CbDtL0x
— The HALO Trust (@TheHALOTrust) July 16, 2025
'We thank President Lourenco for his leadership and partnership, as well as continued donor support, as we work together towards completing the mission of a landmine-free country.'
James Cowan, chief executive of the Halo Trust, said: 'We are hugely grateful to President Lourenco for his leadership and to the Duke of Sussex for his personal commitment to Halo's work in Angola.
'This new contract is an important step forward in our mission to make Angola mine-free, and we will continue our work in solidarity with the Angolan people until every last mine is cleared.'
It is estimated that at least 60,000 people have been killed or injured by landmines in Angola since 2008, the Halo Trust said.
The trust has cleared more than 120,000 landmines and 100,000 bombs from the country.
However, in the past five years at least 80 Angolans have been killed by the devices and more than 1,000 minefields are yet to be cleared.
During his 2019 trip, the duke delivered a call for action to help rid the world of landmines.
He donned body armour and a protective visor while setting off a controlled explosion in a partially cleared minefield, and said Angola's continued problem with the buried munitions could have been solved if his mother had lived.
Diana spoke out against the sale and use of landmines and famously called for an international ban on them during her 1997 trip.
On Harry's latest trip, the Halo Trust said: 'This renewed commitment builds on previous support from the Angolan government, which was first highlighted when the duke visited the country in 2019 to retrace the path of his late mother.
'That visit showcased how once-dangerous land could be transformed into a safe and thriving community.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
South Wales Guardian
2 hours ago
- South Wales Guardian
King and Queen to honour veterans on 80th anniversary of VJ Day
Royal British Legion (RBL) guests of honour at a service of remembrance at the National Memorial Arboretum on Friday include 33 veterans aged from 96 to 105 who served in the Far East and Pacific. Charles, patron of the RBL, Camilla, and Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer will attend the event which honours British, Commonwealth and Allied veterans who served in the Far East theatres of war including Myanmar and the Pacific and Indian Ocean territories. Ahead of the service, the King, in an pre-recorded audio address to the nation, will vow that the sacrifice of heroes who fought and died in the campaigns 'shall never be forgotten'. He will reflect on the horrors experienced by prisoners of war and innocent civilians of occupied lands in the region 'whose suffering reminds us that war's true cost extends beyond battlefields, touching every aspect of life'. Charles will describe how the collaboration of countries demonstrated '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'. Around 1,500 guests at the national commemoration will hear first-hand testimony from veterans who experienced conflict in the Far East before the war ended when atomic bombs fell on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, leading to Japan's surrender and VJ Day on August 15 1945. The service will begin with a national two-minute silence and include flypasts by the Red Arrows and the Battle of Britain Memorial Flight's Spitfire, Hurricane and Lancaster – with military bagpipers playing at dawn in the Far East section of the Arboretum. The Prime Minister held a special reception at Downing Street for veterans on Thursday, at which he described the Government as one of 'service'. He added: 'I sat on this terrace this very morning with President Zelensky, who is fighting for the same values as we were fighting for. 'And so when we say never forget, we must pass on the stories of those who have gone before us.' On 15 August, we will mark VJ Day 80 with a National Commemorative Event at the @Nat_Mem_Arb. Please join us for the national two-minute silence, and help us pay tribute to all those who fought and died during WW2 in the Far East. Find out more ⬇️ — Royal British Legion (@PoppyLegion) July 15, 2025 During Thursday's garden party, veteran Stanley Elliss, aged 103, and his daughter, could be seen showing the Prime Minister pictures he had taken during the war. Sir Keir said: 'Eighty years since our victory in the Second World War, we pay our respects to the many who fought, were captured, and made the ultimate sacrifice in the Far East. 'Our 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. We must honour that sacrifice with every new generation.' Many of the veterans at the Arboretum in Alrewas, Staffordshire, have never told their story before registering with the RBL to be part of commemorations to mark the 80th anniversary of Victory Over Japan. Veterans attending the event on Friday served in the British Army, the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force, with roles ranging from those deployed on submarines, minesweepers and destroyers, to a Spitfire pilot and a combat cameraman. The oldest veterans are Yavar Abbas and Owen Filer, aged 105, and other attendees include two of the last surviving Chindits – Charlie Richards, 104, and Sid Machin, 101 – who served in the elite Special Forces unit known for their deep jungle warfare tactics as part of Operation Thursday. Mr Richards, from Northamptonshire – who served in the 7th Battalion of the Leicestershire Regiment, spent months behind enemy lines ambushing Japanese supplies and communications, all while pulling along reluctant mules and heavy equipment. The 104-year-old said: 'I am so proud to attend the RBL's national event, and I think it will be a really poignant moment for those of us left. 'I want to represent all those who saw action in the Far East and remember those who never made it home, including my best friend and comrade, Son Johnson, who was killed in action in Burma. It will be such a special day for me and my family.' Joseph Hammond, 100, whose testimony will be shared during the service, will be watching the live broadcast from his home in Ghana 3,000 miles away. Mr Hammond fought in Burma in the 82nd Division in brutal conditions near the Irrawaddy River and suffered a serious eye injury and remained in hospital until the war ended. In 2020, he walked 14 miles over seven days to raise £500,000 for frontline workers and veterans during the Covid pandemic. Mr Hammond said: 'Why should such a thing happen? Man killing his fellow man. Humanity, destroying humanity. Never allow your country to go that way. It's no good. I know how it feels, so I have to advise everybody to keep away from war. Let us continue to enjoy our peace.' The service will be broadcast live on BBC One from 11.30am and will be hosted by actress and author Celia Imrie. Ms Imrie said: 'It is an honour to be hosting this momentous occasion with The Royal British Legion, to pay tribute to these courageous and inspiring veterans who are able to join us at the National Memorial Arboretum on VJ Day, and to remember those who never made it home.' Mark Atkinson, Director General of the Royal British Legion, said: 'It is an enormous privilege for the RBL to be leading the nation on the 80th anniversary of VJ Day with our service of remembrance at National Memorial Arboretum broadcast live on BBC One. 'Victory over Japan would not have been possible without the diverse contribution of Allied Forces from Britain, the Commonwealth and beyond, and this is one of our last chances to thank veterans who fought in the Far East and Pacific for their service and sacrifice. 'Their contribution brought an end to the Second World War and this is a moment for the country to come together and commemorate this momentous anniversary and pay tribute to their courage and bravery.' Around five million men and women served in the British Armed Forces during the Second World War, with millions more mobilised from countries including pre-partition India, Australia, Canada, and across the Commonwealth including African and Caribbean nations. Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy said: 'We must never forget this vital part of our national story. By coming together to hear the stories of our brave VJ Day veterans first-hand, we can ensure that the legacy of our British Armed Forces and those from across the Commonwealth is passed on to future generations.' From 9pm on Friday evening, hundreds of buildings across the country will be lit up to mark VJ 80, including Buckingham Palace, 10 Downing Street, the Houses of Parliament, the Tower of London, Tower42, The Shard, Blackpool Tower, Gateshead Millennium Bridge, Durham Cathedral, Cardiff Castle, the Cenotaph, the Kranji War Memorial in Singapore and the White Cliffs of Dover.
Spectator
3 hours ago
- Spectator
It's time to take back Afghanistan from the Taliban
Friday 15 August is a painful anniversary for Afghanistan – it is four years since the Taliban took Kabul, turning my country into the worst place in the world to be a woman, and once again a safe haven for terrorists. For Afghans who fled to neighbouring countries in fear for their lives the situation has recently become dramatically worse. Iran had already pushed back hundreds of thousands of Afghan refugees across the border. Since its 12-day war with Israel, it has significantly increased the expulsions, alleging that Afghans helped Mossad's operations inside Iran. Many of those being forcibly returned are soldiers who fought for the Afghan republic. They will face persecution from the Taliban on their return. As a commander of Afghan forces who fought for our nation during the Republic it is my moral duty to change this. I am part of a new generation of Afghan leaders who grew up with the hope of a free, prosperous and self-reliant Afghanistan. But our people have been abandoned by a world gripped by other crises. To fix this, I am proud to have been chosen as leader of the Afghanistan United Front, a democratic political organisation set up in opposition to the Taliban. We can mobilise many thousands of young men and women who are ready to fight for change in Afghanistan, to live independently and with dignity in our own country. We have the strategy and the leadership to change Afghanistan for the better. And this time we will do it without international boots on the ground. But we need material help: billions of dollars of Afghan government reserves are frozen in America. If the United States gave us access to our own money, we could finance a campaign to create a safe haven for women, minorities, and returning refugees – and ultimately free our country. The world needs a partner in Afghanistan, and it is not the Taliban. The only solution is to conduct a military campaign, launched inside Afghanistan, which will include conventional attacks, guerrilla operations, and targeting of Taliban leaders. With the right support we can end the terrorist threat from Afghanistan, stem the flow of refugees, and open Afghanistan for global business. The Taliban are currently handing over Afghanistan's mineral wealth to China, but it does not have to be this way. Britain could take a bigger role in helping the Afghans fight for freedom without having to wait for America. Britain has the political clout and capacity, and it is in her strategic interest and in line with British values to help its Afghan allies take on the Taliban. It is also the best way to stop Afghans on small boats crossing the channel. We are grateful to everyone in Europe, Canada, America, Australia, and elsewhere who have hosted us in these dark times. All the Afghans I speak to want to go home and live in Afghanistan. But what is missing is any support for building a different future to the dark horrors of the Taliban. Instead western countries are moving towards recognition of the Taliban. This short-sighted approach will end in failure. It will not only fail to resolve the refugee crisis, but will leave Afghanistan in the hands of a brutal Islamist dictatorship that represents only a small fraction of the Afghan people and constantly imposes new restrictions on the lives of women. Apart from the continuing pressure of refugees, Afghanistan under the Taliban is a threat to the world as a crucible of terrorism. As several international reports have shown, the Taliban have close links to al-Qaeda: Afghanistan is now once again the group's effective international headquarters. The Taliban have also given safe haven and training to thousands of Central Asian terrorists, who are planning attacks outside the country. And they have ramped up support to the Tehrek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) to promote their version of Sharia law in Pakistan. The Taliban have also failed to prevent the Islamic State group from carrying out attacks in Central Asia and Russia, planned in Afghanistan. It is only a matter of time before there is an attack in Europe or America from this group. If we do not take back Afghanistan, horrors will continue to be visited daily on Afghan women, while the threat of terrorism will grow. Currently, the minds of young men are being polluted by the distortion of Islam taught in Afghan madrassas. The world will be safer without the Taliban in power, and it is time to do something to make that happen.
New Statesman
3 hours ago
- New Statesman
VJ Day: the forgotten war
General Arthur Percival (bottom, middle), British defender of Singapore in 1942, recently released from a Japanese prison camp, salutes as the US general Douglas MacArthur (bottom, right; facing camera) prepares to sign the document of Japan's surrender aboard the battleship Missouri. Photo by Dave Davis/Getty It's interesting to see how countries choose to remember their wars. It's even more revealing to reflect on the wars they have tried to forget. Earlier this year, Donald Trump delivered a brisk history lesson on social media. 'We did more than any other Country, by far, in producing a victorious result on World War II,' the president declared on his Truth Social platform. 'I am hereby renaming May 8th as Victory Day for World War II and November 11th as Victory Day for World War I. We won both Wars, nobody was close to us in terms of strength, bravery, or military brilliance… We are going to start celebrating our victories again!' Meanwhile, across the Atlantic, the British government was quietly trying to roll up its 80th anniversary events for VE Day (Victory in Europe Day, 8 May) and for VJ Day (Victory over Japan Day, 15 August) into one week in May, with commemorations built around the early May bank holiday. That way, cynics observed, the productivity-conscious Labour cabinet could avoid conceding Britain's workers another day off. The relegation of the Asian half of Britain's Second World War to virtually a postscript was perhaps understandable. The struggle against Japan was not Winston Churchill's finest hour. On the contrary, it signalled the end of the empire to which he had devoted his life. More than that: it heralded the end of all the European empires in Asia over the following decade. It also marked the onset of a cold war in Asia that was very different in shape and intensity from bipolar Europe, creating geopolitical tensions that still wrack our world today. The story defies a simple 'we won, they lost' dichotomy. Britain's Asian debacle was the almost inevitable flipside of its European finest hour. By the 1930s the British empire rested precariously on a mixture of sea power and bluff, and in 1940-41 the bluff was called, first in Europe and then in Asia. In May 1940 Nazi Germany attacked France, Britain's main continental ally, not through Belgium but by sending almost all its armoured divisions through the supposedly impenetrable Ardennes Forest and around the French army's southern flank. They then drove straight for the Channel coast, encircling the bulk of the French and British armies. The French high command lost its nerve and, within a month, France had surrendered. Mussolini's Italy seized its opportunity and jumped into the war on Germany's side – tying down Britain in the Mediterranean. Such is the myth of the irresistible Nazi Blitzkrieg that the sheer audacity of Hitler's Ardennes gamble is now often ignored. Even less appreciated is the strategic magnitude and technical brilliance of the operations mounted by imperial Japan across a vast arc of the Pacific and south-east Asia on 7-8 December 1941. Most notorious is the devastating surprise air raid on the US Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor, but this was only one of a series of attacks from Hong Kong to the Philippines, Thailand to Korea, Guam to Malaya – at the same time as Japan was fighting a major war in China. What now seems arrant folly was deemed strategic necessity by the militarists controlling Japan in 1941. In order to continue the struggle for China they needed the strategic raw materials, especially oil and rubber, controlled by the Western colonial powers – the US, Britain and the Dutch. Japan's campaign in Malaya began the endgame of British power across India and south-east Asia. On 7 December an expeditionary force of some 60,000 men led by General Tomoyuki Yamashita landed at Kota Bharu on the north-east coast of Malaya. The British assumed the region was an impenetrable jungle, but it had some good roads, and the Japanese troops – many of them hardy coalminers – had been issued with bikes, shorts, light shirts and plimsolls. They cycled and fought their way south towards Singapore, averaging 20 kilometres a day for 55 days. Not quite the bravura of Hitler's Panzers, but the same mind-blowing mobility. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe Malaya and Singapore had been starved of troops and aircraft because of Churchill's preoccupation with the Mediterranean. In any case, he did not take the Japanese threat very seriously, dismissing them as 'the wops of the Pacific'. At the end of October 1941 he had sent a token fleet of two battleships and a supporting aircraft carrier to Singapore, hoping this could serve as a 'decisive deterrent'. But the carrier was delayed for essential repairs, and the HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Repulse were sunk on 10 December by Japanese torpedo bombers – a sensational blow to British prestige. Worse followed. The 'great fortress' of Singapore had immense heavy guns, but they faced seawards – Churchill was shocked to discover this late in the day – and British defences against an attack from the Malayan side were minimal. In a telegram from London on 10 February 1942, the prime minister demanded heroics: 'The battle must be fought to the bitter end and at all costs… Commanders and senior officers should die with their troops.' But shelling and air raids were relentless, the streets became piled high with corpses, and the military authorities were out of their depth. One joker in the garrison summed up the mood in mock Churchillian verse: 'Never before have so many/Been fucked around by so few/And neither the few nor the many/Have fuck all idea what to do.' With the Japanese controlling the reservoirs, further resistance seemed suicidal, and General Arthur Percival was given discretion to cease resistance. Yet Yamashita's troops had sustained heavy losses in crossing from Malaya to Singapore, and his artillery men were down to their last hundred rounds. In the words of the historians Christopher Bayly and Tim Harper, 'the Japanese invasion of Singapore island was a gigantic and wholly successful piece of bluff'. The bluff worked superbly: photos and film of Percival and his officers in their baggy shorts being marched off to Japanese prison camps were shown around the world. Among the prisoners of war were troops of the 18th Infantry Division – mostly from East Anglia – who had landed in Singapore only a few days before. More than a third would die in captivity. Churchill declared in his memoirs that the surrender of Singapore on 15 February 1942 was 'the worst disaster and largest capitulation in British history' – adding caustically that 'defeat is one thing; disgrace is another'. [See also: The warning of VE Day] The rest of the Asian war was a huge and bloody effort to reverse Japan's dramatic victories of the winter of 1941-42 – an effort that is often overlooked because of the American preoccupation with the Pacific war, running from Pearl Harbor to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But the 'Great Asian War' claimed around 24 million lives in countries occupied by Japan, plus three million Japanese and three-and-a-half million in India through war-related famine. Japan's victories shredded polities and societies. The colonial powers' reconquests after 1945 created new turbulence, as did the wars of national liberation that eventually overthrew colonial rule. This three-stage pattern was common across the region, but the timings varied enormously. Speediest was the transition in the vast archipelago of the Dutch East Indies (encompassing much of modern Indonesia), which the Japanese occupied from March 1942 until the end of the war. The Dutch tried to re-establish domination after 1945 but were confronted by an organised national movement under President Sukarno, who won independence for Indonesia in 1949. Similar events in French Indochina were longer, more tortuous and appallingly bloody – stretching out over 30 years. After Japan's wartime occupation of the colony, the French returned in 1945 and were confronted with the communist leader Ho Chi Minh's declaration of independence. After a decade, the French abandoned the struggle and in 1955 Vietnam was partitioned, leaving the communist party in control of the north. That was unacceptable to Cold War America, which increasingly propped up South Vietnam with economic and military aid, and then later, by vast bombing campaigns and US combat troops. But the Vietnam War and the Watergate scandal destroyed Richard Nixon's presidency, and during 1975 US forces were driven ignominiously from all of Indochina. The lurid backdrop of Indonesia and Indochina allows us to see the British withdrawal from south Asia more clearly. Although Britain fought a protracted counterinsurgency before conceding independence to Malaya in 1957 and then similarly to the enlarged Malaysia, it generally managed to avoid the travails of the Dutch and the French. Crucially, the Indian Raj was never invaded and occupied by Japan. Equally significant, Labour's victory in the July 1945 general election replaced the diehard Churchill with Clement Attlee. Whereas Churchill's experience of India ended in 1899, Attlee paid extended visits there in 1928 and 1929 with a parliamentary delegation. He had no doubt that India – a chequerboard of princely states and areas under direct British rule – should eventually follow Australia and New Zealand down the path to self-government and then full independence. He saw this as part of a shift in global power that had been accelerated by the Asian war, telling the cabinet in 1942 that 'the East is now asserting itself against the long dominance of the West'. But trying to surf the tides of history was a perilous business in a polity as vast and volatile as India. Attlee and Labour placed too much faith in the Hindu-led Congress Party, which dominated the interim government formed by Britain in September 1946. Mohammad Ali Jinnah and the All-India Muslim League demanded a greater role, and the escalating communal violence cost thousands of lives. Attlee was also grimly aware of the financial costs of victory, including debts priced at £4.7bn, the sale of £1.1bn worth of overseas assets, and exports down to a third of their 1938 level – no basis for an assertive foreign policy. Over cabinet opposition, he announced a firm date of 30 June 1948 for the end of British rule in India and was then obliged to abandon hopes of a unified country – fabricating instead the states of West and East Pakistan, a thousand miles (1,600km) apart. (The latter broke away in 1971 to form Bangladesh.) The human cost of partition was terrible – scholars estimate one million died and 15 million were displaced. But the Conservatives privately agreed that there was no alternative and even Churchill, despite fulminating about 'socialist scuttle', did not turn India into a political crusade, as he had done in the 1930s. The endgame was briefer and less bloody than Indochina, and the new rulers of India decided to keep their country in the Commonwealth – preserving the fiction of a 'transfer of power'. [See also: How China is reclaiming history] The long denouement of the Great Asian War is only part of the story of Japan's defeat. The central drama of capitulation is beyond the scope of this essay, except to note the continuing debate about the relative importance of the two American atomic bombs, dropped on 6 and 9 August 1945, compared with the shock of the Soviet declaration of war on Japan on the 9th. The answer might seem obvious now, but in Rain of Ruin: Tokyo, Hiroshima and the Surrender of Japan (2025), the historian Richard Overy notes that Japan had never previously been conquered by a foreign power and that the threat of invasion by a communist state seemed particularly horrendous to the Japanese ruling class – opening up fears of a domestic revolution as in Russia or Germany in 1917-18. Regardless of which superpower claimed credit for Japan's defeat, the actual occupation of the country (1945-52) was dominated by the US – unlike the endgame in Germany. Stalin's attempt to grab Hokkaido, one of the four main islands, was blocked by President Harry Truman. American administrators in league with Japanese civil servants pushed through demilitarisation, democratisation, land reform, labour laws and also women's rights beyond anything sanctioned in the US. Galvanised by these radical but peaceful reforms, and sheltering under America's defence umbrella, Japan's economy grew exponentially until the country boasted the highest per capita GDP in the world by the 1980s – not bad as the price of defeat. But the Japanese bubble burst in 1990, and it was followed by two decades of stagnation. Talk of 'Japan as number one' evaporated, and the focus of international attention shifted to China after its Communist Party's brutal suppression of the pro-democracy movement in 1989. This brings us back to the roots of Japan's militarist expansion in the 1930s and 1940s. Its conquest of Chinese Manchuria in 1931-32 escalated into full-scale war with China from 1937 to 1945, costing perhaps 15-20 million lives. The War of Resistance against Japanese Aggression, as it is known in China, was entangled with the longer on-off civil war between nationalists and communists for control of China itself, which resumed in 1946 and led to the eventual triumph of Mao Zedong in 1949 and the nationalists' retreat to the island of Taiwan. For Xi Jinping, appointed leader of the People's Republic of China (PRC) in 2012 and now president for life, these historical issues are of central importance in his sustained challenge to the hegemonial position of the US. He has insisted since 2015 on the need to 'reconsider the great path of the Chinese people's War of Resistance' by taking account of the nationalists' war effort and thereby underlining 'the great contribution that the war [of resistance] made to the victory in the world anti-fascist war', which he also referred to as 'the Second World War'. (This was an attempt to move the Sino-Japanese conflict from the margins to the centre of historiographical discourse.) Speaking in this voice, Xi implied common ground with the nationalists. But that could not override the intolerable fact that their successors still controlled the island of Taiwan – centre of the world's semiconductor production, flanking one of the major global trading arteries, the Taiwan Straits, and a standing affront to the PRC's claim to rule a unified and sovereign state. The possibility that Xi might resolve this dispute by force makes Taiwan one of the world's most sensitive hot spots. Another of Japan's former wartime conquests falls into the same category. Korea has been divided since the war in 1950-53. North Korea is a totalitarian state with nuclear weapons; South Korea is dependent on US military support. Both claim to be the rightful ruler of the whole Korean peninsula, and they are separated only by the armistice line from 1953. Taiwan and Korea are sobering reminders that the legacies of the devastating wars unleashed by imperial Japan are still shaping the 21st-century world. VJ Day should not be treated as a mere postscript to VE Day. As for the Trumpian issue of which country won the Second World War, it should be clear by now that a world war is a lot more complex than winning the World Series. David Reynolds' most recent book is 'Mirrors of Greatness: Churchill and the Leaders Who Shaped Him'. He co-hosts the 'Creating History' podcasts. [See also: North Korea's guide to going nuclear] Related
