First time I’ve seen it. Then again, I didn’t pay attention in school, particularly not in History class.
I’ve never seen the Reichstag photo before. I’m familiar with the Iwo Jima photo. One of the Marines in the picture was from my hometown.
I was raised in Germany but have lived in the UK most of my life. I recognize both photos though am more familiar with the Iwo Jima photo. I too thought the Berlin photo was actually taken in Stalingrad.
More than that it is a photo of the Marines winning the war against the Japanese in the Pacific. The Marines have used the image ever since and put it on t-shirts, mugs and bumper stickers. The Marines have always been very good at propaganda. Unless you are very interested in the history of the era you would never know that the Army had twice as many casualties in the Pacific than the Marines. And that’s not even counting the Army Air Corps.
UK here, not particularly familiar with the Reichstag photo, I may well have seen it before but I don’t think it has the iconic status of the Iwo Jima here.
And I suspect geography comes into play somewhat as well. If you live in the Pacific Rim, Berlin was a long way off and maybe didn’t/doesn’t seem as important to you that it locks the image in your brain.
The capture of fascist Berlin by the Commies just traded one tyrannical, psychopathic ruler for another. I don’t see how anyone outside of the Soviets can look at that picture and think it is iconic of a Good Thing.
History geek here. Familiar with both, but as an American the Iwo Jima photo resonates more with me.
UK here, mid 40’s. I don’t think I saw either picture until I was an adult. I’ve probably seen the Iwo Jima one more times due to english speaking media.
The iconic photo in our school text books was probably the milk man in the blitz. It came out a few years ago that it was also staged. the ‘milkman’ was actually the photographers assistant in a borrowed jacket and cap.
I’m surprised by the number of Americans who haven’t seen the Reichstag flag before. I guess this is the disadvantage of studying something, you forget what you used to not know.
Not surprisingly, the Iwo Jima flag isn’t that well known in Japan. Their iconic photos from the war are things such as the Hiroshima Dome.
Because it was the end of the Nazis and that is a good thing. Had the Soviets not been involved it would have been one hell of a lot more bloody for the other Allies.
And much more radioactive for Germany, and quite possibly Japan as well.
If you delay the end of the Second World War, what you probably get is the USA ending it with a steady diet of nuclear weapons.
Then the most iconic picture of WWII might well be Berlin being incinerated by a nuclear bomb.
I thought belated was in reference to dividing Poland up between the USSR and Germany before being attacked in turn by Germany.
The Soviets were no boys choir.
To put it in SD terms 
would you rather live under Klingons (Nazis), Romulans (Soviets) or the Federation (USA)? Who was happier after the war - the Japanese or the East Germans?
No argument there.
Middle-aged American checking in. Essentially the same experience as Cal. And I feel like I have consumed more WWII media than the average bear (my dad was a big WWII buff and had lots of material in the house).
Forgive a digression. Why did the Japanese like MacArthur, their military governor so much?
Since getting into this thread I have been remembering various things from public school history classes; the odd thing is that as a kid I know I saw both but neither really burned in my brain the way the destruction of the swastika at Nuremberg did. Maybe it was the “full circle” thing from the various rallies and sports or the fact that we had the moving images as well. Or maybe I just liked explosions. But if you just said “images of victory over Hitler” that would be the first one that sprang to my mind.
I thought of that when I began reading this thread.
I am from the US and recall the Reichstadt flag picture, but I read a lot of nerdy history stuff.
I’m starting to wonder if World War II really happened at all.
The Japanese had been told that Americans were little more than savages who, given the chance, would pillage the country and kill everyone, Mongol-style.
MacArthur was, well, rather decidedly not a savage. He ran Japan like a decent man, trying honestly to rebuild the country, improve the lot of its citizenry, and treat its people with respect, so the impression of him was extremely positive not only because he deserved a positive impression, but because it was a much better treatment than most Japanese expected. MacArthur was certainly instrumental in ensuring Emperor Hirohito was allowed to remain on the throne and spared indignity, which did a lot to keep things smooth. MacArthur also got cooperation from the Japanese government institutions by letting them pretty much run themselves, which they understandably appreciated; he was not interested in getting up in their faces about details, and that worked in his favor. So such Japanese authority figures as there were further supported him.
Exacerbating that effect, he opinion of many historians is that the Japanese, at the time very culturally conditioned to think in authoritarian terms, tended to transfer to MacArthur a sort of “surrogate Emperor” hero worship aspect as well - a sort of innate deference to the top authority figure that existed there to an extent it really doesn’t in a Western democracy (and, to be honest, doesn’t exist so much in Japan anymore.)
Thanks, RickJay.