On 21 February 1946, Belgian authorities carried out the execution of José Streel, a former leading ideologue of the Rexist movement.
During the early years of the German occupation of Belgium, Streel initially harbored reservations about collaborating with the Nazis due to his Catholic convictions and concerns about Belgian sovereignty. However, he ultimately embraced a position of limited cooperation, fearing that resistance to German influence would lead to Belgium’s complete annexation into the Greater Germanic Reich. He took on the role of editor of Le Pays Réel in August 1940, the newspaper associated with the Rexist movement, and became an advisor to Rexist leader Victor Matthys.
He sought to unify the Rexists with the Flemish National Union to counteract German plans to dismantle Belgium as an independent entity, but his efforts were thwarted when Léon Degrelle, the Rexist leader who had joined the Waffen-SS, rejected his proposals. This led to Streel`s resignation from the movement in January 1943.
Despite distancing himself from active participation in Rexist leadership, Streel continued to contribute to collaborationist media, making radio broadcasts and publishing articles that condemned the Belgian government-in-exile. As the tide of the war turned against Germany, he fled to the Reich but played no political role there, instead working in a factory. After the war, Belgian authorities sentenced him to death in absentia, yet he voluntarily returned to Belgium and surrendered.
At his trial before the Brussels War Tribunal, Streel was initially sentenced to life imprisonment with hard labor. His defense has been taken up by notable figures, including Paul-Henri Spaak. Still, a later review by the Auditeur Militaire uncovered a particularly damning article in which Streel denounced the government-in-exile. As a result, his original death sentence was reinstated. Unrepentant to the end, he has maintained that fascism had been necessary to prevent Europe from descending into chaos.
Today, his last words are: “I regret nothing.” He is executed by firing squad at the Ixelles army barracks in Brussels.
Picture: José Streel
Source: CegeSoma
On 20 February 1946, the General Headquarters-Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers (GHQ-SCAP) issues an order banning licensed prostitution in Japan.
Before the war, Japan maintained a system of licensed prostitution in which women were registered with the state and confined to designated red-light districts. The system, rooted in Edo-period regulations, was seen as a way to control and regulate commercial sex. Despite growing criticism, the practice remained largely intact. The state had also engaged in the organized recruitment of `comfort women` for military brothels.
Following Japan’s surrender, Japanese authorities, fearing widespread sexual violence by the incoming Allied forces, swiftly established the Recreation and Amusement Association (RAA)meant to provide `comfort facilities` for American troops, which we covered in our 27 August post last year.
By the end of last year, thousands of women were working in RAA-controlled brothels across Japan, with officials arguing that the system protected the broader population by directing soldiers toward regulated establishments.
However, GHQ’s stance toward the system has evolved quickly. While some within the occupation authorities initially tolerated the RAA as a pragmatic measure, others—particularly within SCAP’s Government Section—view the system as emblematic of Japan’s feudal past and an obstacle to democratization. SCAP has also been facing increasing pressure from American women’s organizations and religious groups to abolish state-sponsored prostitution, as well as rising rates of venereal disease among Allied troops.
In the last two months, SCAP’s Government Section began pushing for an outright ban on licensed prostitution. Their efforts culminate in today`s directive, which orders Japanese authorities to immediately dissolve the RAA and cease all government involvement in prostitution. The order does not criminalize prostitution itself but ends the official licensing system, stripping brothel operators of their legal protection and forcing many to shut down or work `underground`.
Picture: American troops sing the `Stein Song` for a Japanese waitress at the RAA
Source: Getty Images
On 19 February 1946, Alan Turing formally presents a groundbreaking paper on the design of a stored-program computer at the National Physical Laboratory (NPL) in London.
Turing, a mathematician and cryptanalyst, gained international recognition for his work at Bletchley Park during the war, where he played a crucial role in breaking the German Enigma cipher. His development of the Bombe machine, which automated the decryption of German messages, significantly contributed to the Allied victory.
Turing was recruited by the NPL in October 1945 to lead research into digital computing, marking a transition from cryptanalysis to pioneering the field of theoretical computer science.
Today`s paper, titled ˝Proposal for the Development in the Mathematics Division of an Automatic Computing Engine˝, the first detailed proposal for a stored-program computer in Britain, draws on the foundational principles set out by John von Neumann in the U.S. The design of ACE differs from the American approach by emphasizing speed and efficiency.
Turing envisions a machine that can process instructions and store data in a single memory unit, reducing the complexity of programming and making computations far more efficient. His design features a high-speed memory system, a central processing unit, and the ability to perform conditional branching.
Despite the significance of his proposal, the British government and NPL leadership will respond with caution. The complexity of Turing’s design raised concerns about its feasibility, particularly given the limited resources available in post-war Britain. Bureaucratic delays and skepticism from senior engineers will slow progress on ACE, leading to frustration for Turing.
Picture: Alan M Turing and colleagues working on the Ferranti Mark I Computer
Source: Getty Images
On 18 February 1946, thousands of Royal Indian Navy (RIN) sailors mutiny against British rule in Bombay.
The seeds of the mutiny had been sown in the last few months, as discontent among the sailors has been growing with the onset of demobilization. The RIN, which had expanded rapidly during World War II from a small force of a few thousand to over 30,000 personnel, has been plagued by poor living conditions, low pay, and racial discrimination. Many of these young men, exposed to nationalist movements during the war, were increasingly unwilling to accept such treatment.
Tensions have been building in the RIN throughout January and early February. On 2 February, ratings (non-commissioned sailors) aboard HMIS Talwar, the RIN’s signal training establishment in Bombay, staged an informal protest against poor food quality and living conditions. The station’s commanding officer, F. M. King, further provoked tensions by referring to the sailors as "sons of coolies," reinforcing the racial contempt that had fueled resentment.
On 8 February, a group of sailors submitted a list of grievances to the authorities, demanding better food, higher pay, and respect from officers. Their complaints were ignored, and tensions escalated further when authorities took disciplinary action against some of the most vocal protestors. Meanwhile, on 11 February, British forces in Calcutta violently suppressed a large protest against the ongoing trials of Indian National Army (INA) officers.
Early today, around 1,500 sailors on HMIS Talwar refuse duty, stage a hunger strike, and hoist Congress, Muslim League, and Communist flags alongside the Indian tricolor. Their demands have now expanded beyond living conditions; they are calling for the release of INA prisoners, the withdrawal of British troops from Indonesia and Egypt, and an end to British rule in India.
As news of the strike spread, sailors aboard other ships and naval installations in Bombay join the movement. By midday, the mutiny spreads to nearly 20 vessels, including HMIS Narbada, Madras, and Hindustan.
Picture: Crowds surging through the streets setting fire to lorries and cars during rioting in Bomba
Source: Getty Images
On 17 February 1946, the British Royal Navy intercepts the ship Enzo Sereni, carrying nearly a thousand Jewish immigrants attempting to reach Mandatory Palestine.
Jewish underground organizations in Palestine, particularly the Haganah, have intensified their efforts to bring survivors of Nazi persecution to Mandatory Palestine. British immigration policy to Palestine, however, has remained firmly restricted by the 1939 White Paper. Despite mounting international pressure, British authorities are still seeking to enforce these restrictions, fearing that increased Jewish immigration would further inflame tensions with the Arab population. This has led to an ongoing conflict between British forces and Jewish resistance groups, as ships carrying ma`apilim (illegal immigrants) are frequently pursued and seized.
The situation in Palestine has become increasingly volatile. Jewish paramilitary groups such as the Irgun and Lehi have intensified their attacks on British targets, while the Jewish Agency for Palestine continues to demand the immediate lifting of immigration quotas. The British government has responded with strict measures, including the detention of intercepted immigrants in detention camps.
The Enzo Sereni is one of several ships organized by the Mossad LeAliyah Bet (Organization for Illegal Immigration), and it set sail from the Italian port of Vado Ligure a few days ago. The vessel is carrying approximately 900 Jewish refugees, most of whom are Holocaust survivors from displaced persons camps across Europe. Many have been smuggled across borders through an underground network that operated despite British surveillance.
As the ship approaches the shores of Palestine, British naval forces intercept it. Outnumbered and outgunned, the Enzo Sereni offers no resistance when confronted by the Royal Navy. The ship is boarded, and its passengers are taken into British custody.
It is likely that the Enzo Sereni`s passengers will be placed into a detention camp on the territory of Mandatory Palestine.
Picture: The illegal immigrant ship Enzo Sireni at Haifa Port
Source: Archive of the Ministry of Defense of Israel
On 16 February 1946, the Soviet Union casts the first-ever veto in the United Nations Security Council, blocking a resolution that calls for the immediate withdrawal of British and French troops from Syria and Lebanon.
The issue at hand stems from the lingering presence of French and British forces in the Levant following the Second World War. Syria and Lebanon, both former French mandates, had declared independence in 1943, but French troops remained in the region, leading to tensions and violent confrontations. British forces, which had entered Syria and Lebanon in 1941 to oust Vichy French control, had also not fully withdrawn. By the beginning of this year, both the Syrian and Lebanese governments, supported by the Soviet Union, had pressed the UN to take action to ensure the complete departure of foreign troops from their territories.
The Security Council convened multiple sessions in the last two months to discuss the matter, leading to the proposal of a resolution urging Britain and France to set a definitive timetable for troop withdrawal. The U.S. and China backed the resolution. Britain and France, though reluctant, expressed general willingness to negotiate the terms of their departure.
The Soviet Union, under Ambassador Andrei Gromyko, has objected to the way the resolution is framed. While publicly supporting Syrian and Lebanese independence, the USSR seeks to frame the issue within a broader critique of Western military presence in the Middle East, particularly as it relates to British and French efforts to maintain their spheres of influence. The Soviets have been arguing that the resolution does not go far enough in condemning colonialism and insist that any discussion of foreign troops in the Levant should also include British military deployments in other regions, including Greece, Egypt, and Palestine.
During today`s vote, the Soviet Union exercises its veto power, blocking the resolution from passing.
Picture: Soviet Vice Commissioner for Foreign Affairs, Andrei Yanuaryevich Vyshinsky (1883 - 1954). British Foreign Affairs Minister Ernest Bevin (1881 - 1951), sits to his left.
Source: Getty Images
On 15 February 1946, Canadian police carry out a series of arrests of government officials implicated in Soviet espionage following the testimony of Soviet defector Igor Gouzenko.
Gouzenko, born in the Soviet Union in 1919, had been stationed in Ottawa since June 1943 as part of the Soviet Main Intelligence Directorate (GRU) mission in Canada. His role involved handling and decoding secret communications between Moscow and Soviet operatives embedded in North America. Over time, he grew disillusioned with the Soviet regime and, fearing a return to the USSR, decided to defect. On the evening of 5 September 1945, just days before he was scheduled to be recalled, he left the Soviet embassy carrying over 100 classified documents detailing Soviet espionage operations in Canada, the United States, and Britain.
His initial attempts to expose Soviet infiltration were met with skepticism. That night, he first approached the Ottawa Journal newspaper, which dismissed his story as improbable. He then turned to the Canadian Department of Justice on 6 September, only to be rebuffed again. The next day, he sought the protection of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), who, after confirming the authenticity of his documents, took him into protective custody. His information soon reached Canadian Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King, who, though initially hesitant to act, authorized an investigation into the matter on 8 September.
The documents Gouzenko provided exposed a deep Soviet infiltration of Canadian institutions, revealing that the Soviet Union had been operating an extensive intelligence network in Canada, seeking to obtain classified military and nuclear research, particularly from the Manhattan Project.
Some ten days ago, the Canadian government established a Royal Commission on Espionage to examine the evidence provided by Gouzenko. This effort has culminated in today`s wave of arrests, targeting government officials, scientists, and suspected agents who had been identified in Gouzenko’s files.
Picture: Fred Rose, the Labor Progressive Member of Parliament for Cartier, attending a pre-trial hearing in March 1946
Source: Toronto Star
On 14 February 1946, the Electronic Numerical Integrator and Computer (ENIAC), the world`s first general-purpose electronic digital computer, is publicly unveiled at the University of Pennsylvania`s Moore School of Electrical Engineering.
The development of ENIAC began in June 1943, led by physicist John W. Mauchly and electrical engineer J. Presper Eckert. The project was funded by the U.S. Army`s Ballistics Research Laboratory, which sought a faster method to calculate artillery firing tables.
It is a monumental machine, both in size and capability. It weighs more than 27 tons, is roughly 2 m (8 ft) tall, 1 m (3 ft) deep, and 30 m (100 ft) long, and occupies 28 m2 (300 sq ft). This massive structure allows ENIAC to perform complex calculations at unprecedented speeds, capable of executing up to 5,000 additions per second. Unlike earlier mechanical computers, ENIAC has no moving parts and is fully electronic, which significantly increases its processing speed and reliability.
The U.S. Army invested in ENIAC to address the pressing need for rapid computation of artillery trajectories. Traditional methods of calculating firing tables are time-consuming and labor-intensive, often leading to delays in deployment. With the advent of more advanced weaponry, the complexity of these calculations has increased, necessitating a more efficient solution.
Before ENIAC, several other computing machines were developed, though none matched its capabilities. The Atanasoff-Berry Computer (ABC), developed in the late 1930s and early 1940s, was an early electronic digital computing device but was not programmable. The Colossus machines, developed by British codebreakers during World War II, were used to decrypt German messages but were specialized for that purpose and not general-purpose computers. ENIAC distinguishes itself by being fully programmable and capable of performing a wide range of calculations, setting the stage for future developments in computing.
With World War II over, there is clearly a desire to showcase technological advancements achieved during the conflict.
Picture: Inventors J. Presper Eckert and J.W. Mauchly work on ENIAC
Source: Getty Images
On 13 February 1946, the Allied General Headquarters (GHQ) formally presents the Japanese Government with the draft of a new Constitution.
The drafting process, led by GHQ’s Government Section, has been completed in an extraordinarily short period of just over a week. Following MacArthur’s rejection of the Japanese Government`s proposed constitutional reforms last week, which we covered in our 4 February post, Colonel Charles Kades, Deputy Chief of the Government Section, was tasked with leading a team to create a new draft. Kades` team, composed primarily of American legal scholars and military officials, worked intensively for six days until 10 February.
The draft delivered to the Japanese Government today fundamentally reshapes Japan’s political structure. The Emperor remains head of state, but his role is now purely symbolic, with all sovereignty resting with the people. The Imperial Diet is transformed into a democratic legislature, guaranteeing parliamentary supremacy and reducing the Emperor’s influence in governance. The document establishes a comprehensive bill of rights, including gender equality, religious freedom, and the protection of civil liberties.
The most radical provision in the draft is Article 9, which mandates that Japan renounce war as a sovereign right and prohibits the maintenance of military forces. This article, which reflects MacArthur’s direct influence, is a groundbreaking commitment to pacifism, stating:
"Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes. In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained."
The Japanese Government, led by Prime Minister Shigeru Yoshida, is now in a difficult position. The draft represents a drastic departure from previous Japanese governance and national identity.
Picture: US Military Policeman on traffic duty in Ginza, Tokyo
Source: Getty Images
On 12 February 1946, the German submarine U-3514 is scuttled off the coast of Northern Ireland, marking the final sinking in Operation Deadlight, the Allied initiative to dispose of captured German U-boats following the end of World War II.
Operation Deadlight was devised in the aftermath of Germany`s surrender in May 1945 as a way to eliminate the Kriegsmarine’s once-feared U-boat fleet.
Under the terms of surrender, U-boat crews were ordered to surface and surrender their vessels, leading to the capture of 156 U-boats. While a select few have been retained for evaluation and technological research, as well as war trophies, the vast majority were deemed surplus and marked for destruction. The operation, executed primarily by the Royal Navy, has involved towing the U-boats to designated areas in the North Atlantic, approximately 160 km (100 mi) northwest of Ireland, where they have either been sunk by direct gunfire, torpedoed, or scuttled by flooding their ballast tanks.
Today, of the 116 U-boats scheduled for scuttling, only U-3514 remains.
A Type XXI Elektroboot, she represents the final technological leap of the Kriegsmarine`s U-boat fleet. Introduced late in the war, the Type XXI`s were faster underwater than on the surface and capable of remaining submerged for extended periods due to their revolutionary battery system. However, their deployment came too late to have any meaningful impact on the war, with only a few Type XXI boats seeing active service. U-3514 was commissioned on 14 March 1945 but never completed an operational patrol. As Germany collapsed, the U-boat was surrendered in May 1945 and subsequently transferred to Lough Foyle, Northern Ireland, where it remained among other surrendered submarines awaiting disposal.
This morning, U-3514 is towed into the North Atlantic and scuttled by gunfire, officially concluding Operation Deadlight and providing a somewhat fitting end to one of the most formidable naval threats of World War II.
Picture: A mass of 52 surrendered German U-boats at their mooring at Lisahally, Northern Ireland.
Source: IWM A 29241
On 11 February 1946, the United Nations General Assembly adopts a resolution addressing the extradition of war criminals.
The resolution emphasizes that the prosecution of war criminals is essential to upholding the principles of justice and maintaining international peace and security. It reaffirms that states have an obligation to deliver suspected war criminals to the countries where their crimes were committed, ensuring that those nations most affected by the atrocities could carry out legal proceedings against them. The text explicitly urges member states "to take all necessary measures to facilitate the prompt surrender of war criminals to the governments that seek their extradition for the purpose of prosecution and punishment."
One of the critical elements of the resolution is its insistence on international cooperation in identifying, arresting, and transferring individuals accused of war crimes. It calls for the creation of a coordinated mechanism among member states, including the exchange of intelligence and legal documentation to support extradition requests. Additionally, it seeks to prevent countries from providing safe haven to war criminals, asserting that no individual should evade justice through political or territorial maneuvering.
The Soviet Union, France, the United Kingdom, and the United States have played significant roles in drafting the resolution, as they are already deeply involved in war crimes trials, particularly those at Nuremberg and the more localozed trials in Belarus, Ukraine, and the Baltics. Their support for the resolution reflects a broader commitment to ensuring that war criminals were prosecuted beyond just the high-profile figures already on trial.
Although the resolution does not create a legally binding mechanism for extradition, it serves as a moral and political statement reinforcing the necessity of holding war criminals accountable. It lays the groundwork for future agreements on international extradition and prosecution, shaping the legal landscape for post-war justice.
Picture: British Prime Minister Clement Attlee addresses the first session of the UN General Assembly, 10 Jan 1946
Source: Getty Images
On 10 February 1946, Hubertus van Mook, the acting Governor-General of the Dutch East Indies, presents a Dutch proposal for an Indonesian settlement.
Van Mook has been engaging in discussions with Indonesian leaders, particularly Prime Minister Sutan Sjahrir, since November 1945, but these talks had been hampered by Dutch reluctance to acknowledge the Republic`s legitimacy. The Hague has remained firm in its colonial stance, envisioning a transitional period of 25 years before Indonesia would be granted independence within a Dutch commonwealth.
Today`s proposal seeks to create a federal structure for Indonesia, ensuring Dutch influence over the future state. It recognizes Indonesia’s right to self-determination but notably fails to mention the Republic of Indonesia itself. Instead, Van Mook proposes a “United States of Indonesia,” which would consist of various federated states, with Java and Sumatra being just two of many autonomous regions. This structure aims to dilute the power of the Republic by elevating the role of regions that had been less involved in the independence movement.
The Netherlands further proposes that the new federation remain part of a "Netherlands-Indonesian Union," tied to the Dutch Crown and maintaining close economic, political, and military ties with the Netherlands. In Van Mook’s vision, this arrangement will guarantee “good governance” and stability, ensuring that Indonesia`s future government would remain aligned with Dutch interests. The proposal also suggests a gradual decolonization process, with full independence only being considered after an extensive transitional period.
For the Indonesian leadership, the proposal is unacceptable as a continuation of colonial rule under a different guise. The Republic had already declared independence on 17 August 1945 and any negotiation that did not explicitly recognize this sovereignty is seen as an insult. Furthermore, the Dutch refusal to acknowledge the Republic’s legitimacy leaves Sjahrir with no room to maneuver diplomatically.
Picture: Stopover in Cairo on the way to Jakarta with members of the parliamentary committee led by Max van Poll. February 1946
Source: Getty Images
On 9 February 1946, speaking to a pre-election meeting of voters of the Stalin Electoral District in Moscow, Joseph Stalin gives a riling speech, summarizing Soviet achievements during the war while blaming the "capitalist development of the world economy" for starting it.
Stalin says in his speech:
˝It would be wrong to think that the Second World War broke out accidentally, or as a result of blunders committed by certain statesmen, although blunders were certainly committed. As a matter of fact, the war broke out as the inevitable result of the development of world economic and political forces on the basis of present-day monopolistic capitalism. Marxists have more than once stated that the capitalist system of world economy contains the elements of a general crisis and military conflicts, that, in view of that, the development of world capitalism in our times does not proceed smoothly and evenly, but through crises and catastrophic wars.
Thus, as a result of the first crisis of the capitalist system of world economy, the First World War broke out; and as a result of the second crisis, the Second World War broke out.
But the war was not only a curse. It was also a great school which examined and tested all the forces of the people. The war laid bare all facts and events in the rear and at the front, it ruthlessly tore down all the veils and coverings that concealed the actual features of slates, governments and parties, and brought them onto the stage without masks and without make-up, with all their defects and merits.
This is one of the positive sides of the war.
Our victory signifies, first of all, that our Soviet social system was victorious, that the Soviet social system successfully passed the test of fire in the war and proved that it is fully viable.
Thirdly... The war proved that the Red Army is not "a colossus with feet of clay˝ " but a first-class modern army, equipped with the most up-to-date armaments, led by most experienced commanders and possessing high morale and fighting qualities.˝
Picture: Stalin addressing the 8th Congress of Soviets on the draft of the new soviet constitution, Nov 25, 1936.
Source: Getty Images
On 8 February 1946, the Soviet Civil Administration in Korea establishes the Provisional People`s Committee of North Korea in Pyongyang, and Kim Il-Sung is elected as its chairman.
Under Stalin`s instructions to find a communist leader for the administration in the northern part of Korea, NKVD head Lavrentiy Beria and his agents found and began educating and training Kim Il-Sung.
Born in 1912 in Japanese-ruled Korea, Kim had fled to Manchuria with his family, where he became involved in Communist and anti-colonial movements. During the 1930s, he rose to prominence as a guerrilla leader fighting against the Japanese, aligning himself with Soviet-backed Chinese Communist forces. In 1940, as Japanese pressure in Manchuria increased, he retreated to the Soviet Union, where he received military training in the Red Army.
Following his return from a 26-year exile last September, Kim was introduced by the Soviets as a potential leader for the new administration. Under Soviet guidance, the North Korean Bureau of the Korean Communist Party was established in October 1945, and Kim quickly emerged as its most visible figure. Over the last few months, he has worked closely with Soviet authorities to consolidate Communist rule, forming the North Korean Branch Bureau of the Korean Communist Party in December.
The Provisional People`s Committee of North Korea established today is to function as the de facto government of the Soviet-occupied zone. It is modeled after Soviet-style administrative structures and tasked with implementing socialist reforms.
Kim Il-Sung’s appointment as chairman formalizes his leadership, and under his authority, the committee is set to launch sweeping changes, including land redistribution, nationalization of industries, and suppression of political opposition. These policies aim to solidify Communist control and eliminate remnants of Japanese colonial influence.
Picture: Soviet military advisers attending North Korean mass event. From left : Soviet Major Mikhail Kang, Kim Il Sung. Right most : Major General Nikolai Georgievich Lebedev, member of the Military Council of the 25th Army which occupied North Korea.
Source: Getty Images
On 7 February 1946, Charles Vyner Brooke, the third and final "White Rajah" of Sarawak, formally cedes the sovereignty of the state to the United Kingdom as a Crown Colony.
The Raj of Sarawak was established in 1841 when James Brooke, an English adventurer, was granted control of the territory by the Sultan of Brunei in recognition of his assistance in suppressing a rebellion. Over time, Brooke and his descendants expanded their domain, establishing a unique dynasty of "White Rajahs" who ruled Sarawak as a personal possession under British protection. The Brooke family maintained a paternalistic rule, preserving local customs while gradually modernizing the state’s administration and economy.
During the war, Sarawak was occupied by Japanese forces from December 1941 until its liberation by Australian troops in September 1945. Japanese rule brought hardship and devastation to the local population, severely damaging the economy and administrative structures. Charles Vyner Brooke, who had taken over from his father in 1917, had already begun to shift toward a constitutional monarchy before the war. However, upon returning from exile in Australia in 1945, he found Sarawak in ruins and recognized that his family lacked the resources to rebuild it.
Under increasing British pressure, Brooke decides today to cede Sarawak to the British Crown. His justification is that direct British rule would facilitate reconstruction, economic development, and eventual self-governance. However, the decision faces both resistance and a question of legality.
Brooke’s nephew and heir, Anthony Brooke, as well as Sarawakian nationalists, who view the cession as a betrayal of the state’s sovereignty, oppose the cessation. On the other hand, the UK`s acquisition of another Crown Colony directly contravenes the right to self-determination agreed upon as part of the Atlantic Charter of 1941.
The age of colonialism is certainly in its last throes, but it is not over yet.
Picture: Dr. Lascelles, former district manager, and J.B. Archer, Sarawak Civil Service, hoisting the Sarawak flag in the civilian compound of the Kuching POW and internment camp. 12 December 1945
Source: AWM 118393
On 6 February 1946, Japanese citizens from all the main prefectures and districts of Japan Proper submit a petition to General Douglas MacArthur against Soviet troops joining the Allied occupation forces in Japan.
The Soviet Union`s recent formal annexation of the Kuril Islands, which we covered in our 2 February post, has possibly heightened the concerns over an increased Soviet presence in Japan. Today`s petition reads:
˝We, the defeated nation of Japan, earnestly appeal to the Supreme American Commander who had so sagaciously managed the affairs of the country to protest to his government against the occupation by Russian troops of our country. The Russians should be satisfied with the occupation of the outlying islands surrounding the Japanese mainland. Their presence in these islands is already a sufficient menace to the democratic development of the country.
The Japanese people have always been afraid of Communism but inspite of our vigilance Communism flourished in a small degree in the country. At that time it presented no major menace for the whole nation was in the grips of ruthless militarism. Communism wherever discovered was ruthlessly suppressed and its leaders thrown into concentration camps.
But with the victory of the Allied nations, these leaders have been released and they have become active throughout the country.
Conditions in the country provide a fertile ground for the propagation of Communist propaganda. The nation is disillusioned and beaten.
The nation finds itself helpless by its former despotic leaders and they are looking around for new leaders and Communists have made their appearance in the field first.˝
The popular press reporting on the petition confirms the sentiments: ˝This is the real feeling that is existing in the country against the Communists. The Japanese feel that Communist leadership in the country will mean a repetition of the Tojo or Suzuki dictatorship. The Japanese people do not want to go back to the old order of things that has brought misery to millions in this country.˝
Picture: Japanese citizens wait in line to buy ten yen treasury notes that are really lottery tickets.
Source: Getty Images
On 5 February 1946, the U.S. Supreme Court rejects a plea for clemency for General Tomoyuki Yamashita, affirming the validity of his conviction and death sentence by the U.S. Military Commission in Manila.
Following the decision by the U.S. Military Commission in Manila to sentence Yamashita to death, which we covered in our 9 December post from last year, Yamashita’s defense attorneys, led by Colonel Harry E. Clarke, submitted a plea for clemency, arguing that the trial was unfair and that Yamashita had been wrongfully convicted based on a novel legal standard.
Clarke`s opening statement summed up the entire basis of the argument: ˝The Accused is not charged with having done something or having failed to do something, but solely with having been something. American jurisprudence recognizes no such principle so far as its own military personnel are concerned. No one would even suggest that the Commanding General of an American occupational force becomes a criminal every time an American soldier violates the law. One man is not held to answer for the crime of another.˝
In the petition to the Supreme Court, the defense sought a writ of habeas corpus, challenging the legality of the trial and its verdict.
The case, In re Yamashita, reached the Supreme Court in January.
Today, in a 7-2 decision, the Court rules against Yamashita, upholding his conviction and rejecting the defense`s plea for clemency.
The ruling affirms that a military tribunal, established under the authority of the U.S. Army, has the legal right to try and sentence Yamashita. The Court also determines that the principles of due process in civilian trials do not necessarily apply to military tribunals.
Justice W.B. Rutledge in his dissent, views the issue more widely:
"More is at stake than General Yamashita`s fate. There could be no possible sympathy for him if he is guilty of the atrocities for which his death is sought. But there can be and should be justice administered according to the law."
Yamashita`s execution is scheduled for later this month.
Picture: Yamashita, guarded by military police. 1 January 1946.
Source: Getty Images
On 4 February 1946, the General Headquarters-Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers (GHQ-SCAP) formally begins drafting a new Japanese Constitution.
The Japanese government has been working on constitutional reforms since late last year under the guidance of Prime Minister Kijūrō Shidehara and, subsequently, Prime Minister Kijūrō Ashida. Their proposals largely sought to amend the existing Meiji Constitution of 1889, preserving much of its imperial-centric structure.
GHQ and MacArthur immediately rejected the initial draft submitted by the Japanese Cabinet yesterday as insufficiently democratic. The draft retained the Emperor`s supreme authority, a limited role for the Diet (parliament), and vague guarantees of fundamental human rights.
MacArthur thus decided that GHQ would take over the drafting process based on the three fundamental principles he communicated yesterday: 1. The Emperor would remain a constitutional monarch, deriving his authority from the people rather than being sovereign; 2. Japan would renounce war as a sovereign right and armed forces would not be maintained; 3. The Japanese people would be guaranteed fundamental human rights, including gender equality.
These principles were communicated to the Japanese government yesterday, alongside the rejection of their draft.
Today, MacArthur assigns GHQ’s Government Section the task of drafting a new constitution.
Colonel Charles Kades, deputy chief of the Government Section, is to play a leading role in the drafting process. Kades assembles a team of Allied personnel, including legal experts and constitutional scholars, to work on the draft.
Picture: A huge crowd gathers to watch General Douglas MacArthur arrive at the Dai Ichi Building, Tokyo, November 4th 1946.
Source: Getty Images
On 3 February 1946, Soviet authorities publicly execute Friedrich Jeckeln, former Higher SS and Police Leader (Höherer SS- und Polizeiführer, HSSPF) in Nazi-occupied parts of the Soviet Union, in Riga, Latvia, alongside six other German war criminals.
Jeckeln’s crimes during the war were staggering in scope and brutality. By the start of Operation Barbarossa, Friedrich Jeckeln, Reichsführer-SS Heinrich Himmler ordered Jeckeln to be transferred from his officer position in the 3rd SS Panzer Division `Totenkopf` to the position of HSSPF in command of all Einsatzgruppen units in his sector, primarily Ukraine and the Baltic states.
Most infamously, the units under Jeckeln`s command perpetrated the Kamianets-Podilskyi massacre, murdering almost 24,000 Hungarian and Ukrainian Jews, and the Babi Yar massacre near Kyiv in September 1941, where over 33,000 Jews were murdered in just two days. Later, in Latvia, Jeckeln orchestrated the Rumbula massacre in late 1941, where approximately 25,000 Jews from the Riga Ghetto were systematically executed.
Jeckeln developed a method of mass execution to increase efficiency. Victims would be picked up from ghettos, marched in columns of 500-1000 to a nearby forest or field, and forced to undress and approach pre-dug pits in the ground. They would then be shot, and subsequent groups would be forced to lie down atop those already killed before also being shot.
Soviet troops captured Jeckeln near Halbe on 28 April last year. Over the course of the last month, put on trial in Riga before a Soviet military tribunal alongside seven other Wehrmacht and SA officers. All have been convicted of crimes against humanity, including mass murders, deportations, and the exploitation of forced labor.
Jeckeln admitted all the killings and took full responsibility for the crimes committed.
Today, Soviet authorities hang Jeckeln and six of the other convicted in front of a crowd of over 4,000 spectators.
One of the convicted, Wolfgang von Ditfurth, is deemed too ill for trial and execution, albeit he will die of heart failure in less than two months.
Picture: Jeckeln (standing, at left), on trial in 1946 in Riga.
Source: USHMM WS #79152
On 2 February 1946, the Soviet Union formally annexes the Kuril Islands.
A chain of volcanic islands stretching from Japan`s northernmost island of Hokkaido to Russia`s Kamchatka Peninsula, the Kuril Islands have been a point of contention between Japan and Russia since the early 19th century.
The 1855 Treaty of Shimoda established the first official boundary, granting the four southernmost islands to Japan and leaving the remainder under Russian control. This arrangement was modified by the 1875 Treaty of Saint Petersburg, in which Russia ceded all of the Kurils to Japan in exchange for Japan renouncing its claims to Sakhalin Island. By the early 20th century, the islands became firmly integrated into Japan’s Hokkaido Prefecture.
The geopolitical situation shifted dramatically after Russia`s defeat in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904–1905, culminating in the Treaty of Portsmouth, which granted southern Sakhalin to Japan but left the Kurils untouched. During World War II, the Kuril Islands became strategically significant as Japanese forces fortified them, establishing airfields, radar stations, and garrisons to defend against a potential Soviet or Allied invasion from the north.
The Soviet Union, for much of the war, adhered to the Soviet–Japanese Neutrality Pact of 1941. However, during the Yalta Conference in February last year, Stalin secured Allied agreement to Soviet territorial claims in the Kurils and southern Sakhalin in exchange for the USSR joining the war against Japan.
Under the command of General A. R. Gnechko, Soviet naval infantry and rifle units assaulted Shumshu, Onekotan, and Paramushir islands, which we covered in our 18 August post last year. After taking surprisingly heavy losses and the Japanese surrendering according to directions from Tokyo, the Soviets took complete control of the Kurils by September.
Today, the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet announces the full annexation of the Kurils as part of Sakhalin Oblast. The annexation is framed as fulfilling the agreements reached at Yalta and as an assertion of Soviet territorial claims.
Picture: Japanese soldiers surrendering to the Red Army
Source: Yevgeny Khaldei, RIA Novosti
On 1 February 1946, the Soviet Union and Syria secretly sign a treaty providing for mutual diplomatic and military assistance.
Historically, relations between Russia and Syria were limited during the czarist period, with occasional Russian support for Orthodox Christian communities in the Levant. However, by the 1940s, the Soviet Union began to view the Middle East as a critical theater for extending its influence.
Since the end of the war, the Soviets have become increasingly assertive in seeking strategic footholds in regions where colonial powers like Britain and France are waning.
By 1944, diplomatic relations between the Soviet Union and Syria were formally established, signaling a mutual interest in cooperation. Syria, having declared independence in 1941 and later emerging from under the French Mandate in 1944, sought to assert its sovereignty on the international stage. The Soviet Union, for its part, sees an opportunity to counterbalance Western dominance in the Middle East by supporting emerging nations.
The treaty signed today is the product of these converging interests. While the full terms are unknown, the provisions likely include mutual diplomatic and military support. What is known is that Daniel Semyonovich Solod, Soviet envoy to Syria and Lebanon, has offered technical and material assistance to Syria to strengthen its military capabilities, positioning Damascus as a potential military ally in the region. Syria, in turn, will likely facilitate Soviet access to the Mediterranean and provide guarantees for political alignment in the United Nations and other international forums.
The signing of this treaty seems to be the next step in Soviet efforts to put down a challenge to the U.S., Britain, and France and underscores the region`s growing importance. For Syria, the agreement signals a shift toward a more assertive and independent foreign policy, albeit one that risks entanglement in the ideological struggles of the global superpowers.
Picture: Daniel Solod, photographed in 1944 in Syria
Source: SyrianHistory,com
On 31 January 1946, the new Constitution of the Federal People`s Republic of Yugoslavia (FPRY) is promulgated, formally establishing the legal framework for the country as a socialist federal state.
This moment marks a decisive break from the centralist and monarchical system of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, replacing it with a structure heavily influenced by the Soviet model of governance.
The 1946 Constitution declares Yugoslavia a a union of six federated states, in the following constitutional order: the People`s Republic of Serbia, the People`s Republic of Croatia, the People`s Republic of Slovenia, the People`s Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the People`s Republic of Macedonia, and the People`s Republic of Montenegro. It also establishes two autonomous units within Serbia: Autonomous Province of Vojvodina, and the Autonomous Region of Kosovo and Metohija.
Each republic is granted equal status and theoretical autonomy to manage its own internal affairs, particularly regarding cultural, educational, and linguistic matters. This is a significant departure from the centralized system under the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, where political power was heavily concentrated in Belgrade, often alienating non-Serbian communities.
Each republic will be allowed to draft its own Constitution and establish its own legislative and executive bodies, though these remain subordinate to the federal authorities.
A key feature of the Constitution is the emphasis on the equality of all nationalities within Yugoslavia. However, not a single nationality or ethnicity is mentioned even once in the text of the Constitution. The Constitution enshrines the right of self-determination, although, in practice, this right is likely to be limited by the centralized control of the Communist Party.
The Constitution also abolishes private property and establishes nationalization of key sectors, laying the groundwork for a socialist economy, with land redistribution programs aimed at empowering the peasantry, which constitutes a significant majority of the population.
Picture: Tito leaning out of a window to greet a large crowd, 25 March 1946.
Source: Getty Images
On 30 January 1946, Soviet authorities execute fourteen German war criminals convicted during the Minsk Trials.
These trials began on 15 January 1946 as part of a series of tribunals organized by the Soviet Union to address atrocities committed by Axis forces in specific areas, with this one primarily concerned with anti-partisan operations in Belarus.
Unlike the international proceedings going on at Nuremberg, the Minsk Trials are entirely under Soviet jurisdiction.
The 18 defendants include Wehrmacht Lieutenant General Johann-Georg Richert, who commanded the 286th Security Division and 35th Infantry Division, Gottfried von Edmannsdorff, a Major General who commanded the Ordnungspolizei in the Minsk region, Eberhard von Herf, SS-Brigadeführer for the Police, all the way down to three Wehrmacht Privates.
The charges brought against them included the mass extermination of civilians, the destruction of villages, and the deportation of thousands of residents to forced labor camps. Among the evidence presented were testimonies of survivors, documentation of atrocities, and confessions obtained during pretrial interrogations. While the Soviet prosecution aimed to demonstrate the systemic nature of these crimes, the judicial process has been marked by the absence of robust defense mechanisms, and verdicts seem to have been predetermined.
The proceedings concluded swiftly, with sentences announced two days ago, on 28 January. Fourteen of the eighteen defendants were sentenced to death by hanging, while four received 15-20 years of hard labor despite their own admission of having murdered civilians during anti-partisan operations.
Today, the fourteen convicted officers are brought to a horse racing venue in Misk. They are hanged publicly in front of a crowd of over 100,000 civilian spectators.
Picture: Nazi war criminals are readied for their public executions
Source: Central State Archive of Documentary Film and Photography
On 29 January 1946, General Douglas MacArthur gives an interview to reporters outlining his views on the pressing issues facing Japan in its post-war reconstruction under the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers (SCAP).
MacArthur begins by addressing the ongoing democratization of Japan, expressing confidence in the Japanese people`s ability to transition to democratic governance despite their long history of feudal and autocratic traditions. He underscores the reforms being implemented under SCAP’s guidance, including the redistribution of land to empower small farmers, the breakup of zaibatsu conglomerates to encourage economic competition, and the introduction of labor unions to protect workers’ rights.
Turning to economic issues, MacArthur acknowledges the devastation Japan faced after the war, including widespread destruction of infrastructure and severe food shortages. He emphasizes the importance of reviving Japan’s economy, not only to address immediate needs but also to create a sustainable foundation for long-term stability.
On the matter of the occupation itself, MacArthur states that the duration of Allied oversight should be limited to avoid fostering resentment among the Japanese population and fatigue among occupying forces. He estimates that the occupation should last between three and five years, long enough to implement meaningful reforms but not so long as to strain relations between occupiers and the occupied.
Regarding constitutional reform, MacArthur remarks that while SCAP had provided suggestions for Japan’s new constitution, the Japanese people ultimately needed to take ownership of the process. He believes that a democratic constitution reflecting Japanese values and aspirations would have a better chance of lasting success than one imposed unilaterally by the Allies.
Picture: Headshot of American military leader General Douglas MacArthur
Source: Getty Images
On 28 January 1946, U.S. Secretary of State James F. Byrnes gives a scathing statement calling the Soviet Union a `political baby` and communism a `poison`, upon returning from a session of the UN General Assembly.
Byrnes says to reporters today:
˝Although we have laid the foundations for fostering peace among all nations we have yet to traverse a long way before I can truthfully say that we have succeeded as a start. Britain and the U.S. have strained every nerve and fibre to attain initial success but have always been baulked by certain international developments...
As far as Russia is concerned she has become a `political baby` for all other nations. Her recent actions in Persia, Turkey, and China have given rise to worldwide misgivings about her future actions...
Only Russia has the answer to the question: `Must Communism be imposed on an entire new nation against its wishes?`... Communist propaganda is filtering into countries and already has started to work its poisons...
At this point I want to remind Americans of the greatness of our concept of liberty. Sweeping the country today is the strike fever. The working man has demanded `better living wages`. What would have happened in Russia if a member of the `worker`s state downed tools to make his demands on the Kremlin.` I leave the consequences to be best imagined by the American.
Another question is rankling in the minds of the citizens of the U.S. today; `Does Russia possess the secret of the atomic bomb?`
I will neither say yes nor no to that question. The atomic secret cannot be kept secret of one nation or a group of nations... But until we have discovered suitable safeguards against the use of this destructive weapon, Britain and the United States will keep the secret of the atom bomb for as long as possible.˝
A reported asks Byrnes: ˝How far will Russia go?˝, to which Byrnes replies: ˝As far as we the United Nations allow her to go...˝
It appears as if the tensions between the U.S. and the Soviet Union are beginning to bubble up to the surface at an increasing rate.
Picture: Byrnes delivers a speech at the United Nations first General Assembly on 10 January 1946
Source: Getty Images
On 27 January 1946, the `National Herald` publishes a special `Independence Day` message from Jawaharlal Nehru, urging the people of India to remain resolute in their struggle for freedom and to seize the opportunity that lay within reach.
Jawaharlal Nehru, a key figure in India`s fight for independence and close ally of Mahatma Gandhi, had been a prominent leader in the Indian National Congress (INC) since the 1920s. He has been imprisoned multiple times for his participation in the civil disobedience and Quit India movements.
Widespread discontent, protests, and strikes across India have marked the previous few weeks and months. The Indian National Congress has renewed its demand for complete independence, and the British government, faced with a rapidly changing geopolitical landscape, is under pressure to negotiate India`s future. Meanwhile, tensions between Hindus and Muslims are escalating as the Muslim League, led by Muhammad Ali Jinnah, intensifies its push for the creation of a separate state of Pakistan. Against this backdrop, Independence Day celebrations yesterday were a moment of both reflection and renewed resolve.
In his message, Nehru reflects on the sacrifices and setbacks endured, he says, "Long ago we dreamt of Indian freedom. We pledged ourselves to freedom`s cause, and the bright vision drew us on irresistibly." Acknowledging the struggles faced along the way, he remarks, "We entangled ourselves in petty debate and argument and became small men and women again. But the vision was there still, and the pledge, and we picked ourselves up again and marched another stage on that journey."
Nehru urges the people to rise above the obstacles, saying, "Soon we have marched with many a stumble and many a heartache, and now we seem to be on the threshold of that Free India of which we have dreamt so often." He calls for unity and action, declaring, "Freedom is near to us. Let us seize it with courage and daring, ever keeping in view the high ideals which have moved us in the past. Let us be worthy of it."
Picture: Mahatma Gandhi (right) talks to Nehru, 1946.
Source: Getty Images
On 26 January 1946, the SS Argentina departs Southampton as the first `dependent transport`, carrying the foreign spouses and children of U.S. servicemembers to their new homes under the rules of the War Brides Act.
Over the last two weeks, dozens of thousands of foreign women and men who had married U.S. troops and Women`s Army Auxiliary Corps (WAAC) members hurried to get their tickets for transport to the USA after the announcement that they would be allowed to reunite with their spouses without being restricted by the stringent immigration quotas under the War Brides Act, the introduction of which we covered in our 28 December post.
But transporting thousands of civilians when much of the shipping traffic is already taken up by getting demobilized troops back home has turned out to a significant undertaking. Some 45,000 war brides, including 40,000 dependents, from the United Kingdom alone require transport to the States.
Operation Diaper, or Diaper Run as the press have dubbed it, is the unofficial name of the massive effort the U.S. Army has put into organizing suitable ships to sail from Southampton to New York for at least the next several months.
The SS Argentina is one of these ships. Originally built as a luxury liner in 1929, she had been repurposed during the war as a troop transport vessel. After the war, she was reconfigured again to accommodate the needs of Operation Diaper, offering berths for dependents.
For today`s voyage, Argentina carries 452 war brides, 173 small children, and one "war bridegroom" married to a WAAC.
Departing from the bustling port of Southampton, the ship is equipped with amenities to support the families during their transatlantic journey. The atmosphere onboard is a mix of excitement and apprehension, as many of the women are leaving their homes for the first time to start new lives in America.
Picture: British wives and babies of American servicemen take their places on line for steamer registration at the Perham Down camp where they are being cared for until sailing time.
Source: Getty Images
On 25 January 1946, General Douglas MacArthur, Supreme Commander Allied Commander for the Allied Powers (SCAP), formally submits his opinion that Emperor Hirohito should not be tried for war crimes in a telegram to U.S. Army Chief of Staff, General Dwight Eisenhower.
Just two months ago, on 29 November, the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff ordered MacArthur to gather information regarding whether the Emperor had committed any war crimes. Yet, three days prior to that, as we covered in our 26 November post, MacArthur had already announced that Hirohito would not be tried as a war criminal. Today`s telegram is his final and official opinion on the matter directed at U.S. military and political leaders:
˝...I have gained the definite impression from as complete a research as was possible to me that his connection with affairs of state up to the time of the end of the war was largely ministerial and automatically responsive to the advice of his counsellors...
His indictment will unquestionably cause a tremendous convulsion among the Japanese people, the repercussions of which cannot be overestimated. He is a symbol which unites all Japanese. Destroy him and the nation will disintegrate...
They will regard allied action [to the contrary as the greatest] … betrayal in their history... A vendetta for revenge will thereby be initiated whose cycle may well not be complete for centuries if ever.
The whole of Japan can be expected, in my opinion, to resist the action either by passive or semi-active means... I believe all hope of introducing modern democratic methods would disappear and that when military control finally ceased some form of intense regimentation probably along communistic line would arise from the mutilated masses...
This would represent an entirely different problem of occupation from those now prevalent. It would be absolutely essential to greatly increase the occupational forces. It is quite possible that a minimum of a million troops would be required which would have to be maintained for an indefinite number of years...˝
Picture: Emperor Hirohito and Empress Nagako visit with a crowd of well wishers. 1 January 1946
Source: Getty Images
On 24 January 1946, the UN General Assembly adopts its first-ever resolution, establishing the United Nations Atomic Energy Commission (UNAEC).
Proposals for a body such as the UNAEC trace back to the Allied Powers’ awareness of the devastating potential of nuclear weapons following the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The 1945 Potsdam Declaration, as well as early discussions among Allied leaders, emphasized the necessity of ensuring atomic energy would not become a tool for future conflict.
The resolution adopted by the General Assembly today lays out the composition, responsibilities, and scope of the UNAEC. It establishes that the commission will consist of representatives from all states on the Security Council, as well as Canada when it is not a Security Council member. The UNAEC is to report to the Security Council and, where appropriate, to other UN bodies, including the General Assembly.
The resolution defines the UNAEC`s primary objectives as exploring the scientific, technical, and political dimensions of atomic energy and making recommendations accordingly. Specific mandates include extending the exchange of scientific information for peaceful purposes, ensuring the control of atomic energy to prevent its use in warfare, eliminating atomic weapons and other weapons of mass destruction from national arsenals, and establishing robust safeguards, including inspection mechanisms, to deter and address violations. These objectives reflect a balance between scientific advancement and international security.
The UNAEC’s work is envisioned to proceed in carefully defined stages, with each stage building confidence among nations before advancing to the next. This incremental approach is intended to foster trust and cooperation, ensuring that states can collaboratively address the complex challenges posed by atomic energy.
Picture: United Nations General Assembly in session in Central Hall, London. 15 January 1946
Source: Getty Images
On the afternoon of 23 January 1946, the U.S. Navy freighter USS Brevard rescues almost 4300 Japanese civilians after their repatriation ship, Enoshima Maru, sinks after striking a mine near Shanghai.
This morning, the 5000-ton Alamosa-class cargo ship Brevard left Shanghai and soon caught up to the Enomasu Maru on her way to repatriate some 4300 men, women, and children back to Japan.
Around 1500 hours, some 100 km (60 mi) off the mouth of the Yangtze River, the 6000-ton Enomasu Maru strikes a naval mine. The explosion instantly kills about a dozen of the crew and passengers.
Lieutenant John L. Elliott, captain of the Brevard, orders his ship emergency speed ahead alongside the sinking Japanese ship. Starting at 1520 hours, the Brevard`s crew, aided by the surprising calm and cooperation of the shipwrecked civilians, rescues 4296 in less than 30 minutes.
By 1550 hours, all the Japanese civilians and remaining crew from the Enomasu Maru are safely aboard the Brevard in what must be a record-breaking naval rescue effort.
Picture: USS Brevard (AK-164) landing Japanese repatriates when their ship, Enoshima Maru, sank after hitting a mine off the Yangtze River. Taken at Jukong wharf, Shanghai, 23 January 1946. Note uniformed Japanese corpsmen and nurses and armed Chinese soldiers in the left distance.
Source: U.S. National Archives # 80-G-362009
