On 6 March 1946, Vietnamese leader Ho Chi Minh and French representative Jean Sainteny sign an agreement recognizing Vietnam as a "free state" within the French Union, temporarily easing tensions in the struggle for independence.
Vietnam has found itself at a crossroads between its colonial past and aspirations for sovereignty. The Japanese occupation had weakened French control, and nationalist movements, particularly the Viet Minh led by Ho Chi Minh seized the opportunity to assert independence. On 2 September 1945, Ho Chi Minh proclaimed the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (DRV), declaring independence from French colonial rule.
However, the French have been determined to reassert their authority over Indochina. Tensions escalated as French forces sought to reclaim territories, leading to skirmishes with Viet Minh fighters. Amid this volatile backdrop, negotiations commenced to find a peaceful resolution.
Today`s agreement is a pivotal moment in these negotiations. The accord recognizes Vietnam as a "free state" within the French Union, granting it its own government, parliament, army, and finances while leaving foreign affairs under French control. Additionally, the agreement allows for 15,000 French troops to be stationed in northern Vietnam to replace Chinese forces, with a stipulation that these troops will withdraw over a five-year period at a rate of 20% per year.
This accord is clearly a strategic move by Ho Chi Minh, aimed at securing a degree of autonomy while avoiding direct military confrontation with the French. It also serves to prevent the potential replacement of Chinese occupation forces with French troops, a scenario Ho Chi Minh is keen to avoid.
Picture: Ho Chi Minh and Sainteny aboard a seaplane on their way to Halong Bay, 1946.
Source: Getty Images
On 5 March 1946, Winston Churchill delivers a speech in Fulton, Missouri, warning of the growing Soviet threat and declares that an “iron curtain” has descended across Europe.
Speaking at Westminster College alongside U.S. President Harry Truman, Churchill outlines the emerging divide between the Western democracies and the Soviet-controlled Eastern Bloc, calling for a firm Anglo-American alliance to counter the expansion of Communist influence.
"From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic, an iron curtain has descended across the Continent. Behind that line lie all the capitals of the ancient states of Central and Eastern Europe. Warsaw, Berlin, Prague, Vienna, Budapest, Belgrade, Bucharest, and Sofia—all these famous cities and the populations around them lie in what I must call the Soviet sphere, and all are subject, in one form or another, not only to Soviet influence but to a very high and, in many cases, increasing measure of control from Moscow."
Churchill stresses that this new reality threatens the hard-won peace following World War II and urges the United States and Britain to stand firm against the spread of Communism:
"The safety of the world requires a new unity in Europe, from which no nation should be permanently outcast. It is necessary that constancy of mind, persistency of purpose, and the grand simplicity of decision shall rule and guide the conduct of the English-speaking peoples in peace as they did in war."
"I have a strong admiration and regard for the valiant Russian people and for my wartime comrade, Marshal Stalin. There is deep sympathy and goodwill in Britain—and I doubt not here also—toward the peoples of all the Russias and a resolve to persevere through many differences and rebuffs in establishing lasting friendships. We understand the Russian need to be secure on her western frontiers by the removal of all possibility of German aggression. We welcome Russia to her rightful place among the leading nations of the world. It is my duty, however, to place before you certain facts about the present position in Europe."
Picture: Churchill delivering his speech, March 1946
Source: The National WWII Museum
On 4 March 1946, Soviet armored brigades roll into Iran’s Azerbaijan region, escalating their military presence and further entrenching the pro-Soviet separatist regime in Tabriz.
Two days after the deadline for Soviet troop withdrawals from Iran expired, as we covered in our 2 March post, Moscow has doubled down on its occupation by deploying additional forces into Iranian Azerbaijan. Soviet tanks, accompanied by infantry units, move deeper into the region, reinforcing the already well-entrenched Azerbaijan People`s Government (APG) in Tabriz.
The origins of Soviet involvement in Iranian Azerbaijan trace back to August 1941 when Soviet and British forces jointly invaded Iran, ostensibly to secure supply routes for the Allied war effort. The occupation has given Stalin a foothold in the north, where he quickly moved to consolidate Communist influence. Soviet authorities systematically replaced Iranian officials with pro-Moscow figures, recruited local sympathizers, and began supporting leftist factions. By late 1945, Stalin had transformed Iranian Azerbaijan into a satellite regime, providing arms and advisors to the newly declared Azerbaijan People’s Government under Ja`far Pishevari, a veteran Communist with ties to the Soviet Union.
The Soviet presence has allowed secessionist movements to flourish. With the backing of Red Army units, the APG has expelled Iranian troops, established Soviet-style governance structures, and conducted land reforms that redistributed property from landlords to peasants. While these measures have garnered support from some segments of the local population, they have also created deep divisions, with many Azerbaijanis viewing the APG as a Soviet puppet rather than a legitimate nationalist movement. The deployment of Soviet armored brigades today only deepens this perception.
In Tehran, outrage is growing. Prime Minister Ahmad Qavam has been attempting to negotiate a peaceful resolution with Soviet representatives, but today’s military action undermines diplomatic efforts and escalates tensions further.
Picture: Mounted Red Army artillery units in Tabriz. 17 September 1941.
Source: Wikimedia Commons
On 3 March 1946, residents of Greenwich, Connecticut, officially announce their opposition to the United Nations headquarters being established in their town, forcing the search for a new location.
With the United Nations formally convening in London two months ago, the question of a permanent headquarters has become increasingly urgent. The U.S. emerged as the favored host nation. By early February, a committee had identified a sprawling 259 sq km (100-square-mi) area around Greenwich and Stamford, Connecticut, extending into North Castle, New York, as the ideal site for what was being called "UNOville." The proposal envisioned a self-contained international city with administrative buildings, diplomatic residences, and transportation infrastructure, effectively transforming the region into the world’s political capital.
However, when news of the plan became public in early February, Greenwich residents reacted with immediate opposition. The project, developed largely in secrecy, had failed to consult local communities, whose members quickly voiced concerns about the displacement of 500 to 1,000 residents, skyrocketing property prices, and the disruption of their quiet suburban lifestyle. Fears of encroachments on local governance and law enforcement, given the proposed diplomatic immunities, only added to the resistance.
On 5 February, the Greenwich Representative Town Meeting (RTM) overwhelmingly rejected the proposal, voting 110 to 55 against it. Days later, on 7 February, a town-wide petition opposing the project gathered thousands of signatures, pushing the issue to a referendum. On 23 February, Greenwich voters decisively rejected hosting the UN headquarters, with 5,505 votes against and only 2,019 in favor. The results are announced publicly today, sealing the fate of the Connecticut proposal and forcing UN officials to look elsewhere.
Picture: The United Nations Organization`s seven man delegation met to draw up plans for visiting various places in and around New York City to seek a site for UNO headquarters. Here (left to right), Georgii Saksin; Dr. Stoyan Gavrilovic; George McAnney, and Dr. Shuhsi Hsu.
Source: Getty Images
On 2 March 1946, the Soviet Union refuses to withdraw troops from Iran, violating the deadline set for Allied forces to end their temporary occupation.
Today, the deadline for the withdrawal of all foreign troops from Iran under the 1942 Tripartite Treaty has expired, yet Soviet forces remain entrenched in the northern provinces. While British and American troops have complied with the agreement and departed, Moscow refuses to leave, citing security concerns and ongoing unrest.
Since the joint Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran in August 1941, ostensibly as a preventive measure and to serve as a route for delivering Lend-Lease shipments, Soviet forces have steadily extended their influence over the northern regions. In the past months, Stalin has backed separatist movements, leading to the establishment of the pro-Soviet Azerbaijan People`s Government in Tabriz and the Kurdish Republic of Mahabad. Both regimes, though nominally independent, operate under Soviet direction, making Tehran’s attempts to reassert control increasingly difficult.
The Iranian government, aware that today marks the official deadline for foreign troop withdrawals, has appealed to the newly formed United Nations, making this one of the first major international disputes to be raised before the organization. At the same time, the United States, increasingly concerned about Soviet expansionism, has begun exerting diplomatic pressure on Moscow. President Truman’s administration, viewing Iran as a critical test case in post-war geopolitics, has warned that further Soviet intransigence could have serious consequences.
Despite growing international scrutiny, Soviet officials insist that their forces must remain to ensure regional stability. However, Iran, emboldened by American support, is unlikely to let the matter rest. In the coming weeks, Stalin will face a decision—whether to withdraw under pressure or escalate and risk a confrontation with his former allies.
Picture: A soldier standing guard over a long line of American trucks at a lend-lease depot in Iran; the trucks arrived and were assembled in the Persian port and are now awaiting shipment to the soviet union.
Source: Getty Images
On 1 March 1946, as North Korean leader Kim Il-Sung stands before a crowd in Pyongyang’s Moranbong Square, a grenade suddenly flies toward the stage. The explosion is deflected at the last moment, saving Kim’s life and turning Soviet officer Yakov Novichenko into an instant hero.
Since returning to Korea last year under Soviet sponsorship, Kim Il-Sung has steadily built his power base in the northern zone, culminating in his election last month as Chairman of the Provisional People’s Committee of North Korea, which we covered on 8 February. With Soviet backing, Kim has rapidly consolidated Communist control, implementing land reforms and nationalizing industries, positioning himself as the undisputed leader of the Soviet-occupied zone. However, his rise has not been without resistance. Korean nationalist and anti-communist groups, including the clandestine White Shirts Society, have viewed Kim as a Soviet puppet and sought to eliminate him before his grip on power becomes unshakable.
Today’s attack occurs during a mass rally commemorating the March 1st Movement, the 1919 Korean independence uprising against Japanese rule. Kim, flanked by Soviet officers and local Communist officials, addresses the crowd when an assassin hurls an RGD-33 grenade toward the podium. The attack nearly succeeds, but Soviet officer Yakov Novichenko instinctively shields Kim, catching the grenade and attempting to throw it away before it detonates. The explosion critically wounds Novichenko but spares Kim, who remains unharmed.
North Korean and Soviet authorities quickly move to suppress the incident, rounding up suspected dissidents and anti-communist operatives. The White Shirts Society, suspected of orchestrating the attack, has already been targeted by Soviet and North Korean security forces for its resistance activities. With today’s failed assassination attempt, a brutal crackdown is certain to follow.
Novichenko, despite suffering horrific injuries, will survive to a hero`s welcome back in the Soviet Union.
Picture: Kim Il Sung offers greetings to voters at the rally in honor of the first elections, North Korea; October 16, 1947
Source: Getty Images
On 28 February 1946, Vietnamese leader Ho Chi Minh sends a telegram to U.S. President Harry Truman, appealing for American support in securing Vietnamese independence and preventing the return of French colonial rule.
After the Japanese surrender in August 1945, Ho Chi Minh and the Viet Minh declared the independence of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (DRV) on 2 September, hoping to gain recognition from the Allies. However, British forces arrived in the south to facilitate the French return, while the Chinese Nationalist forces occupied the north, keeping the Viet Minh in a tenuous position. By early 1946, French officials were pressing for the return of full colonial control, and negotiations between the French and the Viet Minh were proving difficult.
The U.S. has so far remained hesitant about directly intervening in the situation. While President Truman`s administration remains publicly committed to the principles of self-determination outlined in the Atlantic Charter, the geopolitical landscape is shifting with growing tensions between the U.S. and the Soviet Union.
Ho Chi Minh, aware of America`s ideological commitment to anti-colonialism, has sought to leverage these principles in favor of Vietnamese independence. Over the past several months, he has repeatedly attempted to establish diplomatic channels with Washington, but his requests have gone unanswered.
In today`s telegram, Ho writes:
"On behalf of Vietnam government and people I beg to inform you that in course with conversations between Vietnam government and French representatives the latter require the succession of Cochinchina and the return of French troops in Hanoi STOP meanwhile French population and troops are making active preparations for a coup de main in Hanoi and for military aggression STOP I therefore earnestly appeal to you personally and to the American people to interfere urgently in support of our independence and help making the negotiations more in keeping with the principles of the Atlantic and San Francisco charters."
As of today, it remains uncertain how the Truman administration will respond.
Picture: Ho Chi Minh, July 1946
Source: Getty Images
On 27 February 1946, U.S. Navy Secretary James Forrestal issues an order initiating the desegregation of the U.S. Navy, marking a significant step toward racial integration in the American armed forces.
Since its founding, the U.S. Navy had a long and complicated history with racial integration. During the American Revolution and the War of 1812, Black sailors served in integrated crews, but by the end of the Civil War, segregation became the norm. A 1919 policy of restricting African American sailors to serving only as messmen and stewards has remained largely in place until today.
As the war intensified, pressure grew for change. The NAACP and Black newspapers called for an end to racial restrictions. In June 1941, President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued Executive Order 8802, which prohibited racial discrimination in the defense industry, though it did not extend to the military itself.
A significant turning point came in July 1944 with the Port Chicago Disaster, an explosion at a naval ammunition depot in California that killed 320 sailors, the majority of whom were African American. The subsequent mutiny trial of 50 Black sailors who refused to return to work under unsafe conditions drew national attention to the unequal treatment of Black service members and intensified calls for reform.
By the end of the war, the Navy could no longer ignore the reality that segregation was inefficient and damaging to morale. Moreover, some Navy commanders had already begun experimenting with integration, reporting improved unit cohesion and effectiveness.
Against this backdrop, James Forrestal, who became Secretary of the Navy in May 1944, began pushing for broader reforms. Forrestal worked with his advisers to craft a policy that would gradually phase out racial barriers. The order he issues today instructs that African American sailors should no longer be restricted to steward roles and that qualified Black personnel should be fully integrated into general service.
While this certainly does not end segregation in the Navy, it marks an important first step.
Picture: Black sailors of the USS Mason proudly look over their ship
Source: U.S. National Archives
On 26 February 1946, reports emerge from Sweden of unidentified flying objects streaking across the skies, described as mysterious rocket-like projectiles. The sightings, which occur mainly over Swedish airspace, mark the first wave of what will soon be referred to as “ghost rockets” (spökraketer in Swedish).
The initial reports describe objects moving at high speeds, leaving behind vapor trails or luminous streaks in the sky. Some witnesses claim to have seen the objects disintegrate or explode mid-air, while others report that the projectiles appear to change direction, ruling out natural explanations like meteors. As the sightings increase in frequency, Swedish military and intelligence officials launch an investigation into the nature of these mysterious aerial intrusions.
At this stage, the most widely suspected explanation is that the objects are experimental German weapons—possibly V-1 or V-2 rockets—being tested by the Soviet Union. Given that large numbers of German scientists and engineers were taken to the USSR after the war, concerns arise that these sightings could be evidence of Soviet military experiments using captured Nazi rocket technology. The Swedish government reaches out to both British and American intelligence services for assistance in assessing the potential threat.
Another theory suggests that the objects might be meteorological or astronomical phenomena, though the consistency of reports and the descriptions of controlled movement challenge this explanation. There is also speculation about whether these could be secret Allied missile tests, although neither the United States nor the United Kingdom acknowledges any such activity in Scandinavian airspace.
Swedish authorities treat the phenomenon as a matter of national security, given the possibility that these objects are foreign weapons tests violating Swedish neutrality. As more reports continue to surface, military radar installations are placed on heightened alert, and aerial patrols begin scanning the skies for further sightings.
Picture: Widely circulated newspaper photo of Swedish "ghost rocket", photographed July 9, 1946
Source: Erik Reuterswärd via Wikimedia Commons
On 25 February 1946, the Workers` and Peasants` Red Army is formally renamed the Soviet Army, on the orders of Joseph Stalin.
The Red Army was established in 1918 during the Russian Civil War, and it was formed as the military arm of the Bolsheviks to defend the fledgling Soviet state against internal and external enemies. Its very name—Workers` and Peasants` Red Army (Raboche-Krest’yanskaya Krasnaya Armiya, RKKA)—reflected its ideological origins, emphasizing class struggle and the revolutionary character of its composition. Early on, it was organized along non-traditional lines, with elected officers and an emphasis on political reliability over military expertise. However, as the Red Army faced existential threats during the Civil War and later conflicts, these ideals gave way to professionalization, stricter discipline, and centralized command.
Through the Second World War, the Red Army grew into a massive, highly structured force, now boasting over 11 million personnel, mechanized divisions, and a strategic presence across Eastern Europe.
Stalin’s decision to rename the Red Army as the Soviet Army appears to be part of a broader effort to distance the USSR from its early revolutionary roots. The new name symbolizes a move away from the language of class struggle and civil war toward the concept of a national military force representing all Soviet citizens. The Soviet Union is no longer a revolutionary experiment struggling to survive but a dominant global power with a modern, professional army, as Stalin elaborated in his recent speech we covered on 9 February.
Moreover, the change reflects practical military reforms. While the Red Army of the early years had been largely an infantry force with limited mechanization, by 1946, the Soviet Army had extensive armored divisions, motorized rifle units, and a well-developed air force, all of which made it a formidable opponent to any potential adversary.
Picture: View of Soviet soldiers at an unspecified location in Berlin, 1946
Source: Getty Images
On 24 February 1946, Argentina held its first open presidential elections since 1928, pitting Colonel Juan Domingo Perón, Labor Party candidate, against the opposition-backed José Tamborini of the Democratic Union.
The roots of Perón’s rise can be traced back to the military coup of 1943, which ended the presidency of Ramón Castillo and ushered in a government dominated by nationalist and military factions. Perón, then an army officer, quickly positioned himself as a key figure within the new regime, securing the post of Secretary of Labor and Social Welfare. He gained enormous popularity among the working class by promoting labor rights, wage increases, and social benefits. His policies, often referred to as justicialismo, emphasize social justice, economic nationalism, and state intervention in the economy.
Perón’s consolidation of power alarmed Argentina’s traditional political and economic elites, as well as segments of the military. In October 1945, he was briefly arrested and forced to resign under pressure from opposition factions within the armed forces. However, a massive demonstration by workers and supporters on 17 October 1945, now commemorated as Loyalty Day, forced the government to release him.
The opposition, fearing that Perón would establish a populist dictatorship, united behind Tamborini, forming the Democratic Union, a coalition of the Radical Civic Union (UCR), the Socialist Party, the Communist Party, and the Progressive Democrats. The opposition campaign has received substantial backing from the U.S., which views Perón’s movement as a potential threat to post-war democratic stability in Latin America, leading to a nationalistic backlash that Perón has been exploiting with the slogan: "Braden o Perón"—framing the election as a choice between foreign interference and national sovereignty.
As voting begins today, Perón’s position appears strong, bolstered by his deep support among industrial workers, rural laborers, and segments of the military.
Picture: Eva Peron (R) and her husband, Juan (C), and Colonel Mercante (R) read Buenos Aires "Democracia" issue of 24 February 1946
Source: Getty Images
On 23 February 1946, General Tomoyuki Yamashita is executed by hanging at Los Baños Prison Camp in the Philippines.
His execution follows the conviction handed down by a U.S. Military Commission in Manila, which sentenced him to death on 7 December 1945, a verdict upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, which we covered in our 5 February post. The trial had been based on the controversial legal principle of command responsibility, holding Yamashita accountable for the atrocities committed under his command in the Philippines, despite the defense’s argument that he had no direct control over the war crimes.
In the early morning hours, Yamashita is led from his cell to the gallows, surrounded by U.S. military personnel. Before his execution, he maintains a composed demeanor, showing neither fear nor bitterness. As the noose is placed around his neck, he delivers his final words, a statement reflecting both resignation to his fate and gratitude toward those who had treated him fairly during his trial:
"As I said in the Manila Supreme Court, I have done all in my capacity, so I am not ashamed before the gods for what I have done when I die. But if you say to me, `you do not have any ability to command the Japanese Army,` I should say nothing, because it is my own nature. Now, our war criminal trial is proceeding under your kindness and justice. I know that all Americans and American military affairs always have tolerance and rightful judgment. When I was investigated in the Manila court, I was treated well and kindly by your good-natured officers who protected me all the time. I will never forget what they have done for me, even after my death. I do not blame my executioner. I will pray to the gods to bless them. Please send my words of thanks to Col. Clarke, Lt. Col. Feldhaus, Lt. Col. Hendrix, Maj. Guy, Capt. Sandburg, Capt. Reel at the Manila court, and Col. Arnard. I thank you."
At precisely 0302 hours, the trap is sprung, and Yamashita is pronounced dead at 0310 hours. His body is later buried in an unmarked grave at the local cemetery.
Picture: General Tomoyuki Yamashita is fitted with a microphone prior to his trial
Source: Getty Images
On 22 February 1946, George F. Kennan, the chargé d`affaires at the U.S. Embassy in Moscow, sends a detailed telegram to the State Department outlining his analysis of Soviet intentions and recommending a new approach to U.S. foreign policy toward the Soviet Union - containment.
When Stalin gave an address at the Bolshoi Theatre in Moscow, which we covered in our 9 February post, he emphasized the incompatibility of communism and capitalism, credited Soviet victory in the war to the strength of the socialist system, and called for continued industrial and military expansion.
In response, Kennan has drafted a 5,000-word message to be sent to the U.S. government, in which he argues that the Soviet Union is driven by a deeply ingrained ideological and historical distrust of the West. He contends that Soviet foreign policy is based on a belief in the inevitable conflict between communism and capitalism and that the Kremlin views Western nations, particularly the United States, as irreconcilable adversaries. According to Kennan, Soviet leaders do not believe in the possibility of lasting peace with the capitalist world and will seek to expand their influence wherever possible, particularly in regions weakened by war and instability.
Kennan further asserts that the Soviet system relies on external threats to maintain internal control, using hostility toward the West as a means of justifying repression at home. He warns that the Soviets will attempt to undermine Western unity through propaganda, espionage, and political subversion, rather than through open military confrontation. However, he also advises against direct military confrontation with the Soviet Union, arguing instead that a policy of firm but measured containment of Soviet expansionist efforts.
The telegram is swiftly circulated among senior officials in the State Department and is met with strong interest. It is seen as a direct challenge to the more conciliatory approach previously pursued by some policymakers who had hoped for continued cooperation with the Soviet Union in the postwar period.
Picture: George Kennan, 1948
Source: Getty Images
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
