On 1 April 1946, the U.S. Navy carries out Operation Road’s End, scuttling 24 captured Imperial Japanese Navy submarines off the Gotō Islands.
Following Japan’s surrender on 15 August last year, the Allies moved quickly to enforce the terms of the Potsdam Declaration and the U.S. Post-Surrender Policy for Japan. Among the conditions was the complete dismantling of the Japanese military, including the surrender and destruction of its naval forces.
The decision to scuttle rather than preserve the submarines has been accelerated by growing tensions between the Western Allies and the Soviet Union, which has demanded access to Japanese naval technology.
Operation Road’s End is the culmination of this effort. Conducted by the USS Nereus and other U.S. Navy vessels, the submarines—many of which had been moved to Sasebo Naval Base—are crewed by skeleton Japanese teams and have been piloted to “Point Deep Six,” approximately 65 km (40 mi) west of Nagasaki.
Among those scuttled today is the I-58, infamous for sinking the USS Indianapolis in the final days of the war, resulting in one of the worst losses of life in U.S. naval history. Alongside it are several Ha-class submarines and other I-boats, including I-156, I-157, I-159, and I-162. They are sunk by demolition charges or naval gunfire in waters more than 200 meters deep.
Though not sunk today, several other high-profile submarines will meet similar fates in the weeks and months that follow. These include the massive I-400 and I-401—aircraft-carrying submarines that had been moved to Pearl Harbor for evaluation. Each capable of launching three bombers, the I-400-class boats represent one of the most ambitious underwater weapons platforms ever constructed. As it will become clear that Soviet interest in these vessels could spark further tension, they, too, will be scuttled—off Hawaii in May and June 1946.
Today’s operation signals not only the physical destruction of Japan’s undersea fleet but also the symbolic end of the country’s naval ambitions.
Picture: Japanese submarines at Sasebo on 31 March 1946, awaiting disposal.
Source: U.S. Naval History and Heritage Command #80-G-260146
On 31 March 1946, Greece holds its first parliamentary elections since before the war, under the supervision of Allied observers.
The Greek political landscape is in chaos. Since the end of Axis occupation in 1944, tensions between the conservative monarchy-backed government and the leftist EAM-ELAS resistance movement have escalated into open violence. Though the 1945 Varkiza Agreement promised disarmament and democratic elections, neither side has kept its word. EAM forces, mistrusting the government’s intentions, refused to disband fully, while right-wing militias continued to target leftists with impunity. The wartime coalition has collapsed, and Greece now stands on the brink of internal war.
In an effort to restore political legitimacy, elections are scheduled for today. To lend credibility, the vote is conducted under the oversight of Allied observers from the United States, Britain, and France. Their presence is intended to verify that the electoral process meets international standards. But the conditions in which the vote takes place are far from ideal. In many parts of the country, political intimidation, assassinations, and acts of retribution have made free campaigning virtually impossible.
The Communist Party of Greece, backed by the leftist EAM coalition, boycotts the election, claiming the government has failed to guarantee fair conditions. Their abstention ensures a sweeping victory for right-wing parties. The monarchist United Alignment of Nationalists secures a majority of the seats, and the government interprets the result as a public mandate to continue its policies and prepare for a plebiscite on the restoration of the monarchy.
Despite serious irregularities, the Allied Mission reports that the elections are "on the whole free and fair." While acknowledging instances of coercion and administrative failure, they conclude that these were not sufficient to overturn the general outcome. The finding gives international legitimacy to the new Greek government—but does little to restore internal peace.
Picture: Observer Chats With Voters at a polling station near the based of the Acropolis in Athens
Source: Getty Images
On 30 March 1946, British and American military intelligence launch a large-scale sweep across Germany and Austria, arresting over a thousand individuals suspected of attempting to revive Nazism through clandestine networks.
Since Germany’s surrender last May, the Allied occupation authorities have been engaged in the arduous task of denazification. This has involved identifying, investigating, and removing Nazis and Nazi sympathizers from public life through arrests, questionnaires, and tribunals. As part of this broader program, American and British counterintelligence agencies have maintained a close watch on extremist groups, especially remnants of the wartime “Werwolf” movement, a paramilitary resistance force organized by Joseph Goebbels during the final days of the Third Reich.
Now, a major plot has been uncovered—one aimed not at immediate insurgency but at the long-term resurrection of Nazi ideology. Rooted in underground cells composed largely of former Hitler Youth members and junior party officials, the movement sought to preserve Nazi beliefs, maintain clandestine communication networks, and prepare for an eventual resurgence once conditions became favorable. According to Allied intelligence sources, this covert organization was not focused on violent sabotage but rather on keeping alive the ideological flame of National Socialism and building a framework for future political influence.
Intelligence operations carried out over the past several weeks culminate in today’s coordinated arrests. The detained individuals are accused of plotting to spread propaganda, conceal Nazi symbols and literature, and recruit sympathizers—particularly disaffected veterans and youth. .
In recent months, denazification efforts have slowed as differences between the Allied powers—particularly between the Western Allies and the Soviet Union—complicate joint governance. Germans, meanwhile, endure severe food shortages and mounting economic hardship, with some viewing the growing East-West divide as a possible route to regain sovereignty.
Picture: Nuremberg de-Nazification court 1947
Source: Getty Images
On 29 March 1946, Sir Stafford Cripps issues a stark warning in London about the growing communal rift in India, cautioning that delay in granting independence will result in “distrust and disaster” for both Britain and the Indian people.
Just five days ago, Cripps arrived in India as part of the Cabinet Mission, covered in our 24 March post, charged with the task of negotiating a constitutional framework for Indian independence. The political climate they have entered could not be more volatile. As we noted in the post from 28 March, the results of the Indian provincial elections have confirmed the dominance of the Indian National Congress and the All-India Muslim League—but they have also underscored the deepening divide between Hindus and Muslims, especially following the Muslim League’s overwhelming success in Muslim constituencies.
Cripps confronts the central dilemma head-on: the Muslim League’s demand for Pakistan. “Every Britisher must ask himself,” he says, “if for the interest of the Indians’ self-government, the demand of Pakistan… is justified or workable.” While he expresses deep respect for the League’s concerns, he ultimately warns that partition would not bring peace but greater instability. “The granting of autonomy for a division of the country would be disadvantageous both to the Hindus and to the Muslims. They will be only at the mercy of each other.”
He points to Europe, still reeling from war and political fragmentation, as a cautionary example of what communal division can bring. “Their own unity will end with the British withdrawal,” he warns, “and will leave themselves greatly disappointed to make a `Pakistan` or a `Hindu` state.” In his view, unity—though difficult—is preferable to religious partition, and only the Indian people themselves can arrive at a sustainable solution.
Cripps concludes with an appeal to urgency. “Now is ripe to go from there with every necessary proceeding which will assure peace for the political advancement of the Indian people.”
Picture: Cripps and Pandit Nehru in New Delhi. 1942
Source: Getty Images
On 28 March 1946, the results of the Indian provincial elections are formally announced, confirming a sweeping victory for the Indian National Congress and the All-India Muslim League.
Held between December last year and February, these are the first elections in India since the end of the Second World War. The results come at a critical moment in India’s struggle for independence—just days after British Prime Minister Clement Attlee announced on 15 March that the United Kingdom would grant India self-rule, and four days after the arrival of the British Cabinet Mission in New Delhi, which we covered on 24 March.
The election was conducted across eleven provinces, with seats allocated along religious and communal lines according to the Government of India Act of 1935. The Indian National Congress entered the contest with the goal of reinforcing its claim to represent all Indians, while the Muslim League seeks to demonstrate its status as the sole voice of India’s Muslims and to legitimize its demand for Pakistan.
The results show a dramatic consolidation of support around these two political giants. The Indian National Congress wins 923 of 1,585 seats, dominating the general and non-Muslim constituencies. The Muslim League claims 429 of the 482 Muslim seats, an overwhelming majority that effectively obliterates other Muslim political voices and solidifies Muhammad Ali Jinnah’s claim to speak for the Muslim community across India.
The Punjab results are particularly striking. As we have covered in recent posts, the province was bitterly contested between the Muslim League, the Unionist Party, and the Congress-Akali alliance. Despite intense resistance from British authorities and other parties, the Muslim League wins 73 of the 86 Muslim seats in the Punjab Legislative Assembly.
However, Governor Sir Bertrand Glancy invites the Unionist Party, now a minority faction, to form a coalition government with Congress and the Akali Dal, sidelining the League and igniting a new phase of communal agitation in the province.
Picture: Voters outside the Town Hall in Delhi during polling in the Assembly elections in December 1934.
Source: National Archives of India
On 27 March 1946, the United States and the Provisional Government of the French Republic sign an agreement in Paris to establish regular air services between the two countries.
The war has reshaped global transportation, and with the conflict now over, civil aviation is quickly emerging as a vital tool of diplomacy, commerce, and reconstruction. Military airfields, surplus aircraft, and trained personnel offer the foundation for a new international air travel system, but legal and political agreements are necessary to ensure access, safety, and fair competition.
The agreement sets out a mutual exchange of rights, allowing each nation’s designated airlines to operate passenger, mail, and cargo services between their territories and onward to third countries. Specific routes are outlined, allowing for regular connections between major American and French cities, with further access to stops in Europe, the Middle East, and Asia. Each country retains the right to designate its chosen air carriers—an authority that the U.S. will use to expand the reach of companies like Pan American World Airways and France to promote its national carrier.
To ensure safety and order in this newly regulated airspace, the agreement mandates that all flights comply with the laws and regulations of the destination country. It also calls for tariff controls, requiring governments to review and approve fare schedules to prevent exploitative pricing or discriminatory practices. Beyond its practical function, the agreement reflects deeper political aims—strengthening Franco-American relations, stabilizing economic links between Europe and the United States, and laying the groundwork for a liberalized international aviation regime.
As of today, this is more than a technical arrangement—it is an early symbol of peaceful global reintegration. The skies that once carried bombers and transport planes now begin to host the movement of passengers and goods in a new world order, one shaped less by imperial competition and more by negotiated openness.
Picture: Four Pan American Airways Constellations lined up at LaGuardia Field, New York City, 1946
Source: Walter Christensen Collection
On 26 March 1946, Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek speaks out against Communism and explains the path forward for a `united China` during a party gathering in Nanking.
Chiang`s speech reads, in parts, as follows:
˝We in China have suffered a great deal during the last decade or so. First, it was the spectre of internal strife that tore the country into two opposite camps.˝
˝Later, the Communists came into power and slowly weaned away a large number of our people to follow the tenets of Communism. The dark years of civil war that followed are ample illustrations of one political party trying to become master of the country at the expense and bloodshed of the other. The fight went on, but the Communists never really held power in the country. When the test for the defense of national honor came, the Communists, I am glad to say, played their part in giving the Japanese more than he had asked for.˝
˝With the close of the struggle, old controversies were unearthed, and the fight between the Kuomintang and the Communists was renewed. The Communists believed that they will have the direct or the indirect support fo the Communists of Moscow. Much as the Russians would have liked to have helped us or, rather, the Communists, they dared not risk open support for fear of incurring the displeasure of the United Nations of the world. A combination of all these nations has proved a powerful weapon for it had smashed the vainglorious ambitions of the Axis powers. Today it is still a powerful combination. On the other hand, the U.S. went the whole distance to bring about unity in the Chinese nation... The American people wanted to see a United China, and their endeavors to bring about a union among the major political parties in the country have succeeded beyond our wildest dreams.˝
˝The way has been cleared for us to return our gratitude to America and the other democratic nations of the world by building a new China in unity and good faith. Let us forget our old quarrels, which had ultimately retarded our progress as a nation. Let us work as brothers for a common mother.˝
Picture: Nanking, China: Chiang speaks on the steps of Sun Yat Sen`s tomb
Source: Getty Images
On 25 March 1946, the Soviet Union announces that it will withdraw its troops from Iran within six weeks, defusing a crisis that has brought the U.S. and USSR into one of their first post-war confrontations.
The crisis over Iran has been building for months. As we covered in our 2 March post, Soviet forces remained in northern Iran beyond the withdrawal deadline set by the 1942 Tripartite Treaty, which required all Allied troops to leave the country within six months of the war’s end. While British and American forces complied, the Soviet Union justified its continued presence by citing security concerns and instability in the region. However, Moscow’s true objectives soon became apparent—Soviet-backed separatist movements, particularly in the Iranian province of Azerbaijan, had declared autonomous governments under Soviet protection. Tehran, increasingly alarmed, turned to the United Nations for support, making this one of the first international disputes brought before the fledgling organization.
By mid-March, tensions had escalated dramatically. The Iranian government, under Prime Minister Ahmad Qavam, had been engaged in delicate negotiations with Soviet officials while simultaneously preparing an appeal to the UN Security Council. The U.S., viewing the crisis as an early test of Soviet intentions in the post-war world, exerted diplomatic pressure on Moscow to withdraw. On 5 March, as tensions peaked, former British Prime Minister Winston Churchill delivered his "Iron Curtain" speech, warning that Soviet expansionism threatenes European stability.
Against this backdrop, today’s announcement represents a significant diplomatic victory for Iran and the U.S. However, the statement includes a vague condition—that the withdrawal will proceed "provided nothing unforeseen occurs." This ambiguous wording leaves room for further maneuvering, and suspicions remain over whether Moscow will fully honor its commitment.
Picture: Soviet tankmen of the 6th Armoured Division drive through the streets of Tabriz on their T-26 battle tank. 28 August 1941
Source: IWM
On 24 March 1946, the British Cabinet Mission arrives in India to negotiate the terms of independence.
India is at a breaking point. Since the end of World War II, demands for independence have intensified, accompanied by civil unrest, labor strikes, and widespread agitation against continued British rule. On 15 March, British Prime Minister Clement Attlee announced that India would soon be granted self-rule, as we covered in our previous post.
However, the question of how to achieve a peaceful transfer of power remains unresolved. The Indian National Congress insists on a strong, centralized government, while the Muslim League, led by Muhammad Ali Jinnah, demands a separate state of Pakistan, arguing that Muslims cannot coexist under Hindu-majority rule. With communal violence on the rise, Britain now faces the urgent task of negotiating a political framework to prevent the subcontinent from descending into chaos.
To address the crisis, Attlee dispatches the Cabinet Mission, led by Secretary of State for India Lord Pethick-Lawrence, with Sir Stafford Cripps and A.V. Alexander as key members.
Upon arriving in New Delhi today, the delegation immediately begins consultations with Indian leaders. The Congress, led by Jawaharlal Nehru and Sardar Patel, is willing to discuss a federal structure but strongly opposes any plan that would grant excessive autonomy to Muslim-majority provinces. The Muslim League, meanwhile, insists on a separate state, fearing that a Hindu-dominated government would marginalize Muslim interests.
The British government hopes to offer a compromise—an independent but united India with a three-tier structure. Under this plan, a central government would oversee defense, foreign affairs, and communications, while provinces would have significant autonomy. Furthermore, provinces could group themselves based on shared interests.
Picture: British Cabinet Mission to India arrives at New Delhi, India, 24th March 1946. From left to right, Sir Stafford Cripps, the Viceroy of India, Lord Wavell, Frederick William Pethick-Lawrence, 1st Baron Pethick-Lawrence, the Secretary of State for India and Burma, and A. V. Alexander.
Source: Getty Images
On 23 March 1946, Indonesian nationalist forces evacuate and set fire to the city of Bandung to deny it to the returning Dutch colonial forces.
Since the proclamation of Indonesian independence on 17 August 1945, the struggle for sovereignty has plunged the country into a bitter war against the Dutch, who refuse to relinquish control. The British, tasked with overseeing the transition, have been caught between supporting Dutch reoccupation efforts and maintaining stability amid a rising tide of Indonesian nationalism. West Java, where Bandung, a key city for both sides, has become the focal point of military and political contestation.
Bandung, a major economic and administrative center, is also of immense strategic importance due to its railway network, military installations, and manufacturing infrastructure. The city had fell under British occupation late last year, but by February, British forces—keen to withdraw from the conflict—had begun pressuring Indonesian nationalist troops to evacuate. At the same time, Dutch forces were poised to take control, raising fears among Indonesian fighters and civilians alike that continued resistance in the city would provoke brutal reprisals. The decision was made to retreat from Bandung, but not without a final act of defiance.
On 23 March, Indonesian forces, particularly the People`s Security Army (TKR), begin a systematic scorched-earth campaign, setting fire to government buildings, industrial facilities, and key infrastructure before withdrawing. Thousands of civilians, many sympathetic to the Republican cause, flee the city as flames consume entire neighborhoods. This devastating act is both a strategic maneuver to deprive the Dutch of valuable assets and a symbolic declaration of resistance. The city burns through the night, leaving vast portions of it in ruins.
Despite the destruction, the Dutch will establish control over the remnants of Bandung in the following days, but their grip on the city will remain tenuous.
Picture: Illustration of Bandung Sea of Fire
Source: Indonesian National Archives
On 22 March 1946, the United Kingdom and the Emirate of Transjordan sign the Treaty of London, paving the way for Transjordan’s full independence from British rule.
The relationship between Britain and Transjordan was established in the aftermath of the First World War. The territory, previously part of the Ottoman Empire, came under British control following the collapse of Ottoman rule and the 1920 San Remo Conference, which placed it within the British Mandate for Palestine. In 1921, the British government appointed Abdullah bin Hussein, son of Sharif Hussein of Mecca, as Emir of Transjordan, establishing it as a semi-autonomous entity under British supervision. While Transjordan was formally separate from the Jewish homeland envisioned under the Palestine Mandate, it remained economically and militarily reliant on Britain.
Over the next two decades, Transjordan functioned as a British protectorate, with British advisers overseeing its administration and the British-led Arab Legion maintaining internal security and guarding its borders. Emir Abdullah pursued a cautious strategy, cooperating with the British while fostering a sense of national identity among Transjordan’s tribal and urban populations. However, by the end of World War II, demands for greater autonomy grew, both from within Transjordan and from broader regional and global shifts toward decolonization.
The treaty signed today formally recognizes Transjordan as an independent state while maintaining a close military and economic relationship with Britain. Under the treaty, Britain agrees to end its mandate over the territory and acknowledge Transjordan’s sovereignty, while Abdullah assumes the title of King, officially transforming the emirate into the Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan. However, the treaty also ensures that Britain retains significant influence, particularly through military agreements that allow British forces to remain stationed in the country and continue training the Arab Legion.
Picture: King Abdullah I of Jordan declaring independence, 25 May 1946
Source: The National Library of Jordan
On 21 March 1946, French forces launch a brutal assault on the town of Thakhek in central Laos, crushing local resistance and executing civilians in a campaign to reassert colonial control over Indochina.
Following Japan’s surrender in August 1945, the power vacuum in Laos sparked a struggle for control between returning French forces and nationalist movements seeking independence. The Lao Issara (Free Laos), established in October 1945, sought to resist the French reoccupation and declared Laos an independent state. However, French military operations, backed by colonial troops and foreign mercenaries, systematically dismantled resistance strongholds across the country.
Thakhek, a strategic town on the Mekong River bordering Thailand, has become a stronghold for nationalist fighters, including Laotian and Vietnamese forces aligned with the Viet Minh. The town’s location makes it a critical point for supply lines and communication between resistance groups in Laos and Vietnam. Recognizing its significance, the French aim to eliminate it as a base of operations and make an example of its defenders.
Today, heavily armed French troops launched an overwhelming assault, deploying infantry, artillery, and air support. They meet fierce resistance from Lao Issara fighters, bolstered by Viet Minh allies, who attempt to hold the town.
Despite their determination, however, the defenders are soon overwhelmed. French forces storm Thakhek, executing prisoners and suspected sympathizers, and conducting widespread reprisals against the civilian population.
Survivors flee across the Mekong into Thailand, where they seek refuge with sympathetic Thai officials and members of the Free Thai movement, who have been secretly supporting anti-French resistance efforts.
Picture: French army soldiers patrol Hanoi, in response to the Viet Minh offensive, led by Ho Chi Minh, aimed at liberating the city, former capital of Tonkin in December 1946
Source: Getty Images
On 20 March 1946, the Tule Lake War Relocation Center, the largest of the ten camps Japanese-American internment camps, closes down.
Executive Order 9066, signed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt on 19 February 1942, authorized the forced relocation of Japanese Americans from the West Coast to remote internment camps. Overseen by the War Relocation Authority (WRA), these camps were built across the country, housing over 120,000 men, women, and children—two-thirds of whom were U.S. citizens.
Tule Lake, established on 27 May 1942 in Modoc County, California, quickly became the most heavily guarded and contentious of these camps. Initially designated as one of the standard WRA facilities, it was transformed into a high-security segregation center in July 1943, following the controversial loyalty questionnaire issued to internees. Those who answered "no" to questions about loyalty to the U.S. and willingness to serve in the military were labeled as “disloyal” and forcibly transferred to Tule Lake from other camps. At its peak, the camp held over 18,000 detainees, including many who renounced their U.S. citizenship under duress.
Conditions at Tule Lake were harsher than in other WRA camps. The overcrowded barracks were poorly insulated against the bitter winters and scorching summers of the high desert. Food shortages, inadequate medical care, and strict military oversight contributed to rising tensions. In late 1943, protests escalated into strikes, leading to the imposition of martial law by the U.S. Army. Guards patrolled the perimeter with machine guns, tanks were brought in to quell unrest, and hundreds of internees were placed in punitive isolation.
As WRA camps began shutting down last year, Tule Lake’s unique status as a segregation center delayed its shutdown. Some internees were deported to Japan, while others fought to have their citizenship restored.
The closure order finally came yesterday.
Today, the last 406 remaining detainees, along with 43 of their family members, are transferred to the Department of Justice internment facility in Crystal City, Texas.
Picture: Aerial view of Tule Lake
Source: U.S. National Park Service
On 19 March 1946, former British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Anthony Eden, makes a statement about foreign issues aimed at the Soviet Union`s policies in Eastern Europe.
Eden`s statement reads, in parts:
˝The problens facing us can be divided into two classes. Our own problems can with a little bit of delicate handling and expert diplomacy be solved in the quickest possible time. The foreign problems are of a more difficult nature. Each time we find a solution to our differences with the other nations something always crops up and we are baulked in our efforts to reach an understanding with the other.
Dangerous currents are dragging the nations who had sacrificed millions in the direction of war again. Dissatisfaction is rampant among the powers which feel that it has been their individual effort that was responsible for the defeat of totalitarianism in the universe. The taste of blood is still in their palate. They have stopped thinking in the perspective of peace. They still want to kill and destroy and the weapons in their hands look for new sacrifice. We cannot afford to stand aside and say that nations so inclined will soon recover their senses.
It will be dangerous not only for us but for the whole world to laugh off the threats and intimidation of the Russians. If we exhibit signs of weakness, the Russians will get off just like the Nazis got off in Munich, Austria, and Czechoslovakia. There is not the slightest difference between the methods employed by the Nazi party in overrunning independent territories and the method now being indulged in by the Communist Party in Moscow.˝
Picture: Sir Anthony Eden delivers a speech at the first United Nations General Assembly in London on January 10, 1946.
Source: Getty Images
On 18 March 1946, Japan hires its first female police officers.
Women in Japan have traditionally been confined to domestic roles, with deeply ingrained societal expectations limiting their presence in public and professional spheres. Under the pre-war Meiji and Showa governments, Japan’s legal and political systems upheld strict gender norms, excluding women from positions of power and denying them many rights.
During World War II, women entered the workforce in large numbers, taking on industrial and administrative jobs, and some even participated in paramilitary auxiliary roles. Despite these contributions, Japan’s surrender in August last year left women in a precarious position. The country is devastated, and returning male soldiers have reclaimed jobs that women had temporarily held.
However, as the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers (SCAP) seeks to democratize Japan and dismantle militarist structures, advocating for women’s rights has been a core part of these reforms. In December, the newly drafted constitution granted women the right to vote for the first time while further steps have been taken to integrate them into public life. One of the most significant changes was the reform of the Japanese police system.
Japan’s police force had played a key role in enforcing wartime authoritarianism, maintaining strict surveillance over civilians, and suppressing political dissent. The occupation authorities saw the need to decentralize and reform law enforcement, aiming to create a system that would better reflect democratic ideals. As part of these changes, SCAP pushed for the recruitment of female officers to handle cases involving women and children.
Today, the Tokyo Metropolitan Police Department hires its first 65 female officers. These women, referred to as “policewomen” (婦人警官, fujin keikan), will be primarily tasked with handling cases of juvenile delinquency, sexual violence, and family disputes—areas where male officers are deemed less effective due to cultural sensitivities.
Picture: One of the female police force patrols the streets of Tokyo along the market place in the Konda [sic] district.
Source: Tokyo Metropolitan Police Museum
On 17 March 1946, Soviet forces begin withdrawing from the Danish island of Bornholm, ending an occupation that had lasted nearly a year after Germany’s surrender.
The occupation of the small but strategically situated island at a crucial maritime chokepoint between Sweden and Poland was an unexpected consequence of Germany’s collapse. As Nazi forces retreated in early May last year, Bornholm’s German garrison, led by Captain Gerhard von Kamptz, refused to surrender to the advancing Soviet forces, insisting that only British or American troops could accept their capitulation. Unwilling to tolerate resistance, the Soviet military responded on 7 and 8 May with devastating air raids on the island’s main towns, Rønne and Nexø. The bombardment reduced large parts of both towns to rubble, displacing thousands of civilians. Soviet troops landed on Bornholm on 9 May and, after brief fighting, took full control of the island.
While the rest of Denmark was liberated by British forces, Bornholm remained under Soviet occupation. Despite Danish government protests, Moscow justified its presence by claiming it was necessary to maintain order and disarm German forces. However, as the months passed, the true reason for the continued Soviet occupation became increasingly clear—it provided a valuable military position in the Baltic, strengthening the Soviet strategic posture in Northern Europe. The Western Allies, already locked in disputes with Stalin over Poland and Germany, feared that Bornholm might become a permanent Soviet outpost.
The Danish government, determined to ensure the island’s return, engaged in quiet but persistent diplomatic efforts to negotiate Soviet withdrawal. While Stalin had no intention of annexing the island outright, he used it as a bargaining tool, only agreeing to leave once Denmark provided assurances that no foreign troops would be stationed there after the Soviet departure.
Today, the long-awaited withdrawal finally begins. Soviet troops start departing in stages and will likely completely withdraw by early next month.
Picture: Soviet soldiers at Bornholm.
Source: Nationalmuseet - National Museum of Denmark
On 16 March 1946, the Acheson-Lilienthal Report on the international control of atomic energy is presented to the U.S. State Department.
The question of nuclear control has been at the center of international diplomacy since the war’s end. The devastating power of the atomic bomb has convinced world leaders that nuclear weapons must not become a permanent fixture of warfare, but consensus on how to regulate them has proven elusive. Last November, the U.S., Britain, and Canada issued the Agreed Declaration, calling for international oversight of atomic energy and proposing the establishment of a United Nations Atomic Energy Commission (UNAEC).
However, even within the U.S. government, there is no unified vision of how nuclear energy should be managed. Some policymakers favor strict military control, while others argue for international cooperation to prevent an arms race. President Truman, eager to prevent further tensions with the Soviet Union, ordered a study on the issue. This task fell to a committee chaired by Acheson, which in turn assembled a board of consultants led by David Lilienthal, the former head of the Tennessee Valley Authority.
For weeks, the board of scientists and policymakers—including J. Robert Oppenheimer, has studied nuclear technology, visiting facilities at Oak Ridge and Los Alamos and consulting with top scientists. Their report, delivered today, takes a bold approach. It rejects the idea that nuclear weapons can be controlled solely through traditional methods such as treaties or military inspections, arguing that such measures would be insufficient to prevent nations from secretly developing atomic bombs. Instead, it proposes an international Atomic Development Authority (ADA), which would oversee all uranium and thorium mining, regulate nuclear research, and control the production of fissionable materials. By eliminating national competition in atomic energy, the report argues, the world can prevent nuclear war.
Picture: Gen. Leslie Groves and David Lilienthal discuss the transfer of responsibility for atomic energy research and development and weapons production from the Army to civilian authorities
Source: U.S. National Archives
On 15 March 1946, Prime Minister Clement Attlee announces during an address to the House of Commons that the British government intends to grant India independence.
The situation in India has recently reached a breaking point. The Indian independence movement, long led by the Indian National Congress and the Muslim League, had intensified during and after World War II. Widespread protests, mass demonstrations, and increasing communal tensions between Hindus and Muslims are now pushing the British administration to the limits of control. Last month, a mutiny by Indian sailors in the Royal Indian Navy had sent shockwaves through the British establishment, further demonstrating that the loyalty of Indian forces could no longer be relied upon.
Against this backdrop, Attlee addresses the House of Commons today: "India today is in a state of great tension, and this is indeed a critical moment... The slogans of an earlier day are discarded. The tide of nationalism is running very fast in India and, indeed, all over Asia.˝
"Is it any wonder that today she claims—as a nation of 400 million people that has twice sent her sons to die for freedom—that she should herself have freedom to decide her own destiny?"
Attlee confirms that a Cabinet Mission will be sent to India to negotiate the terms of independence and to assist in forming a constitutional framework for self-government. However, he also states: "I hope that the Indian people may elect to remain within the British Commonwealth. I am certain that she will find great advantages in doing so. But if she does so elect, it must be by her own free will. The British Commonwealth and Empire is not bound together by chains of external compulsion. It is a free association of free peoples. If, on the other hand, she elects for independence, in our view she has a right to do so."
"Whatever the difficulties, whatever the divisions may be, there is this underlying demand among all the Indian peoples. We must be conscious that the British have done a great work in India. But those difficulties can only be overcome by Indians."
Picture: Attlee opening the Palestine conference in London, 19 Sep 1946
Source: Getty Images
On 14 March 1946, U.S. military authorities execute Alfons Klein, the former administrator of the Hadamar euthanasia center.
Aktion T4 targeted those with physical and intellectual disabilities, mental illnesses, and other conditions that the Nazi regime saw as a burden on the state.
Hadamar, a psychiatric hospital in western Germany, was converted into a killing center in early 1941. From January to August of that year, around 10,000 people were gassed in a specially constructed chamber disguised as a shower room. When public outcry, including from Catholic leaders, led to the official suspension of gassings later that year, Hadamar continued its killing operations by other means. Patients were deliberately starved, denied medical care, or injected with lethal doses of morphine and other drugs. By the war’s end, at least 15,000 people had been murdered at Hadamar, including German patients, forced laborers from occupied territories, and children.
Alfons Klein, a minor Nazi Party member and trained administrator, was appointed head of Hadamar in 1942. While doctors and nurses carried out the killings, Klein oversaw the hospital’s daily operations. Under his administration, Hadamar became a factory of death, with mass graves filled with victims dumped unceremoniously into pits.
Following Germany’s surrender, American forces discovered the extent of Hadamar’s crimes and immediately launched an investigation. Klein, along with six others—including doctors and nurses—was arrested and put on trial last October in what became the first war crimes tribunal held in the U.S. occupation zone.
The evidence was overwhelming. Witnesses testified to the horrific conditions at Hadamar, while records meticulously documented the administration’s role in processing and executing the killings. Klein attempted to shift blame onto the medical personnel, claiming he was merely an administrator, but he was sentenced to death, alongside chief physician Adolf Wahlmann and nurse Heinrich Ruoff.
This morning, Klein is hanged at the U.S. Army prison in Bruchsal.
Picture: Irmgard Huber, the former chief nurse. Pictured on the right is Alfons Klein.
Source: U.S. National Archives
On 13 March 1946, British Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin submits a memorandum to the Cabinet, arguing that Britain must maintain its strategic hold over the Mediterranean to resist both Soviet expansionism and American economic dominance.
The post-war world is rapidly dividing into spheres of influence, a reality solidified during negotiations between the Allies in the final years of the conflict. However, as 1946 unfolds, Britain’s position is precarious. Its empire is strained, its economy weakened, and its global supremacy challenged by both Washington and Moscow.
Bevin’s memorandum directly challenges suggestions that Britain could afford to withdraw from the Mediterranean and still maintain its global influence. He warns that without a strong British presence, the entire region—from Gibraltar to the Suez Canal—would become a battleground for competing superpowers.
"If we move out of the Mediterranean, Russia will move in, and the Mediterranean countries, from the point of view of commerce and trade, economy and democracy, will be finished."
He sees Italy, Greece, and Yugoslavia as particularly vulnerable. Italy, despite its Fascist past, could be secured within the Western bloc, while Yugoslavia remains under Soviet control but, as a Mediterranean nation, might not accept permanent Russian dominance. Greece, where British troops have recently intervened in a civil conflict against Communist insurgents, is deemed essential to Western influence.
Beyond geopolitics, Bevin also frames the struggle as ideological. He views Britain as the last stronghold of “social democracy,” positioned between two extremes.
"It may be said that this now represents our way of life as against the red tooth and claw of American capitalism and the Communist dictatorship of Soviet Russia."
He fears that if Britain retreats, the Mediterranean will become a flashpoint between these two superpowers. He insists that Britain must actively construct a “Western Zone” in Europe, spanning from Scandinavia to France, to counterbalance the Soviet-controlled “Eastern Bloc.”
Picture: Bevin at the Luxembourg Palace in Paris, France in 1946.
Source: Getty Images
On 12 March 1946, Yugoslav authorities capture Dragoljub “Draža” Mihailović, the leader of the Chetnik movement.
While initially a Serbian nationalist resistance force initially committed to fighting Axis occupation in Yugoslavia, as the war progressed, Mihailović’s Chetniks increasingly prioritized fighting the Partisans over resisting Axis forces. While some Chetnik factions continued attacks against the Germans and Italians, others engaged in selective collaboration, particularly in areas where they sought to curb Partisan influence. In territories under Chetnik control, their forces carried out widespread massacres against non-Serb populations, targeting Muslim and Croat civilians in Bosnia and Herzegovina, southern Serbia, and Montenegro.
By late 1943, Mihailović’s movement had lost favor with the Allies, who withdrew their support in favor of Tito’s more effective Partisans. By 1945, the Chetniks under Mihailović`s direct command were driven into retreat deep into the mountains of Bosnia and Serbia.
For nearly a year, Mihailović has remained in hiding, relying on a dwindling network of loyalists to evade capture. However, the Yugoslav secret police, the Department for Protection of the People or OZNA, has been relentless in its pursuit, employing informants, defectors, and captured Chetniks to track him down.
The decisive breakthrough came when Nikola Kalabić, a senior Chetnik commander, was captured by OZNA agents late last year. Whether through coercion or betrayal, Kalabić provided Mihailović’s location.
OZNA agents disguised as Chetniks, together with Kalabić, traveled several times to the area near Višegrad, Bosnia, and Herzegovina, in the past couple of months to attempt a meeting with Mihailović, finally succeeding yesterday after Mihailović asked for help in crossing into Serbia. The `Kalabić Group,` consisting of OZNA agents and Mihailović`s group, then set off through the forests.
Today, the OZNA agents launch their operation while the groups rests on Mihailović`s request and, after a short skirmish with Mihailović`s companions, capture him.
Picture: Arrested Draža Mihailović with OZNA officers, March 1946
Source: Archive of Serbia
On 11 March 1946, British military authorities track down and arrest Rudolf Höss, the former commandant of Auschwitz.
A longtime Nazi, Höss had been a member of the SS since 1934, rising through the ranks of Heinrich Himmler’s concentration camp system. In May 1940, he was appointed the first commandant of Auschwitz, overseeing its expansion into the central site of the Nazi "Final Solution," where over a million people—primarily Jews—were murdered in gas chambers, through forced labor, and by starvation. Höss personally refined methods of mass execution, introducing Zyklon B as the primary killing agent.
As the Third Reich collapsed, Höss fled Auschwitz ahead of the advancing Soviet forces. He went into hiding under the false identity of Franz Lang, a Kriegsmarine sailor. With forged papers, he avoided immediate capture and found refuge working as a farmhand at the Gut Trapp farm near Flensburg, Germany. The Allies, aware of his role in the Holocaust, began an extensive manhunt.
The breakthrough came recently when British intelligence, following a trail of intercepted mail, traced Höss’s family to the town of Heide. His wife, fearing for her children`s safety, inadvertently revealed that he was hiding at the farm.
This evening, British troops, led by Captain Hanns Alexander, arrive at the farmhouse. The arrest is swift and brutal. Knowing that many high-ranking Nazis carried cyanide capsules to avoid capture, Alexander and his men storm the farmhouse. Höss, still insisting he was Franz Lang, is immediately subdued at gunpoint before he can reach the capsule. A medical officer examines him, confirming his identity through his blood group tattoo—though Höss has clearly attempted to alter it. As he continues to deny who he is, Alexander demands his wedding ring. Inside are the initials of Höss and his wife, along with their wedding date.
Höss is then stripped naked, loaded into a truck, and transported to Heide, where he quickly confesses under interrogation, giving chillingly detailed statements about the Auschwitz killing operations.
Picture: Höss (centre) in prison after his arrest with Capt Cross (right) and guard Cpl John Bowman
Source: Yad Vashem
On 10 March 1946, the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church is forcibly severed from the Vatican and absorbed into the Russian Orthodox Church through the Soviet-orchestrated Lviv "Pseudo-Council."
For centuries, the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church (UGCC) has maintained its unique position as an Eastern Catholic Church in communion with the Vatican while preserving Byzantine liturgical traditions. This identity, established through the Union of Brest in 1596, had endured under Polish rule, Austrian governance, and even the turmoil of the 20th century. However, with the Soviet reoccupation of Western Ukraine in 1944, Stalin’s regime saw the UGCC as an obstacle to Sovietization. The Church’s deep connections to Ukrainian national identity and its ties to Rome made it a prime target for suppression.
Early last year, Soviet authorities initiated a crackdown. On 11 April, the NKVD arrested Metropolitan Josyf Slipyj along with all UGCC bishops in Ukraine, stripping the Church of its leadership. As the Vatican was denounced as an imperialist force hostile to the Soviet Union, the regime installed a pro-Soviet "Initiative Group" of priests tasked with dissolving the UGCC’s ties to Rome and merging it with the Russian Orthodox Church.
Starting two days ago, a council was convened at St. George’s Cathedral in Lviv. Controlled entirely by Soviet authorities, it consists of clerics hand-picked by the regime, none of whom have the canonical authority to make binding decisions for the Church. With the NKVD ensuring compliance, the assembly declares the annulment of the Union of Brest, proclaims the UGCC’s "voluntary reunification" with the Russian Orthodox Church, and officially places all UGCC property under Russian Orthodox control.
This move is met today with immediate resistance from both the Vatican and the Ukrainian faithful. The Pope rejects the legitimacy of the council, denouncing it as coerced and uncanonical. Meanwhile, many Ukrainian Greek Catholics refuse to accept Soviet dictates, and will likely move their faith underground.
Picture: Members of the so-called "initiative group". Moscow, 1946
Source: UGCC Archives
On 9 March 1946, reactions to Winston Churchill’s ‘Iron Curtain’ speech continue to emerge across the world, sparking debate, criticism, and support.
Four days after Churchill delivered his address at Westminster College in Fulton, Missouri, which we covered in our 5 March post, the political and media response has been swift and divided. In his speech, Churchill warned of an "iron curtain" descending across Europe and called for a firm Anglo-American alliance to counter Soviet influence.
In the U.S., reactions have been mixed. Many conservatives and anti-Communist voices praise Churchill’s speech as a necessary warning against Soviet expansion. The New York Times acknowledges the growing divide between East and West, emphasizing that Churchill has merely articulated a reality that is already unfolding. President Truman has distanced himself from the speech, but clarified that he agrees with its key points but does not endorse its confrontational tone.
In Britain, Churchill’s remarks have triggered a domestic political debate. The ruling Labour government under Prime Minister Clement Attlee is cautious, wary of being drawn into an aggressive anti-Soviet posture. The Daily Mail, for one, supports Churchill’s call for strengthened Anglo-American ties.
Moscow’s reaction has been predictably harsh. The Soviet press denounced Churchill’s speech as warmongering, framing it as an attempt to form a Western bloc against the USSR. Pravda and other state-controlled media condemn his words as an attack on Soviet contributions to the war and an effort to stir anti-Communist sentiment. Stalin himself has not responded yet, however.
Public opinion is also divided. Early Gallup polling suggests that many Americans sympathize with Churchill’s warnings but remain wary of direct confrontation with the Soviet Union. Meanwhile, European newspapers reflect a spectrum of views—from outright endorsement of Churchill’s stance to concerns that he is inflaming geopolitical tensions.
As the debate unfolds, one thing is clear: Churchill’s speech has crystallized the ideological divide between East and West.
Picture: Churchill’s Westminster College audience, March 5, 1946
Source: AP
On 8 March 1946, the Bell 47 becomes the first helicopter certified for civilian use.
The road to practical helicopter flight has been long and complex. The concept of vertical lift dates back centuries, with early designs such as Leonardo da Vinci’s 15th-century "aerial screw" providing theoretical insight into rotary-wing aircraft. However, it was not until the early 20th century that engineers made real progress in developing functional helicopters. While autogyros—early rotorcraft with limited vertical capabilities—gained some traction in the 1920s and 1930s, true helicopters capable of controlled hover and vertical takeoff remained elusive.
The breakthrough came in 1939 when Igor Sikorsky’s VS-300 achieved sustained, controlled flight. Sikorsky’s design led to the R-4, the first mass-produced helicopter, which saw limited military use during the war. Meanwhile, Germany developed its own rotorcraft, including the Flettner Fl 282, which saw limited use in naval operations. Despite these advancements, helicopters have remained a novelty, as their high costs and technical limitations prevent widespread adoption.
Among those pushing helicopter development further was Arthur M. Young, an independent inventor who joined Bell Aircraft Corporation in 1941. His work led to the Bell Model 30, an experimental prototype that laid the foundation for the Bell 47. Featuring a simple yet effective design, the Bell 47 incorporates a welded-tube tail boom, skid landing gear, and a wide field-of-view bubble canopy. Its first successful flight took place three months ago, on 8 December 1945, demonstrating stability and control superior to earlier designs.
Following extensive testing, the Bell 47 receives the U.S. Civil Aeronautics Administration (CAA) certification today, making it the first helicopter cleared for civilian use.
The Bell 47’s certification opens the door for commercial operations in agriculture, medical rescue, news reporting, law enforcement, and aerial surveying.
Picture: Floyd Carlson, chief Test Pilot for the Bell, hovers the world’s first civil-certified helicopter, NC1H, Serial Number One.
Source: Niagara Aerospace Museum
On 7 March 1946, the U.S. Navy evacuates the residents of Bikini Atoll, relocating them to make way for nuclear weapons testing in the Pacific.
The decision to remove the Bikinians is the culmination of months of planning by U.S. military and scientific authorities as they seek a remote site to continue nuclear testing after the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In the months following Japan’s surrender, U.S. officials began surveying potential locations, aiming for a site that was distant from major population centers, provided a controlled test environment, and allowed for naval and atmospheric detonations.
By late 1945, Bikini Atoll—one of 29 atolls in the Marshall Islands—had been identified as an ideal site. The atoll’s large lagoon, deep waters, and relative isolation made it particularly suitable for planned nuclear experiments.
In January 1946, U.S. Navy Commodore Ben Wyatt arrived on Bikini and informed the island’s 167 residents of the American plan. Framing the request as a sacrifice "for the good of mankind and to end all world wars," Wyatt sought the cooperation of the islanders, presenting the evacuation as a temporary relocation. The Bikinians, led by their chief, Juda, agreed, believing they would eventually return to their homeland.
Today, the evacuation begins. The islanders, carrying only what they can take by hand, board U.S. Navy ships bound for Rongerik Atoll, 201 km (125 mi) east of Bikini. Rongerik is uninhabited, significantly smaller, and lacks the resources necessary to sustain them long-term. However, the Bikinians have been assured by U.S. officials that their relocation is temporary and that they will be well provided for.
With the atoll now cleared of its native population, preparations for nuclear testing will commence in the coming weeks. The U.S. military has designated the series of tests as Operation Crossroads, intending to study the effects of nuclear explosions on naval vessels, structures, and the environment. The first test, codenamed Able, is scheduled for July, with a second, Baker, to follow.
Picture: Residents of Bikini Atoll board a U.S. Navy LCM (Landing craft mechanized)
Source: U.S. Navy
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
