On 8 May 1946, Soviet Marshal of Aviation Alexander Novikov, the former commander of the Soviet Air Forces and a key architect of Red Army air power during World War II, signs a forced confession extracted under torture by the NKVD—marking the downfall of one of the USSR’s most decorated wartime leaders.
Novikov’s achievements during the war were considerable. Appointed Commander-in-Chief of the Soviet Air Forces in 1942, he led a comprehensive reorganisation of Soviet aviation, strengthening coordination with ground forces, modernising tactics, and improving aircraft design and procurement. Under his command, the Red Air Force played decisive roles in the Battle of Stalingrad, the Kursk counteroffensive, and the final push into Berlin. He was twice awarded the title Hero of the Soviet Union and promoted to Marshal of Aviation for his contributions.
But Novikov’s close association with Marshal Georgy Zhukov—by then falling out of favour with Stalin—would prove politically fatal. After the war, Stalin began to reassert tight control over the military, wary of the independent authority acquired by frontline commanders. As part of a broader purge targeting Zhukov’s circle, Novikov was arrested in April this year.
The official charge: submitting falsified reports concerning the readiness and quality of Soviet long-range reconnaissance aircraft. Authorities claimed that Novikov had exaggerated the capabilities of these aircraft, concealing developmental shortcomings during the war. In truth, these accusations were a political pretext. Novikov’s interrogation at Moscow’s Lefortovo Prison involved brutal physical coercion. After days of torture, today he signs a confession admitting to the fabrication of technical assessments and administrative failures.
The confession is not just a means to neutralise Novikov—it was also used to build a case against Zhukov, implicating him in a supposed conspiracy to undermine the state.
Novikov is stripped of his post and sentenced to five years in a labour camp.
Picture: Marshal Alexander Novikov in 1943
Source: TASS
On 7 May 1946, Polish political advisor Dr Józef Retinger delivers an address at the Royal Institute of International Affairs in London, calling for a new, cooperative European order.
Retinger, co-founder of the Independent League for European Cooperation, presents his vision for Europe at a moment of continental disarray.
His address traces European unity back to the spiritual and intellectual cohesion of the Middle Ages. Yet in the modern age, emigration, imperial overreach, and two catastrophic wars have left Europe disunited, impoverished, and dangerously dependent on outside powers—Germany, Italy, and Austria having been defeated; France weakened; and smaller nations too marginal or aligned with larger blocs to assert meaningful independence.
Rejecting both Nazi centralism and Soviet communism as false unifiers, Retinger outlines a third path: a federal Europe of regional blocs built on voluntary economic cooperation and shared democratic values. He credits the late Polish Prime Minister General Władysław Sikorski as a key influence behind this vision, and recounts their efforts—dating back to the early years of the Second World War—to create intergovernmental collaboration among states like Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, and Romania. These federations, Retinger argues, would bind Europe together without erasing national identities, preventing future imperialism through mutual dependence.
Retinger warns, however, that failure to act may cement the ongoing geopolitical split between East and West. He argues that such a division, rooted in fundamentally incompatible worldviews—collectivist authoritarianism versus individualist democracy—will not bring stability, but rather renewed antagonism with Europe itself as the battleground.
Picture: Delegation from the European Movement after submitting a proposal for a European Assembly to the Study Committee for a European Union established by the five signatory states of the Treaty of Brussels. From left to right: Francis Leenhardt, Étienne de la Vallée Poussin, Duncan Sandys, Robert Bichet, Joseph Retinger, Raoul Dautry and Henri Brugmans.
Source: Historical Archives of the European Union
On 6 May 1946, two former U.S. Marine Corps Code Talkers are denied the right to register to vote at the Shiprock Public School in New Mexico, highlighting the continued disenfranchisement of Native Americans.
Although Native Americans were granted U.S. citizenship under the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, many states, including New Mexico and Arizona, continue to deny Indigenous peoples full voting rights by exploiting legal loopholes that classify reservation residents as being under federal guardianship and thus ineligible to vote. These barriers remain firmly in place even after Native Americans served with distinction during the war, including in some of its most crucial campaigns.
Today’s denial of voting rights to Jimmie King and Howard Nez, follows a disturbing pattern that has been unfolding over recent days. On 3 May, in Apache County, Arizona, James Manuelito, another Navajo veteran, was similarly turned away when he attempted to register. That same afternoon, Army veteran Watson Gibson walked into the McKinley County Clerk’s office in New Mexico to register, only to be denied by County Clerk Eva Sabin. These men, who had once stormed beaches across the Pacific to defend democracy, now find themselves storming county offices at home to demand the very rights they fought to protect.
In each case, local officials cite outdated interpretations of state law to justify their refusals despite the clear legal status of these men as American citizens. The denials underscore the deep-seated resistance to Native enfranchisement across the Southwest and reflect broader nationwide patterns of discrimination that Native veterans must now confront.
Today’s events in Shiprock and McKinley County serve as a sobering reminder that for Native Americans, the fight for equality did not end with the conclusion of World War II—it continues on American soil.
Picture: Two U.S. Marine Navajo "code talkers" send a radio signal during the battle of Bougainville in 1943
Source: Getty Images
On 5 May 1946, French voters reject the draft constitution proposed by the Constituent Assembly.
As covered in our 19 April post, the draft constitution was approved by the Constituent Assembly after months of negotiation. It proposes abolishing the Senate and the Chamber of Deputies in favour of a single National Assembly, elected by universal suffrage and holding supreme legislative power. The President of the Republic would serve a largely ceremonial role, appointed by the Assembly, while executive authority would rest primarily with the Council of Ministers, dependent on parliamentary support. The draft also expands social rights, enshrining guarantees such as the right to work and union freedom.
However, criticism mounted quickly. Opponents—ranging from General Charles de Gaulle to moderates within the Popular Republican Movement (MRP) and the Republican Party of Liberty—argue that concentrating power in a single Assembly would lead to political instability, weak governments, and endless party manoeuvring. Memories of the Third Republic’s parliamentary fragility are still fresh, and many voters associate strong legislative dominance with national weakness and division. Others object to the diminished role of the presidency and the removal of the Senate as a balancing institution.
Today’s referendum results are decisive. About 53% of voters reject the draft constitution, with roughly 10,584,000 votes against and 9,454,000 in favour. Voter turnout is robust, reflecting the seriousness with which the French public views the task of rebuilding national institutions after the Vichy regime’s collapse.
The rejection means that the political process must start anew. In accordance with prior agreements, a new National Constituent Assembly will be elected to draft another version of the constitution. While leftist parties—the French Communist Party and the Socialist SFIO—had championed the rejected draft, the result signals a demand from the electorate for a more balanced system.
The outcome today adds further instability to France’s ongoing political transition.
Picture: French Women Voting During The Referendum On The Constitution Project
Source: Getty Images
On 4 May 1946, the Trieste Sub-Office of the 428th Counter Intelligence Corps (CIC) Detachment mistakenly arrests an Italian soldier.
As discussed in yesterday`s post on the Council of Foreign Ministers in Paris, the status of Trieste remains a major international flashpoint, with Italy, Yugoslavia, and the Allied powers debating its fate. The Free Territory of Trieste, established under the Allied peace treaty with Italy, is divided into Zone A, administered by British and U.S. troops, and Zone B, controlled by Yugoslav forces. In this charged atmosphere, the 428th CIC Detachment is responsible for counterintelligence operations in Zone A, supporting the 351st Infantry Regiment.
On today’s date, CIC Agent Arthur Henning arrests Lieutenant Alfredo Fabrici, a former member of Italy’s specialist mountain troops, the Alpini. Believing Fabrici to be associated with the remnants of the National Republic Army and to have collaborated with the Nazi SS, Henning detains him in central Trieste. Fabrici, who had returned after the war to live with his father, an official at the Monfalcone shipyards, quickly becomes the centre of a major uproar.
Shortly after the arrest, crowds of Italians, Yugoslavs, and Austrians—partisans and communists among them—surround the CIC office, demanding Fabrici’s release.
During interrogation, Fabrici explains that he was conscripted into the SS under threat of deportation to a concentration camp, and that during his service he secretly aided anti-Fascist partisans. Fabrici smuggled weapons and documents to resistance groups and even persuaded the infamous SS General Odilo Globocnik to surrender to partisans in Trieste. Wanted by the Nazis for his actions, Fabrici had fled into hiding near Tarvisio as the war ended.
With no evidence of voluntary collaboration with the Nazis, Agent Henning releases Fabrici.
Today’s mistaken arrest underscores the tangled political environment in Trieste, where lines between friend and foe are blurred by years of war, occupation, and survival.
Picture: A CIC checkpoint near Colle Salvetti, Italy. 1944
Source: DVIDS
On 3 May 1946, the Council of Foreign Ministers, meeting in Paris, turns its attention to the Italo-Yugoslav border and the fate of the contested Julian March, including Trieste.
Following the dissolution of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, Italy annexed large areas of Slovene- and Croat-inhabited territory, including Trieste, Istria, and Dalmatia, under the Treaty of Rapallo (1920). Mussolini`s regime then launched a systematic campaign of Italianisation, which deepened ethnic divisions. During the war, the region was occupied first by Fascist Italy and later by Nazi Germany, with partisans resisting both occupations. When Yugoslav Partisans took Trieste on 1 May 1945 they remained in control of the city for forty days, during which reports of arrests, reprisals, and political murders against Italians surfaced.
Today’s discussions in the Council follow the broader postwar border realignment efforts already underway, as seen in the French memorandum proposing international administration of contested German territories discussed in our 25 April post.
Foreign Ministers James F. Byrnes (USA), Ernest Bevin (UK) favour preserving Italy’s territorial integrity to stabilise its fragile new government and keep it within the Western orbit. The Soviet Union`s Vyacheslav Molotov, conversely, supports Yugoslavia`s claims. France`s Georges Bidault expresses concern about sparking a renewed nationalist backlash, pressing instead for compromise and internationalisation.
At the centre of today’s session is the proposal to establish a Free Territory of Trieste—an autonomous entity under United Nations protection that would serve as a buffer between Italy and Yugoslavia. The Yugoslav delegation, although not a full Council member, continues to lobby forcefully for direct annexation of the Slovene-dominated hinterlands.
Meanwhile, Italian representatives contend that Trieste is historically and culturally Italian. They express outrage at reports of expulsions and political violence carried out during the Yugoslav occupation.
Picture: Graffiti in Trieste voicing support for Tito and encouraging fraternisation between Yugoslav and Italian partisans.
Source: Getty Images
On 2 May 1946, the Douglas Aircraft Company completes a groundbreaking study under Project RAND proposing the design of a man-made satellite capable of orbiting the Earth.
The idea of artificial satellites has deep roots. From the 17th-century laws of orbital motion to the speculative musings of Jules Verne and the conceptual space stations of Konstantin Tsiolkovsky. However, it is only in the 20th century, with advances in rocketry—particularly those developed by German engineers during the war—that the concept begins to acquire technical plausibility.
Today’s study, formally titled Preliminary Design of an Experimental World-Circling Spaceship, is submitted by the Douglas Aircraft Company as part of its early collaboration with Project RAND—a research initiative initially created by the U.S. Army Air Forces in October last year. At this stage, RAND remains a classified think tank operating within Douglas, tasked with long-term military and technological forecasting.
The study envisions a small satellite equipped with scientific instruments, launched into low Earth orbit by a multi-stage rocket. Though the satellite is not yet technically feasible with available propulsion systems, the report argues its development is not only possible but inevitable. It identifies satellite vehicles as having profound implications for both national security and scientific advancement.
Crucially, the Douglas team emphasises that such a spacecraft would “revolutionise” communications, weather forecasting, and global observation. From a military perspective, the ability to observe enemy territory from orbit could become a strategic game-changer. The study also includes technical estimations—proposing a mass of approximately 226 kg (500 lbs), orbital altitude around 482 km (300 mi), and a launch vehicle derived from existing V-2 technology, though scaled for greater payload capacity.
The report concludes that while many challenges remain, a world-circling satellite is no longer a fantasy but a tangible goal for American science and industry.
Picture: The first U.S. test of a captured German V2, 1946.
Source: Getty Images
On 1 May 1946, the British House of Commons begins full deliberations on the National Health Service Bill.
The measure—championed by Labour Minister of Health Aneurin Bevan—marks a decisive break from pre-war models of health provision, such as the National Insurance Act of 1911, which offered limited access to medical services primarily to employed men through contributory insurance. Even the wartime Emergency Medical Service, though extensive, remained fragmented and temporary.
What Bevan proposes is far more ambitious: a unified National Health Service (NHS), centrally administered and available to all citizens, free at the point of use. It will nationalise hospitals, bring general practitioners, specialists, and public health services under the umbrella of the Ministry of Health, and make access to care universal—regardless of income, employment, or status.
This afternoon, Members of Parliament engage in earnest debate over the Second Reading of the Bill. Bevan`s proposal envisions over 2,700 hospitals in England and Wales alone brought under state control.
While the Labour majority largely supports the Bill, opposition arises from both Conservative MPs and within the medical profession. Critics warn of excessive centralisation and a breakdown in doctor-patient relationships. Some fear the erosion of voluntary and charity hospitals, while others demand assurances that general practitioners will retain autonomy over their practices.
Outside Westminster, public sentiment is divided. War-weary Britons, many of whom received care through wartime services for the first time, show growing support for a national system. Yet among professional circles—particularly the British Medical Association—resistance is mounting.
Still, the momentum behind the Bill is unmistakable. The Beveridge Report of 1942 had already laid the intellectual groundwork by identifying healthcare as one of the “five giants” to be defeated in building a post-war welfare state. Now, in the economic and social rubble of the war, the government seems prepared to act decisively.
Picture: Bevan at a London County Council hospitals exhibition, January 21st 1946.
Source: Getty Images
On 30 April 1946, the United States Congress passes the Bell Trade Act, fundamentally redefining economic relations with the Philippines.
The Act—officially titled the Philippine Trade Act of 1946—emerges as a way to secure American strategic and economic interests in the region following Japan’s defeat. Though the Philippines is slated to gain formal independence on 4 July 1946, today’s legislation ensures that U.S. influence will remain deeply entrenched in the archipelago’s economic framework.
At the heart of the Act is the controversial “parity rights” clause, which requires a constitutional amendment in the Philippines to grant American citizens and corporations equal access to the country’s natural resources and public utilities—privileges previously reserved for Filipinos under Article XII of the 1935 Constitution. President Manuel Roxas, the newly elected head of the Philippine Commonwealth, has already signalled his support, arguing that foreign capital is essential for national recovery. But critics at home and abroad are already calling the legislation a form of economic coercion.
The legislation passed today authorises a sweeping economic package: $620 million in U.S. aid through the Philippine Rehabilitation Act, but only on the condition that the parity provision is accepted. This includes $120 million for rebuilding infrastructure, $100 million in surplus U.S. military goods, and $400 million in property compensation for war damage. Yet no payments beyond $500 per claimant are to be made unless the Philippine legislature adopts the required constitutional changes.
The Bell Trade Act also grants duty-free access for Philippine goods entering the U.S. until 1954, followed by a phased introduction of tariffs until 1974. Conversely, U.S. goods will enjoy similar privileges in the Philippines, enshrining a free-trade relationship heavily tilted in America’s favour. The Act limits Philippine fiscal autonomy by fixing the peso-dollar exchange rate and restricting capital controls, effectively locking the new republic into a dependent economic role.
Picture: U.S. Capitol At Washington, Jan 1946
Source: Getty Images
On 29 April 1946, the International Military Tribunal for the Far East convenes in Tokyo for the first time, formally indicting 28 of Japan’s top wartime leaders on charges of crimes against peace, war crimes, and crimes against humanity.
Modelled after the Nuremberg Trials in Europe, the Tribunal was established by the proclamation of General Douglas MacArthur in January under the authority of the Allied Powers. The Charter of the Tribunal was issued on 19 January and outlined the legal framework for trying individuals rather than states, bringing Japanese leaders to account for aggressive war, atrocities, and the systematic abuse of civilians and prisoners. Investigators from eleven Allied nations have spent months compiling evidence to build cases against Japan’s wartime elite.
The indictments, handed down today, accuse the defendants of conspiring to wage wars of aggression across the Asia-Pacific region between 1928 and 1945, violating international law, and overseeing atrocities including the Nanjing Massacre, the abuse of Allied POWs, and the forced labour of civilians. The charges span three classes of crimes: Class A (crimes against peace), Class B (conventional war crimes), and Class C (crimes against humanity).
Among the most prominent figures in the dock are former Prime Minister Hideki Tojo, widely seen as the face of Japan’s militarist regime, and Foreign Minister Shigenori Tōgō, who signed the Tripartite Pact with Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. Also indicted are General Iwane Matsui, accused of command responsibility in the Nanjing Massacre; Kōki Hirota; and Kenryō Satō.
The courtroom itself—set up in the former War Ministry building in Ichigaya, Tokyo—is heavily fortified, with proceedings broadcast and recorded under the watch of an international bench. Eleven judges from the Allied powers preside, including Sir William Webb of Australia, who serves as President.
On this first day, the court reads out the full 55-count indictment over several hours, naming the accused and outlining the scope of their alleged crimes.
Picture: International Military Tribunal in Tokyo, Japan in May 1946
Source: Getty Images
On 28 April 1946, violent riots erupt around the Landsberg Displaced Persons camp after a rumour spreads that two Jewish guards have been killed.
The day already carries symbolic weight. In the town of Landsberg am Lech, local Germans are participating in the first democratic municipal elections since Hitler’s rise to power. For Jewish residents in the nearby Landsberg DP camp, it marks the one-year anniversary of the liberation of several Kaufering subcamps of Dachau, where many of them had been imprisoned.
This morning, a rumour spreads through the camp: two young Jewish men, assigned as guards to a villa in the nearby town of Dießen, have gone missing. As the story circulates, details grow more ominous—by afternoon, many camp residents believe the two men have been killed. Fueled by grief, fear, and anger, and absent any confirmation from authorities, groups of Jewish DPs begin forming vigilante bands, determined to exact revenge.
By evening, hundreds of male and female camp residents pour into the surrounding streets. German civilians are stopped and interrogated. Some are beaten, robbed, and, according to multiple testimonies, photographed while bloodied and humiliated. One woman recalls that when her husband pleaded for mercy, the assailants claimed, “Six Jews were killed last night, and revenge must be taken.” Vehicles passing near the camp are halted and damaged; drivers are pulled from their cars and assaulted. Witnesses describe the attackers as wielding clubs, iron hooks, and, in some cases, knives. At least twenty Germans are hospitalised, seven seriously wounded, and one left in critical condition.
The attackers include members of the camp police—identified by their capes and Star of David insignia—raising alarm over the role of self-defence forces within the DP system.
The violence subsides by nightfall, but the fallout will continue for months. Only later will it emerge that the two missing Jewish guards had simply abandoned their post early that morning and taken a train to Munich without authorisation. No attack had occurred.
Picture: Zionist demonstration in the DP camp in Landsberg, Nov 1947
Source: Yad Vashem Photo Archives 1486/612
On 27 April 1946, the McDonnell XHJH Whirlaway takes to the skies for its maiden flight, becoming the largest helicopter yet flown in the United States and the first American twin-rotor helicopter ever to lift off.
Developed for the U.S. Navy, the Whirlaway—formally designated the XHJH-1—emerges from a wartime drive to expand rotary-wing aviation beyond small, single-rotor designs. At a time when helicopters remain experimental and largely confined to niche roles, the Whirlaway represents a bold step into heavy-lift capability and multi-passenger transport. Unlike conventional helicopters such as the Bell Model 47, which received FAA civilian certification just weeks ago, which we covered in our 8 March post, McDonnell`s new machine explores a very different engineering path: the transverse-rotor system.
The XHJH Whirlaway is built around two horizontally opposed, intermeshing rotors mounted at the ends of short wing-like outriggers. This transverse-rotor layout eliminates the need for a tail rotor, which in traditional designs counters torque produced by the main rotor. By using two counter-rotating rotors on either side of the fuselage, the Whirlaway inherently balances torque while also improving lateral stability. The aircraft is powered by two 450-horsepower Pratt & Whitney R-985 Wasp Junior radial engines—each driving one of the rotors—allowing it to lift heavier loads than any other American helicopter to date.
The Whirlaway’s fuselage is large and boxy, designed to carry up to 10 passengers or bulky cargo. Its rear loading ramp and internal layout suggest the Navy’s interest in using it for air-sea rescue, medical evacuation, and cargo transport—tasks unmanageable with the compact Bell 47 or Sikorsky R-4. In testing, the XHJH-1 demonstrates promising handling characteristics and robust lift performance, though its size and mechanical complexity raise concerns about maintenance and operational costs.
Nevertheless, today, test pilot Charles R. Wood showcases the Whirlaway`s flight capabilities.
Picture: The world’s first twin-engine helicopter, the XHJD-1, also was the largest.
Source: U.S. Naval Institute Photo Archive
On 26 April 1946, Chinese Communist forces capture the strategically vital city of Changchun in Manchuria.
Soviet forces occupied Manchuria until just a few days ago, formally handing over control to the KMT as stipulated by agreements with the Allies. However, the CCP has moved swiftly and established a strong military presence in the northern and central parts of the region. These tensions intensified rapidly as both sides accused the other of violating the fragile truce mediated by American envoy General George Marshall earlier this year.
KMT forces, led by Lieutenant General Cheng Tung-kuo, initially made significant gains, capturing Mukden by mid-March. Following this success, KMT commanders grew confident, planning an aggressive push northward toward Changchun, aiming to assert full control over Manchuria. The KMT had concentrated two of their strongest army corps—the elite American-trained New First Army and the Seventy-First Army—in a rapid advance towards Changchun, intending to secure the city immediately after the scheduled Soviet withdrawal on 15 April.
However, General Lin Biao, commanding CCP forces in Manchuria, anticipated this move and planned an effective response. Capitalising on the widespread discontent towards KMT administration and deploying experienced troops, the CCP launched aggressive pre-emptive attacks. Fighting intensified around Changchun about two weeks ago, with CCP troops, including Lin Biao’s veteran divisions, swiftly moving into the suburbs and cutting off key supply and communication routes into the city.
From 18 April onwards, fierce battles erupted around Changchun, as CCP forces began a comprehensive siege. By 22 April, KMT units inside Changchun faced severe shortages of food, ammunition, and reinforcements.
This morning, Lin Biao orders a coordinated assault involving his most seasoned units, breaking through KMT defensive positions and forcing the defenders into a chaotic retreat. By evening, Changchun falls decisively to CCP forces, delivering a critical blow to Nationalist ambitions in Manchuria.
Picture: Members of the Communist New Fourth Army stand at attention
Source: Getty Images
On 25 April 1946, France presents a memorandum at the Council of Foreign Ministers in Paris proposing the separation and international control of key German regions—the Ruhr, Rhineland, and Saar.
The Council, meeting in Paris this month, is addressing critical issues left unresolved after Germany`s surrender.
In its detailed memorandum submitted today, France insists that Germany must be decisively deprived of the war-making capabilities concentrated in the Rhine-Westphalian region. Rather than annex these areas outright, France advocates a system of political and economic separation and international oversight.
For the Ruhr, home to Germany`s coal mines and heavy industry and populated by approximately five million inhabitants, France proposes complete internationalisation. The region would become an independent political entity, governed under international supervision. Crucially, the Ruhr’s major industrial assets would be expropriated, operated as international public utilities, and a customs barrier established to prevent Germany from utilising these resources for future armament.
Regarding the Rhineland, France suggests its political and economic separation from Germany, advocating for permanent military occupation by Allied troops. France would take primary responsibility southward up to Cologne, with Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and potentially the United Kingdom managing northern sectors. The Rhineland states would have significant autonomy.
France’s demands for the Saar region go further. The Saar’s mines, previously awarded to France by the Treaty of Versailles, would again become French state property, and the territory would operate within French customs and monetary systems.
Finally, France reiterates opposition to any immediate centralisation within Germany, emphasising decentralisation as agreed upon at Potsdam. Local German governments within each Allied occupation zone should form the basis of Germany’s future political structure, preventing the resurgence of centralised Prussian dominance.
Picture: The Paris Conference of Foreign Ministers opens at the Luxembourg Palace in Paris, France, 25th April 1946
Source: Getty Images
On 24 April 1946, the Soviet Union successfully conducts the first test flights of its indigenous jet fighters—the MiG-9 and Yak-15.
The Soviet drive for jet fighters began during the final months of the war. Captured German jet technology, including the BMW 003 and Jumo 004 engines, became a critical resource. In April 1945, the Soviet government tasked aero-engine factories in Kazan and Ufa with producing these engines under the designations RD-20 (BMW 003) and RD-10 (Jumo 004). Simultaneously, Soviet design bureaus received strict orders from Stalin to rapidly develop jet-powered aircraft.
Two prominent Soviet aircraft designers, Artyom Mikoyan and Aleksandr Yakovlev, received orders to produce single-seat jet fighters. Mikoyan’s bureau (OKB-155) pursued a twin-engine layout, resulting in the MiG-9. Yakovlev’s OKB opted for a simpler approach by converting their proven piston-engine Yak-3 fighter into a jet-powered model—the Yak-15.
The MiG-9, initially designated as the I-300, featured two RD-20 turbojets housed in the fuselage, exhausting beneath the tail boom. This unusual configuration aimed to minimise drag and optimise thrust but posed significant technical challenges, including severe fuselage heating and structural vibrations from jet exhaust gases. Engineers overcame these issues using heat-resistant shields initially inspired by aircraft industry practices from captured German jet prototypes.
Meanwhile, Yakovlev’s Yak-15 retained much of the Yak-3’s airframe, removing the piston engine and installing a single RD-10 turbojet under the forward fuselage, creating a distinctive "pod-and-boom" appearance. This simpler conversion allowed quicker development and lower risk, though performance was somewhat limited by its reliance on an older piston-airframe structure.
After months of intense preparation, this morning, test pilot Aleksey Grinchik takes the MiG-9 into the air first, circling the airfield twice and landing safely after six minutes. Later that same day, pilot Mikhail Ivanov successfully completes the maiden flight of the Yak-15.
Picture: Grinchik preparing to take off in the first MiG-9 prototype.
Source: Russian Aviation Research Trust
On 23 April 1946, Enrico Piaggio files a patent for the Vespa scooter, an innovative two-wheeled vehicle intended to aid Italy`s urgent post-war recovery.
Piaggio & Co., once prominent producers of aircraft parts and military equipment, suffered extensive destruction from Allied bombing campaigns during the recent war. As Italy grapples with the daunting task of reconstruction, Enrico Piaggio turns his company`s considerable aeronautical experience towards creating practical civilian transport, addressing the desperate need for affordable and reliable mobility.
Earlier this year, Piaggio collaborated with renowned aeronautical engineer Corradino D’Ascanio to devise a new scooter prototype. Drawing heavily from aviation technology—and reusing surplus aircraft parts—D’Ascanio created a distinctive vehicle unlike conventional motorcycles. His initial prototype, known as the MP5 "Paperino," proved cumbersome, prompting rapid redesign into the sleeker MP6, which now receives its official patent application.
The Vespa (Italian for "wasp," due to its buzzing engine sound and slender waist-like design) incorporates numerous aviation-inspired innovations, including a stress-bearing steel chassis reminiscent of airplane fuselages, a streamlined enclosed engine that shields the rider from oil and dirt, and unique front suspension resembling aircraft landing gear. Even some wheel and suspension components have been directly adapted from spare airplane parts, showcasing Piaggio`s resourcefulness in the face of material shortages.
The scooter`s compact size, simplicity of operation, and economical fuel consumption make it particularly suited to the post-war environment of rationing, damaged roads, and limited public transport. Piaggio hopes the Vespa will enable thousands of Italians to return swiftly and safely to factories, offices, and fields, significantly contributing to Italy’s economic revival.
Picture: Luigi Di Gennaro (holding the handlebars) - dealer Piaggio and famous motorcycle racer, and Piaggio mechanic Guido Galbani (on the left). (Acquasanta Golf Club, Rome, March 29, 1946
Source: Piaggio Historical Archives
On 22 April 1946, General George C. Marshall publicly criticises the Chinese Communist Party for violating peace agreements, deepening mistrust, and pushing China closer to civil war.
As we covered in our 10 January post, President Truman appointed General George Marshall as his special envoy to broker peace between the rival factions. Marshall’s mission initially appeared promising; negotiations in Chungking earlier this year led to a ceasefire agreement and the formation of joint "peace teams" intended to enforce a nationwide truce and pave the way towards a unified government.
However, optimism quickly faded. Almost immediately after agreements were finalised, skirmishes erupted, particularly in North China and Manchuria. General Marshall, speaking to journalists at a press conference in Tokyo yesterday, openly expressed his disappointment with the Chinese Communist Party. Marshall stated unequivocally that the Communists had violated "elementary terms of the truce" by attacking government-controlled troop trains and surrounding and assaulting towns recently evacuated by Soviet troops.
He accused the CCP of demonstrating false eagerness during earlier negotiations, noting they had initially appeared committed to peace only to abandon agreements when conditions seemed favourable for military advantage. Marshall described Communist accusations against the Kuomintang—branding Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek a ruthless dictator and criticising the Nationalist-led administration as a "one-party Cabinet"—as a deliberate "campaign of mudslinging and calumny," aimed at undermining government legitimacy.
The General further warned that the CCP appeared to be rushing to establish spheres of influence in strategically vital territories, driven by unfounded fears that the central government was plotting their extermination. "China," he remarked, "was the victor against Japan, but materially and economically she is utterly unbalanced. Above all, China needs good leadership and the cooperation of every single Chinese."
Picture: Portrait of General Chang Chun, General George C. Marshall, General Chou En-lai, and Dr. Hsu Mo (L to R).
Source: Getty Images
On 21 April 1946, the Socialist Unity Party of Germany (Sozialistische Einheitspartei Deutschlands, SED) is officially founded in East Berlin.
The formation of the SED results from a forced merger between two historic leftist rivals: the Communist Party of Germany (KPD) and the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD). These two parties had shared deep ideological and strategic divisions since the early 20th century, particularly during the Weimar Republic. While the SPD pursued a parliamentary path toward socialism, the KPD aligned with Soviet-style Marxism-Leninism and openly opposed the SPD, even branding them "social fascists" during the 1930s.
After the Nazi regime outlawed both parties in 1933, many of their leaders were imprisoned, executed, or driven into exile. In the aftermath of Germany`s defeat, both the KPD and SPD were re-established under Soviet license. However, as early as the summer of last year, Soviet authorities and German Communists began quietly pressuring Social Democrats to merge with the KPD in the Soviet zone—a move sold as a necessary unification to prevent a resurgence of fascism and ensure peace.
SPD members were deeply divided over the merger. While some agreed, many feared Communist domination and resisted what they saw as an undemocratic union. In the Western zones of Germany, the SPD remains a separate party, but in the East, the Soviet-backed consolidation effort succeeds. Despite significant internal opposition and reported cases of intimidation, arrests, and suppression of anti-merger Social Democrats, the unification is pushed through.
Today, the SED is born at a formal congress held in the Admiralspalast in Berlin. The party’s charter is read aloud and a joint leadership is elected, with Otto Grotewohl of the SPD and Wilhelm Pieck of the KPD serving as co-chairmen. Their presence is meant to symbolise parity between the two founding parties, though in practice, the former Communists hold dominant control and align the new party closely with Moscow’s interests.
Picture: Walter Ulbricht, Secretary-General of the newly formed party, unveils its official banner.
Source: BPA
On 20 April 1946, the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry releases its final report, recommending the immediate admission of 100,000 Jewish displaced persons into Mandatory Palestine—but stopping short of endorsing the creation of a Jewish state.
Established in November last year, the Committee was created to investigate the plight of European Jews following the Holocaust and determine a viable political path forward for Palestine. President Truman’s letter to Prime Minister Attlee in August 1945 had called for urgent solutions, particularly regarding Jewish immigration, while the British sought to share the political burden of the Palestine question with the U.S.
Comprising six American and six British members, the Committee has since toured DP camps across Europe and visited Palestine, interviewing over a hundred witnesses, including Zionist leaders, Arab representatives, and international experts. Despite divergent ideological leanings among the members, today’s report is presented as a unified recommendation.
The central recommendation—to admit 100,000 European Jewish refugees to Palestine without delay—is a response to the appalling conditions in the DP camps.
However, the report also delivers a major political blow to the Zionist movement by recommending against the establishment of a Jewish state. It instead proposes that Palestine remain a bi-national state under British trusteeship, governed with equal rights and protections for both Jews and Arabs.
It also outlines the need for economic development and the establishment of a legislative council and calls for restrictions on land sales and immigration to be reviewed. The Committee explicitly condemns terrorism and violent resistance from Jewish militants while also warning of growing Arab hostility.
Today’s release immediately sets off heated reactions in both London and Washington. Zionist groups express disappointment over the rejection of a Jewish state, while Arab leaders vehemently oppose the immigration proposal.
Picture: Members of the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry standing next to the Western Wall
Source: Central Zionist Archives (via Harvard University Library)
On 19 April 1946, the French Constituent Assembly votes to adopt a new draft Constitution that would fundamentally reshape the country’s political structure.
Since the Liberation of France in 1944, the country has been governed by the Provisional Government of the French Republic under the leadership of General Charles de Gaulle. However, tensions between de Gaulle and the Constituent Assembly, particularly regarding the scope of executive power, led to his resignation in January this year. De Gaulle’s insistence on a strong presidency clashed with the preferences of the dominant political forces—namely the French Communist Party (PCF), the Socialist SFIO, and the Christian Democratic Popular Republican Movement (MRP)—who supported a parliamentary system with checks on executive authority.
In the months since his departure, the Assembly has worked toward formulating a new constitutional order. The draft Constitution submitted to today’s vote seeks to abolish the Senate and the Chamber of Deputies and replace them with a single legislative body, the National Assembly, whose members would be elected by universal suffrage. This unicameral Assembly would hold supreme legislative authority and be empowered to appoint the President of the Republic, who would serve a largely ceremonial role. The Council of Ministers, led by the President of the Council, would be responsible to the Assembly.
The proposed Constitution also strengthens social rights, including the right to employment, trade union freedom, and access to public services. However, critics argue it concentrates too much power in the hands of the legislature, creating the risk of political instability through weak executive leadership and fragmented parliamentary coalitions.
Today’s vote sees the draft approved by a vote of 309 to 249. With this result, the Constitution now moves to the next step—a national referendum, scheduled for 5 May. The French people will decide whether to ratify the new order or reject it and demand another attempt at framing the Fourth Republic.
Picture: French MP Marcel Cachin (L) reads on November 28, 1946 the resignation letter of Georges Bidault
Source: Getty Images
On 18 April 1946, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) opens its inaugural session at the Peace Palace in The Hague.
The ICJ emerges as the successor to the Permanent Court of International Justice, which functioned under the now-defunct League of Nations. As we covered in our 8 April post, the League of Nations officially ends its final session today, symbolically passing the baton to the UN. Among its final acts, the League transfers its assets, archives, and responsibilities to the UN, ensuring that the legacy of international law continues in this new era.
The ICJ has been designed to adjudicate legal disputes between states and to provide advisory opinions on questions of international law. Its statute, adopted as part of the UN Charter at the San Francisco Conference in last year, provides for a court composed of fifteen judges elected by the UN General Assembly and Security Council.
Today’s inaugural sitting opens with an address by the President of the Court, Judge José Gustavo Guerrero of El Salvador, who served previously as President of the Permanent Court and now leads the ICJ into a new era. Guerrero calls for justice to be “the cornerstone of peace,” and emphasises the Court’s impartiality and independence from the political organs of the United Nations.
The establishment of the ICJ is the culmination of months of legal and diplomatic groundwork. Over recent weeks, judges from across the world have arrived in The Hague and begun coordinating with the UN Legal Department and Dutch officials on court logistics and procedures. Many of them, like Guerrero, have experience in international law and diplomacy, lending the Court both legitimacy and continuity.
The ICJ is to begin its work with several pressing legal questions already submitted for consideration, including territorial disputes and questions of treaty interpretation. Its advisory capacity will also be essential in navigating the complex web of post-war settlements and colonial decolonisation processes now gaining momentum.
Picture: Inaugural session of the International Court of Justice on 18 April 1946
Source: Courtesy of the ICJ
On 17 April 1946, nearly 200,000 demonstrators fill the streets of Tokyo in protest against Prime Minister Kijūrō Shidehara and the conservative holdover government.
The protests erupt less than a week general elections, which we covered in our 10 April post, where Japanese citizens—men and women alike, for the first time—voted in a landmark moment of democratization under the supervision of the U.S. occupation authorities. While the election results have not yet officially ushered in a new government, many citizens are growing frustrated with the lack of immediate change. Shidehara, a former diplomat installed by SCAP, is increasingly viewed as out of step with the public’s demands for economic relief, democratic reforms, and accountability for the wartime regime.
Today`s demonstration begins as a planned rally in Hibiya Park, organized by a coalition of 69 labour and farmer organizations and 45 cultural associations. An estimated 70,000 people gather under red banners with slogans like “Overthrow the Shidehara cabinet—supporter of the rich and enemy of the people!” and “A democratic constitution by the hands of the people!” Among the speakers are Communists, Socialists, and even liberal figures such as Ishibashi Tanzan, who is heckled by sections of the crowd urging him to cut ties with conservative elites.
As the rally spills into the streets, the crowd swells to around 200,000. Protesters march to the Prime Minister’s residence to present a list of demands. A confrontation ensues when police attempt to block their path.
Several officers suffer minor injuries as demonstrators breach the gate. Shots are fired—not into the crowd, but into the air—as a warning. The situation threatens to escalate into full-scale violence before U.S. military police intervene with armored jeeps and mounted machine guns.
Eventually, a delegation led by Communist Party figure Tokuda Kyūichi is allowed into the residence to deliver the movement’s demands, though Prime Minister Shidehara himself refuses to meet them until tomorrow.
Picture: Explaining citizen rights and the new Constitution to a crowd of Japanese
Source: U.S. National Archives
On 16 April 1946, the true scale of the Benxihu Colliery disaster—by far the deadliest mining disaster in world history—is publicly revealed for the first time, confirming that over 1,500 miners perished in a single day in Japanese-occupied northeast China.
The Benxihu (Honkeiko) coal and iron mine is located in Benxi, Liaoning province, an area that fell under Japanese control following the 1931 invasion of Manchuria and the subsequent establishment of the puppet state of Manchukuo. Jointly managed by Japanese and Chinese entities, Benxihu quickly became a key supplier of coal and iron for the Japanese war effort. Under wartime mobilization policies, tens of thousands of Chinese labourers were pressed into service under brutal conditions alongside a small number of Koreans and Japanese supervisors. Many Chinese workers were effectively conscripted or coerced, living under militarized conditions, with reports of food scarcity, forced labour, and the use of violence against those deemed unproductive or rebellious.
On 26 April 1942, a gas explosion tore through the coal shafts of Benxihu, igniting coal dust and releasing lethal quantities of carbon monoxide throughout the tunnels. At the time of the disaster, over 3,000 men were working underground. The Japanese authorities immediately sealed off the mine entrance—reportedly to prevent the spread of the fire but also to stop the escape of miners, effectively condemning hundreds to suffocate inside.
In the immediate aftermath, Japanese officials downplayed the disaster. News of the incident was heavily censored, and the death toll was officially reported as 34. The site was cordoned off, and foreign journalists were barred from visiting. For years, surviving relatives of the victims were denied information about the fate of their loved ones.
Only today, nearly four years later, Soviet investigators confirm the number of `over 1,300` casualties in the disaster. Most of the victims are believed to have died from carbon monoxide poisoning and suffocation. The majority of the dead were Chinese forced labourers.
Picture: Fushun (China), view of open-cut coal mine
Source: American Geographical Society Library
On 15 April 1946, the U.S. military publicly reveals for the first time that it has developed and used night vision scopes during the war.
The concept of night vision had been explored by engineers in both the Axis and Allied powers before and during the Second World War. By 1944, German engineers developed the Zielgerät 1229 “Vampir” scope, a bulky infrared system deployed in minimal numbers late in the war, primarily on the Eastern Front, as well as more powerful systems mounted on tanks.
Parallel to these developments, the U.S., through the Army’s Signal Corps and private industry partners like Bell and Howell, was working on its own version of night-fighting equipment, particularly to aid infantry operating in low-visibility conditions.
The result was the M1 and M3 Infrared Sniperscopes, often nicknamed “snooper scopes” by U.S. troops. These active infrared systems are composed of a specialized rifle-mounted scope with a separate infrared lamp and backpack-mounted battery power supply. The scope itself converts reflected infrared light into a visible image using a cathode ray tube, allowing soldiers to detect targets in complete darkness up to roughly 100-200 metres, depending on the model. While cumbersome and fragile, the technology is nonetheless revolutionary.
The initial model, the T-120, was mounted on the standard M1 carbine. By late 1944, prototypes had been tested in jungle conditions, and by the spring of last year, small numbers were deployed in the Pacific Theatre. They were first used operationally during the Battle of Okinawa, where U.S. Marines employed the scopes to detect and neutralize infiltrating Japanese forces during nighttime operations.
Following the war’s conclusion, the technology remained classified for several months. Today’s announcement includes demonstrations of both the M1 and the improved M2 models, the latter featuring a larger power source and improved detection range.
Picture: Sharpshooter with an M2 carbine sporting the T-120 scope
Source: U.S. Army
On 14 April 1946, members of the Jewish revenge group Nakam carry out an audacious plot to poison thousands of former SS prisoners in Stalag XIII-D, a POW camp in Nuremberg.
In the months following the war, a group of Jewish partisans and Holocaust survivors coalesced around a singular goal: to avenge the six million Jews murdered by the Nazis. Led by Abba Kovner—poet, fighter, and former commander of the Vilna Ghetto resistance—the group calls itself Nakam, “The Avengers.”
Kovner and his inner circle began drafting what they call Plan A—a sweeping, symbolic act of vengeance. They aimed to poison the water supplies of several major German cities, including Munich, Hamburg, and Nuremberg. With technical assistance from sympathetic scientists, they develop a formula that would target only German civilians. However, in December last year, while en route to Palestine to secure further support, Kovner was intercepted by British authorities in Egypt. His suitcase, reportedly filled with poison, was seized.
In the wake of this failure, Plan B emerged. Smaller in scope but deadly in intent, it targets former SS members interned at Stalag XIII-D. Located in the southern part of Nuremberg, the camp is home to thousands of German prisoners, many of whom served in the Waffen-SS. The new plan is coordinated primarily by Joseph Harmatz, Yehuda Maimon, and Eliahu Rosenberg.
Using forged papers and covert contacts, Nakam infiltrated a local bakery contracted to supply bread to the POW camp. Over weeks, they secured access to the production process, obtained arsenic, and methodically mixed it into the glaze of loaves marked for delivery to the SS section of the camp.
This morning, the contaminated loaves—some 3,000—are delivered to Stalag XIII-D. Very quickly, reports emerge of severe illness sweeping the camp.
U.S. military authorities will quickly launch an investigation and quarantine the site. While American officials will report no deaths, Nakam will later claim hundreds, if not more.
Picture: Lt. Robert R, Rogers, left, and Erich Pinkau, of the German criminal police, inspect the bakery and the hiding place of Leipke Distel, a member of Nakam
Source: U.S. Army
On 13 April 1946, Prime Minister Clement Attlee authorises Sir Stafford Cripps, leader of the Cabinet Mission in India, to accept the partition of the colony if negotiations fail to produce a unified solution.
As covered in our 24 and 29 March posts, the Mission is attempting to balance irreconcilable demands: the Indian National Congress seeks a strong central government for a united India, while the All-India Muslim League, led by Muhammad Ali Jinnah, insists on the creation of a separate Muslim homeland—Pakistan.
Officially, the Mission’s objective remains the formation of a single Indian Union. However, after weeks of inconclusive talks, Attlee privately concedes that this may no longer be feasible. In a directive sent today, he instructs Cripps and the Mission that they are now permitted to explore and, if necessary, agree to the partition of British India as a last resort.
The decision marks a significant turning point. Until now, partition had been publicly rejected by British officials, who feared it would spark violence and undermine the goal of a peaceful transfer of power. But with communal tensions escalating and Jinnah warning of civil war if Muslim demands are ignored, the British government begins to re-evaluate its position.
Under the partition proposal now under consideration, British India would be divided into two dominions: a predominantly Hindu India and a Muslim-majority Pakistan. Provinces like Punjab and Bengal—religiously mixed and deeply contested—would likely face their own referenda or internal division. Princely states would be encouraged to accede to one of the two new dominions, though their legal status remains uncertain.
The authorization does not represent a final decision, and the Mission will still present a federal scheme in its formal recommendations. But today’s instruction gives Cripps crucial flexibility as he continues to meet with Congress and Muslim League leaders.
Picture: Cripps negotiating with the leader of the Indian Congress Party, Maulana Azad leading Indian representatives about the country`s independence: The leader of the Indian Congress Party, Maulana Azad
Source: Getty Images
On 12 April 1946, Field Marshal Harold Alexander is sworn in as the 17th Governor General of Canada, becoming the first professional soldier to hold the post.
The Governor General of Canada serves as the King’s representative, performing constitutional and ceremonial duties on behalf of the monarch. While the position was once a direct extension of British imperial rule, it has evolved considerably. Since the 1931 Statute of Westminster, and especially during and after the Second World War, the Governor General acts not as a representative of the British government but of the Crown in right of Canada—a symbol of national unity, who functions on the advice of the Canadian prime minister and parliament.
Harold Alexander is not a politician by training but a soldier with a reputation for cool judgment and supreme command presence. Born in 1891 and educated at Harrow and Sandhurst, Alexander rose swiftly through the ranks of the British Army. In the First World War, he distinguished himself on the Western Front and in the Irish War of Independence. But it was in the Second World War that he became a household name. After commanding British forces during the evacuation at Dunkirk, he was sent to Burma and later to North Africa, where he took over command of the British Eighth Army after the fall of Tobruk.
As Commander-in-Chief of Allied forces in the Mediterranean, Alexander oversaw the successful campaigns in Sicily and mainland Italy, including the bloody struggle at Monte Cassino and the liberation of Rome.
Alexander`s nomination was made earlier this year by King George VI on the advice of Canadian Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King. As a war hero admired in both countries, Alexander embodies continuity and transformation—qualities essential to a postwar Canada reassessing its role on the world stage.
With Canada still demobilising from the war and seeking a new sense of national purpose, the presence of a figure like Alexander may prove a stabilising influence during this transitional period.
Picture: Alexander in London, 17 Jan 1946
Source: Getty Images
On 11 April 1946, the Bell X-1 completes another crucial test flight, continuing America’s race to break the sound barrier.
The Bell X-1—initially known as the XS-1—is the first aircraft specifically engineered to exceed Mach 1 in level flight. Its design traces back to 1944, when the U.S. Army Air Forces, NACA, and Bell Aircraft responded to the urgent wartime need to understand and overcome the mysterious aerodynamic phenomenon dubbed the “sound barrier.” As propeller-driven aircraft approached transonic speeds, pilots reported severe buffeting and loss of control.
The Bell team, led by chief engineer Robert J. Stanley, chose rocket propulsion for the XS-1, using a Reaction Motors XLR-11 engine with four chambers. Its fuselage mimics the shape of a .50 caliber bullet—known for supersonic stability—with thin, straight wings and an all-moving tailplane borrowed conceptually from British designs such as the now-canceled Miles M.52. The plane is constructed to withstand stresses of up to 18g, far beyond any operational aircraft.
Parallel to American efforts, British engineers at de Havilland and Miles Aircraft were also developing high-speed models, notably the DH 108 and M.52, but the latter was abruptly cancelled in February this year amid post-war budget constraints.
Bell’s X-1 testing initially began at Pinecastle Field, Florida, before shifting to Muroc Army Air Field in California’s Mojave Desert. This site offers clear skies, flat terrain, and relative seclusion from public scrutiny. The X-1 is carried aloft by a modified B-29 Superfortress “mothership” and released at altitude, where it engages its rocket engine.
Test pilot Chalmers “Slick” Goodlin has been at the controls for most of these early sorties. Yesterday, he performed a glide test to evaluate flight trim and stability.
Today, Goodlin follows up with the first powered test flight since the aircraft’s return from maintenance. Although the flight ends in a nose-wheel collapse on landing, it marks a critical step forward, verifying engine ignition, aerodynamic stability, and systems functionality under power.
Picture: Goodlin next to his X-1
Source: Niagara Aerospace Museum
On 10 April 1946, millions of Japanese voters head to the polls in the first general election of the post-war era.
It is the country’s first election in nearly a decade and the first truly free election in modern Japanese history. Under the supervision of the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers (SCAP), General Douglas MacArthur, today’s vote is intended to set Japan on a democratic path guided by reforms in governance, education, and civil liberties.
This election is unlike any before. For the first time, women are eligible not only to vote but to run for office. Of the 79 women standing as candidates, 39 will go on to win seats, an unprecedented development in a society long shaped by patriarchal norms. The electorate now includes over 36 million eligible voters—vastly expanded from previously restricted rolls—and nearly three-quarters will cast a ballot.
Competing for 466 seats in the House of Representatives are 2,781 candidates from an array of newly formed or reformed political parties. The center-right Liberal Party, led by Ichirō Hatoyama, and the Progressive Party, aligned with Prime Minister Kijūrō Shidehara’s policies, appeal to moderate and conservative voters. On the left, the Japan Socialist Party calls for sweeping land reforms, labour rights, and demilitarisation. Further left still is the Japanese Communist Party, with figures like Kyuichi Tokuda challenging the legitimacy of Shidehara’s leadership and calling for radical change.
The campaign period has been volatile. Still, on this election day, order prevails. Voters queue patiently in towns and cities across the country, casting their ballots in privacy and calm.
Though results are not yet final, early returns suggest a victory for the conservative bloc. The Liberal Party is expected to emerge as the largest group, with the Progressives, Socialists, and Communists trailing behind. Kijūrō Shidehara is unlikely to remain in office for long, and SCAP will soon need to navigate the formation of a new cabinet that can implement Japan’s democratic reconstruction.
Picture: A Japanese woman, with a child on her back, submits her ballot, Tokyo, Japan, April 10, 1946
Source: Getty Images
On 9 April 1946, the United Nations Security Council receives a letter from Soviet Ambassador Andrei Gromyko sharply criticising its resolution on the Iran Crisis, calling it “incorrect and illegal”.
As we covered on 2 and 4 March, Soviet forces failed to withdraw from northern Iran by the 2 March deadline agreed in the 1942 Tripartite Treaty. Instead, Moscow continued to occupy Iranian Azerbaijan and supported separatist movements there, prompting Tehran to appeal to the newly formed UN Security Council. After weeks of tense debate, and despite Soviet objections, the Council adopted Resolution 3 on 4 April. The resolution, while taking note of Moscow’s assurance that a withdrawal was underway and would be completed within five to six weeks, scheduled a follow-up review for 6 May and tasked the Secretary-General with monitoring compliance. Meanwhile, the Soviets managed to secure a deal to jointly exploit oil with the Iranian government, as we covered in our 5 April post.
Though Soviet diplomats had issued statements claiming that all issues between Tehran and Moscow had already been resolved, Gromyko goes further today. In a new letter dated 6 April and made public today, he declares the Council’s action to be illegitimate and inconsistent with the UN Charter.
"The Soviet Government cannot ignore the resolution adopted by the Security Council on 4 April,” he writes. “It is incorrect and illegal, being in conflict with the Charter of the United Nations.”
Gromyko insists that the resolution was unnecessary because “an understanding on all points was reached” between the Soviet and Iranian governments by 4 April. He further argues that no threat to international peace exists in Iran, and thus the Council has no grounds for intervention under Article 34 of the UN Charter. The Soviet position, in his view, had already been vindicated by the joint communiqué with Iran announcing the withdrawal agreement.
The Council, for its part, has not withdrawn the resolution and will proceed with its review in May.
Picture: Gromyko leaves the Soviet consulate on March 28, 1946, in New York City
Source: Getty Images
