Friday, December 14, 1945. Tragedy and ethnic Germans, the LDS and conscription.

As its copyrighted and I don't have permission to post it, I'll merely note it, it was of German women in their children, formerly of Lodz, waiting for a train in Berlin with hopes of going to the west.  One of the children is sick, and died during the photo session.

The First President of the LDS issued a postwar statement on the draft to Utah's Congressional delegation.

Press reports have for some months indicated that a determined effort is in the making to establish in this country a compulsory universal military training designed to draw into military training and service the entire youth of the nation. We had hoped that mature reflection might lead the proponents of such a policy to abandon it. We have felt and still feel that such a policy would carry with it the gravest dangers to our Republic.

It now appears that the proponents of the policy have persuaded the Administration to adopt it, in what on its face is a modified form. We deeply regret this, because we dislike to find ourselves under the necessity of opposing any policy so sponsored. However, we are so persuaded of the rightfulness of our position, and we regard the policy so threatening to the true purposes for which this Government was set up, as set forth in the great Preamble to the Constitution, that we are constrained respectfully to invite your attention to the following considerations:

1. By taking our sons at the most impressionable age of their adolescence and putting them into army camps under rigorous military discipline, we shall seriously endanger their initiative thereby impairing one of the essential elements of American citizenship. While on its face the suggested plan might not seem to visualize the army camp training, yet there seems little doubt that our military leaders contemplate such a period, with similar recurring periods after the boys are placed in the reserves.

2. By taking our boys from their homes, we shall deprive them of parental guidance and control at this important period of their youth, and there is no substitute for the care and love of a mother for a young son.

3. We shall take them out of school and suffer their minds to be directed in other channels, so that very many of them after leaving the army, will never return to finish their schooling, thus over a few years materially reducing the literacy of the whole nation.

4. We shall give opportunity to teach our sons not only the way to kill but also, in too many cases, the desire to kill, thereby increasing lawlessness and disorder to the consequent upsetting of the stability of our national society. God said at Sinai, “Thou shalt not kill.”

5. We shall take them from the refining, ennobling, character-building atmosphere of the home, and place them under a drastic discipline in an environment that is hostile to most of the finer and nobler things of home and of life.

6. We shall make our sons the victims of systematized allurements to gamble, to drink, to smoke, to swear, to associate with lewd women, to be selfish, idle, irresponsible save under restraint of force, to be common, coarse, and vulgar, all contrary to and destructive of the American home.

7. We shall deprive our sons of any adequate religious training and activity during their training years, for the religious element of army life is both inadequate and ineffective.

8. We shall put them where they may be indoctrinated with a wholly un-American view of the aims and purposes of their individual lives, and of the life of the whole people and nation, which are founded on the ways of peace, whereas they will be taught to believe in the ways of war.

9. We shall take them away from all participation in the means and measures of production to the economic loss of the whole nation.

10. We shall lay them open to wholly erroneous ideas of their duties to themselves, to their family, and to society in the matter of independence, self-sufficiency, individual initiative, and what we have come to call American manhood.

11. We shall subject them to encouragement in a belief that they can always live off the labors of others through the government or otherwise.

12. We shall make possible their building into a military caste which from all human experience bodes ill for that equality and unity which must always characterize the citizenry of a republic.

13. By creating an immense standing army, we shall create to our liberties and free institutions a threat foreseen and condemned by the founders of the Republic, and by the people of this country from that time till now. Great standing armies have always been the tools of ambitious dictators to the destruction of freedom.

14. By the creation of a great war machine, we shall invite and tempt the waging of war against foreign countries, upon little or no provocation; for the possession of great military power always breeds thirst for domination, for empire, and for a rule by might not right.

15. By building a huge armed establishment, we shall belie our protestations of peace and peaceful intent and force other nations to a like course of militarism, so placing upon the peoples of the earth crushing burdens of taxation that with their present tax load will hardly be bearable, and that will gravely threaten our social, economic, and governmental systems.

16. We shall make of the whole earth one great military camp whose separate armies, headed by war-minded officers, will never rest till they are at one another’s throats in what will be the most terrible contest the world has ever seen.

17. All the advantages for the protection of the country offered by a standing army may be obtained by the National Guard system which has proved so effective in the past and which is unattended by the evils of entire mobilization.

Responsive to the ancient wisdom, ‘Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it,’ obedient to the divine message that heralded the birth of Jesus the Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the world, ‘. . . on earth peace, good will toward men,’ and knowing that our Constitution and the Government set up under it were inspired of God and should be preserved to the blessing not only of our own citizenry but, as an example, to the blessing of all the world, we have the honor respectfully to urge that you do your utmost to defeat any plan designed to bring about the compulsory military service of our citizenry. Should it be urged that our complete armament is necessary for our safety, it may be confidently replied that a proper foreign policy, implemented by an effective diplomacy, can avert the dangers that are feared. What this country needs and what the world needs, is a will for peace, not war. God will help our efforts to bring this about.

Respectfully submitted, GEO. ALBERT SMITH, J. REUBEN CLARK, JR., DAVID O. MCKAY, First Presidency.

I actually ran across this on Reddit, where it has been posted by an unhappy former Mormon.  It might be noted, of course, that at that age a large number of Mormons go on missions, which is an effort to consolidate them in their faith, so there was no doubt some reason for Mormon's to be concerned.   While I've heard it claimed that there's no pressure for them to do so, as a demographic, by my observation, they tend to marry young as well, which relates to one of the things noted in the letter, maybe more than one.

Still, the points made are interesting, and not necessarily invalid.  Indeed, almost every point raised in this letter is correct.

There is actually a lot to unpack here, and my own views on this have changed back and forth over the years.  In 1945, when this letter was written, there had only been a single instance of conscription into the Federal Army during peacetime in U.S. history, and that came right before World War Two. There was a history of mandatory militia service, but that had fallen by the wayside after the Civil War.  

Also of note, the National Guard, in peacetime, still did not receive Federal basic training in 1945.  Entry level soldiers were trained by their units by older NCO's delegated that task.  Given this, the nature of the training was always local, but it obviously varied in other ways depending upon who was delivering it.  In the case of this letter, the author could be assured that enlisting young men would have been trained by older soldiers of a like mind, with therefore much of the societal dangers noted avoided.  I'm not sure when the training system actually changed, but I suspect it was by the very late 1940s or certainly by the 1950s.  By the time I was in the Guard the Guard was incredibly integrated into the Regular Army, which is even more the case today.  Enlisting men received regular Army basic and advanced training, and were in the Army when they received it.

When I was younger, I held the view that conscription was a bad thing, save in times of war, as it forced a person to serve against their will.  That's a less developed point than the set of points noted above, but there is a point to it.  Having said that, what I don't think I appreciated earlier is the dangers of a large standing Army, which is why the US had a militia system for defense in the first place. We're seeing a lot of those dangers come into fruition now.  That's not directly related to conscription, it might be noted, but it somewhat is as we have a large, all volunteer, armed forces, which inevitably leads to a sort of military class.  Armed forces with conscripts are much less likely do to that, and therefore they make a much more democratic force that's much less likely to act as praetorian guards for a would be dictator.  

Additionally, as I've grown older I've noted that there's a distinct difference between people who served when asked, and those who avoided it.  Our narcissist in chief in Washington D.C., who avoided serving due to shin splits, is a good example. Donald Trump would have benefited enormously from two years as an enlisted man in the military.  But it's not just him, I've noted this in a lot of men who found a way not to serve.  Their characters would have been better off if they had.

Last edition:

Thursday, December 13, 1945. Crimes against humanity.

Labels: 1940s, 1945, Crimes against humanity, Nazi Germany, War Crimes

Friday, December 7, 1945. Command Responsibility.

Japanese General Tomoyuki Yamashita was found guilty of war crimes in a Manila court and sentenced to death, resulting in the legal principle set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1946 of command responsibility in which a commander can be held accountable before the law for the crimes committed by his troops even if he did not order them.

Hmmm. . . wonder how that might work out today?

Tomoyuki Yamashita. . . who would like to have a word with Pete Hegseth.

The State Department announced plans to resettle 6,600,000 Germans from Eastern Europe in the US and Soviet occupied zones of Germany within eight months.

Last edition:

Wednesday, December 5, 1945. Flight 19.

Labels: 1940s, 1945, A Mystery, Aircraft, Bermuda, Disaster, Florida, France, Socialism, U.S. Navy

Tuesday, November 13, 1945. "Man's material discoveries have outpaced his moral progress."

Charles de Gaulle was elected president of the Provisional Government of France by the Constituent Assembly.

The US and UK agreed to a joint commission of inquiry to examine the question of European Jews and Palestine.

Statement by the President on the Problem of Jewish Refugees in Europe.

Truman addressed the topic on this day.

FOLLOWING the receipt of information from various sources regarding the distressing situation of the Jewish victims of Nazi and Fascist persecution in Europe, I wrote to Mr. Attlee on August 31 bringing to his attention the suggestion in a report of Mr. Earl G. Harrison that the granting of an additional 100,000 certificates for the immigration of Jews into Palestine would alleviate the situation. A copy of my letter to Mr. Attlee is being made available to the press. I continue to adhere to the views expressed in that letter.

I was advised by the British Government that because of conditions in Palestine it was not in a position to adopt the policy recommended, but that it was deeply concerned with the situation of the Jews in Europe. During the course of subsequent discussions between the two Governments, it suggested the establishment of a joint Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry, under a rotating chairmanship, to examine the whole question and to make a further review of the Palestine problem in the light of that examination and other relevant considerations.

In view of our intense interest in this matter and of our belief that such a committee will be of aid in finding a solution which will be both humane and just, we have acceded to the British suggestion.

The terms of reference of this committee as agreed upon between the two Governments are as follows:

1. To examine political, economic and social conditions in Palestine as they bear upon the problem of Jewish immigration and settlement therein and the well-being of the peoples now living therein.

2. To examine the position of the Jews in those countries in Europe where they have been the victims of Nazi and Fascist persecution, and the practical measures taken or contemplated to be taken in those countries to enable them to live free from discrimination and oppression and to make estimates of those who wish or will be impelled by their conditions to migrate to Palestine or other countries outside Europe.

3. To hear the views of competent witnesses and to consult representative Arabs and Jews on the problems of Palestine as such problems are affected by conditions subject to examination under paragraphs 1 and 2 above and by other relevant facts and circumstances, and to make recommendations to His Majesty's Government and the Government of the United States for ad interim handling of these problems as well as for their permanent solution.

4. To make such other recommendations to His Majesty's Government and the Government of the United States as may be necessary to meet the immediate needs arising from conditions subject to examination under paragraph 2 above, by remedial action in the European countries in question or by the provision of facilities for emigration to and settlement in countries outside Europe.

It will be observed that among the important duties of this committee will be the task of examining conditions in Palestine as they bear upon the problem of Jewish immigration. The establishment of this Committee will make possible a prompt review of the unfortunate plight of the Jews in those countries in Europe where they have been subjected to persecution, and a prompt examination of questions related to the rate of current immigration into Palestine and the absorptive capacity of the country.

The situation faced by displaced Jews in Europe during the coming winter allows no delay in this matter. I hope the Committee will be able to accomplish its important task with the greatest speed.

Prime Minister Attlee addressed Congress.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. President, members of the Senate and of the House of Representatives of the United States, I should wish, first of all, to thank you, sirs, for the great honor you have done me in inviting me to address your House in joint session.

During the war you were addressed on two occasions by my predecessor, Winston Churchill, a great war leader, whose words and actions in the most critical times of that long-drawn-out contest brought courage and hope to millions all over the world. For five years I had the privilege of serving under him as a colleague. No one knows better than I do the resplendent services which he rendered to the cause of freedom.

Last week in the House of Commons, as leader of the Opposition, in emphasizing the importance of furthering in every way our friendly connections with your great country, he wished me, on behalf of the whole House the utmost success in this visit.

Sirs, in democracies great men are the possession of the whole people. Speaking here today, I cannot but remember that great statesman, President Roosevelt. I should be expressing, I know, the feelings not only of the people of Great Britain but of the Commonwealth and Empire in paying tribute to his great services not only to his own country but to humanity. It was a sorrow to us that he was not able to visit Britain, where we should have given him a welcome that would have expressed all that was in our hearts.

In the struggle against the forces of tyranny, the names of these two men, Churchill and Roosevelt, together with that of Generalissimo Stalin will ever be linked in achievement.

I was glad to meet President Truman for a brief moment here in Washington when I was returning from the San Francisco Conference and I had the advantage of observing and admiring his courage and statesmanship at Potsdam, where with him and Generalissimo Stalin we sought to deal with some of those problems which the ending of a great war produces. Sirs, in what spirit shall we approach these high matters?

On Sunday at Arlington, I stood with President Truman and the Prime Minister of Canada at that impressive ceremony of Armistice Day. I know that in the minds of the President and myself were remembrances of when we were both fighters in the first World War. We little thought then, on Nov. 11, 1918, that we should witness another world war. I do not think that either of us then thought that we, out of the millions of our fellow soldiers, would be called to shoulder the great responsibilities of high office.

Yet I am sure there was present in our minds last Sunday the same thoughts we had years ago regret for lost comrades, gratitude for our deliverance and the resolve to do what in us lay to spare others the ordeal which we have endured.

We have ended this Second World War, deadlier, longer and more terrible than its predecessor. We should, none of us, be here today unless all the Allies had done their part, unless the unequaled fighting forces and matchless industrial and scientific resources of the United States had been thrown without reserve into the pool. We rightly, today, pay honor to all the Allies. There is honor enough for all, for those who fought in the west and in the east, in the air, on the land and on the sea. For those who fought in the formed units of the great states, for those who served in the resistance movements in so many countries and for those who stood firm when their homes were bombed.

All contributed, but the greatest contribution was made by those with the greatest resources-the United States of America, Russia and the British Commonwealth and Empire. Twice in a generation the countries of the British Commonwealth and Empire came instantly to the help of Great Britain, and none made a greater contribution than Canada, whose Prime Minister I am happy to see with us today.

We were fortunate in finding great political leaders. We were fortunate, too, in the men of outstanding ability who planned our resources and our campaigns and who led our navies, armies and air fleets in battle. Standing here, I would like to pay a special tribute to the combined Chiefs of Staff; I would like to recall many of the leaders in the field, but I must content myself today with three names of great men-one in the west, two in the east-General Eisenhower, General MacArthur and Admiral Nimitz.

Speaking here today when all our enemies have been beaten down, my mind goes back over those five years in which I served in the British War Cabinet. I recall so vividly those critical days in 1940 after Dunkerque. How anxiously we awaited the arrival of ships carrying rifles and ammunition from America which gave us at least something in our hands to fight the invader whose threat was so imminent. I recall that wise and generous provision of Lend-Lease.

I recollect two years before the event General Marshall unfolding to us in the Cabinet room his conception of the invasion of Europe. Then I remember so well the tremendous strength of the United States of America, slowly at first and then swiftly developing to take the weight from those who had borne the burden in the early years of the war.

Today the United States stands out as the mightiest power on earth. And yet America is a threat to no one. All know that she will never use her power for selfish aims or territorial aggrandizement in the future any more than she has done in the past. We look upon her forces and our own forces and those of other nations as instruments that must never be employed save in the interests of world security and for the repression of the aggressor.

When I was last here I was taking part in the San Francisco Conference, a conference summoned by President Roosevelt with wise prescience while war was still raging in order that as soon as victory was secured we might have an instrument ready to hand for the prevention of all wars in the future.

We have gone through a horrible, destructive war. You here have lost great numbers of the flower of your young men. So have we in Britain. So have all the countries that have been engaged in this great struggle. But you have been spared the destruction of your great cities; you have not had in America the spectacle of hundreds of thousands of broken homes; you have not had great masses of people, driven from their habitations, wandering about seeking somewhere to lay their heads; you have not had the work of centuries of human endeavor destroyed in a few short hours by attacks from the air.

But I know that you are fully conscious of the tragic folly of war. There was a time, which I remember, when we in Britain enjoyed the same immunity. Wars might devastate the Continent but we were safe behind our moat, the inviolable sea. Those days are past. Defensive frontiers, mountain barriers, the seas and even the oceans are no obstacle to attack. The old discontinuity of earth and sea has been replaced by the continuity of the air.

In our atlases that show the division of land and water, of the countries and states, there should be a blank page which should represent the air to make our children realize that these old and historic divisions do not exist in the element in which men now move. If not now, then in a few years the devastating weapons which are at present being developed may menace every part of the world.

It is in the light of these facts and in particular in the light, the terrible light, of the atomic bomb, that I have entered into discussion with your President in order that we may get together with all the nations of the world and consider what kind of a world it is necessary to have if civilization is to endure and if the common man in all lands is to feel secure.

But in facing world problems as we must, it is a great mistake in my view to think constantly of war and the prevention of war. We have to think rather of the best means of building up peace. Speaking last week in London, I said that the foundation of peace lay in the hearts of men, and I hold it true that the more the citizens of the world can get to know each other the less likely are we to have the emotional condition in which war is possible.

We have been fortunate in this war to have welcomed to our shores so many citizens of the United States of America. There have been many friendships made, many misunderstandings have been removed, which almost inevitably arise because knowing each other only from a distance we see each other in a distorted way. All the differences are emphasized. The underlying likeness is obscured. But the British soldier and the American soldier, when they came to close quarters soon found how much they had in common.

I hold, therefore, that our United Nations Organization, in which I profoundly believe, must be something more than an agreement between governments. It must be an expression of the will of the common people in every country.

Perhaps I might assist today in removing some misapprehensions. I come before you as the Prime Minister of Great Britain, but in accordance with our constitutional practice, I am also a party leader, the leader of a majority recently returned to power in the House of Commons.

I wonder how much you know about the British Labor party? We are not always very well informed on the politics of other countries. I doubt, in fact, whether very many British citizens know the exact difference between a Republican and a Democrat. You have heard that we are Socialists, but I wonder just what that means to you?

I think that some people over here imagine that Socialists are out to destroy freedom, freedom of the individual, freedom of speech, freedom of religion and freedom of the press. They are wrong. The Labor party is in the tradition of freedom-loving movements which have always existed in our country; but freedom has to be striven for in every generation and those who threaten it are not always the same. Sometimes the battle of freedom has had to be fought against Kings, sometimes against religious tyranny, sometimes against the power of the owners of the land, sometimes against the overwhelming strength of moneyed interests.

We in the Labor party declare that we are in line with those who fought for Magna Charta and Habeas Corpus, with the Pilgrim Fathers and with the signatories of the Declaration of Independence.

Let me clear your mind with regard to some of these freedoms that are thought to be in danger. In the ranks of our party in the House of Commons are at least forty practicing journalists. There are several clergymen, many local preachers, plenty of Protestants, some Catholics and some Jews. We are not likely, therefore, to attack freedom of religion or freedom of the press.

As to freedom of speech, believe me, as a leader of our party for ten years I have never lacked candid critics in my own ranks and I have been too long in the Opposition not to be a strong supporter of freedom of speech and freedom of the individual.

We believe in the freedom of the individual to live his own life but that freedom is conditioned by his not cramping and restricting the freedom of his fellow men. There is, and always will be, scope for enterprise, but when big business gets too powerful so that it becomes monopolistic, we hold it is not safe to leave it in private hands. Further, in the world today we believe, as do most people in Britain, that one must plan the economic activities of the country if we are to assure the common man a fair deal.

One further word. You may think that the Labor party consists solely of wage earners. It is our pride that we draw the majority of our members from the ranks of wage earners and many of our ministers have spent long years working with their hands in the coal mines, the factory or in transportation.

But our party today is drawn from all classes of society-professional men, business men and what are sometimes called the privileged classes. The old school tie still can be seen on the Government benches. It is really a pretty good cross-section of the population.

You may ask, why do people from the well-to-do classes belong to our party? May I refer to my own experience? Forty years ago as a young man studying law, just down from Oxford University, I visited for the first time my constituency, Limehouse-a very poor district in East London. I learned from it first hand the facts of poverty in our great cities. I became convinced that we must build our society on a juster foundation.

The result was that I joined the Socialist movement and eventually, after many years of striving, I find myself Prime Minister of Great Britain. The reasons that impelled me to join the Labor movement are the same that actuated so many of the members of my party, especially the great number of young men from the fighting services.

What is our attitude toward foreign affairs? We believe that we cannot make a heaven in our own country and leave a hell outside. We believe this not only from the moral basis of our movement, which is based on the brotherhood of man without distinction of race or creed, but also from an entirely practical standpoint. We seek to raise the standard of life of our people. We can only do so by trading with the rest of the world, and as good traders we wish to have prosperous customers.

The advance in methods of production so strongly exemplified in the United States has resulted in an immense output of goods and commodities of all kinds. We in our turn show the same results on a smaller scale. Yet there are hundreds of millions of people living in the world at a standard of life which is the same as they have had for a thousand years.

There is ample room in the world for the products of the great industrial nations like our own to raise the general levels throughout the world. We, like you, believe in an expansive economy, and we can see no reason why, the need being so great, there should be any undue rivalry between us. We believe that the foundations of peace must be world prosperity and good neighborliness; that where science has placed such potential abundance before the human race we should collaborate to take advantage of it rather than scramble and fight for larger individual shares, which only results in an immense increase in poverty.

We recognize that our immediate task is not easy. Many a man in Britain returning from the war finds his home blitzed and his business ruined. He has to start afresh and it is a tough proposition.

As a country we are just like that man. We went all out to win the war and now have to start afresh. Like him, we are facing the future with courage and a determination to win through. We have not stood up to our enemies for six years to be beaten by economics.

I look forward to an era of an increasing cooperation and friendship between the United States of America and Great Britain-not as being an exclusive friendship, but as a contribution to the knitting together with all peoples through the United Nations Organization in the bonds of peace.

In our internal policies each will follow the course decided by the people's will. You will see us embarking on projects of nationalization, on wide, all-embracing schemes of social insurance designed to give security to the common man. We shall be working out a planned economy. You, it may be, will continue in your more individualistic methods.

It is more important that we should understand each other and other nations whose institutions differ from our own. It is essential, if we are to build up a peaceful world, that we should have the widest toleration, recognizing that our aim is not uniformity but unity in diversity. It would be a dull world if we were all alike.

In a town there may be a great diversity of character and habit among the townsfolk. To some of my neighbors I may be drawn closely by ties of relationship or by old memories; for others I may have more sympathy through sharing their religious convictions, although perhaps estranged by their political views. Yet I may be on good terms with them all and in close friendship with some. I hope to see a world as orderly as a well-run town, with citizens diverse in character but cooperating for the common good.

In the British Commonwealth and Empire we offer an example of many nations, some of which have reached, others of which are approaching, full self-government. Even during the war India was given the opportunity of taking complete charge of her own affairs, and in the colonial empire eight or nine new Constitutions have been adopted or are being worked out, all based on the extension of democratic principles.

I hope that there will be ever closer friendship between our great democracies. We have much in common. We have the language of Milton and Shakespeare, of Burke and Chatham, of Lincoln and of Jefferson. We have the memories of comradeship in a great adventure. Above all things we share the things of the spirit. Both of our nations hold dear the rule of law; the conception of freedom and the principles and methods of democracy; and most vital of all we acknowledge the validity of the moral precepts upon which our whole civilization is founded.

Man's material discoveries have outpaced his moral progress. The greatest task that faces us today is to bring home to all people, before it is too late, that our civilization can only survive by the acceptance and practice in international relations and in our national life of the Christian principle, "We are members one of another."

Last edition:

Sunday, November 11, 1945. Armistice Day.

Labels: 1940s, 1945, Communism, Communist International, French Indochina, Indochina, Veterans Day, Yugoslavia

Wednesday, August 22, 1945. Surrenders.

" Pfc. Elmer S. Pitlik, Air Sect., 139th F.A. Bn., lights a cigarette for one of the Japanese guards. 22 August, 1945. On a mountain top in the Sierre Madres, Northern Luzon, eight Japanese officers and five American officers met to discuss surrender arrangements. The American officers, accompanied by twenty enlisted men, made a two-hour march over difficult terrain to the area marked by a Jap flag on a bamboo pole. Ranking American officer was Maj. Richard F. Jaffers, Artillery Liaison Group, 38th Inf. Div. The ranking Jap officer was Lt. Col. Shizume Sushimi. Photographer: T/4 Reynolds."

The Japanese Kwantung Army surrenders to Soviet forces at Harbin.

The Japanese government announced that the People's Volunteer Corps was disbanded.

The Japanese garrison on Mili Atoll in the Marshall Islands surrendered in the first instance of a a Japanese mass surrender.

"Romanian displaced persons on their way home. Most of them are Jews who have been imprisoned in the Buchenwald concentration camp. Although tried and hungry, they make this 100 mile march to the Vienna station with little food or sleep. 22 August, 1945. Photographer: T/4 Carl Gulotta, 3131st Signal Service Co."

Last edition:

Tuesday, August 21, 1945. Lurching towards a peace, normalcy, abnormality. Lizabeth Scott on Look. Lend Lease Terminated. Big Japanese surrender in China. Japan bars fraternization but sets up brothels for Western troops. Romanian Royal Strike., tragic nuclear accident.

Labels: 1940s, 1945, China, Harry S. Truman, It was because of World War Two, Japan, Kamikaze, Lend Lease, Manhattan Project, Romania, Romanian Royal Strike, Sex, Socialism, United Kingdom, World War Two

Sunday, August 12, 1945. War, ripples of war, and impacts of war.

Fr. Karl Leisner died of tuberculosis after having been imprisoned in Dachau.  He was beatified in 1996.

The number of German Catholic Priests that resisted the Nazis is really not appreciated.  They were not alone, of course  Evangelicals (Lutherans) did as well, but nonetheless their numbers are remarkable, and in some instance their resistances to the Nazis is astounding.

The Red Army entered Korea.

Chinese-American headquarters canceled operations against Fort Bayard, Hong Kong and Canton, in light of the imminent Japanese surrender.

American bombing raids over Japan, however, continued.

The USS Pennsylvania was damaged by an attack from a Japanese torpedo bomber off the island of Okinawa. 

A Japanese submarine sank the USS Thomas F. Nickel and the landing craft Oak Hill.

The US released the Smyth Report.

Russian DPs (Displaced Persons) began the trip home to an uncertain future.

"1500 Russian displaced nationals were taken from the D.P. center, Caserne De Cavalerie in Charleroi, Belgium, and sent by train to Russian territory in Germany. 12 August, 1945. They took long strides, singing most of the way, as they turn into the depot at Charleroi. This is the last of the D.P.'s to leave France and Belgium. Photographer: Pfc. Stedman"

The victims of Nazi horrors, they were regarded as suspect by the Soviet Union as the USSR knew that they had been exposed to the West, and hence to the fallacy of the Communist system.  Given a choice, most would likely have refused repatriation.

Their fate, while grim, mirrored the unhappy situation of millions in Europe.  Many were being repatriated to nations that would repress them and to which they did not wish to return.  Many found themselves in countries whose post war political system was foisted upon them by the USSR. Others simply had no home. The war was over, but the impacts of the war far from over.

Only the US was in a really good place, culturally and economically, which would form its economic and political reality into the early 21st Century, forming a sense of entitlement and dissociation from reality whose impact is still yet to be determined.

Last edition:

Saturday, August 11, 1945. The US rejects the Japanese attempt at surrender and the Soviets invade South Sakhalin. And stuff that doesn't neatly fit into accepted history.

Labels: . 1940s, 1940s, 1945, Battle of Khalkhin Gol, Battle of Sakhalin, Japan, Monarchy, Philippines, Potsdam Conference, Red Army, Russo Japanese War, Soviet Navy, The Law of Unintended Consequences, War Crimes, World War Two