March 9: ON THIS DAY IN HISTORY
ON THIS DAY IN 1940, the Brooklyn Daily Eagle reported, “HELSINKI (AP) — The great battle of Viipuri continued with undiminished intensity today despite reported efforts of third powers to find a basis for Finnish-Russian peace. Helsinki was flooded with all sorts of rumors from abroad, some going to the extent that fighting had ceased on the Karelian Isthmus. But most of the reports were utterly without foundation. For the first time since Tuesday, Helsinki had an air raid alarm this morning, and workmen continued to board up building fronts along public squares. There was also heavy fighting along the Kollaa River, northeast of Lake Ladoga, where the Soviet invaders were said to have lost in dead and wounded during the week at least the equivalent of a division — 15,000 to 18,000 men. According to official army headquarters figures, 4,200 Russians were killed in three days alone.”
***
ON THIS DAY IN 1946, the Eagle reported, “WASHINGTON (U.P.) — American Communists were barred today by the War Department from holding commissions or undertaking any of the army’s ‘sensitive’ responsibilities. Radar and atomic energy, especially, will be out of bounds. The new policy was announced last night under pressure of inquiry. The Department’s re-examination of its policy relating to disaffected or subversive soldiers apparently coincided with the discovery in Canada of Soviet Union espionage operations. Duties in connection with secret or confidential codes also were specifically barred to soldiers either disaffected or subversive. The Department defined subversive personnel as any engaged in activities of any sort directed against the nation’s military security. Disaffected soldiers are those who lack loyalty to the Government and Constitution of the United States. The Department’s announcement did not mention Communists. A Department spokesman said, however, that membership in the Communist party would be considered as a disqualification for the sensitive duties covered by the new policy. It is possible, also, that former party membership would be construed as disqualifying army personnel.”