The Website of Carlos Whitlock Porter




Dear Sir,
After reading your information on the Tokyo war crimes trials, Japs Ate My Gall Bladder etc. I thought you might be interested in the following quote from Thomas Blamey, Australian general during World War 11- "You know that we have to exterminate these vermin if we and our families are to live. We must go on to the end if civilisation is to
survive. We must exterminate the Japanese".

- If a Japanese officer had said the same about Australians or any other Allied nationality, can you imagine the moral indignation, not to mention the fact that he probably would have ended up on the gallows?

Alphonso Grahame

COMMENT: Yes. The race of people which has always been the freest in advocating the "extermination" of other racial, national, religious and ethnic groups is, and has always been, the Jews (viz. the Old Testament, Talmud, GERMANY MUST PERISH, WHAT TO DO WITH GERMANY, the Morgenthau Plan, a variety of plans to sterilize or castrate all Germans of child-bearing age, flood Germany with male immigrants of child-bearing age while all male Germans of child-bearing age were working as slave labourers, etc., etc.).  Having come close to achieving their own goal of "extermination" (i.e., the near total genocide of the White Race and European culture), they claim to be unique victims of "genocide" themselves, payable in hard cash.

I don't know of any Japanese who ever advocated the "extermination" of anyone. Okawa, one of the Tokyo defendants, predicted a cataclysmic final struggle between East and West, specifically, the United States and Japan, ending in the total destruction of one or the other; but even Okawa did not advocate "extermination". An effort was made to discredit his writings during the Tokyo Trial by claiming that he was insane (he had terminal syphilis). But his predictions were right on the mark.

The following is from J'ETAIS UN KAMIKAZE Les chevaliers du vent divin, Ryuji Nagatsuka, Stock, 1972, footnote p. 49 (France, my translation).

"After the fall of the peninsula of Bataan, attack from Corregidor was imminent. To save the lives of the American and Filipino prisoners captured at the southern extremity of the peninsula, it was absolutely necessary to transport them without delay to the rear, that is, to the end of the peninsula. But they were too numerous to be transported in the 230 trucks available to the Japanese forces. There were in fact 12,000 Americans and 64,000 Filipinos, all starving and exhausted by malaria. Moreover most of the trucks were under repair. The prisoners were obliged to march from Mariveles to San Fernando, or a distance of approximately 66 kilometres. Our soldiers shared the same fate, too: they were hungry and had to march while supervising them. With their knapsacks on their backs and rifles on their shoulders, they threw envious glances at the lightly-dressed prisoners who only carried a few cooking utensils. It is said that during the course of this march, nearly 23,000 men including 2,300 Americans, died of malaria, exhaustion and hunger. This figure is uncertain and approximate, since the small numbers of Japanese soldiers made it easy to escape. A great many Filipino prisoners succeeded in escaping and losing themselves in the crowds of their compatriots. This march has been called the Death March. But it if these prisoners had remained at the end of the peninsula, they would all have died under artillery shelling from Corregidor, or from the epidemic. After all, 54,000 men arrived at San Fernando. I would therefore prefer to call the march a 'Life March'".

[Available in English from as I WAS A KAMIKAZE.]

Note the conflict in the number of deaths and the mileage allegedly walked by these men. At the Tokyo Trial, it was  claimed that the distance was 75 miles [122 km], while the distance mentioned here is 66 kilometres [41 km]; the distance was covered in 9 days. Presumably the distance is something which could still be verified, even today. [According to other sources, depending on the route taken and the location of capture, the distance is between 88 and 102 kilometers [54-64 miles]. -C.P., 2006] A footnote in an article about the Tokyo Trial in AMERICAN LEGION magazine about four years ago (I've mislaid my notes) indicated that approximately 650 of the 1,000 [!] American deaths among the 11,000 Americans involved occurred AFTER the prisoners arrived at their destination at San Fernando; i.e., that the death rate during the "Death March" itself was probably less than 4%. I do not deny that it would probably be impossible to get 75,000 sick, exhausted men to march 75 miles (or 66 kilometres) without clubbing or bayoneting a few of them; I donít condone this sort of thing, but I regard it as more or less inevitable in wartime. Stonewall Jackson bayoneted his own stragglers, saying "In war, hard things must be done so that other hard things may be avoided".

At the Tokyo Trial, the conditions of all Japanese terrestrial marches or sea transports of Allied prisoners of war were described as uniformly bad, regardless of whether the death rate was allegedly 90% (the Rabaul "Death March"), 10% (the Bataan "Death March"), or absolutely ZERO (one of the maritime transports). It seems obvious that this cannot possibly be true.

The Japanese as a nation have always been famous for their spectacular methods of suicide (for example, jumping into volcanoes) but -- unlike other Oriental races -- never for their sadistic treatment of prisoners. Japan has fought many civil and foreign wars, but in all past wars, they have treated prisoners with humanity. Japanese troops were never accused of any atrocities during the Sino-Japanese War (1896-97), the Boxer Rebellion (1900), the Russo-Japanese War (1904-5), or the First World War (in which the Japanese fought as highly valuable allies of the British, driving the German Imperial Navy from its only naval base in the Far East, on the coast of China, after which the German Fleet of the Pacific was totally destroyed in the Battle of the Falkland Islands on 14 December 1914). Germany and Japan were traditional enemies until about 1940.

The hypocrisy of these proceedings is perhaps best illustrated by the volumes of the Tokyo Trial transcript in which the Japanese were accused (for 2000 pages -- it's nearly all of volume 8 or 9, give or take a bit) of forcing the opium trade on China, ruining the lives of Chinese youth and destroying the moral fabric of the Chinese nation, when everyone in the courtroom, and everyone in the world, knew that it was the British who did precisely that, in the Opium War! Naturally, it was the British who made this accusation against the Japanese! The accusation descibes Chinese addicts lying around unconscious on dung heaps outside every Chinese town or village, all the fault of the Japanese! The 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica ("Opium") says that in 1907 the British signed an agreement with the Chinese reducing the amount of opium which the Chinese would be forced to buy from British India by 10% per year, so that by 1917 the Chinese would no longer be forced to buy any more opium at all. (The India-China opium trade was reportedly controlled by the Sassoons, a Jewish family with interests in Hong Kong.)

Similarly, the Japanese were accused of "indiscriminate bombing of civilians", while the Allied atomic bombings were called "an advance in international law"! The Japanese were "still guilty", because it was "a question of whether it was legal when they did it"! This is an example of the influence of Jewish mental and moral corruption and hypocrisy on the White Race. It is Phariseeism.

Thank you again.
APRIL 25, 2000

Sources of information: 1911 and 1922 Encyclopaedia Britannica; Toyko Trial transcript.

Update 2005:

Several people have contacted me disputing my contention that in "all past wars, the Japanese have treated prisoners with humanity". I have asked for the names of any books I could read on the subject of Japanese sadism towards prisoners throughout history, but received no answer. One Japanese-American said he thought my claim of relative Japanese humanity towards prisoners was perfectly obvious. Just recently, Alphonso Graham, above, contacted me again, enclosing the following article (4 paragraphs down).

Unlike Japanese inhumanity to prisoners, American inhumanity to prisoners is an established fact dating back to the 1861-65 Secession War at the very least; just search for "Camp Douglas", for example, or see my article "The Myth of the Illegality of Concentration Camps": because the Confederates were unable to feed their prisoners -- which the North refused to exchange -- Southern prisoners in the North were starved, tortured, and exposed to the elements deliberately, resulting in very high death rates from pneumonia, malnutrition and a variety of other diseases. Apart from the element of sexual perversion -- (after all, "life imitates art"; art = pornography; pornography = Jewish
lawyers) -- Abu Ghraib is far from an aberration, and is absolutely nothing new. On the contrary, it reveals a deep-rooted character defect of the American people.

I have never understood how this is compatible with courage in battle; perhaps we resemble the Mongels, Vandals or Huns we used to talk about so much. They were courageous, too, but treated their prisoners in a similar manner. So much for civilization.

In A. Scott Berg's biography of Lindbergh, the author, a Jew, claims that Lindbergh's objections to the desecration of Japanese war dead in violation of all international law -- for example, dumping garbage on top of Japanese bodies in a mass grave -- implies that Lindbergh shared the guilt for Hitler's atrocities (pp. 468-69, Pan Paperbacks)! Where's the logic of that?

(This is how I knew Berg was a Jew, a fact I later verified. You can spot them.)


From: Michael Walsh <[email protected]>
Subject: The Execution of Prisoners
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 19:35:48 0000 (GMT)


The controlled press are fond of depicting allied and in particular, American Armed Forces atrocities as aberrations; one-off isolated acts carried out in the madness of war. In fact, U.S. Army policy has always been inclined against taking prisoners.

If you thought the American treatment of enemy combatants in Afghanistan, Iraq or Guantanomo Bay is bad just see what the Americans were capable of doing in the war against the Japanese. The bridge builders over the River Kwai and the inmates of Singapore's Changi Prison might well consider themselves to have been fortunate compared to those captured by their own forces.

These double standards of war are best illustrated by Colonel Charles Lindbergh’s observations made whilst serving in the battle zones of the American Japanese war. He questioned the American policy of not taking prisoners. "I felt it was a mistake not to accept surrender whenever it could be obtained; that by doing so, our advance would be more rapid and many American lives would be saved. If the Japanese think they will be killed anyway when they surrender, they, naturally, are going to hold on and fight to the last - and kill American troops they capture whenever they get the chance."


Take the 41st, for example; they just don’t take prisoners. The men boast about it. The officers wanted some prisoners to question but they couldn’t get any until they were offered two weeks leave in Sydney for each one turned in. Then the got more than they could handle. But when they cut out giving leave, the prisoners stopped coming in. The boys just said they couldn’t catch any.

"The Aussies are still worse. You remember the time they had to take these prisoners south by plane. One of the pilots told me they just pushed them out over the mountains and reported that the Japs committed hara-kiri on the way."

He recounted how "our troops captured that Japanese hospital There wasn’t anyone alive in it when they got through."

Lindbergh also described his concern over "our lack of respect for even the admirable characteristics of our enemy" for courage, for suffering, for death, for his willingness to die for his beliefs, for his companies and squadrons which go forth, one after another, to annihilation. What is courage for us is fanaticism for him. We hold his examples of atrocity screamingly to the heavens while we cover up our own.

"A Japanese soldier who cuts off an American’s head is an Oriental barbarian. An American who slits a Japanese throat, did it only because he knew that the Japs had done it to his buddies."


On another occasion he described his feelings when, "I stand looking at that patch of scorched jungle, in the dark spots in the cliffs where the Japanese troops had taken cover. In that burned area, hidden under the surface of the ground, is the utmost suffering - hunger, despair, men dead and dying of wounds, carrying on for a country they love and for a cause in which they believe, not daring to surrender even if they wished to, because they know only too well that our soldiers will shoot them on sight even if they came out with the hands above their heads.

"But I would have more respect for the character of our people if we would give them a decent burial instead of kicking in the teeth of their corpses, and pushing their bodies into hollows in the ground, scooped out and covered by bulldozers."

"I am shocked by the attitude of our American troops. They have no respect for death, the courage of an enemy soldier, or many of the ordinary decencies of life. They think nothing whatever of robbing the body of a dead Jap and calling him a ‘son of a bitch’ while they do so. I said during a discussion that regardless of what the Japs did, I did not see how we could gain anything or claim that we represented a civilised stare if we killed them by torture."


"Well, some of our boys do kick their teeth in, but they usually kill them first", one of the officers said in half apology.

"It was freely admitted that some of our soldiers tortured Jap prisoners and were as cruel and barbaric at times as the Japs themselves. Our men think nothing of shooting a Jap prisoner or a soldier attempting to surrender. They treat the Jap with less respect than they would an animal and these acts are condoned by almost everyone.

"We claim to be fighting for civilisation, but the more I see of the war in the Pacific the less right I think we have to claim to be civilised. In fact, I am not sure that our record in this respect stands so very much higher than the Japs."

Lindbergh also described how Japanese bodies were bulldozed over as "a number of our Marines went in among them, searching through the pockets and prodding around in their mouths for gold-filled teeth. Some of the Marines had a sack in which they collected teeth with gold fillings.

"An officer said he had seen a number of Japanese bodies from which an ear or a nose had been cut off. ‘Our boys cut them off to show their friends for fun’, or to dry to take back to the States. We found one Marine with a Japanese head. He was trying to get the ants to clean the flesh off the skull, but the odour got so bad we had to take it away from him."

Pretty rich behaviour and double standards coming from a nation which, like Britain, made sixty years of propaganda out of the untrue story that Germans had boiled bodies to make soap, and used skin to make light shades.


Not surprisingly much has been said and written about Japanese atrocities. Unsurprisingly, very little is said about allied atrocities which invariably exceeded those of the Japanese.

Indeed, there was little more than lip service paid to the taking of prisoners. Great Britain’s Ghurka Regiments would never countenance such limp-wrist squeamishness. The captives had their throats slit or were bayoneted where they stood. It was then common practice to disassemble the victim’s physique to a condition in which it could neatly be buried in a bucket-sized hole in the ground.

Beri Beri and the trots in a Japanese POW camp, building a railway with at least some chance of survival, might by some be considered a reasonable alternative.


As a matter of policy American ships sank all Japanese ships on sight, irrespective of whether they were carrying passengers or war materials. Such was their enthusiasm in this respect that when they sank a freighter filled with American POWs there was no change in policy.

With shades of Iraq and Afghanistan official communiqués laid claim that only military objectives in Japanese cities were bombed "with pinpoint accuracy." In fact the fire raid bombings, as on Germany, were wholly indiscriminate and caused more casualties than did the dropping of the atom bombs on Japan’s only two Christian cities, Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Over 250,000 lost their lives during the fire raids on Tokyo, and eight million were made homeless. One raid alone on March 10 1945 killed 140,000 people and left 1 million homeless.

The west has never been slow to make a fast buck out of recounting tales of Japanese atrocities but the Japanese themselves, for cultural reasons, have never spoken of their own ordeals at the hands of the allies. They see such account as a national humiliation. Even when during a POW riot at a camp in Australia, 221 Japanese prisoners-of-war were either gunned down or took their own lives, no mention was made of it. For the Japanese there are no films entitled "The Great Escape."


When, at the end of the war, evidence was produced that showed not all allied POWs suffered abuse, this was ignored. Much to his credit Britain’s General Percival, captured in Singapore, wrote in 1949 an objective account of his experiences and that of fellow officers, during their internment.

He recalled sharing a bottle of whisky with the camp commandment, travelled in the First Officer’s cabin on the ship bound for Japan, because he wasn’t feeling well. He had received Red Cross stores on arrival at the camp where they were taken, and in 1943 was moved to a camp near the capital of Formosa.

Not quite the Raffles Hotel and tea dances were a rarity but each officer did have a room to himself, a library of English and American books, table tennis to keep them amused, and a gramophone with a good supply of records which they could buy locally.

The prisoners received letters though they did take rather a long time in transit, and were allowed to write one letter a month. For a period at least they received a choice of two English language newspapers, and each had their own radio set. When they were moved to Manchuria they were given extra warm clothing ands were housed believe it or not in centrally heated barracks.

So who would you prefer being captured by? The Allies or the Japanese?



Update 27 October 2005:

Hi There!,
              I have a quote I came across which is reminiscent of my original e-mail to you.  While reading "Ravishing the Women of Conquered Europe", by Austin App (about mass rape of Germans by Allied soldiers) I came across the following statement by an American officer.  Admiral Halsey, from the US navy, exclaimed to a group of Washington newspapermen "I hate Japs!  I'm telling you men, that if I met a pregnant Japanese woman, I'd kick her in the belly!" 

Again, can you imagine if a Japanese admiral said that about an American civilian?  It would be repeated in the media over and over again, but because it was stated by an Allied officer it has gone down the memory hole.

                                                                                   Alphonso Grahame

COMMENT: I can imagine him doing it, too. - C.P.