Wikipedia Lies: On Rapes Allegedly Committed by the Wehmacht in the Soviet Union as “proven” by Franklin Ryckaert

April 22, 2016 at 5:13 pm

With reference to remarks by Franklin Ryckaert  here,
in which Ryckaert self-righteously accuses the Wehrmacht
of mass rapes and other crimes.

Ryckaert simply quotes a Wikipedia article called War Crimes of the Wehrmacht. (Including references to footnotes, but not the footnotes themselves, which is always a dead giveaway that a person is simply copying off Wikipedia):

The article states as follows:

“…one report by the International Military Tribunal stated that “in the city of Smolensk the German Command opened a brothel for officers in one of the hotels into which hundreds of women and girls were driven; they were mercilessly dragged down the street by their arms and hair…”

The above is simply a quotation from a “Soviet War Crimes Report”, quoted by the Soviet prosecutor on p. 456 of vol. VII of the Nuremberg Trial transcript, and described, on Volume VII, p. 453, as “a note by the People’s Commissar for Foreign Affairs of the U.S.S.R., V. M. Molotov, dated 6 January 1942, submitted to the Tribunal as “Exhibit Number USSR-51”, and read out in open court by Councillor Lev N. Smirnov on 14 February 1946.

I have reproduced this page photographically on page 203 of MADE IN RUSSIA: THE HOLOCAUST.

I have reproduced and/or translated several of these reports and other Soviet “evidence”, including numerous forgeries, on my site.

(See also http: // and many other articles.)

The “statements” of the “witnesses” and other documents are never attached to the reports, and the reports are never signed (except as “true copies” by the Soviet officials in charge of the commission”.

One of these reports (USSR-54) “proves” German guilt for the mass killings at Katyn; Soviet guilt for this crime was officially admitted by the Russian government in 1989; a translation of this “report” by myself may be found here;  photographic excerpts from the same report are reproduced on pp. 100-120 of MADE IN RUSSIA: THE HOLOCAUST (available from amazon or for free on the Internet).

Another “Soviet War Crimes report” (USSR-52) “proves” the mass-murder by pedal-driven brain-bashing machine of 840,000 Russian POWs at Sachsenhausen in 30 days:

or, in book form, MADE IN RUSSIA: THE HOLOCAUST (hereinafter: M.I.R.T.H.), pp. 15-16.

For a photographic reproduction of the “original” document (in Russian, with typewritten signature in Russian by the German “witness”, who may never even have existed for all we know), see

Does Ryckaert believe this? Does he believe in the pedal-driven brain-bashing machine? Does he believe the Germans killed the Polish officers at Katyn? Has he read Report USSR-54? The Russians admitted their guilt for this crime in 1989.

The book by Birgit Beck which Rykaert so proudly quotes apparently does not exist in English translation. So I don’t believe Ryckaert has read it.

In any case, you can take any book on German atrocities or the so-called “Hoaxoco$t”, any book at all: look at the footnotes. You will find these “reports” and other Soviet forgeries quoted by the dozen, if not in the hundreds.

Probably 75-95% of all the “Hoaxoco$t” evidence you will ever see is pure Communist propaganda. This is true of Shirer, Hilberg, Reitlinger, all of them. Forget the text, just look at the footnotes. They are all garbage.

For one thing, there are no original documents. Nobody has ever seen a single original document. Nobody knows where these dubious documents are, or even if they exist.

I shall refrain from insulting Ryckaert’s intelligence by suggesting that, now that he has proven himself capable of reading Wikipedia, perhaps he should graduate to comic books?

Might I suggest that he begin with Sergeant Rock? Or is that too difficult for him?

Carlos W. Porter
22 April 2016

46 thoughts to “Wikipedia Lies: On Rapes Allegedly Committed by the Wehmacht in the Soviet Union as “proven” by Franklin Ryckaert”

  1. Thanks, Carlos.
    These are valuable, not so much for proving Franklin wrong, because I believe that he means well (I remember hurling accusations at him) and just tries to keep himself – and us – honest by not shying away from contrary evidence – except that often, this “evidence” is entirely manufactured in the mines and factories of Talmud – … whew, where was I, Ellie help, oh yes – but for
    proving beyond a shadow of doubt that the famed Wikipedia is an instrument of Talmudic mind control
    and its signposts will invariably mislead at the important crossroads, whether by commission or omission.
    The world’s preeminent gatekeeping operation, in sync with Google and Facebook.
    Your evidence damns them all beyond redemption.

    Caveat goy lector.

    1. Intellectual laziness and cowardlines defines Franklin Rycart’s posts. Try studying the 1911 – 1925 Encyclopedia Brittanica, Franklin. You present yourself as a disciple, yet you speal like a tyrant. You hide in books to justify yourself. As in the days of Jeroboam, it’s a major problem in our time too, and that is : the worst being propped up to look like the authorities, cops, lawyers, judges, judges, priests … STFU Franklin. A man should have gravel in his gut and spit in his eye to be worthy of a girl. You’re just a pussy.

      1. @ Lepieu P

        “Intellectual laziness and cowardlines defines Franklin Rycart’s posts…. STFU Franklin. A man should have gravel in his gut and spit in his eye to be worthy of a girl. You’re just a pussy.”

        Tsk, tsk, you are a trifle harsh, dear sir! And your inflammatory language leaves much to be desired. This is a civilized forum where decorum must at all times be observed.

        Franklin is one of our most erudite posters. He is trying his best to be balanced and objective. He clearly does not believe that Wikipedia is the tissue of fabrications you people all think it is. Maybe this is his blind spot: his touching belief in Wikipedia’s veracity. He has been castigated for this before but has answered his critics with aplomb.

        So give him a break, OK? Be nice, m’sieur. And recognize that life would be extremely boring if we had universal agreement.

      2. Lolicia

        Nice to see you post again. You posted just what I would expect of a respectable lady to post. Unfortunately, in your feminine mind, you don’t see how it works for us guys. To me, Franklin looks like a guy who hides in books rather that learn from them. His constant references to Wikipedia are a good example. We guys are harsh on eachother for a reason. It looks like he would sell his soul and sell out everything he claims to hold dear (which is what, I still don’t know) just to look like a smartypants. What pisses me off most about him is he’s a dutch and a pathetic limpdick.

        I’M DUTCH and he’s an insult!

      3. Lepieu P,

        “A man should have gravel in his gut and spit in his eye to be worthy of a girl. You’re just a pussy.”

        As one of the younger males who posts on this forum (and of course no ageist insult to my elders) it appears to me that the older gentlemen here seem to forget that the lady is certainly very rare to come by these days. My mother, in her early eighties most certainly is a lady, as were her sisters. Her brothers were also gentlemen, all sadly gone now. I seen very few of their ilk today and most certainly NOT amongst my generation and below. Women, within today’s society, those many touched by feminism most certainly are not worthy of any man. Even those who don’t classify themselves as feminists fail to see that they’ve taken on board many feminist traits, although oblivious to them.

  2. If it’s from Wikipedia and it’s anything to do with Jews, Judaism, Israel, Zionism (that is anything that puts them in a bad light), Hitler, the third Reich, WW2, the holohoax, WW1 etc etc then you know it’s going to be lies.

    1. Harbinger,

      Indeed, but make no mistake, everything else is a pack of lies as well. Because it is not only direct obvious lies that make up the matrix we live in. Every small detail is designed to contribute to it as well.

      Media, TV, newspapers, publishers, etc. This is the Jew’s main working mind control weapon, and being in charge of the money supply enables that. Thousands, millions of little things that seem insignificant in dialogues and narratives in films, TV shows, series, talk shows, pop culture, art, reviews, comedies, documentaries, novels, magazines, ‘news’, etc. are put there with a purpose. So that one’s senses are constantly being bombarded into a state of unconsciousness. The average person is 24/7 surrounded by well designed nonsense, lies and distractions, especially on the internet.

      Same thing in ‘educational’ institutions, starting at kindergarten. There is simply no escape from it.

      Now, of course I am well aware that I don’t have to tell you all this. I’m only stressing the incredible meticulousness that they put in to this. It is so vast, it is so all encompassing, most folks are not able to see it.

      1. 1138,

        “Thousands, millions of little things that seem insignificant in dialogues and narratives in films, TV shows, series, talk shows, pop culture, art, reviews, comedies, documentaries, novels, magazines, ‘news’, etc. are put there with a purpose. So that one’s senses are constantly being bombarded into a state of unconsciousness.”

        What I’ve noticed, almost in every show I’ve seen of late (and I don’t watch TV, only download the odd show now an then) is almost every one has some reference to Hitler and his plans of world domination. The last one was Grimm a modern day spin of the classic fairytales, or should I say, horror, brought Hitler in as one of the Wessen, the shapeshifters, whom the Grimm, an individual who is able to see them change into their monster form, hunts. Hitler was of course, in this show, one of the Wessen and was a psychopathic totalitarian who wanted to bring about a global world order under his totalitarianism. It is constant programming to forever see Hitler and Germany in a bad light.

  3. Carlos, thanks for taking the time to address this troll. He’s spewed his vitriole on some of my past comments, and I’ve not had the interest to take the obvious shill to task. If I had say, I’d have banned him long ago from disturbing the flow of otherwise well meaning, intelligent conversation on this site.

  4. Mr. Porter is obviously a thorough researcher in this field. Mr. Ryckhaert might not be as studied – but neither does he deserve such vitriolic castigation. I’ve enjoyed reading his comments, and often learned tidbits therefrom which I wouldn’t ordinarily have considered. (Besides Darkmoon herself, the only other truly well-rounded and reliably-researched commentary on this site comes from Pat.)

  5. What’s going on here? Mr Ryckhaert is like most of us and uses Wikipedia, but he seems to have relied on it for information about WW2 and Germany. That is where Wikipedia comes across as a propaganda tool for Israel.

  6. Mr Porter is wrong– the Germans raped their way through Russia, urged by a fellow by the name of Ehrenburg or something like that.
    Just because the Soviets made a mistake about Katyn — and who doesn’t get confused in the fog of war (“Was it you or was it me? I think it was you”) — does not mean the Soviets lied about other WWII events. As for the Holocaust, The Soviets behaved like gentlemen: it would have been rude if not cruel — to paraphrase Lady Renouff– to deprive 6 million Jews of a devoutly wished fate they had their hearts set on long before. Lobro, as always, casts gratuitous aspersions: Wikipedia makes no errors of omission.

  7. I have nothing bad to state about Franklin. We do not often agree. OK by me.

    I ran across this a few years back, while searching Who Owns Diebold:

    Proof of Spin on Wikipedia
    On November 25, 2005, an anonymous poster from a Diebold IP address deleted extensive references to the controversy surrounding Diebold’s electronic voting machines. This edit was picked up by the Wikiscanner tool. [17]

    See the changes:

    1. @ Pat
      @ Lepieu P
      @ Other Franklin bashers

      I have nothing bad to state about Franklin. We do not often agree. OK by me. (Pat)

      Well said, Pat! That is exactly my attitude to Franklin. The idea that Franklin is some kind of Zionist troll, trying to muddy the waters and cast aspersions on the Germans for their allegedly horrible behaviour in WWII, is unfair and inaccurate.

      I have been reading Franklin’s comments for years, not only here but on the Occidental Observer.

      If Franklin were a Zionist troll, neither Kevin MacDonald nor Lady Darkmoon would have put up with him for so long. They would have pulled the plug on him long ago.

      Franklin is a dedicated White Nationalist who has no love of the Jews. He has told us this in a brief article published on this website, recommending various books we should read. All the books he recommends are severely critical of the Jews, beginning with the classic tomes of Prof. Kevin MacDonald.

      Would a Zionist troll recommend the works of Kevin MacDonald? No way! So please give Franklin his due and stop bashing him. He is a genuine truthseeker who has made a slight tactical error by trusting Wikipedia when he ought to have been a bit more circumspect.

      That is hardly a hanging offense.

    2. Have to say, I’m quite shocked that anyone would call for the expulsion of Franklin from this website, other than a Zionist Jew/Christian, a Jew or a shabbos goy troll.

  8. In Ursula Haverbeck’s television interview on the collapsing claims of the Holocaust she spends a good portion of the interview discussing the German SS regulation handbook and the penalties given for mistreating prisoners. At 24:45 In her discussion she discusses the regulations forbidding German soldiers from raping women and she cites a case from personal knowledge of a German soldier being handed over for court martial with the punishment being the death penalty for raping a Polish woman. She also discusses the well known fact, at least among any Germans that lived during the war (despite it being lied about and covered up for 60 years) of the Soviets enthusiastically encouraging their soldiers to rape German women with the Jew Ilya Ehrenburg leading this effort with his articles in newspapers and large numbers of leaflets dropped on advancing Soviet troops encouraging them to rape and kill Germans. Unfortunately for non-German women, they did not escape the rampaging gang rapists either.

    Wikipedia’s entries on WW I and particularly WW II are extremely biased and lying in their entries is widespread. While there is no mention of the gang raping of 2 million German women and widespread murder of German civilians, over and over again you will see entries of Germans committing “suicide” in the areas where widespread atrocities took place. I tried educating one of incompetents and / or liars that regulates the entries made to Wikipedia articles on the 2 million German women raped by the allies, mainly Soviets. She was completely ignorant of this until I sent her several articles from mainstream publications on the issue.

  9. Allright, I concede that Wikipedia, being controlled by Jews, is not reliable when it comes to subjects perceived by them to be Jewish interests.

    The reason why I and many others use Wikipedia is because it offers quick reference. It is simply undoable to first read many books about a subject before you want to comment on an article or are engaged in a discussion with other commenters. At the time you would have finished those books, the article would have been disappeared already from the horizon of the readership. Quick reference is what encyclopedias are about.

    If you guys know an alternative to Wikipedia, then let us know.

    1. I should like an alternative to your self-righteous, superior attitude, to start with. For example, I don’t believe you should have accused me of advocating the “merciless” “extermination” and “genocide” of illegal immigrants the other day, and I don’t believe that Lasha should have used your lie as her headline. What I advocated was to be carried out legally by military personnel and police, with relatively few deaths, as I said in the first place.
      When I want to advocate “merciless” “extermination” and “genocide”, I shall do so, you may depend on it.
      Nice of Lasha to link to my interview, though.

      1. Dixit Francis Rykaert:
        “Quick reference is what encyclopedias are about…”
        Actually, this is not true at all. I spent years reading the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica. Not easy going by any means. Try it.
        Actually, Wikipedia is no worse than anything else today, it’s well organized, but you’ve got to be careful. The same way you don’t eat everything you find lying around in the street.

  10. You might also be interested in CRIMES AGAINST THE WEHRMACHT by Dr. Franz W. Seidler, a 400-page book translated by myself (with 95 photographs), and my own WAR CRIMES TRIALS, both available from amazon.

    One problem with all WWII “war crimes trials”, both Japanese and German, is the wholesale acceptance of obvious Communist propaganda, and the acceptance of oral and written hearsay (for example, “certified true copies” of “affidavits” said to have been signed by totally unknown persons (who never wrote their own “statements”, you can be sure of that, and I’ll explain why if you’re interested).

    In a real trial the “affidavit” would be considered inadmissible hearsay and the witness would have to appear and testify and be cross-examined. They did not appear. It is constantly implied that they did.

    A good example of this appears in the Wikipedia article on Japanese cannibalism,,

    one of the most ridiculous atrocity stories ever, for reasons which are obvious if you read all the statements put together, since they all contradict each other and are full of absurdities. Wikipedia says (note the word “testified”):

    For example, an Indian POW, Havildar Changdi Ram, testified that: “[on November 12, 1944] the Kempeitai beheaded [an Allied] pilot. I saw this from behind a tree and watched some of the Japanese cut flesh from his arms, legs, hips, buttocks and carry it off to their quarters … They cut it [into] small pieces and fried it.”[110]

    This is the actual quotation from the Tokyo Trial transcript:

    “I saw this from behind a tree and noticed Japanese cut his flesh from arms, legs, chest and hips… I was shocked at the scene and followed the Japanese just to find out what they do to the flesh. They cut the flesh to small pieces and fried it. About 1800 hours a Japanese high official (Major General) addressed about 150 Japanese. At the conclusion of the speech a piece of the fried flesh was given to all present, who ate it on the spot” (Affidavit of Havildar Changiram, p. 14,130; Changiram was a totally unknown person who never appeared in court).

    At this rate, you can prove anything. You can even make up the names if you want to. Why have a trial? and other articles. Why not read it, since it’s free?

  11. One reason we know that the witnesses never wrote their own statements is because many of the witnesses were illiterates, and/or the statements were written in foreign languages, plus that’s not the way the system works — never.

    Personally, I have a very great mistrust of “sworn statements” and “affidavits”, particularly when prepared by prosecutors or the police. I’ve signed “sworn statements” on at least half a dozen occasions.

    I was a witness, not a suspect; my interrogators were not hostile to me, and had no preconceived notion of what they wanted to hear. Yet I always noticed that they NEVER WRITE DOWN WHAT YOU SAY.

    They always write something completely different in their own crazy jargon, often COMPLETELY DISTORTING what you say, and ALWAYS leaving out something that you think is important.

    They really seem to think that they know better than you do what you saw, and what you experienced. This is the conceit of the professional who thinks that no layman can describe anything correctly.

    When they finish writing up your “statement”, THEY NEVER READ IT TO YOU. They simply summarize it and ask you to sign. They become visibly annoyed if you insist on reading it carefully, and if you insist on changing more than one or two things, they get mad and say they haven’t got all day to rewrite the thing. So in the end, you end up signing it, even if it is a load of rubbish.

    This is particularly stupid of them when you reflect that they know perfectly well that when you appear in court, you are going to tell your story in your own words, just the same way you told it in the first place, at which point your “pre-trial affidavit” will be introduced into evidence against you as a “prior inconsistent statement”, thus defeating its own purpose (assuming that its purpose is to discover the truth). All lawyers know this and exploit it to the full.

    The system works this way: if you say “I got out of my car and this guy with some fuzz on his face came up to me, his face was kind of hairy”, your interrogator will write “I exited my vehicle was accosted by a bearded individual”, or some other such gibberish.

    If you say that’s not right — he had some hair on his face, but it wasn’t really a beard — you may well be told that you’ve got to describe him as bearded or clean-shaven, this is the third correction you’ve made so far, we haven’t got all day, so which is it? So you sign it.

    Later you appear in court and testify that the suspect had some facial hair but no beard. Your “sworn statement” is then introduced into evidence against you as a “prior inconsistent statement” to prove that you are mistaken in your present identification.

    YOU WILL NEVER BE ALLOWED TO EXPLAIN WHY YOU SIGNED A STATEMENT SAYING THE SUSPECT HAD A BEARD. Even if your own lawyer brings this out on “re-direct”, the damage is done: the court will think you are unreliable.

    The result of this system, if you appear in court to testify (as is the rule in ordinary criminal cases), is that a defendant with “fuzz on his face” may be acquitted of a crime which he actually committed.

    If you do NOT appear in court to testify (as is the rule in “war crimes trials”, which are not conducted according to “technical rules of evidence”), the result may well be that a “bearded individual” will be convicted of a crime he never committed.

    It is hard to conceive of a system more unreliable or more unfair than trial by “affidavit”, without the personal appearance of the witnesses, particularly where the interrogators are in a position to intimidate the witnesses.

  12. jerman soldiers do not rape girls only little boys.We never raped no axis ally ,german jews,enemies 9never ve are alter boys ach

  13. I have a lot of respect and admiration for the erudite Franklin. However with regard to rapine by the German armed forces, including the Waffen SS, in WW 2 he is mistaken. The German military forces were punctilious in their punishment of rape by their own personnel. Offenders were publicly shot in the towns and villages, including Russia, where the rapes had occurred. My parents fought on opposite sides during the war and I remember my South African Uncle, who served in North Africa in the 2nd Brigade, 1st South African division. Later on, in late 1943 he was in the 6th South African Armoured division, attached to the US 5th Army in Italy. The US forces were notorious for their sexual depredations and he recounted how an Italian woman told that she felt safer under German occupation than American. With regard to the Russian front, when I was living in Australia during the early sixties, we had a family friend, a former member of the Latvian SS who I overhead telling my father his experience of being part of a firing squad executing one of their own members for rape.
    Yes, the Germans did shoot Russian military personnel under the Commissar order signed by Hitler. The purpose of which was to eradicate communists. And considering the USSR had refused to sign any of the Hague or Geneva conventions, despite German efforts to get them to do so, I don’t consider this to be unreasonable. This is according to the book by Nikolai Tolstoy, “Victims of Yalta”.

  14. The “Commissar Order” had very little practical effect, for a number of reasons: the difficulty of determining who was a Commissar (since they did not wear distinctive uniforms, but rather, I believe, merely emblems on their caps), and moral hesitation on the part of German generals, who feared that shooting the Commissars would simply discourage common Soviet soldiers from surrendering, for fear of being shot by the Commissars, who would then have no incentive to surrender, but more incentive to shoot their own men.

    In the end, I believe it was considered more practical to segregate the Commissars from other prisoners and keep them all cooped up together. After all, it is ordinarily in the interests of any sane combatant to encourage surrenders. Otherwise you simply suffer more casualties.

    I have Tolstoy’s excellent book (“Victims of Yalta”), in German, DIE VERRATENE VON YALTA. The author was bankrupted in a lawsuit brought in England, where he was living, in the late 80s, as a result of his book on the same subject, “THE MINISTER AND THE MASSACRES”, heavily critical of Harold MacMillan.

    Bitterly, he said, “I hope British honour is satisfied”.

    I wrote to him at the time, and said, “That is not possible, because Britain has no honour”.

    I never received an answer. I guess he was busy.

  15. This is not exactly to do with the topic.

    There have been several references to the Encyclopedia Britannica (EB) 1911-1920 editions.

    Why are these editions special? Who owned the publication rights? (ie was it jewish interests?)

    Did the EB in these years include material that would be considered hate speech, racist, or anti-semitic today?

    1. OK, you asked, you get an answer.

      Here’s an article I called “Anti-Semitism in the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica”:

      Enough, already?

      The EB was, I believed, owned by either Oxford or Cambridge University, and invited all the world’s greatest scholars to write articles on their specialist subjects. They didn’t just rely on their own staff, as I believe they obviously do today. They allowed a wide variety of views. For example, one of the articles on Russia in the 1911 was written by Prince Peter Kropotkin, the anarchist. They also allowed Germans to defend Germany, and so on. The style is fairly uniform, but the points of view vary drastically.

      The 1922 and 28 editions are the no. 1 best detailed sources on WWI, plus all the revolutions which occurred towards and after the end of the war: Ireland, Mexico, Portugal, Russia, Turkey, Rumania, etc. We could all learn a lot from these articles.

      You find all kinds of amazing things. Many of the scientific articles seem surprisingly up to date to me (for example, the coloration of insects, and things like that). It’s incomplete compared to today, but it is by no means all wrong.

      These volumes are all, all of them, what would today be called “extremely racist”. For example, one of the articles on “Europe” says that Northern Europe has been less “polluted” by “racially inferior elements” than places like Sicily.
      Those were the exact words used. You couldn’t say that today.

      Many of these articles are quite prophetic, and even ironic. For an amazing glimpse of the future, read the 1911 article on “Machine Guns”.

      The 1928 is much inferior, although not really bad. These are 3-volume updates, but extremely detailed, in very fine print, thousands of pages.

      In the late 30s, the EB was sold to the University of Chicago and has not been worth a damn (or not worth much), ever since.

      Don’t rely on the Internet OCR versions which are not worth a damn. Everything is wrong, they even get the articles mixed up. Get the set of CDs. It has an index, everything. 300 dpi.

      You can buy the 1911, 1922, and 1928 on interactive CD-ROM for 89 jewbuckniks (down from 120), and for a few buckniks more, you get the 3rd edition, 1780 or 90 something, for curiosity. I posted the link someplace. I spent years reading all these volumes.

      Will post the link.

      1. Jesus, they even lowered the price since then, they’re virtually giving it away. It’s practically half-price.
        Is reading a lost art? Has the film IDIOCRACY come true? (Don’t answer that: yes).
        In book form it costs many thousands of dollars.

    2. “This is not exactly to do with the topic…”
      It is entirely relevant to the topic because the whole point is that Francis Rykaert mistook an “affidavit” quoted in a Soviet “War Crimes Report” for actual “testimony”. It’s not the same thing. This is a trick constantly employed by our enemies. Rykaert fell for it. He’s not the only one. We have to be more careful. And it wasn’t just Wikipedia, it was some historian quoted by Wikipedia.
      As I pointed out elsewhere, the introduction of ex parte “sworn statements” instead of real testimony was a return to the legal procedures of the witchcraft trials of the Middle Ages.

  16. I recently visited Mr. Porter’s website where I read “I Left My Heart In Old Mukden” and other revisionist accounts of Japanese atrocities. Once again I feel I am approaching the “everything I know is wrong” threshold. I have read many accounts about the Pacific war and Japanese wartime atrocities. In the past I have been willing to accept these accounts as more or less factual because there have been some very clear cut examples of such atrocities, such as the show trial execution of American airman shot down during the Doolittle raid and other accounts of Japanese prisoner treatment. However, it staggers the imagination to think accounts of the “Rape of Nanking” might have no more truth in them than the sacred Hallowedhoax.

    A few years ago I read an account (a book whose title I cannot recall) of the cannibalism of American Airman by the Japanese. That account painted a picture not of wholesale, wanton cannibalism, but an account of what sounded like a singular, surreptitious and unique event. The Japanese movie “Fire on the Plains” depicts Japanese cannibalism of their own troops in the closing days of the war after they had been isolated on the Islands. “Fire on the Plains” ranks high among the most horrendous war movies I have seen.

    Another excellent movie of this nature, perhaps one of the very best, is the four part film titled “The Human Condition.” This is a Japanese account of their occupation of China. Its puts one’s eyes on a totally foreign event at a time beginning before WWII and ending with the end of the war. It is interesting to see how the Japanese treated their own troops using methods not unlike the Prussians prior to WWI. These movies, as well as many Chinese films, put Hollywood to shame, but then so do the large majority of all foreign films. Apparently cinematic talent flowers when a film industry is not overrun by Jews.

    What about the now forgotten Bataan Death march, an event I always thought was well documented. Were those atrocities mere propaganda? How about the infamous “Unit 781” and their bizarre medical experiments, is that mere fiction like the Mengele accounts? (Imagine an SS medical officer, a mere captain at that, wielding such immense power over a prison camp – I can’t).

    The actuality of the “Nazi” U-boat captain ordering the machine gunning of helpless victims from his attack is a one off event for which the Captain was tried, convicted and executed by the Germans. By contrast, the Japanese machined gunned survivors on more than one occasion with no legal repercussions from the high command. I personally knew a survivor of such an attack. Never have I seen such unrelenting hatred from an individual towards an entire group and I have spent more than a few hours talking to Klansmen of the deep South.

    While European combat medics on both sides wore large red crosses inside a circular field of white on both sides of their helmets, the first thing American medics did upon their arrival in the pacific was to paint out the red and white emblem as Japanese snipers were notorious for singling out medics to deprive aid to the wounded. Things of this nature were also common among the NVA and Vietcong in Vietnam.

    American and German troops would observe cease fires so both sides could gather their dead and wounded. To my knowledge, such an event never took place in the Pacific theater. When I look at Japanese culture, where the lion’s share of their movies feature bloody sword play, it is not hard to accept the claims I have heard about their atrocities. Interestingly, Chinese history is likewise filled with terrible atrocities, equally as bad as anything the Japanese committed during the war. I note that both cultures are oriental as are their Jewish counterparts.

    While the Japanese had the Kamikazes, the Germans had the Reichenberg program featuring a V-1 “buzz bomb” manned by a suicide pilot. But while the Japanese went full force behind the Kamikaze program, the Germans felt suicide missions were not part of the German psyche and so shelved the Reichenberg program. The point is, there is not just vast physical distance, but a vast cultural gulf between the Occident and the Orient.

    Another reason I have never much questioned the wartime accounts of the Japanese was there is no motive to lie about these events as is the case with the Jews and their Hallowedhoax. I can understand the wartime propaganda, but why continue these fabrications long after the war? There must have been a motive in this somewhere. But then more and more of these accounts are now coming into question.

    I recently read a very carefully researched and compelling, revised account of the Battle of Midway. The book, “Shattered Sword” will call into question everything one knows or has heard about the battle. I had a favorite uncle who flew SBDs at Midway. I spoke with him over the years about his flying experience, and curiosity led to spending time studying the subject at length. However, as portrayed by the German pilot in “The Great Waldo Pepper” men who participated in the battle often have less knowledge about the overall action then those examining events at a later time. Outside the fact that this was a decisive sea battle, the version we have been taught, bears almost no resemblance to the actual event.

    So what is the reality? How much Japanese wartime history is blatant lies or carefully orchestrated propaganda? What I have learned about the Germans and their National Socialist political movement over the last twenty years has now discounted almost everything I thought I once knew about a subject which I have had an abiding interest in since early childhood. How much Japanese history will follow the same pattern? One thing is certain, the “greatest generation” was in fact the stupidest, most ignorant of all American generations. These were not “good guys,” but murderous aggressors as were all the allies. However, to be frank they were after all the end product of Jewish lies and propaganda.

    I no longer accept anything without question and I am ever ready to revise my historical views on the Japanese. This will not be too difficult because, although distant, I have been rather neutral or even slightly partial to their culture. Having been a soldier, I well know how little control the average grunt has over his life in the military. Some rare individuals take combat to heart enjoying and reveling in the slaughter. Most however, are sickened by war and want nothing more to do with the military afterwards. In fact I suspect that is why they can only squeeze an average of five years out of modern warfare. After that point the vast majority are sickened by the bloodshed to a point where they begin to balk at the leadership they serve under, one which by that point seems more intent having them killed than the enemy.

    1. I would very much like to find an objective, neutral history of the Chinese-Japanese conflicts; as far as I know, no such thing exists. They are all either 100% pro-Chinese, or, a minority, 100% pro-Japanese. That is not entirely correct, in my view. An historian should look at both sides.

      Was einer sagt, hat keiner gesagt; beide mussen gehört werden, as they used to say.

    2. What happened to Japan is pretty much what happened to pretty much everyone else..

      “If I were to tell you, that once, no other country, save India, revered the cow as much as Japan, I could understand your disbelief. Today, we think of Japan as a meat-eating culture. However, this image is a product of the last 150 years of American influence..”

      The Samurai: Protectors of the Cow

      1. HP,

        Thanks for the cow story, a good allegory even if the author is unfair with the Jesuits.
        Do you know the fable of the frog that wished to be bigger than the ox?

        Atm, what happened to Japan is the same thing that happened to a certain country in the 17th century, insular people facing a natural resource issue due to demographic pressure leading to political turmoil. So the ruling elites in association with the priesthood reformed the religion with a return to the old tradition, Shinto Bushido vs OT, in order to give the always arrogant islanders type/ ruler a divine mission/status to justify their imperialism, claiming they are the true keepers of the continental religion, in the case of Asia Buddhism.
        It just happened faster due to a longer and stronger isolation.
        I wonder if the Brits whispered this plan to the emperor as a territory of self-chosen pricks is always the best way to destabilize a continent in order to make a pound. All the Europeans countries would support Japanese armament. A couple of victories later, some hubris and Godzilla is unleashed for a rapid war ejaculation.

        The transition from the buddha way Zen of the Tokugawa to the imperial way zen of Meiji is well explained in “Zen at War” by Brian Victoria.

        The Buddhists are quite radical when at war. They don’t teach that in Occidental Zen business tantric schools, I mean, those Japanese masters are pretty extreme.
        That would explain the atrocities committed in Asia by Japanese soldiers and the state of collective zen amnesia they suffer from ever since. I mean nobody denies what England did in Ireland.


        There is not a single serious book about this war because all the Occidental countries had a shameful behavior in Asia but mainly because any serious book about the topic would have destroyed the Cold War narrative and the romantic Mao (US backed) revolution that followed and that was taught in European Marxist universities to brainwash student that have lead Barroso, a CIA agent, and all the other European ex-Maoists internationalists to the European parliament. Basic PCR Us “soft” power. Not to mention decolonization.

        The best material remains the version of the Chinese nationalists. They lost the war in 1949 after all. Here is a chronology giving a global WWII perspective of all the actors, if you don’t mind inflated figures and exterminationist holocaust narrative.

        The version changes but the perfidy of England and the discernment of Staline never cease to amaze me.

        The funny thing is Chinese nationalists refer to Zionists as Soviet agents around Roosevelt working for England. They really hate your guts my English cousins, you better tool up Aussies and buy the frogs more brand new submarines.
        Hope their Buddah is gentlier.

        Salut. Go Hornets.

  17. There are two problems with accounts of Japanese atrocities, actually three or four:
    a) the wholesale acceptance at the Tokyo Trial and elsewhere of Communist hearsay “war crimes reports” concerning events which occurred many years before;
    b) the fact that, except when they were fighting uniformed Western troops, the Japs were almost always fighting guerrilla wars; so naturally, all the people they killed were “innocent civilians”;
    c) the fact that atrocities always occur, of course, but, in modern warfare, usually involve isolate small units where there has been a complete breakdown in discipline and lack of supplies.
    Isolated cases of cannibalism among starving soldiers on isolated islands were a natural but rare occurrence. I have seen “Fires on the Plain”. I paid 30 dollars for it. (I also recommend “The Burmese Harp”, although it does not concern itself with cannibalism.)
    The absurdity of claiming that Japs are inveterate cannibals who enjoy eating people is a bit ridiculous in view of the well-known fact that the Japanese are extremely fastidious eaters who consume little meat; in Japan, butchers are despised.
    Most of the atrocities charged against the Japanese were in fact mirror images of atrocities known to have been practised by the British (opium dealing) and Chinese (cannibalism).
    Almost an entire volume of the Tokyo Trial is devoted to accusing the Japs of forcing the opium trade onto the Chinese (see htttp://!
    Who made these accusations? Why, the British, of course! Ever heard of the Opium Wars? There are many books about the practice of cannibalism in China; just look on amazon. I listed them someplace.
    I have written about Nanking and the Bataan Death March, both. Look them up. For example,
    d) Lastly, it is in the nature of a wrong to be exaggerated. Look at the evidence in the cold light of day and it is not always what it is cracked up to be.
    Lastly, many of the atrocities allegedly committed by the Japanese were in fact committed by Korean conscripts (who were assigned to guarding the prisoners, since they would probably not make reliable front-line soldiers, as they hated the Japs with a passion). The Japanese were not bound by the 1929 Geneva Prisoner of War Convention. It seems like a technicality, but it is not.
    One of my wife’s relatives was captured by the Japs, and he said the Japs weren’t too bad, but some other race working for them were terrible; probably Koreans. Who else?
    It is very difficult to determine the truth about something which is not inherently impossible; the German “gas chambers” were impossible; bayoneting and torturing people in remote patches of jungle or isolated prison camps is not. So the real truth — the true extent of any real atrocities — will never be known.
    Machine-gunning survivors of sinkings is actually a British speciality.

  18. I believe that the stories of “Unit 781” are pure Communist propaganda but I would have to research it. They were not mentioned at the Tokyo Trial. These experiments were alleged to have been conducted in Siberia, as I recall, so who would the source of information be? The Soviets, of course.
    Only 7 American airmen were ever executed by the Japs, because the mass bombing attacks were in clear violation of international law. They were not eaten. I consider these executions justified. Incidentally, they never executed the entire crew, only the navigator and bombardier. 7 guys after burning 100,000 women and children to death! Big deal. Sorry.
    Here’s what a Japanese-American has to say on a number of topics. Interesting guy.
    I sense that I am growing tiresome.

  19. Carlos,
    Regarding the Tokyo Tribunal, you might like to research the only dissenting opinion by Judge Pal of India. In his opinion the Japanese “War Criminals” were innocent. He was the only South Asian Judge to sit on the tribunal.

  20. Reply to Felix:
    “…Regarding the Tokyo Tribunal, you might like to research the only dissenting opinion by Judge Pal of India. In his opinion the Japanese ‘War Criminals’ were innocent. He was the only South Asian Judge to sit on the tribunal…”
    I’m 3 steps ahead of you. I transcribed the entire Pal Judgement (700 pages in the unobtainable 1947 Calcutta edition) on my website. is the first file.
    For a pic of the Pal Shrine in Japan, see
    I also have the complete Tokyo Trial Transcript, 52,000 thousand pages, mind you, 22 volumes, much of which I have actually read (not all). At one time, 20 or 30 years ago, there were said to be only 4 complete copies of it in the world, impossible to consult, an estimated 1000 pages of which are illegible. That’s where I got all the stuff in my articles. There were 4 dissenting judgements, but none as drastic as Pal’s, the second most important one being that of Justice Webb of Australia.

    As they used to say, if your mama says she loves you, check it out.

    1. There are also 4 large index volumes, one of them 4 or 5 inches thick. The publication was a prestige project of the London School of Economics, published, as I recall, by Garland Press. Certainly out of print now.
      Very complex. There were 16 witnesses named Tanaka, the commonest family name in Japan, so keeping track of who’s who is not very easy.
      Justice Webb’s judgement is extensively quoted or discussed in a very interesting book called A TREATISE ON INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL LAW, by Sherif Bassiouni. I sent it to Ernst Zundel in the 80s and it was destroyed in the famous Toronto arson attack. Webb made some very interesting points. Will discuss one or two if you care to listen.

  21. Webb’s principal point, as I recall, is: How far in history do you have to go to determine the “first wrong”? Decades? Centuries? Most wars (it’s hard to think of a single exception) are the result of political, demographic, geographical, ethnic and economic problems dating back decades or even centuries. Each side has its own arbitrary starting point which proves that the other side is “wrong”. (This is my summary, not his). At Tokyo, the arbitrary cut-off point was 1925. So, anything the Japs did in 1925 was the “first wrong”, even if it was an obvious reaction to, or in retaliation for, something the Chinese did in 1924! You need search no further: the Japs are the “bad guys”. Pick some other year, and it’s the other way around! It is obvious that the whole concept of “who is the aggressor” is all very arbitrary. This one single point throws everything into a cocked hat to start with.

    1. Thank you Carlos.
      I’ve put your site on fast dial on my tablet. Much perusal in store.

    2. Carlos –

      There is much not told, and certainly never explained by the military after conquests.
      Very little is ever revealed about the true nature of military government and its lingering presence.

      Study of Japan’s Taiwan’s status is very revealing on many levels… particularly “Military Government and Martial Law” by United States Army Brigadier General William E. Birkhimer:

      Hence, the statement that
      Taiwan an occupied territory of the United States.
      is indeed equivalent to saying that
      Taiwan is under the jurisdiction of the United States Military Government (USMG).
      but is not equivalent to saying that
      Taiwan is part of the United States.

      Based on the decision in DeLima v. Bidwell 182 U.S. 1 (1901), Taiwan may be said to be “foreign territory under the dominion of the United States.”


      Military Government and the Occupation of Taiwan

      Military occupation is conducted under military government, and for Taiwan the United States has delegated the military occupation of Taiwan to the ROC. The ROC as an agent for USMG on Taiwan is fully apparent under the plain language of the SFPT(San Francisco Peace Treaty 1952), and relevant analysis is given as follows:

      The ROC did not sign the SFPT, and cannot be considered one of the Allied Powers under the treaty,
      hence the ROC on Taiwan does not represent the “Allied Powers,”
      nor is it an organ established by the Allies,
      . . . but rather the ROC is an agent of USMG, and
      the SFPT fully recognizes the USA as the principal occupying power,
      with USMG jurisdiction over the territory of Taiwan.

      United States Military Government (USMG) in Taiwan has begun as of October 25, 1945, with the surrender of Japanese troops.

      Big question…..
      is ROC(Republic Of China) ‘STILL’ an agent of USMG(US Military Government)??


      US Secretary of State Colin Powell’s remarks of Oct. 25, 2004 are therefore confirmed as correct. He said: “There is only one China. Taiwan is not independent. It does not enjoy sovereignty as a nation, and that remains our policy, our firm policy.”

      “….the ROC flag should not be flown over Taiwan.”

  22. To: Justice for Chinese
    What the hell is this Kumbaya crap? What the hell are you talking about? Can anybody talk sense on this site?

    (I count 17 or 18 people, so, OK).

    To: PAT

    To say that Taiwan is not independent from China is to deny reality: it is Communist propaganda. They are independent as long as they can defend themselves. Like everybody else.

    Indeed, they had to be restrained from invading and overthrowing the Reds there for 20 years after the war, by the Americans; typical American treason.

    China was falling apart in the 60s; there were huge rebellions, involving millions of people, covering whole provinces, plus tens of millions of deaths through starvation. Taiwan was the most heavily militarized country in the world, more so than Israel. But the Americans didn’t want their darling cry baby communists to be interfered with.

    See Ta, Ta, Tan Tan, by Valentin Chu (Chinese foreign correspondent for Time Magazine), a perfectly astonishing book. More astonishing today than it was 45 or 50 years ago.

Comments are closed.