…..Idiots with keyboards
I just banned on Facebook an “Aldred Mouton.” First, for writing (on a Susan Hirvonen thread on FB) that Hitler was “a gay prostitute” — which shows something very wrong. (Anyone who spews Jew defamations is out.)
Second, for sending me stuff while obviously drunk. (Do people not realize that their typing and content reveal that they are intoxicated? Do they think their drivel is funny or worth reading? In any case, it shows an utter lack of respect for the person they are addressing. I had a loser friend who used to call me when drunk, and I finally read him the Riot Act. Today, he is dead, suicide by heroin overdose.)
Thirdly, for saying that as a Christian he cannot work with me on religion, which is okay — to each his own — but then he writes me 15 seconds later that “Martin Luther sure got up the Jews’ arse.” What a fine “Christian” — 1) unnecessarily vulgar, 2) overly familiar (to use vulgarities with me implies to him we are somehow buddies, even drinking buddies, when we certainly are not) and 3) defaming Adolf Hitler, the man who crushed atheism and nearly destroyed bolshevism and jewry.
Bashing one of our most selfless heroes of the last two thousand years is a great way to incur terrible karma. There is a good reason for the saying “Speak no evil of the dead.”
My view is that of John Kaminski: http://therebel.org/kaminski/709675-the-hitler-test
What I regret about the Net is that any humanimal who can type can spew his garbage and seek an audience for his zero life and idiot views.
…..to Mark Zuckerberg
To Mark Zuckerkike: Why exactly is it that you have not banned me yet? You banned me in the fall of 2011. Answer: You are energetically data mining. You, as a Jew, natürlich never provide any service for free. I note, btw, that Michael Weaver reports that he is unable to share my new blog on the Israeli diamond cutter (https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=333957980078461&set=a.213247628816164.1073741826.100003927843127&type=1) or ANY of my links to others on Facebook. I think I am the only WN where this is the case.
(Weaver can, however, post his own WN blog links or those of Duke, Metzger, AFP, TBR, Adams, Martin, etc. Why is it that their links are acceptable and not mine?)
I note I am also almost the only major WN that PayPal strictly bans.
I accept these backhanded compliments as proving that you all see me (potentially, not today) as being a huge threat. I accept the backhanded compliment that three puppet presidents have persecuted me. (http://www.democratic-republicans.us/wn-biography-of-jdn/about-john/two-bushes-and-obama-against-jdn)
And someday I will repay you for all your treason toward me and true Aryans. I live to carry out, I or my successor down the sweet and bitter road, what Doctor William Luther Pierce said in his novel The Turner Diaries, yes, after a proper and legal trial,
The Day of the Rope
The Jew Leo Max Frank is lynched by the leading citizens of Georgia after his five-times-confirmed death sentence was overturned by a bought-and-sold governor.
…..Jewess paints blond children being tortured
All I can say is “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.”
Jewess Jill Greenberg is a sadistic child-torturer who makes a profit out of selling photos of White Aryan children in suffering. All under the cover of “artistic” “freedom.” She depicts fair-haired children as sweaty, ugly and fat.
…..BIGGEST EARTHQUAKE EVER HIT JAPAN; DID HAARP AMPLIFY IT TO THAT LEVEL?
I wrote a comrade:
* * *
I read this sentence you wrote:
“I remember seeing (years ago) a clip of the ex-head of Japan’s banking system quoting that the reason that he gave western oligarchs control of their financial system is because they threatened Japan with a massive earthquake if they didn’t.”
I have had many good, decent friends from Japan (I just got an email from two of them, Katsutoshi and Yoshie) and I know that since 1929 the Fed-Rothschild Jews have had it in for the Japanese, and over and over promoted its rival, China, which also has a Chinese-Jewish population with special privileges. The judeopaths hate the Japanese for insisting on RACIAL PURITY, defending their culture from Jewmerican influences, and for having a booming economy all throughout OUR Great Depression because they printed money backed only by the hard work of the Japanese, just as Hitler did for the Germans, and not based on borrowed Jewdollars from the Fed and British jewpounds from the City of London.The Japanese are also part-white through the Ainu genes (the women often have skin as white as a sheet of paper), they are usually honest, punctual and obsessed with keeping promises. They consider China as in effect “yellow trash” and a nation of treacherous thieves, and if they could snap their fingers and become completely white people I think many of them would. (See my Wikipedia biography for some details about my five years of close association with Japanese scientists.) Their art is also very dignified and so is their bearing.
Thirty years ago, when Japan was almost the only booming economy in Asia, one Japanese political leader told the Wall Street Journal: “Japan is a skyscraper in a junkyard.”
Some of them are secretly also very anti-Jewish and still wish Hitler and Tojo had won the war. My fear is that there is a Chinese-Jewish alliance to crush both the elite and semi-white Japan and the elite race that created the white West. They want only an ugly, greedy, materialistic, enslaved mongrelworld.
I wrote earlier:
There is no question that the Japanese have some kind of “white blood.” I have met Japanese women who were far whiter in skin than any white woman I have ever dated, especially those from the northern half of Japan, and some are more or less beautiful.
I mean white as in the color of a piece of white paper, really WHITE, not pinkish-bluish-beige, which is what “white” people are.
There is of course the Ainu blood some of them have.
Japanese women especially have almost white or very white skin, especially in the northern half of the country where there is much Ainu blood. (Their hair is always black, but it is not quite common in Japan to die hair medium or light-brown. Blond would look ridiculous, and few try it.) The Ainu apparently are/were a proto-white race that originally settled in Japan before the Oriental race that conquered them. (The Finns seem to be another proto-white race, said the great Harvard anthropologist Carleton Coon, a white sub-race separated by ice ages from the other Whites — but very, very white. Finns are tied with Swedes as the blondest and most-blue eyed of all countries.) In the northern half of the main Japanese island of Honshu and especially in the northern island of Hokkaido, the women are very white-skinned, in fact, fairer of tint than some white American women.
She is fairer-skinned than he, like most Japanese women.
Japanese men, like men all around the world, are ruddier due to men having far more blood supply to their face, and thicker skin that holds more blood. Women have thin skin, and less vascularized, which unfortunately also causes their skin to age more rapidly. So they are justified to use skin creams and shield themselves from the sun. Near the top left of the main island of Honshu, you can see the coastal city of Akita. It is legendary for its Akita-bijin [ = "Akita beauties"]. A famous shogun, the Japanese themselves told me, banished all part-white Japanese to that city centuries ago…… As Wikipedia says: “The women of the region, referred to as Akita bijin (???? ‘beauties of Akita’?), have also gained widespread renown for their white skin, rounded faces and high voices, all of which are considered highly desirable. Ono no Komachi is widely known as a famous example of an Akita bijin.”
Tazawako, in Akita prefecture. The Japanese style is almost Nordic — simple, not overly decorated, and always dignified, NEVER GARISH as in China.
An “Akita beauty” — and obviously part-white.
Another….. I saw a girl once who looked just like this. Although I of course never dated any Japanese women, and they are usually very small-breasted like other Orientals, they can be very pretty — and also hard-working, neat, clean, honest and dedicated to the family — like our own Nordic women before Jew TV corrupted everything!
Another website adds:
Japan today remains one of the most racially homogeneous cultures in the world. There are still lingering sentiments of Japanese racial superiority, especially in comparison to the other Asian cultures.
A Hungarian comrade replied:
The Ainu blood in the Japanese is very well documented – by the Japanese themselves.
Geographical names, DNA tests and 18th, 19th Century records clearly show that the Ainu was historically the dominant population on the Japanese Islands. The Koreans were coming in from the South, pushing the Ainu up toward the North. They ended up on Hokkaido as outcasts. The present Japanese population shows a 20 to 80% Ainu DNA, increasing from the South to the North. The Ainu was the warrior class, the samurais and genetically the Japanese elite tends to show signs of Aryan DNA. The only possible source can be the Ainu.
Around 1860 when we the Europeans established stronger and stronger trading posts in the Far East suddenly the Japanese realised that the Ainu of Hokkaido just might give us a base and they did a 180 degree turn around. From exclusion of the Ainu they switched to forced inclusion, they almost completely melted them down by today.
This is why I often keep arguing on this board that when we examine the Ainu we have to look at their DNA as far as possible in time because of the constant great pressure they were living under for the last ten thousand years.
Here I am looking at the Ainu and the Pericu-Guaycuras of Baja California, two Aryan groups that survived from the ice age in isolation (post No. 2):
Ezra Pound had great respect for the Japanese culture and if there is anybody we can trust when it comes to culture it is Ezra Pound. I was just working to republish his Social Credit last night… seems to be the right time to bring it forward.
Another comrade wrote:
The Chinese are one of the worst offenders of horrific acts towards defenses animals.
The Chinese have always been cold-hearted bastards, to say the least, but the kind of cruelty they exhibit is absolutely appalling!! – Chinese, like most Asians, are sadistic by nature; they don’t show any signs of empathy or compassion towards anyone or anything! Take war, for example — one would rather die then to be taken captive in Asian hands – as they are renowned for cruelty, torture and depraved acts towards captives.
Seeing pictures like these – makes me want to go medieval on their asses.
Very, very, VERY interesting, KennewickMan, as are all your posts.
Let’s you and I talk more about this.
How intriguing that the one Asiatic people I found to be very honorable, the Japanese, were the one with the most white blood!
* * *
I was sent the article displayed below, about a FDR false-flag attack scheme, by a former classmate at Georgetown. (I am adding to it a general article about FDR’s war-mongering policy and then an article confirming the first one’s assertions by the subject of the first article, that is, by Rear Admiral Kemp Tolley himself. )
FDR in 1940
He was part-Jewish himself via both the Delano and Roosevelt families, and redesigned the one-dollar bill in 1935 to show the Star of David:
There is no name for this newspaper, or any date, on the newspaper clipping, which is yellowed and looks to be from the 1970s or early 1970s.
The writer, J. David Truby, wrote several interesting books:
–To prove that gun control is pointless, he wrote this book about criminals making their own guns, especially in prison: http://www.amazon.com/Zips-Pipes-Pens-Arsenal-Improvised/dp/0873647025/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpi_1
–some others, such as Women at War…. http://www.amazon.com/J.-David-Truby/e/B001KIK1P0
and on silencers….http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Modern-Firearm-Silencers/J-David-Truby/e/9780873646666
..and for Harper’s magazine about Fidel Castro’s curveball. (The future marxist dictator Castro once tried out as a pitcher for the New York Yankees….)
I have spoken with Truby, and he stands 100% by his story, which he says he wrote in the 1970s. Several major military history magazines, he told me, published his longer, 2,000-word-plus version of it, replete with many additional corroborating quotations. Truby conferred with Rear Admiral Kemp Tolley (1908-2000, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kemp_Tolley), who fully agreed with him running the story about the misuse of the USS Lanikai (earlier called the “Hermes”) and her crew (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Lanikai_%281914%29). (Tolley is a Norman name.)
Truby seemed quite unaware of who I was, and in no way should one conclude that he supports any of my views and goals. In fact, he indicated that he basically accepted the government’s version of 9/11, so he is NOT a counter-culture type.
He did show, however, an awareness that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was a false-flag attack.
Mr. Truby is 72 and travels a great deal, and said he would be hard to contact. His phone number in Pennsylvania is now unlisted.
If this story is true, FDR should have been tried for treason, and hanged at the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials (which he helped brainchild) for inciting war, a war that killed 400,000 Americans, millions of Japanese, Germans and Russians.
After this article is an excellent short piece on FDR’s rank duplicity.
How Franklin Roosevelt Lied America Into War
by William Henry Chamberlin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Henry_Chamberlin)
JdN: Chamberlin (a Norman name, btw) was a leftist when young, then turned against all forms of totalitarianism of the left and right, and finally, as this sarticle shows, lost all his illusions about F.D. Roosevelt as well.
Chamberlin lived from 1897-1969; here he is depicted an as idealistic young American leftist who supported the purported goal of Soviet communism: a more just society for the common working people.
My own experience has been that sincere liberals like Chamberlin can become excellent white nationalists, or at least antizionists, because their kindness gene is is a good thing when tempered by reality and not completely lost. As this article shows, Chamberlin sure woke up about Franklin Roosevelt, whom I do not hesitate to call a lying psychopath. (See my key article: http://democratic-republicans.us/psychopaths-in-power) I would not even call FDR “merely” a narcissist, since his destruction of the city of Dresden in February 1945 (upwards of 300,000 dead) demonstrated the most extreme and most deliberate cruelty and sadism toward women, children and refugees in general. Roosevelt (whose ancestors were the Sephardic Jewish Rosso Campos, who in Holland changed their name to Rosenvelt) committed this gigantic war crime at a time when the Allies had virtually already won the war. He just enjoyed KILLING.
Dresden, 1945. the British Royal Air force bombed by day and the Americans by night, and American P-51 Mustang fighter-bombers flew low-level up and down the banks of the Elbe River, strafing evacuated hospital patients and miserable escapees from the burning buildings. Tens of thousands of war refugees were burned alive; hundreds of thousands were blown apart or crushed by debris, or by suffocation from concrete dust. The 1912 Nobel Prize winning playwright Gerhart Hauptmann (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerhart_Hauptmann) wrote that “those who lost the ability to cry any more relearned it at Dresden.”
According to his own official statements, repeated on many occasions, and with special emphasis when the presidential election of 1940 was at stake, Franklin D. Roosevelt’s policy after the outbreak of the war in Europe in 1939 was dominated by one overriding thought: how to keep the United States at peace. One of the President’s first actions after the beginning of hostilities was to call Congress into special session and ask for the repeal of the embargo on the sales of arms to belligerent powers, which was part of the existing neutrality legislation. He based his appeal on the argument that this move would help to keep the United States at peace. His words on the subject were:
Let no group assume the exclusive label of the “peace bloc.” We all belong to it … I give you my deep and unalterable conviction, based on years of experience as a worker in the field of international peace, that by the repeal of the embargo the United States will more probably remain at peace than if the law remains as it stands today … Our acts must be guided by one single, hardheaded thought — keeping America out of the war.
This statement was made after the President had opened up a secret correspondence with Winston Churchill, First Lord of the Admiralty and later Prime Minister in the British government. What has been revealed of this correspondence, even in Churchill’s own memoirs, inspires considerable doubt as to whether its main purpose was keeping America out of the war.
Roosevelt kept up his pose as the devoted champion of peace even after the fall of France, when Great Britain was committed to a war which, given the balance of power in manpower and industrial resources, it could not hope to win without the involvement of other great powers, such as the United States and the Soviet Union. The President’s pledges of pursuing a policy designed to keep the United States at peace reached a shrill crescendo during the last days of the 1940 campaign.
Mr. Roosevelt said at Boston on October 30:
“I have said this before, but I shall say it again and again and again: Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars.”
The same thought was expressed in a speech at Brooklyn on November 1:
“I am fighting to keep our people out of foreign wars. And I will keep on fighting.”
The President told his audience at Rochester, New York, on November 2: “Your national government … is equally a government of peace — a government that intends to retain peace for the American people.”
On the same day the voters of Buffalo were assured:
“Your President says this country is not going to war.”
And he declared at Cleveland on November 3:
“The first purpose of our foreign policy is to keep our country out of war.”
So much for presidential words. What about presidential actions? American involvement in war with Germany was preceded by a long series of steps, not one of which could reasonably be represented as conducive to the achievement of the President’s professed ideal of keeping the United States out of foreign wars. The more important of these steps may be briefly listed as follows:
1. The exchange of American destroyers for British bases in the Caribbean and in Newfoundland in September, 1940. This was a clear departure from the requirements of neutrality and was also a violation of some specific American laws. Indeed, a conference of top government lawyers at the time decided that the destroyer deal put this country into the war, legally and morally.
2. The enactment of the Lend-Lease Act in March, 1941. In complete contradiction of the wording and intent of the Neutrality Act, which remained on the statute books, this made the United States an unlimited partner in the economic war against the Axis Powers all over the world.
3. The secret American-British staff talks in Washington in January-March, 1941. Extraordinary care was taken to conceal not only the contents of these talks but the very fact that they were taking place from the knowledge of Congress. At the time when administration spokesmen were offering assurances that there were no warlike implications in the Lend-Lease Act, this staff conference used the revealing phrase, “when the United States becomes involved in war with Germany.”
4. The inauguration of so-called naval patrols, the purpose of which was to report the presence of German submarines to British warships, in the Atlantic in April, 1941.
5. The dispatch of American laborers to Northern Ireland to build a naval base, obviously with the needs of an American expeditionary force in mind.
6. The occupation of Iceland by American troops in July, 1941. This was going rather far afield for a government which professed as its main concern the keeping of the United States out of foreign wars.
7. The Atlantic Conference of Roosevelt and Churchill, August 9-12, 1941. Besides committing America as a partner in a virtual declaration of war aims, this conference considered the presentation of an ultimatum to Japan and the occupation of the Cape Verde Islands, a Portuguese possession, by United States troops.
8. The orders to American warships to shoot at sight at German submarines, formally announced on September 11.
[JdN: This was the VERY day that Charles Lindbergh gave his famous speech saying that the Jews, Britain and Roosevelt were trying to get America into the war.
The beginning of actual hostilities may be dated from this time rather than from the German declaration of war, which followed Pearl Harbor.
JdN: I think this point must be highly emphasized. Once Rosso Campo (the original Sephardic form of the name Roosevelt) gave the Constitution-raping order to fire on German U-boats (only the US Congress may declare war), on the date of September 11, 1941, the war between Germany and America was in effect "on." And as any cognoscente knows, 33rd-degree Freemasons such as Roosevelt always use dates affiliated with the number eleven, for their own kabbalistic and numerological reasons, to launch their attacks and increase the might of the "New World Order." Exactly sixty years later, we had the Zionist terror regime in Washington launch the September 11, 2001 attacks. On the date of 11-22 of the year 1963, President John Kennedy, who blocked Israeli acquisition of nuclear weapons, was publicly killed, and replaced by the crypto-Jew from Texas, Lyndon Baines Johnson. (See my major blog here: http://democratic-republicans.us/english/english-russian-and-american-sailors-prevented-wwiii-in-1967-thwarting-israeli-false-flag-attack-coordinated-by-closet-jew-lyndon-baines-johnson)
In an irony of history, US Navy pilot (and later US Navy Commander) George Lincoln Rockwell (also a Norman name) was one of those who helped sink German U-boats, albeit after Pearl Harbor.
9. The authorization for the arming of merchant ships and the sending of these ships into war zones in November, 1941.
10. The freezing of Japanese assets in the United States on July 25, 1941. This step, which was followed by similar action on the part of Great Britain and the Netherlands East Indies, amounted to a commercial blockade of Japan. The war-making potentialities of this decision had been recognized by Roosevelt himself shortly before it was taken. Addressing a delegation and explaining why oil exports to Japan had not been stopped previously, he said: "It was very essential, from our own selfish point of view of defense, to prevent a war from starting in the South Pacific. So our foreign policy was trying to stop a war from breaking out down there.... Now, if we cut the oil off, they [the Japanese] probably would have gone down to the Netherlands East Indies a year ago, and we would have had war.”
11. When the Japanese Prime Minister, Prince Fumimaro Konoye, appealed for a personal meeting with Roosevelt to discuss an amicable settlement in the Pacific, this appeal was rejected, despite the strong favorable recommendations of the American ambassador to Japan, Joseph C. Grew.
12. Final step on the road to war in the Pacific was Secretary of State Hull’s note to the Japanese government of November 26. Before sending this communication Hull had considered proposing a compromise formula which would have relaxed the blockade of Japan in return for Japanese withdrawal from southern Indochina and a limitation of Japanese forces in northern Indochina.
13. However, Hull dropped this idea under pressure from British and Chinese sources. He dispatched a veritable ultimatum on November 26, which demanded unconditional Japanese withdrawal from China and from Indochina and insisted that there should be “no support of any government in China other than the National government [Chiang Kai-shek].” Hull admitted that this note took Japanese-American relations out of the realm of diplomacy and placed them in the hands of the military authorities.
14. The negative Japanese reply to this note was delivered almost simultaneously with the attack on Pearl Harbor. There was a strange and as yet unexplained failure to prepare for this attack by giving General Short and Admiral Kimmel, commanders on the spot, a clear picture of the imminent danger. As Secretary of War Stimson explained the American policy, it was to maneuver the Japanese into firing the first shot, and it may have been feared that openly precautionary and defensive moves on the part of Kimmel and Short would scare off the impending attack by the Japanese task force which was known to be on its way to some American outpost.
Here is the factual record of the presidential words and the presidential deeds. No convinced believer in American non-intervention in wars outside this hemisphere could have given the American people more specific promises than Roosevelt gave during he campaign of 1940. And it is hard to see how any President, given the constitutional limitations of the office, could have done more to precipitate the United States into war with Germany and Japan than Roosevelt accomplished during the 15 months between the destroyer-for-bases deal and the attack on Pearl Harbor.
Former Congresswoman Clare Boothe Luce found the right expression when she charged Roosevelt with having lied us into war. Even a sympathizer with Roosevelt’s policies, Professor Thomas A. Bailey, in his book, The Man in the Street, admits the charge of deception, but tries to justify it on the following grounds:
Franklin Roosevelt repeatedly deceived the American people during the period before Pearl Harbor … He was like the physician who must tell the patient lies for the patient’s own good … The country was overwhelmingly non-interventionist to the very day of Pearl Harbor, and an overt attempt to lead the people into war would have resulted in certain failure and an almost certain ousting of Roosevelt in 1940, with a complete defeat of his ultimate aims.
Professor Bailey continues his apologetics with the following argument, which leaves very little indeed of the historical American conception of a government responsible to the people and morally obligated to abide by the popular will:
A president who cannot entrust the people with the truth betrays a certain lack of faith in the basic tenets of democracy. But because the masses are notoriously shortsighted and generally cannot see danger until it is at their throats, our statesmen are forced to deceive them into an awareness of their own long-run interests. This is clearly what Roosevelt had to do, and who shall say that posterity will not thank him for it?
Presidential pledges to “keep our country out of war,” with which Roosevelt was so profuse in the summer and autumn of 1940, could reasonably be regarded as canceled by some new development in the international situation involving a real and urgent threat to the security of the United States and the Western Hemisphere.
But there was no such new development to justify Roosevelt’s moves along the road to war in 1941. The British Isles were not invaded in 1940, at the height of Hitler’s military success on the Continent. They were much more secure against invasion in 1941. Contrast the scare predications of Secretary Stimson, Secretary Knox, and General Marshall, about the impending invasion of Britain in the first months of 1941, with the testimony of Winston Churchill, as set down in his memoirs: “I did not regard invasion as a serious danger in April, 1941, since proper preparations had been made against it.”
Moreover, both the American and British governments knew at this time that Hitler was contemplating an early attack upon the Soviet Union. Such an attack was bound to swallow up much the greater part of Germany’s military resources.
It is with this background that one must judge the sincerity and realism of Roosevelt’s alarmist speech of May 27, 1941, with its assertion: “The war is approaching the brink of the western hemisphere itself. It is coming very close to home.” The President spoke of the Nazi “book of world conquest” and declared there was a Nazi plan to treat the Latin American countries as they had treated the Balkans. Then Canada and the United States would be strangled.
Not a single serious bit of evidence in proof of these sensational allegations has ever been found, not even when the archives of the Nazi government were at the disposal of the victorious powers. The threat to the security of Great Britain was less serious in 1941 than it was in 1940. There is no concrete evidence of Nazi intention to invade the American hemisphere in either year, or at any predictable period.
One is left, therefore, with the inescapable conclusion that the promises to “keep America out of foreign wars” were a deliberate hoax on the American people, perpetrated for the purpose of insuring Roosevelt’s re-election and thereby enabling him to proceed with his plan of gradually edging the United States into war.
JdN: Election results 1940, a landslide for Roosevelt (blue states)
From The Journal of Historical Review, Nov.-Dec. 1994 (Vol. 14, No. 6), pages 19-21. This piece is excerpted from the anthology, edited by Harry Elmer Barnes, Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace (1953), Chapter 8, pages 485-491.
* * *
About the Author
William Henry Chamberlin (1897-1969) was an American historian and journalist. He was Moscow correspondent for the Christian Science Monitor in Moscow, 1922-1934, and Far Eastern Correspondent for the Monitor, 1939-1940. He contributed important reports and articles to leading American newspapers and periodicals, and for a time wrote a regular column for The Wall Street Journal. Among his books were Soviet Russia (1930), Russia’s Iron Age (1934), The Russian Revolution, 1917-1921 (in two volumes; 1935), Japan Over Asia (1939), The European Cockpit (1947), and America’s Second Crusade (1950).
…..ADMIRAL TOLLEY SPEAK OUT HIMSELF
October 1973 Volume 24, Issue 6
THE STRANGE MISSION OF THE Lanikai
By ADMIRAL KEMP TOLLEY
On March 18, 1941, eighty-two days out of Manila, all sails set, rigging taut, a small, green, weathered schooner entered the port of Fremantle, Western Australia. Atop her afterdeck house a small-caliber, slim-barrelled cannon sat on a brass pedestal. Faded, tattered Philippine and United States flags whipped from her spanker gaff. Above them, at the main peak, floated a wisp of bunting that the intrigued onlookers aboard the Allied warships present thought might be a man-o-warsian’s commission pennant.
South China Sea: the CIA map
The windjammer’s name, U.S.S. Lanikai, sparked instant recognition at headquarters—twice during the last three months she had been reported overdue and presumed lost. Chief of staff Rear Admiral William R. Purnell [JdN: another Norman name] met her skipper with appropriate astonishment: “My God! What are you doing here? You’re supposed to be dead!”
My introduction to Lanikai took place on December 4, 1941, when as a young lieutenant I was called into U.S. Asiatic Fleet headquarters on the Manila waterfront and told I was her commanding officer. Orders were oral, informal, and brief.
“Commission her as a U.S. man-of-war, get a part-Filipino crew aboard, arm her with a cannon of some sort and one machine gun,”
said Fleet operations officer Commander Harry Slocum [JdN: http://www.asiaticfleet.com/orbat.htm], adding that she was to be ready for sea in forty-eight hours, provisioned for a two-week cruise.
Having been brought up in a Navy where one planned in detail and requisitioned in quintuplicate after many conferences and much coffee, I was relieved to be set straight on the new, streamlined procedure.
“The rules do not apply here,” Slocum explained. “The Navy Yard has been directed to give you highest priority —anything you ask for within reason—without paperwork of any kind. Of this you can rest absolutely assured; the President himself has directed it.”
Tolley at this time was a lieutenant; this photo shows him in his later rank of commander
Proof that the White House had spoken was soon evident. “Sign this receipt for ‘one schooner’ and tell me what you want,” said Commander R. T. Whitney, captain of the Yard. There was no time for the usual small talk or coffee. Telephone calls to ordnance, supply, hospital, communications, and personnel mobilized the Yard’s resources. A Spanish-American War three-pounder “quick firer” already was being bolted to the afterdeck-house roof, the biggest cannon it was felt could safely be fired without collapsing the twenty-seven-year-old ship’s structure. A half dozen Filipino-American seamen were on their way to the dock. The native crewmen who had come in a package with the ship had just been sworn into the Navy. Speaking little English, they were at a loss to understand what it was all about, but they cheerfully accepted the bags of uniforms, proudly donned the little round white sailor hats, and turned to, loading stores, ammunition, and the bags of rice and cases of salmon that were their bread and meat.
Chief Boatswain’s Mate Charlie Kinsey arrived at the dock with his jaw dropped down. He walked forward and squinted at the ship’s nameplate, then called down to Chief Gunner’s Mate Merle Picking, who already was checking out his “main battery,” the three-pounder.
“I’ve got orders to the Lanikai,” said Kinsey in a thick Georgia drawl, “but this cain’t be it!”
The President’s message, carrying highest-secrecy classification and precedence, had said his order was to be executed “as soon as possible and in two days if possible.” So ready or not, on the forenoon of December 7—still December 6 in the United States—I reported for final instructions. “Open these orders when you are clear of Manila Bay,” said Slocum. “I can say for your ears only that you are headed for Indochina. If you are queried by the Japanese, tell them you’re looking for the crew of a downed plane.”
Lanikai’s radio receiver worked, I reported, but the transmitter did not. The water supply concerned me, too. Aboard a ship designed for a crew of five there were nineteen.
“You have a set of international signal flags, don’t you?” said Slocum ironically. “If you run short of water, signal any passing Japanese man-of-war for some.”
Lanikai sailed the fifteen miles out to Manila Bay’s entrance that afternoon and anchored, awaiting dawn to transit the minefield channel. Her crew, worn out from frantic last-minute preparations for sea, found their bunks early. Topside, in the soft tropical night, I watched the hundreds of lights twinkling in the clear air over the great fortress of Corregidor, “The Rock,” bulking huge and black nearby. Tomorrow those sealed orders would be torn open and the great adventure revealed.
JdN: The American naval base, still in ruins from battles in 1942 and 1945 during WWII, at Corregidor, an islet guarding the port city and Philippine capital of of Manila.
Slocum had confided that Lanikai would relieve the U.S.S. Isabel on station; she had left on December 3 for Camranh Bay’s entrance. “Izzy” was a trim, white, nine-hundred-ton yacht taken into the Navy during World War i. For the last decade she had served as holiday flagship for the commander in chief of the Asiatic Fleet. Her age and flyweight military muscle clearly made her the most easily expendable unit in the Fleet, but she possessed in addition a striking attribute for this mission: as a Navy buff Roosevelt could plainly see, in the copy of Jane’s Fighting Ships he kept handy, that Isabel’s white hull and buff upperworks, configuration, and wholly inconspicuous little battery of four 3-inch guns made her look like any typical small merchantman that used the China coast.
So F.D.R. had designated Isabel as one of the “three small ships” that were to be used—the others to be chartered locally. And, as the President had “suggested,” a token five Filipino seamen were put aboard before her precipitous departure. She was to remain painted white, Admiral Thomas C. Hart [JdN: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_C._Hart], commander in chief, Asiatic Fleet, directed her skipper in a personal briefing. Her running lights were to be dimmed at night to give the appearance of a fishing craft.
At 7 A.M. on the fifth Isabel was forty miles from Camranh Bay and its big concentration of Japanese warships when a Japanese plane closed her. Isabel was shadowed the remainder of the day, planes sometimes coming so close that their identification numbers could be made out. At 7:10 P.M., on Hart’s urgent orders, she reversed course and headed back to Manila Bay.
Replying to the President’s message, Hart radioed:
“HAVE OBTAINED TWO VESSELS. ONE NOW ENROUTE INDOCHINA COAST. SECOND ONE SAILING SOON AS READY. AM CERTAIN SHOULD NOT OPERATE THEM SOUTH OF PADARAN. ISABEL RETURNING. WAS SPOTTED AND IDENTIFIED WELL OFF COAST HENCE POTENTIAL UTILITY OF HER MISSION PROBLEMATICAL. HAVE NOT YET FOUND THIRD VESSEL FOR CHARTER.”
The “one now en route” was Lanikai; the second was never commissioned, the plan having been overtaken by events at Pearl Harbor.
The eighth of December, 1941, was only three hours old when a radioman nudged me awake from fitful slumber on a rubber mat atop the afterdeck house. The message he carried read “ORANGE WAR PLAN IN EFFECT. RETURN TO MANILA,” the “orange” being a supposedly secret euphemism for “Japanese” that was recognized Navy-wide. But there was no need to awaken the crew until daybreak.
In today’s frame of reference, which tolerates the Korean and Vietnam wars having been fought without constitutional legitimacy, it is difficult to appreciate F.D.R.’s dilemma in 1941. He was sentimentally attached to China, whence Grandpa Warren Delano [JdN" a Sephardic Jewish name; the homosexual and Jewish current mayor of Paris, France, is a Delanoe], a traditional Old China hand, had thrilled the young Franklin with tall tales of clipper ships, pirates, mandarins, and perhaps even something of the opium operations that had contributed a million dollars to the family fortune. The powerful China lobby, plus Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson, a lifetime Japanophobe, reinforced the Rooseveltian leanings. And with advisers like Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau, Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter, and man for all seasons Harry Hopkins to encourage the President’s liberal tendencies, he naturally felt deeply opposed to the Nazi-Fascists.
But the President found himself mired in a swamp of national apathy. Army draftees drilled with wooden rifles, stovepipe “cannon,” and “tanks” improvised from trucks. Their typical view of Army life was made clear in messages chalked on the fences and in the latrines: “OHIO”—over the hill in October (i.e., desertion). The general beer-hall and back-yard bull session attitude was “Let those European bastards beat each others’ brains out!”- sentiments strongly reinforced when Germany fell on the U.S.S.R. in June. What ordinary American wanted to die defending Singapore? or Surabaja (if he had ever heard of it), or blitzed London? or even Manila? But Roosevelt was a determined man as well as a consummate political strategist; despite public unconcern he had aligned the nation against Hitler by means of heavy congressional approval of the Lend-Lease Act on March 11, 1941.
On August 3, 1941, F.D.R. left New London, Connecticut, aboard his yacht U.S.S. Potomac, taking great pains to give the appearance of a fishing holiday. Transferred secretly at sea to the cruiser U.S.S. Augusta, he arrived at Argentia, Newfoundland, on August 5 for a four-day initial face-to-face meeting with Winston Churchill, also on a fishing expedition and a desperately urgent one. Britain was broke. Her lone ally, Russia, was reeling backward. It was 1917 all over again.
JdN: US Marines contingent aboard the USS Augusta. America was then 90% white, but the war against Hitler was a war to crush “white supremacy.”
What F.D.R. promised Churchill over the nuts and wine perhaps never will be fully known, but a reference Churchill made in the House of Commons in January, 1942, gives a clue: ”… the probability, since the Atlantic Conference, at which I discussed these matters with Mr. Roosevelt, that the United States, even if not herself attacked, would come into the war in the Far East. …”
Verbal promises to Churchill were one thing, but commitments in black and white were quite another. During mid-1941 the finishing touches were put on Rainbow 5, a world-encompassing war plan hammered out in Washington by American planners after a series of secret Anglo-American military consultations officially referred to as ABC-I (American-British Conversations). The U.S. Congress, which then still jealously guarded its treaty and war-making prerogatives, had no inkling of the plan’s existence, let alone the fact that it gave first priority to the survival of Great Britain rather than to the defense of U.S. territories in the Pacific.
Roosevelt had verbally approved Rainbow 5 for distribution to the major commands, but it was to be inoperative “until we get into the war,” as Chief of Naval Operations [JdN: The CNO is the top man in the US Navy] Admiral Harold “Betty” Stark later testified F.D.R. had said.
Roosevelt also took the precaution, considerably to the disappointment of the British, of not officially approving the ABC reports in advance, instead making this contingent upon a United States declaration of war.
On July 7 the President made a more open move toward war; by executive order, and with the agreement of the Icelandic government, American forces occupied Iceland.
JdN: I added this (as well as all other photos and captions on this blog).
Mountainous landscape, glacier formations, and overall rugged and inhospitable terrain as below provided the background to the Marine camps set up in Iceland. Pictured here is a Nissen hut built by Marines after their arrival.
LtCol Harold K. Throneson Collection
Iceland is slightly smaller than the state of Kentucky, and features mountains, glaciers, volcanoes, geysers, hot springs, and lava beds. The southern coastal areas enjoy a temperate climate because the Gulf Stream passes close enough to modify the normal weather of the Arctic Circle which touches the northern coast. In 1941 the island had limited coastal roads, crossed by many rapidly flowing glacial streams. Coastal areas had grassy fields suitable for sheep and pony pasturage and tundra terrain completely devoid of bushes or trees. The population in 1941 numbered 120,000.Fishing in the cold waters around Iceland was the nation’s major industry. Along the 2,300 miles of jagged coastline, there were a number of small fishing villages reached only by sea, as there was no raod network around the island beyond the area of Reykjavik, the capital and main city.Homesteads outside Reykjavik tended to be isolated.
At the outbreak of the war, Iceland enjoyed the status of autonomous parliamentary monarchy, sharing the Danish royal family with Denmark. When the Nazis overran Denmark in April 1940, the Icelandic Parliament voted to take over the executive power of the Danish King and to assume control of foreign affairs. The strategic island became an independent republic, but was wholly defenseless. This state of affiars gave rise to considerable concern by leaders in London and Washington, a concern not shared to any degree by the insular-minded Icelanders.The majority of Icelandic citizens accepted the American occupation as a necessary evil. They didin’t care much for the British, but were well aware of the German threat. There was a pro-German element among the populace because, before the war, German engineers had built Iceland’s roads and had piped in hot water from the geysers to heat greenhouses inthe city. As a result, there were some anti-foreign feelings, especially among youth groups.Many of the Icelanders spoke English. They were a well-educated and literate people with a pure and ancient Viking language and the world’s oldest representative government.
Rear Admiral Richmond Kelly Turner, chief of the Navy War Plans Division, asked the President if this didn’t conflict with his October 30, 1940, speech in Boston, where he had ringingly proclaimed that
“I have said this before, but I shall say it again, and again, and again; your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars!”
According to Turner, the President answered not a word but leaned back, his long cigarette holder elevated at a jaunty angle, and gave vent to a hearty chuckle.
On September 4 the technically neutral U.S. destroyer Greer assisted a British patrol plane in a fight with a German submarine about 175 miles from Iceland. A week later the President issued his “shoot on sight” proclamation, authorizing and presumably legalizing American warships’ firing on German or Italian warcraft wherever met in the western Atlantic.
On October 17, in response to the new doctrine, the U.S. destroyer Kearny attacked a U-boat west of Iceland and managed to survive a German torpedo. Germany did not declare war but countered off Iceland: on October 31 the U.S. destroyer Reuben James was sunk, with the loss of most of her crew [JdN: 115 men]. But to K.D.R.’s discomfiture these events apparently did little to stir the American public out of its lack of interest in Europe’s war.
USS Reuben James
Before the shock of Pearl Harbor finally and dramatically reversed the course of U.S. opinion, before Congress became aroused enough or informed enough to ask embarrassing questions about commitments, much less become aware of such rather informal Naval operations as conducted by Isabel and Lanikai in the western Pacific, a sequence of events had with inexorable urgency filled the five weeks preceding December 7. In the lexicon of a later age the countdown approached zero in the following fashion:
November 5. Unknown, of course, to the Americans, a Japanese combined-fleet operation order directed that war preparations be completed by early December.
A memorandum from Army chief of staff General George Marshall and Admiral Stark warned the President that the U.S. Pacific Fleet was inferior to Japan’s fleet and could not take the offensive.
November 7. Stark wrote to Hart that although the Navy was already at war in the Atlantic, the country didn’t seem to realize it and was still apathetic. November 10. Churchill said in a public speech thai in case of war between Japan and the United States a British declaration would follow “within the hour.”
November 17. United States Ambassador Joseph C. Grew, in Tokyo, warned Washington to guard against “the probability of the Japanese exploiting every possible tactical advantage, such as surprise.”
November 19. The State Department warned U.S. citizens in the Far East to get out.
November 20. Japanese envoys Nomura and Kurusu conveyed to Secretary of State Hull Japan’s demands for the preservation of peace: the United States must keep hands off China, resume trade relations with Japan, help Japan get supplies from the Netherlands East Indies, and stop American naval expansion in the western Pacific.
November 21. Things looked black to Hull, but the day was brightened somewhat by Kurusu’s telling him Japan would not necessarily be bound by the terms of its tripartite mutual assistance pact with Italy and Germany.
The Pearl Harbor attack force assembled at Hitokappu Bay, Kuriles. November 22. Roosevelt suggested a modus vivendi with Japan to last six months, having already been sounded out by Ambassador Nomura on the subject on the tenth. This was to include among other things the resumption of economic relations between the two countries; a suspension of Japanese troop movements to Indochina, Malaya, and the Netherlands East Indies; and American encouragement of non-hostile conversations between Japan and China. Reactions to these suggestions from the Chinese, the British, the Au