Role Model on Trial – May 2020

“Michèle, your fearless and direct utterances in Dresden, unfortunately forbidden to all Germans, blew open the window of truth in one blast.”
said Gerard Menuhin, son of legendary violinist and conductor Yehudi Menuhin, in February 2018

On 15th May 2020 an Australian-born Briton goes on trial in Dresden for “incitement” – not for terrorism or threats, but because of a 10-minute speech given to 300 mourners at a commemoration of the Allied terror bombing of Dresden in 1945.

The charges have been brought under Germany’s draconian Volksverhetzung law – Para 130 of the criminal code, against Lady Michèle Renouf, former wife of New Zealand banking tycoon Sir Francis (‘Frank the Bank’) Renouf who was honoured with the Verdienstkreuz by the then West German government. In 1990 the engaged couple travelled to Bonn for the award of Sir Frank’s medal, and as his fiancée Lady Renouf was given a Verdienstkreuz lapel ribbon. This honour related to Sir Frank’s pioneering role in persuading the German federal government to relax its conservative policies and invest its financial surplus on world markets. (For similar reasons he was knighted by Queen Elizabeth II.)

In February 2018 Lady Renouf attended a public commemoration in central Dresden, marking the anniversary of the 1945 terror bombing by the Royal Air Force and the USAAF. Responding to an anti-British comment by someone in the crowd, Lady Renouf was invited to give a brief spontaneous speech in which she acknowledged Britain’s shame for its deliberate wartime policy of targeting civilians.

During this speech she referred to the following facts:

a) Many influential Britons at the time condemned Churchill’s barbaric terror bombing policy and the associated demand for unconditional surrender – such people included Lord Hankey (formerly Sir Maurice Hankey, founder of the modern civil service); the Rt Rev George Bell, Bishop of Chichester; Labour MP and future minister Richard Stokes; and government scientist and future bestselling novelist C.P. Snow.

b) The terror bombing of Dresden was a literal Holocaust in which tens of thousands of civilians were burned alive. We shall never know the atrocity’s exact death toll, because the city was packed with refugees – uncounted and undocumented – fleeing from the advancing Soviet Red Army.

c) The wider relevance of the Dresden war crime – Renouf emphasised – is that so-called ‘moral bombing’ of Dresden by the Second World War allies has effectively acted as a precedent for postwar crimes against civilians including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which in turn has prompted unprecedented floods of refugees into Western Europe.

d) The Allied justification for this targeting of civilians was that Britain and America were at war with Germany, yet this factor is ignored when discussing what has become known as the ‘Holocaust’, an unchallengeable dogma taking the place of history.

e) The simple fact that Jewish civilians were interned in camps is today regarded as a ‘war crime’ and part of ‘genocide’, regardless of what did or did not happen in the camps themselves, a topic which Lady Renouf did not address, knowing that it is illegal in Germany to debate such matters. It is odd to condemn internment itself as criminal, bearing in mind that both Britain and America interned enemy aliens. It is scarcely surprising that European Jews were placed in this “enemy alien” category, given the actions of the self-styled leaders of World Jewry who had as early as 1933 declared economic war on Germany. Moreover the future founders of Israel such as Chaim Weizmann were actively engaged in a campaign of covert warfare, some of it contrary to international law, in collaboration with Britain’s Special Operations Executive. In itself it was not unreasonable for the German authorities to intern large numbers of European Jews as potential collaborators in this covert war.

It is for making these points in her brief impromptu February 2018 speech that Lady Renouf was arrested and now faces trial in Dresden on 15th May 2020 for offences which carry a maximum prison sentence of five years.

Her trial will focus press and public attention on the extraordinary German laws that deny normal historical debate and rational argument. These and similar laws in many other European countries (though not so far in the UK) were condemned more than a decade ago by a coalition of eminent historians and other academics writing under the label ‘Appel de Blois’: these critics included the late Eric Hobsbawm; Jewish journalist and author Geoffrey Alderman; Italian historian Carlo Ginzburg; and the Oxford professor Timothy Garton Ash.

Lady Renouf’s own background is not as an historian, scientist, lawyer or politician. So how did someone whose lifelong career since early childhood was as a model and advertising actress come to be on trial in Germany charged with having expressed forbidden opinions and having uttered forbidden historical facts?

Born in 1946, Michèle Mainwaring was directed mainly to classical ballet studies from the age of 3 to 23, eventually for a licentiateship at the Royal Academy of Dancing in London. Her earlier four years of undergraduate art studies at the National Art School were partly financed by her parallel modelling career (beginning at age 7) and prizes in beauty contests, including winning Radio 2HD’s Miss Beach Girl, Miss Newcastle & Hunter Valley, and Miss Zhivago. (The latter title, twenty years later was to bemuse Dr Zhivago’s co-star Omar Sharif, when he and Lady Renouf enjoyed gaming at London’s Ritz Hotel casino.)

Having graduated with a Diploma in Art (Education) in 1968, she lectured in Fine Arts and introduced Media Studies at the Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia.

At age 14 Michèle Mainwaring was performing as Gretel in Hansel and Gretel at the Sydney Conservatorium when the world-famous former Ballets Russes dancer and choreographer Kiril Vassilkovsky came backstage seeking to recruit her “ethereal quality” for the role as Clara in his production of The Nutcracker. However her mother would not allow her to leave school to joint the company!

The young Michèle performed as Radio 2HD’s Shirley Temple, singing and tap dancing for the station’s famous children’s radio presenter Twink Storey as an infant performer and symbol of innocence in the postwar years. While the actual Shirley Temple became a US Ambassador, Lady Renouf in later life was to have a rather different involvement with diplomacy and politics – considered by some to have an ‘ambassadorial’ role as a champion for the rights of historical revisionism without exceptionalism!

The future Lady Renouf came to England in the late 1960s shortly before her marriage to the late Daniel Griaznoff, descendent of a Russian noble family. During the 1970s and 1980s she used her marital title of Countess Griaznoff in association with many charitable activities and became well-known in London society. Prolific romantic novelist and socialite Barbara Cartland delighted in entertaining Count and Countess Griaznoff at her country home. Actors Edward Fox and his wife Joanna David generously contributed their celebrated artistry to charity soirees and balls hosted by the Griaznoffs at their Hampstead home.

Meanwhile from age 15 Lady Renouf had been recruited into an international career as an advertising actress in television commercials alongside her modelling career. This led to magazine and television advertisements worldwide for products and companies as diverse as Deutsche Post, Tchibo coffee, British Airways, Cable & Wireless, Nissan cars, Lenthéric perfume, and hundreds more. On screen she appeared with such legends as the Muppets and Dick Emery. In 1973 (for example) she appeared as a ‘Bond girl’ in the BBC’s arts documentary show Omnibus episode on The British Hero.

In the mid-1990s Lady Renouf become a member of the fundraising advisory board for the reconstruction of Shakespeare’s Globe on Bankside, chairing the principal fundraising event. As a professional designer of garden mazes and knot gardens, she had also designed an Elizabethan knot garden and labyrinth for the Globe approved by the project’s head Sam Wanamaker, intended as part of the re-education of the general public in the coded poetic messages of flowers, familiar to a Tudor mindset but now lost: her knot garden project was featured in a major article for the Sunday Times.

In this invited role Lady Renouf mobilised a range of contacts among London’s diplomatic corps (built up as a longstanding member of the Ladies’ Committee of the European-Atlantic Group) to assist in the Shakespeare’s Globe project, including Adm. William Crowe, US Ambassador and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who became a family friend; and Australian High Commissioner Neal Blewett. After completing raising funds for the construction of the Wardrobe of Robes room, behind the Globe’s stage (marked today by a bronze plaque) – Lady Renouf’s private tribute to her mother, who was a designer of ballet costumes – she also invited another family friend Buzz Aldrin, second man on the Moon, to include his contribution to a time capsule buried beneath the reconstructed theatre.

Oddly the first steps towards Lady Renouf’s involvement with “political” questions came as the result of a Jewish member of her Shakespeare’s Globe committee insisting on the entire menu at a fundraising dinner being kosher. Merely the appearance of a non-kosher item on the menu sent this woman into a rant about “tyranny” and “anti-semitism”.

Understandably Lady Renouf was puzzled by this inexplicable reaction, and this led her into further investigations of the taboo subject of “anti-semitism”. She carried out extensive research into the composer Richard Wagner’s attitude to the Jewish question, and in 1997 published the monograph Richard Wagner’s Art-work of the Future and Judaism: Inspirational or Conspiratorial. The central thesis of this monograph was that “anti-semitism” is a misnomer because it implies a racial critique of Jews, whereas one ought to focus on a cultural critique of Judaism. Her thesis attracted the attention of professors from Heidelberg University, who invited Lady Renouf to participate in a conference on Wagner at the German American Institute, Heidelberg. She was regularly honoured by invitations from the late Wolfgang and Gudrun Wagner to their private supper intervals at the Bayreuth Festival, where for a decade she sat at the right-hand of the composer’s grandson. Lady Renouf’s monograph was sold at the Festspielhaus book kiosk.

Soon afterwards the notable Wagner scholar Rudolph Sabor (1914-2013) cast Lady Renouf to star in his play about the composer’s life that was due to be staged at the New End Theatre, Hampstead, which had been booked for a three-week run. Mr Sabor (a Berlin-born Jewish musicologist) came under pressure from Lady Young (wife of Thatcher-era cabinet minister Lord Young) who withdrew her and others’ funding from the production, forcing its cancellation, after Mr Sabor refused to replace Lady Renouf.

At the end of the 1990s Lady Renouf visited Palestine with her high society chum the Bey of Haifa, Jeannot Khayat, who informed her for the first time about the outrageous “absentee law” whereby Palestinian homes can be confiscated by the Israeli state if their owners leave the country even for a holiday.

Early in the 2000s she met and recorded interviews with British veterans of the war against Zionist terrorism in Palestine, 1945-48. These included unique interviews by the late Phillip Knightley with British Army veteran and author Eric Lowe – now archived at St Antony’s College, Oxford. Some of these landmark interviews (in cooperation with anti-Zionist Neturei Karta rabbis, Palestinian diplomats, and commentators including Israel Shamir and Gilad Atzmon) appeared in Lady Renouf’s first documentary film projects, Palestine Scrapbook and Israel in Flagrante: Caught in Acts of Twistspeak, screened at the House of Lords and House of Commons, under the auspices of Dr James Thring and Lord Stoddart.

In 2000 Lady Renouf attended the London trial of a libel case brought by the British historian David Irving against the Jewish-American author Deborah Lipstadt: this was the first she had heard of debates around the “Holocaust”, but she later became aware of a worldwide campaign of persecution against historical sceptics, notably the jailing of Ernst Zündel, Germar Rudolf, Wolfgang Fröhlich, Gerd Honsik, Monika and Alfred Schaefer, and Ursula Haverbeck – including their lawyers Horst Mahler and Sylvia Stolz. In 2006 she attended David Irving’s trial in Austria, where he was sentenced to three years imprisonment, eventually being released after one year thanks to an appeal filed by celebrated Viennese attorney Dr Herbert Schaller. (In the recent film Denial, an actress plays the part of Lady Renouf, seated on the court bench as the sole observer on Irving’s side of the court throughout the hearings.)

Lady Renouf with the late Prof. Robert Faurisson

During the summer of 2001 Lady Renouf arranged a meeting between Irving and Prince Fahd bin Salman of Saudi Arabia, eldest son of the present King Salman. Prince Fahd was owner of many racehorses including the 1991 Derby winner Generous, who was celebrated in a hillside maze garden designed by Lady Renouf, a friend of the Prince and Princess, at their Harewood estate in Surrey where Queen Elizabeth II had planted a tree. In a telephone call from Riyadh following their meeting, Prince Fahd confirmed his intention to purchase the entire property including Irving’s flat in Duke Street, Mayfair, and turn it into a “Real History Institute”, but he died suddenly a day later aged only 46.

One consequence of Lady Renouf’s defence of Irving was that a cabal of opponents engineered her expulsion from the Reform Club in 2003, following an earlier unsuccessful attempt to expel her in 2002 (when she was defended by eminent pollster Sir Bob Worcester). Lady Renouf had invited Irving to an event at the Reform Club (alongside family friend Count Nikolai Tolstoy) in the week of the Lipstadt trial verdict.

Since 2006 Lady Renouf’s Telling Films has produced many DVDs on the stifling of historical debate and the persecution of revisionist historians, scientists, authors, publishers, and latterly even their lawyers. These documentaries include Jailing Opinions, focused on the prosecutions of Irving in Vienna (Austria), Ernst Zündel in Toronto (Canada), and Robert Faurisson in Paris (France), and later documentary films such as Dresden Holocaust 1945 – An Apology to Germany is Due; Out and Unbowed, about Ernst Zündel’s trials and imprisonment; Mourning the Victims, Naming the Culprits about the British torture centre at Bad Nenndorf (Germany); and many others.

In 2006 Lady Renouf attended and spoke at the International Conference to Review the Global Vision of the Holocaust, hosted in Tehran at the instigation of Iran’s then-President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The topic of her conference address was “Psychology of Holocaustianity” – an echo of her postgraduate studies in Psychology of Religion a few years earlier at London University’s Heythrop College. Veteran revisionist scholar and literary document analyst Professor Robert Faurisson said that he gave Lady Renouf’s speech “20 out of 20”!

Nominated by Prof. Faurisson, Lady Renouf was elected to serve on a five-member international fact-finding committee created at the end of the Tehran conference to advance research and support informed historical debate.

Between 2006 and 2020 Lady Renouf has been interviewed in many television and radio debates and discussions with (for example) Dr David Duke, Prof. Norman Finkelstein; former CIA officer Dr George Lambrakis; Dr Nicholas Kollerstrom; the Rev. Stephen Sizer; and Dmitry Shimelfarb, former adviser and press spokesman for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. In 2005 she was honoured with the George Orwell Award by the Canadian Free Speech League, and has spoken at conferences in Canada, the USA and Mexico. Several of these speeches, films and interviews have focused on Lady Renouf’s campaign to raise awareness about the first, pre-Israel Jewish Homeland option in Birobidjan – the Jewish Autonomous Region created in 1928 in the former Soviet Union and still flourishing to this day in Vladimir Putin’s Russia.

When the Australian revisionist Dr Fredrick Töben was arrested at London’s Heathrow Airport in October 2008 and subjected to a European Arrest Warrant seeking his extradition to face criminal opinion charges in Germany, Lady Renouf mobilised a defence team that successfully opposed the warrant as invalid, forcing the German authorities to back down and accept his release. The Töben case proved an important precedent in relation to the traditional Catholic Bishop Richard Williamson, who was convicted in Germany for answers he gave to a Swedish television crew in November 2008, but who as a consequence of the success in Töben’s case, could not be subjected to a European Arrest Warrant. On Bishop Williamson’s return to London in 2009 he was met at the airport by Lady Renouf, who gave interviews to BBC Radio 4 and the World Service later that day, in which she debated the issues involved with Deborah Lipstadt and the late Greville Janner of the World Jewish Congress.

Now those same German authorities are seeking revenge in a wholly unwarranted prosecution of a British citizen for a perfectly normal and reasonable (though unplanned and unprepared) speech in Dresden two years ago, a speech intended as a humble acknowledgment of British guilt and contrition for a terrible crime against German civilians committed 75 years ago.

By this politically-motivated prosecution, the moribund Merkel government’s servants in the German state apparatus dishonour their own dead, and discredit themselves before the world’s media.

Lady Renouf’s former husband Sir Frank Renouf was a prisoner-of-war in Germany for four years following his capture after parachuting into Greece on 26th April 1941. His time in an officers’ prisoner-of-war camp in Bavaria was well spent learning German from a friendly guard with the aid of Schiller’s poetry, building a tennis court, enjoying Red Cross food parcels, and conducting a correspondence course with Worcester College, Oxford, where he was admitted for a postwar degree. His German connections were strengthened after the war as a friend of British Prime Minister Edward Heath and eminent figures in European banking including the British Lord Kindersley (a director of the Bank of England) and the German Hermann Abs (a director of Deutsche Bank). The Renoufs’ matrimonial home at 37 Eaton Square, Belgravia, had during the 1930s been the home of British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, who immediately before the Second World War rented out this same property as the home of German Ambassador Joachim von Ribbentrop – the first prisoner executed by the Allies at Nuremberg in 1946.

It remains to be seen whether 21st century Germany will be as hospitable to Lady Renouf as wartime Germany was to her former husband!

  • Friends and international observers will be welcome to attend the trial. Twitter and blog accounts carrying regular updates on the Renouf case will be online soon; check https://twitter.com/ModelTrial for details.

Remembering the 1945 Dresden Holocaust

H&D assistant editor Peter Rushton was among more than 2,000 marchers in Dresden yesterday who commemorated the 75th anniversary of the RAF and USAAF terror-bombing of the city on 13th-14th February 1945.

Lady Michèle Renouf with Thuringia NPD leader Thorsten Heise: the banner reads – “Where Justice becomes Injustice, Resistance becomes a Duty!”

The Gedenkmarsch was superbly organised by Maik Müller of Dresden NPD, and was supported not only by NPD branches from across Germany, but by many other parties and by supporters from other countries including Ireland, France, Sweden, Croatia, Italy, Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania, Belgium, the Netherlands and USA – even from as far away as Japan and Australia.

Despite efforts by the usual antifa rabble to block the march route, we were able to proceed through a residential area of Dresden (many locals observing from nearby flats) to a rally point next to the central train station, where speeches included a message from Wolfram Nahrath, attorney for persecuted patriots and defenders of truth and justice including the jailed authors Ursula Haverbeck (now 91) and Horst Mahler (now 84) and the British traditional Roman Catholic Bishop Richard Williamson.

As can be seen and heard in attached video links, the respectful and dignified conduct of the marchers contrasted with grotesque behaviour of ‘antifascist’ counter-demonstrators who failed in their objectives. The rentamob’s disrespectful cacophony was drowned out by solemn classical music accompanying the march.

The UK Sunday Times today could not resist publishing an attack on the demonstration, written by the paper’s foreign editor Peter Conradi, a well-known Jewish-Zionist historian. As has become the habit of establishment journalists, Mr Conradi seeks to minimise the Dresden death toll and accuses 21st century German patriots of exaggerating it.

A Dresden spokesman for AfD (the fast-growing patriotic-conservative party Alternative für Deutschland) had quoted a death toll of close to 100,000 – a figure which Conradi compares to the claims of “Holocaust-denying historians”, while himself insisting on a figure of 25,000.

The actual Dresden death toll remains difficult to assess precisely due to the large number of refugees from the East who had packed into the city at the time of the bombing. Yet one very recently released document from the postwar secret British propaganda agency IRD (Information Research Department) offers us some clues.

H&D reports this document for the first time today: click here to read: Propaganda and Dresden’s Holocaust – The Secret British File.

Propaganda and Dresden’s Holocaust: The Secret British File

On 13th-14th February 1945 more than 2,000 planes from the RAF and USAAF raided the historic city of Dresden, capital of the German state of Saxony. Recent commemorations of this terror-bombing’s 75th anniversary have led to renewed controversy over the total number killed, though it is acknowledged that almost all the victims were civilians including many refugees, women and children.

On 16th February the Sunday Times published an article by its foreign editor Peter Conradi accusing German patriots of exaggerating the Dresden death toll for political gain. Conradi singled out Tino Chrupalla, leader of the fast growing anti-immigration party AfD in Saxony, who had suggested a death toll of close to 100,000, which according to Conradi echoed the claims of “Holocaust-denying historians”.

Just who is engaged in Holocaust-denial here?

For clues to the answer we might turn to a secret document from the covert British propaganda agency IRD (Information Research Department), released to the National Archives just before Christmas 2019 and recently obtained by H&D‘s assistant editor Peter Rushton.

We publish this secret file’s contents today for the first time, and will soon tell the full story of how the British secret state conspired to silence challenges to Second World War history.

A rare photo of British propaganda chief Norman Reddaway (1918-1999) seen here with his wife Jean.

This particular file begins with a broadcast on the ITV television network in 1970, coinciding with the Dresden bombing holocaust’s 25th anniversary. Norman Reddaway, who had been co-founder of IRD at the start of the Cold War, but by 1970 was a senior Foreign Office diplomat in overall charge of Britain’s propaganda efforts, wrote to IRD’s director Kenneth Crook about the programme.

Reddaway complained that by giving a death toll of 135,000 this ITV documentary “had quoted Dr Goebbels’ version of the number of casualties. He had not quoted any other estimate, which would of course have been much lower. The viewers were therefore left with an uncorrected impression that RAF bombing had resulted in three or four times the true number of casualties.”

In response Reddaway suggested that IRD should deploy its trusted arsenal of propaganda tactics: a planted question by a helpful MP in the House of Commons, or a letter to The Times in the name of some respectable stooge. However senior IRD official Colin MacLaren, whose experience of secret propaganda went back to the war years where he had been part of the Special Operations Executive and Political Warfare Executive, insisted that this 135,000 figure was probably not a German exaggeration.

MacLaren wrote: “I am somewhat surprised that Mr Reddaway should assume that Dr Goebbels’s estimate of the Dresden casualties was higher than others (presumably allied) estimates. Surely the converse is true? I do not recall that the German propaganda machine was even concerned at the time to exaggerate the effects of Allied attacks.”

It was later confirmed by another IRD officer, ‘Tommy’ Tucker, that the programme’s figure of 135,000 Dresden deaths came not from any German propagandist, nor even from the best-known historian of the raid David Irving, but from Andrew Wilson, defence correspondent of the left-liberal newspaper The Observer.

British propagandists in 1970 unsuccessfully sought to dispute historians’ estimates of the Dresden death toll during the 25th anniversary of the terror-bombing. Another 50 years later, deluded German leftists unsuccessfully tried to block a commemorative march remembering the victims on the 75th anniversary, but were swiftly dealt with by police (above).

Moreover it turns out that the historical adviser to ITV’s Dresden programme was Professor Asa Briggs, a very respectable and not at all ‘right-wing’ historian who had himself been on the wartime staff of Britain’s famous codebreaking operation at Bletchley Park. (This latter fact was so secret back in 1970 that it was not committed to paper even in IRD files, but in his old age Prof. Briggs gave details of his secret past.)

Nevertheless Tucker confirmed that if necessary IRD still had a “letters to the Press drill” that could be deployed, and that if a Labour MP’s signature was required they could easily recruit one (willing to put his name to any text IRD supplied) via Maurice Foley, a former IRD propagandist himself who had become an MP and served as a minister responsible for promoting immigration (!)

Eventually Reddaway agreed to drop his objections to this particular TV programme, but efforts to undermine challenges to orthodox Second World War history continued at the highest level of Britain’s secret state.

Keep reading Heritage & Destiny for further exclusive investigations of this remarkable topic, coming soon!

Efforts to minimise the holocaust of German civilians at Dresden continue: the only official mention of the human inferno is carved on this inconspicuous stone bench in the city centre, part of the entrance to public lavatories. At least German patriots ensured that flowers were laid here to mark this 75th anniversary (at the spot where thousands of the victims were cremated).

Remembering the Fallen

101 years ago today the guns fell silent after more than four years of slaughter, at the end of the 20th century’s first European Civil War.

H&D readers take varying views of Brexit (the majority in favour of leaving the EU) but we should admit that at least some of those who created what became the European Union were genuinely motivated by the noble aim of ensuring that such a war never happened again.

Whatever happens with the Brexit process, British nationalists should aim for a continent of Europeans co-existing peacefully and prepared to unite when necessary to defend our common heritage against alien invasion.

And we should never forget that the British establishment parties (Lib, Lab and Con) shamefully politicised Remembrance Day when for blatantly political reasons they banned Rhodesian (and later South African) ex-serviceman from participating in the traditional ceremony at the Cenotaph.

This is why the National Front (initially under its founding chairman A.K. Chesterton, who won the Military Cross on the Western Front in 1918) began its own tradition of a march to the Cenotaph – a tradition which was upheld once again yesterday.

They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old:
Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning
We will remember them.

The latest Holocaustian testimony

The Stutthof concentration camp near Danzig

Today’s testimony in a Hamburg state court room might well be the last time that an accused ‘war criminal’ gives evidence about the functioning of supposedly homicidal gas chambers.

If so, it is consistent with Holocaustian tradition that this contradictory and by any reckoning unsatisfactory ‘evidence’ has been trumpeted today by the mainstream media with conclusive headlines such as the Guardian‘s ‘Ex-Nazi camp guard admits seeing people taken to gas chamber’.

Bruno Dey – now aged 93 but 17 when he served as a sentry in the Stutthof concentration camp near Danzig – stated in today’s testimony that from his watchtower he saw on one occasion 20 or 30 “people were led in, into the gas chamber, then the door was locked”. He then heard screams and banging, but added “I didn’t know that they were being gassed.”

How in that case, one might ask, did he know that it was a gas chamber – especially given that elsewhere in his evidence Mr Dey mentions that on another occasion he saw 10 or 15 people taken into the same building, who later walked out again?

But of course Mr Dey, like the rest of us, has been told for the past seventy-odd years that there were gas chambers in Stutthof and elsewhere. And he no doubt believes that his best chance of acquittal is to say – yes, I now realise there was a gas chamber, but I didn’t know at the time and I was only a 17-year-old guard…

Cross-examination will inevitably focus not on the question of whether Mr Dey indeed saw a homicidal gas chamber in operation, but on the extent of his share in collective guilt.

In the Introduction to his four volumes of Écrits Revisionnistes, first published in 1999, the late, great Professor Robert Faurisson wrote:
It is a good thing that the exterminationists have finally (or very nearly) come to abandon, in practice, the charge, based on “testimonies”, according to which there existed execution gas chambers at the camps of Ravensbrück, Oranienburg-Sachsenhausen, Mauthausen, Hartheim, Struthof-Natzweiler, Stutthof-Danzig, Bergen-Belsen…

It had indeed seemed in recent decades that orthodox historians had given up some of their wildest claims. Yet still it goes on. We will look in vain for any attempt by the Hamburg court to examine forensic or documentary evidence as to whether this ‘execution gas chamber’ at Stutthof (or any other) actually existed.

After all, the court has just heard a 93-year-old eyewitness. What further proof could be required?

One more brick in the Holocaustian edifice. Whether this amounts to history or justice is a question one dare not ask in Hamburg, nor across most of 21st century Europe, on pain of imprisonment. In a few weeks time, for example, Ursula Haverbeck will celebrate her 91st birthday in a Bielefeld prison, 150 miles south of the Hamburg courtroom. Her crime – to have asked the questions that the Hamburg court avoids.

A detailed book about Stutthof has been published by Jürgen Graf and Carlo Mattogno, but there is no possibility of the authors being allowed to give expert testimony in a German court.

Foreign Secretary dismissed London Holocaust memorial as “preposterous”

Foreign Secretary Lord Carrington with Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. Carrington, who had won the Military Cross for his bravery during the Second World War, wrote of the original plans for a London Holocaust Memorial: “The whole idea is preposterous”.

Following extensive research at The National Archives, Heritage and Destiny can reveal that the original proposal for a London Holocaust Memorial was strongly opposed by three senior Cabinet ministers and by Britain’s leading diplomats. Foreign Secretary Lord Carrington wrote to colleagues: “The whole idea is preposterous”.

This original memorial was first mooted in the spring of 1979, and was a far more modest proposal than the gigantic project presently being discussed by the planning committee of Westminster City Council.

H&D‘s assistant editor Peter Rushton has submitted a detailed report to Westminster’s planning committee, revealing the full story behind the original memorial plans, and the reasons for senior ministers’ objections, which are even more valid in relation to the vast project now under consideration.

Leading proponent of the latest Holocaust memorial, Lord Pickles (ex-chairman of Conservative Friends of Israel) seen here with former Prime Minister Theresa May

The record also reveals that the Jewish community itself was deeply divided over these plans. Their original proponent Greville Janner (later ennobled as Lord Janner and disgraced in a series of ‘paedophile’ scandals) wrote secretly to Tory ministers attacking his fellow Jewish Labour MP Reg Freeson (a former editor of the ‘anti-fascist’ magazine Searchlight).

Earlier sketchy and inaccurate reports about the original London Holocaust Memorial have mentioned that Foreign Secretary Lord Carrington opposed the plans, but the true story – reflecting a consensus among Britain’s senior diplomats against the plans – can only now be told.

Click here to read H&D‘s report.

“The whole idea is preposterous”: the true story behind London’s Holocaust Memorial

The ‘Holocaust Memorial’ presently being considered by Westminster City Council is on a far vaster scale than anything contemplated in 1980 – but even then the proposals were dismissed as ‘preposterous’ by the British Foreign Secretary.

In April 1980 Michael Heseltine, Environment Secretary in Margaret Thatcher’s Conservative government, wrote to his colleague Lord Carrington, Foreign Secretary, to consult him about plans that Heseltine had been discussing for the past year with the Board of Deputies of British Jews, “to erect a memorial to those of all faiths who died in the Nazi Holocaust.”

This triggered more than 18 months of strong opposition by Lord Carrington, some of his fellow ministers, and the most senior officials of the Foreign Office to the proposal for a London “Holocaust” Memorial, even though both the Board of Deputies and Heseltine regularly stressed its “modest” scale.

Understandably, Carrington felt that “any monuments in the area concerned should be of a British national character.” He added: “It is by no means self-evident that Crown land in London should be used for a memorial to events which did not take place on British territory or involve a large part of the British population. In addition, a long time has passed since the events which the proposed Garden would seek to commemorate.”

Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin – who consistently sought to use the ‘Holocaust’ as a diplomatic weapon against Britain – had been boss of the Irgun terror gang that butchered two British sergeants, causing international revulsion in 1947.

Reflecting wider Foreign Office concerns, Carrington also suggested that “some Arabs might see the monument as endorsing Mr Begin’s point that the fate of the European Jews in the ’30s and ’40s should influence British policy on the Arab/Israel question in the ’80s.”

This was a reference to then Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin, former leader of the anti-British terrorist group Irgun, who during the early 1980s persistently used the Holocaust as a diplomatic weapon against British, French and German governments.

Archival records show that Carrington was echoing the views of senior diplomats including the Foreign Office Political Director Julian Bullard (later British Ambassador to West Germany).

Julian Bullard, Political Director of the Foreign Office, was one of the most eloquent and well-informed opponents of the Holocaust Memorial project.

A memo by Bullard (whose father and several other relatives were also senior British diplomats) explained:

“I continue to see no particular reason why Crown land in London should be used for a memorial to events which did not take place on British territory or involve a large part of the British population. The lapse of time (now 35 years) prompts the question why, if a memorial in Britain was desirable, it was not organised at the time, when the memory was greener.
“I continue to suspect that at least some of the sponsors of the project are hoping that, if realised, it would strengthen the idea that Britain has some sort of special responsibility towards Israel on account of the events of 1933 to 1945, and that these events are or should be still a factor in British policy in the Middle East. A perhaps even more unworthy thought is that some of the sponsors may be deliberately throwing down a challenge to anti-semitic elements in this country.”

Bullard’s colleague Sir John Graham, then Deputy Under-Secretary for the Middle East, agreed:
“I fully share Mr Bullard’s doubts. Why should not the Jewish Community buy a site and erect a memorial if they wish? Would we permit a monument to Deir Yassin in a Royal Park? And yet our responsibility for that massacre was as close (or as distant) as for the massacre of the Jews by Hitler.”

In a later memorandum, Sir John (a baronet and career diplomat who later served as British Ambassador and Permanent Representative to NATO) repeated and amplified this argument:
“The possible followers of the precedent include the Armenians (Turkish massacres), the PLO (Deir Yassin), the supporters of Allende and so on. Of course it is a free country and people may erect monuments, subject to planning permission, but they ought to do it on their own land and at their own expense.”

Senior Foreign Office diplomat David Gladstone compiled a summary of the arguments against a London Holocaust Memorial

A summary of the argument against the memorial was drawn up by David Gladstone, head of the Foreign Office Western European Department. He wrote:
“Mr Begin and other members of his government refer frequently to the Holocaust to justify their current security policies and to demonstrate, in the absence of convincing rational argument, why Europe is necessarily disqualified from any role in peace efforts and is not entitled to challenge Israel’s own view of her security needs. The Israeli Ambassador in London has taken a similar line in two recent speeches here, in which he has also suggested more or less explicitly that the motives for our policy are purely commercial. A memorial in London on government land might prove an irresistible stick with which to go on beating HMG from time to time.”

An aide memoire drawn up for Carrington before a Downing Street meeting on the project read:
“Why a memorial to Holocaust after 35 years? Is real motive political? Concerned at use made of Holocaust by present Israeli government to justify unacceptable policies and pillory European peace efforts unjustifiably.”

Julian Bullard once again weighed in: “This incorporates my views, which have strengthened with the passage of time. It cannot be wise to contemplate authorising the proposed memorial at a time when Arab-Israeli problems, and Britain’s attitude to them, is constantly on the front pages. But the Secretary of State will want to be sure that his colleagues support him, given the likelihood of press stories.”

Arguments against the Memorial were “strongly endorsed” by the Permanent Under-Secretary himself – Sir Michael Palliser, Head of the Diplomatic Service.

Two of the senior ministers opposed to the Holocaust Memorial were Home Secretary William Whitelaw (above left) and Minister of Defence Francis Pym (above right), seen here attending the Thanksgiving Service after the Falklands War in 1982. Both Whitelaw and Pym had been awarded the Military Cross for their bravery under fire during the Second World War.

Carrington and his Foreign Office advisers received support from other senior figures. Francis Pym, Minister of Defence, wrote that a Holocaust memorial “would be rather a strange newcomer to a part of London where the existing memorials – whether one thinks of the Cenotaph itself or of the military leaders commemorated in Whitehall or around the Ministry of Defence Main Building – relate very much to the British national tradition and to our own victories and sorrows. Indeed I am afraid that I am still not entirely clear what is the object of the proposed memorial.”

Home Secretary and Deputy Prime Minister William Whitelaw agreed: “I have strong reservations about the erection in Whitehall of such a memorial. …I am also puzzled about the purpose of the memorial.”

It is worth pointing out that the three senior ministers with reservations or objections had all seen active service during the Second World War, and all three had been awarded the Military Cross, granted for “an act or acts of exemplary gallantry during active operations against the enemy on land.” Carrington spent a decade with the Grenadier Guards from 1939 to 1949, eventually with the rank of acting major, and was awarded the MC in March 1945 for his bravery while commanding a tank crossing the Rhine, capturing and holding a bridge at Nijmegen. Pym served in the 9th Lancers in North Africa and Italy, also to the rank of major, and was awarded the MC after being twice mentioned in despatches. Whitelaw was with the Scots Guards, and later the 6th Guards Tank Brigade, commanding tanks during the Battle of Normandy in the summer of 1944. His MC was awarded after the 26-year-old Whitelaw took over from his battalion’s second-in-command who had been killed in front of him.

The future Lord Carrington (centre) with his fellow Grenadier Guards

However on 12th November 1981 Prime Minister Thatcher – for largely political reasons – overrode these objections and a “modest” Holocaust memorial was eventually erected in Hyde Park, officially unveiled in June 1983.

The full story of this memorial, and the planning arguments involved – highly relevant to the present battle within Westminster City Council’s planning committee over whether to approve a far more grandiose memorial – is told in a detailed report submitted to Westminster City Council by H&D‘s Assistant Editor Peter Rushton.

Click here to read this detailed and fully documented report.

Faurisson Lives! The Inaugural Robert Faurisson International Prize

Imprisoned German author and campaigner for historical justice Ursula Haverbeck – who remains behind bars in the German city of Bielefeld as she approaches her 91st birthday on November 8th – was awarded the inaugural Robert Faurisson International Prize at a ceremony in Vichy, France earlier this year.

Heritage and Destiny is proud to have organised what turned out to be Robert Faurisson’s final speech on the day before his death – and we now present the online version of this film tribute produced by Lady Michèle Renouf of Telling Films.

Click here to view Chapters 1 & 2 of this video.

German lawyer arrested again: faces 18 months in jail

(left to right) Günter Deckert, Sylvia Stolz, and Lady Michèle Renouf following the release of Frau Stolz from a prison sentence in April 2011: today she was again imprisoned.

German lawyer Sylvia Stolz was arrested again today for what George Orwell would have called ‘thought crimes’ – in the supposedly ‘democratic’ Federal Republic.

Her ‘offence’ is to have given a speech in Switzerland in 2012 where she spoke about her earlier conviction in 2008 for offences against Germany’s notorious ‘Paragraph 130’ law that forbids discussion of or research into forbidden historical topics.

Sylvia Stolz was imprisoned from 2008 to 2011. For her speech in Switzerland she was convicted again in February 2015 and sentenced to 20 months imprisonment, later reduced on appeal to 18 months.

It is this 18 month sentence that she must now serve following today’s arrest.

Less than two weeks ago the host of the Swiss conference where Sylvia Stolz gave her ‘offending’ speech – religious broadcaster and author Ivo Sasek – was represented at an alternative media conference in the Bundestag (Germany’s federal parliament in Berlin) held by the civic nationalist party Alternative für Deutschland (AfD).

Despite the climate of fear engendered by ‘liberal dictatorships’ across Europe (seen at its worst in Germany), voters in this week’s European elections are set to defy political elites.

Not only AfD but a host of anti-establishment parties are set to win seats in the European Parliament. Voters in the UK went to the polls today, but because most countries do not vote until Sunday, there will be no counting until Sunday night and Monday morning.

This website will bring up to date coverage and analysis of results as they are declared. The present May-June edition of H&D contains a detailed analysis of the many different populist or nationalist parties standing in different European countries; the July-August edition will have reports on the results and on the widening division between Europeans and their rulers.

Chuka’s family secrets

Chuka Umunna – the great mixed-race hope of British liberalism

Chuka Umunna is keen to promote himself as ‘leader’ of the so-called Independent Group of MPs who have broken away from the Labour and Conservative parties. TIG (as it is presently known) is likely to become a properly registered political party later this year.

This much-promoted and lavishly-funded ‘centre party’ has two principal characteristics. Its ex-Labour members were prompted to leave Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party primarily because of the latter’s alleged “anti-semitism”; while it’s ex-Tory members quit Theresa May’s Conservative Party mainly because they oppose Brexit.

Umunna (MP for the South London constituency of Streatham) was once seen as a future Labour leader (in the Tony Blair tradition) and is still touted as a future Prime Minister.

His father was from the Nigerian Igbo tribal group, but his mother Patricia Milmo is an Anglo-Irish solicitor from a wealthy family. Chuka’s maternal grandfather, Sir Helenus Milmo was a judge who served in the British security and intelligence services during and after the Second World War, where thanks to his prowess as an interrogator he was known as ‘Buster’ Milmo.

Since Chuka is now so keen to smear critics of Israel as “anti-semites”, perhaps he could enlighten us about his grandfather’s views on Jewish terrorism against British soldiers and civilians during 1945 to 1948, and his MI5 colleagues’ experience of combatting this Zionist scourge?

Chuka Umunna’s grandfather Sir Helenus Milmo, who before becoming a postwar judge was a senior MI5 officer: he viewed the Nuremberg trials as a “grandiose performance”.

And since it is illegal in several European countries to criticise the Nuremberg trials of alleged war criminals, perhaps Chuka would care to comment on his grandfather’s view of the entire Nuremberg process?

H&D can reveal that on 11th August 1945 ‘Buster’ Milmo wrote to his immediate superior in the British security service MI5 about a short British list of alleged war criminals for potential trial at Nuremberg: “which names about ten candidates to occupy the stage at this grandiose performance”.

Milmo was not alone in taking a jaundiced or cynical view of the Nuremberg charade of “victors’ justice”. No less a figure than Lord Hankey – the main architect of the modern civil service who served as the first ever Cabinet Secretary from 1916 to 1938 told the House of Lords in 1949 that “Contrary to general belief, the history on which the Nuremberg judgments and findings were based is not accurate.”

Lord Hankey added: “There was something cynical and revolting in the spectacle of British, French and American judges sitting on the Bench with colleagues who, however impeccable as individuals, represented a country which before, during and since the trials has perpetrated half the political crimes in the calendar. And in spite of the specious arguments on page 38 of the Nuremberg Judgment, I do not see how anyone can deny that under a cloak of justice these trials were just the old, old story—one law for the victors and another for the vanquished. Vae victis!”

If Chuka Umunna hopes to refresh British politics and renew the UK’s relationship with Europe, he could start by quoting his own family’s heritage to repair the damage caused by what his grandfather called the “grandiose performance” of Nuremberg. And if he is serious about “anti-semitism”, Mr Umunna should be keen to differentiate between what Lord Hankey termed “specious arguments”, and serious efforts to assess historical truth.

Next Page »

  • Find By Category

  • Latest News

  • Follow us on Twitter