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.

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.

Paul Fromm on Dresden – 1945-2019

74 years ago a terrible war crime was committed in the ancient city of Dresden.

In the video below, Canadian broadcaster and free speech activist Paul Fromm remembers the slaughter at Dresden, and comments on its significance for Europeans worldwide.

Does Alison Chabloz know what she’s doing? Or criminalising “Holocaust”-revisionism by the back door

Richard Edmonds reports

“Lord, what fools these mortals be.”  Shakespeare’s A Midsummer Night’s Dream, Act 3, scene 2.

Vincent Reynouard at one of his many court hearings

Found “Guilty” at the Westminster Magistrates’ court last year and given a suspended prison sentence, folk-singer and satirist Alison Chabloz has decided to appeal her conviction and sentence to Southwark Crown court in central London. (Technically this is a full retrial of the case rather than an appeal on a point of law.)

As always in appealing to a higher court against the findings and sentencing of a lower court, there is the risk that, as in the case of Ms. Chabloz, the suspended prison sentence of some weeks’ duration (i.e. at “liberty” but subject to certain conditions), is regarded as too indulgent by the higher court which then hands down an actual prison sentence of months – months locked up in a concrete cell in close proximity with criminals and various other anti-social types. Taking the risk of appealing against the findings of a lower court is always a very personal matter. 

For legal reasons no comment is made here on the merits or demerits of the case itself. What is under examination here are the tactics and implications of taking the case to a higher level of the court system. 

Because, what is not a personal matter in the case of Ms. Chabloz, is what the consequences of her decision to appeal might be for the Revisionist movement here in Britain. That is the question. As the law stands, the findings of a Magistrates’ court are not regarded as setting any legal precedent. This is not the case with the findings of a Crown Court. It is not impossible that should in February Ms. Chabloz lose her appeal at Southwark Crown Court, then her case, involving as it does elements of the so-called “Holocaust”, could be used as a legal precedent to launch criminal prosecutions against Historical revisionists by the back-door, so to speak, in the absence of any formal laws in Britain banning “Holocaust”-denial.

This is not some idle theory and speculation. Recently the brave French revisionist and refugee from French “Justice” currently residing in Britain, Vincent Reynouard, raised the whole question of the possible consequences of Ms. Chabloz‘ appeal. In an interview that he gave to the highly regarded nationalist and revisionist, French-language publication, RIVAROL (12. December 2018), Reynouard expressed his fears. Referring directly to the case of Alison Chabloz in Britain, Vincent Reynouard asked, “who says that her case may not create a legal precedent ?” Reynouard reminded the readers of RIVAROL how the judicial authorities in North America had employed legal pretexts to arrest Ernst Zundel and Germar Rudolf in order to extradite the pair of them back to their land of origin, where both were immediately jailed for many years. Reynouard stressed that the possibility cannot be excluded that he might get the same treatment. 

Question: Does Ms. Chabloz know what she is doing ?

Political prisoner Horst Mahler critically ill in German jail

Lady Michèle Renouf reports:

German political-philosopher and imprisoned dissident Horst Mahler (born 1936) is in a very bad way in a prison hospital.

Behind bars for years and for the next 10 years despite his crippling condition after a leg amputation (in consequence of the prison diet, life-endangering for a diabetic) the octogenarian and former attorney has committed no crime for his jailed condition save expressing peaceful philosophical opinions.

Horst Mahler (above left), who is currently serving a twelve-year prison sentence for daring to challenge the orthodox interpretation of German history – seen here with the late Franz Schönhuber MEP of the Republikaner party.

Attorney Mahler’s wife writes (for general public interest release) the news her husband wishes conveyed via Robert Steinert.

Mr. Steinert is the co-producer of the film based on the groundbreaking book Other Losses … the untold loss of a million POW and German civilians driven, on the sociopathic postwar orders of the barbaric Eisenhower, intentionally starving them to death in tightly packed fields of the Rhine Meadows exposed to harsh elements.

Dear Herr Steinert, I am sending you this message at the request of my husband… Yesterday I visited my husband in the detention department of the municipal hospital in Brandenburg. He has been there since Wednesday – after a breakdown in the cell !

Horst suffers from necrosis of his remaining right foot (its big toe).

In addition pneumonia has set in – quite heavily now.

His CRP value of his blood is 300 – this is very high. A normal value is about 10.

For two days he has been on antibiotics – now we have to wait and see whether the inflammation levels drop.

Mentally Horst is clear, as always, but very weak. He fears that he will not get through this time….

Yours sincerely, Elzbieta Mahler

In the circumstances, well-wishers may like to take this opportunity to send their respects to Horst Mahler who is regarded by many (to quote Robert Steinert):
as without doubt one of the greatest thinkers Germany has ever produced. Nevertheless, I hope that he will survive this crisis, because we all need him urgently!

Horst’s prison address is:

Justizvollzugsanstalt Brandenburg A.D. Havel,
Inhaftierter: Horst Mahler
Anton-Saefkow-Allee 22
14772 Brandenburg
GERMANY

For those interested, Telling Films has many unique interviews with Horst Mahler available in English as listed at www.tellingfilms.co.uk and via dvdorders@tellingfilms.co.uk

Professor Robert Faurisson – the intellectual adventurer of the century – dies on return from this weekend’s triumphant trip to his native town

 

Professor Robert Faurisson died suddenly this evening, just after arriving at his home in Vichy, France, following a triumphant return to his native town of Shepperton, Surrey. He died instantly after suffering a heart attack as he crossed the threshold of his home.

Professor Robert Faurisson with Lady Michèle Renouf

Born to a Scots mother and French father in Shepperton in January 1929, Professor Faurisson would have been 90 in three months time. H&D is proud to have facilitated his final speech on the final weekend of his eventful and heroic life.

Yesterday at a hotel in Shepperton, before a personally invited audience of 70 friends and fellow students of real history, Professor Faurisson gave a masterful summary of his decades of research.

 

Time and again, beginning in the 1970s, he put his exceptional academic expertise in analysing documentary texts at the service of historical exactitude.

Travelling to many countries in his researches, Professor Faurisson was the first to establish that the so-called homicidal ‘gas chamber’ displayed to tourists in Auschwitz is a post-war ‘reconstruction’ – in fact a fake by Soviet propagandists – and the first to publish detailed original blueprints for what were later claimed to have been homicidal ‘gas chambers’ but were in fact mortuaries.

For decades Professor Faurisson was relentlessly pursued by French courts, after a special law was introduced to criminalise his work. Even at the hour of his death, several prosecutions were still ongoing in Paris and Vichy courtrooms.

Professor Robert Faurisson, Lady Michèle Renouf and the Professor’s translator and assistant Guillaume Nichols, seen here in Shepperton hours before the Professor’s death

Yesterday’s final Faurisson speech was at a private reception in his honour, arranged by H&D‘s assistant editor Peter Rushton with the backing of Lady Michèle Renouf, Richard Edmonds and Max Musson. Guests were welcomed by Lady Renouf, and then heard an opening speech by Vincent Reynouard, the leading figure in a younger generation of Frenchmen inspired by Professor Faurisson to pursue their own researches into ‘forbidden’ history.

Professor Faurisson himself then presented a comprehensive overview of his career including very new and important discoveries – a full video of his speech will be broadcast later this week by Lady Renouf’s Telling Films. His swansong was also captured for posterity by an invited camera team from a Lebanese television station.

Just as the Professor was completing his speech, the hotel management summoned Peter Rushton. In another part of the hotel – while Professor Faurisson concluded his address – the hotel manager demanded that Mr Rushton close down the meeting. Mr Rushton insisted that the event had been booked in good faith as a private reception – with no duplicity – and that it would continue until the scheduled conclusion.

Professor Faurisson in Paris for one of his many court appearances in the 1990s

In a disgraceful breach of contract, the management then harassed the audience in the hotel’s private function room, haranguing Professor Faurisson and his friends, turning out the lights, setting off the fire alarm and playing loud disco music in an attempt to drown out Peter Rushton’s speech.

Undeterred, Mr Rushton persisted – speaking in the dark over the background noise of fire bells etc. – and the audience bravely suffered this unusual form of oratory!

The H&D team extend our profound thanks to the 70 guests from around Britain, and from Canada, Italy, France, Belgium, Ireland and the former Yugoslavia, who joined us in Shepperton yesterday and enabled Professor Faurisson to die a happy and contented man.

Our friend Vincent Reynouard uploaded the above video of yesterday’s events, just before news of the Professor’s death. A full report will appear in our January issue (since our November edition is already at the printers). As what is now a posthumous tribute to Professor Faurisson, the expanded text of Peter Rushton’s speech will also be published soon, incorporating the latest revelations from Britain’s official archives concerning wartime fakery of homicidal gassings and other atrocities.

Long live Robert Faurisson and Historical Exactitude!

UPDATE: Former presidential candidate and Front National founder Jean-Marie Le Pen MEP issued the statement below after hearing news of Professor Faurisson’s death. M. Le Pen writes: “I did not know Robert Faurisson personally, but the extensive means employed for decades in efforts to silence him appear to me as symbolic of the decline of freedom of speech and thought in our nation. The so-called historical memory laws used to criminalise political opponents of various persuasions are the sign of an anti-democratic strategy that the powers-that-be use and abuse against patriotic spirit and against peoples who rebel in defence of identity.”

Prof. Robert Faurisson with Lady Renouf at the Tehran Conference in 2006, where his speech became the focus of several criminal trials in Paris. Recently Lady Renouf was the Professor’s sole defence witness in Paris when he was prosecuted by a French court for his Tehran speech.

Monika Schaefer imprisoned: her brother Alfred and Lady Michèle Renouf arrested – two videos from Germany

Canadian-German violinist and former Green Party candidate Monika Schaefer remains imprisoned in Germany following her arrest in January under the notorious German law dictating the approved interpretation of 20th century history.

Regularly updated information about Monika’s case can be found at the website of the Canadian Association for Free Expression.

Last December Monika met with a small group of friends (including several H&D subscribers) to celebrate the traditional festival of the Winter Solstice. The video below is a memento of this occasion and is posted here as a tribute to the brave Monika Schaefer.

H&D readers outraged by Germany’s abandonment of the normal traditions of free historical enquiry can write to Monika Schaefer at her prison address:

Monika Schaefer
JVA Stadelheim
Schwarzenbergstr. 14
81549 München
GERMANY

Monika’s brother Alfred Schaefer is also now facing criminal charges for the speech he gave in February 2017 at a commemoration in Dresden of the terrible Holocaust carried out in that city by British and American terror bombing in February 1945.

At this year’s Dresden commemoration, Lady Michèle Renouf, British campaigner for the right of free scientific and historical enquiry, was herself arrested following her speech which can be viewed in the video below.

It is truly tragic that the German police and authorities feel compelled so to dishonour their own civilian dead, by criminalising the holocaust of hundreds of thousands of their fellow countrymen, including countless women and children burned alive seventy-three years ago in Dresden.

H&D will continue to carry regular updates on the worldwide struggle to save traditional European freedoms.

 

Veteran fighters for truth and justice: Dr Herbert Schaller and Don Salvador Borrego

We regret to report the deaths of two of the world’s leading veteran fighters for historical truth and justice: Dr Herbert Schaller of Austria and Don Salvador Borrego of Mexico.

Don Salvador was one of the very first revisionist historians of the Second World War, with his landmark book Derrota Mundial (Worldwide Defeat) published in 1953, and remained active with further publications and speeches until his death aged 102 on January 8th. Don Salvador’s 100th birthday was celebrated in Guadalajara in 2015 with an international congress, attended by Ernst and Ingrid Zündel, David Duke, Mark Weber, Lady Michèle Renouf, Pedro Varela and many other well known campaigners for the right to free historical research (see video link above).

The young Wehrmacht Oberleutnant Herbert Schaller in 1944

Dr Herbert Schaller was educated at one of the elite Napola (Nationalpolitische Lehranstalt – National Political Institutes of Education), designed to produce the future leaders of National Socialism.  After wartime service in the Wehrmacht, Dr Schaller became a prominent lawyer in Vienna and was best known for his defence of numerous political ‘criminals’ hauled before Austrian courts under increasingly repressive laws.

Among Dr Schaller’s clients were the British historian David Irving, Austrian author Gerd Honsik, and German-Canadian publisher Ernst Zündel.  It was thanks to Dr Schaller’s legal expertise that David Irving won an early release in December 2006 from his Viennese prison sentence.  Eventually the Austrian state brought in a new law enforcing a compulsory retirement age for lawyers, solely in order to prevent Dr Schaller from practising!

Dr Herbert Schaller died on January 18th aged 94. Interviews filmed at his home in Vienna and on the day of his client Ernst Zündel’s release in Mannheim will be published later this year. For further tributes to the life and work of Don Salvador Borrego and Dr Herbert Schaller, read the March 2018 edition of Heritage and Destiny.

Don Salvador Borrego (above right) at the international congress held on his 100th birthday in 2015.

International guests at the Guadalajara congress held in honour of Don Salvador Borrego’s 100th birthday

Dr Herbert Schaller with his client Ernst Zündel on the day of the latter’s release from Mannheim prison in 2010.

Next Page »

  • Find By Category

  • Latest News

  • Follow us on Twitter