Evans's assertion that there is no evidence of anti-Semitism on Toepfer's part also follows Mommsen. When Evans writes that there is no example of an anti-Semitic statement by Toepfer, this is incorrect, incomplete and, more important, irrelevant. Toepfer's links with Alfred Zander are not described in the official history. Zander was the Swiss Nazi who provided the main defence of the genuineness of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion in the celebrated Berne trial of 1934.  Given the fact that — as admitted in the official history-Toepfer's papers were weeded, Toepfer's attitude toward Jews must be judged on the basis of his actions after the war, when he knew about the Holocaust, no longer had any self-interest in supporting leading Nazis and was free to distance himself from them. The fact that Toepfer went out of his way to give employment and aid after the defeat of Hitler to some of the most notorious mass murderers of Jews and to honour Nazi intellectuals is itself evidence of anti-Semitism.

It takes a considerable effort of the imagination to provide an alternative explanation of Toepfer's courtship of top Nazis post-1945. Pogge von Strandmann writes that it is inexplicable. Evans chooses to believe a Toepfer manager who had himself held the rank of general in the SS and who wrote that Toepfer had sympathy for persons unjustly treated by Allied occupation forces. Evans is taking historical empathy too far when he writes that after the war, "Toepfer considered Nazi crimes to have been carried out by a tiny criminal clique, to which his friends did not belong. Regular Germans were not Nazis, he thought, and he was in a position to help the victims of ‘victors' justice'."

When such feelings result in support for the likes of SS Lieutenant General Best, SS Major General Riecke, SS Major General Lauterbacher, SS Brigadier Edmund Veesenmayer, and SS Colonel Hermann Bickler, the person who entertains them surely deserves to be called an anti-Semite.

Evans also risks descending a slippery slope when he agrees with Mommsen in suggesting that Toepfer's apparent status as a "conservative" nationalist and racist who approved of Hitler's rise to power clearly differentiated him from being a Nazi. This distinction leads to the further conclusion — adumbrated by Pogge von Strandmann as well as Evans — that the Toepfer brand of racialist nationalism was little different from that of such British imperialists as Cecil Rhodes.