You are here:   Alfred Toepfer > The Holocaust: Excusing the Inexcusable
 

During his speech at the German Historical Institute, Evans commented that some of the prominent historians employed by German corporations to write about their wartime behaviour were too busy to do the research themselves or even to check the work of their junior co-authors and research assistants. A similar problem seems to apply to Evans himself. Some of the statements in his attack on me reflect an admitted failure to check sources and documents or a reliance on memory. His error in stating that Toepfer's senior post-war employee Hans-Joachim Riecke had been convicted at Nuremberg stemmed from the fact that he was relying on his memory of a conversation held in the 1970s and had not taken the simple precaution of a check on the internet. His statement in defence of the official Toepfer history that Christian Gerlach's draft chapter had "of course" been published as submitted by the author, as he told me, was not based on an examination of Gerlach's drafts.

According to Evans, the official history of Alfred Toepfer published in 2000 had been "devastating". The historical commission which had produced it included Hans Mommsen, "the leading German specialist on the Third Reich". Apart from a few discoveries of my own, I had merely brought to the attention of a British audience facts that the foundation's sponsored historians had previously revealed.

These are untenable points.

The official history of which Mommsen was one of the listed authors, far from being a devastating critique of the Hamburg millionaire, made relatively minimal concessions. The foundation's "Independent Academic Commission" had been obliged to make them by  previous revelations, mainly published in 1995 by a group of scholars based in Alsace and Lorraine.

The function of the official history was to put as favourable as possible a gloss on the uncomfortable facts revealed by Toepfer's critics, while claiming virtue for admitting that most of the revelations had been correct.  What Evans reports as a "devastating" verdict reads as follows:

"Alfred Toepfer was neither a promoter of the  National Socialists before 1933 nor an enthusiastic adherent of the National Socialist regime in the 12 years that followed. He was never moved to become a member of the NSDAP or any of its affiliates. And he never shared the central objectives of the leading National Socialists; he was far from being a racist or anti-Semite. Demonstrative endorsement of the German Reich's policy towards Jews or even individual joint responsibility for the ‘Holocaust' cannot be imputed to him; he did not enrich himself with ‘Aryanised' Jewish property. This explains why his de-Nazification process ended in the categorisation of ‘not incriminated', particularly since he was  released  as  a  blameless,  free  man  in  1947."

In his laudatio for Toepfer at the 75th anniversary celebration of the Alfred Toepfer Foundation, Mommsen characterised him as one of the "great Europeans".

View Full Article
 
Share/Save
 
 
 
 
GW
September 1st, 2011
5:09 PM
Nothing has changed. Germany just went quiet for a while. http://germanywatch.blogspot.com/2011/08/dodgy-ngos-and-arab-spring.html

Frank Adam
August 21st, 2011
10:08 AM
I was a teenager in the 50's and remember all this for real as well as the Americans in Reader's Digest etc trying to persuade us the Germans had been hard done to by the Russians when there were still bomb sites across my patch of London. Also becaus eof the Cold War and to act up to the Arabs the Eisenhower Admin refused to move its embassy to Jerusalem nor did it lean on the Arabs to fulfil their UN Charter obligations to recognise Israel and lay off harrassment. We are still paying the price for that short term blinkered policy in tha the Arabs think that for the oil and UN votes they can get away with political guttersnipe behaviour.

Roy Weston
August 19th, 2011
4:08 PM
It was once suggested that 16 million Germans could have been charged with involvement in the Holocaust. Of course, it was never suggested how 16 million people could be put on trial, but that was never the point. The point was that if a large enough figure could be established, that would guarantee that justice could never be done, then it could always be claimed that justice never was done and could be used as a reminder every time interest in the Holocaust was in decline. This article seems to be just a variation of that theme.

max
August 15th, 2011
3:08 PM
Michael Pinto-Duschinsky is to be congratulated on his perseverance, although starting-off with a summary of the case might have been useful. Entrenched financial interest and the passage of time are two powerful forces of inertia to overcome, and there are, surely, numerous Toepfers out there in Europe, Asia and Africa. There have been too many instances of mass murder, and there are lessons to be learned for humanity's sake. But it gets progressively harder to learn them. There are two parts to making it happen. 1. is extracting the evidence. 2. is making it count. 1. is of limited value without 2., and I wonder whether there might be a way of leveraging the effect of work such as Michael's. For instance, adapting the Fairtrade playbook, one might consider creating a seal of approval for organisations which have had the courage to discuss their roles openly and a seal of disapproval for those which have not and publicising them both. The act of burdening a corporate brand with a seal of disapproval widens the circle of those who perceive the corporation as having a case to answer, and it creates a focus for discussing the issues which, in these times of corporate social responsibility, can be difficult to ignore. Anyway, this Walm Lane kid welcomes the Teignmouth Road kid's work.

Ian Mordant
August 8th, 2011
7:08 PM
No I don't agree with Ken Wilsher. Sure we brits are highly imperfect in our own record. of course we do not only have differences with the Germans; we have many similarities too. nevertheless the attempt to get at the truth in all its complexity and perplexity should always be pursued, especially in matters of mass murder. Should we, because say our involvement with slavery, also take no interest in the escape of mass murderers from Rwanda? I think not. I want them pursued, to the ends of the earth and back again. And increase our taxes by a penny in the pound if thats what it takes to pursue them. Ian Mordant

Ken Wilsher
July 6th, 2011
7:07 PM
Well it was rather hard to beat the Germans. In that war, Britain, where I was a child, killed hundreds of thousands of Germans - mostly civilians - in the attempt. When the war finished I think the British just wanted to forget the whole nasty, morally dubious mess. It was not a time for moral posturing. 60 years after, hard though it may be - move on - please!

Post your comment

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.