Far from showing that my revelations were old hat, the 42-page, paragraph by paragraph analysis of my Standpoint article produced by Dr Jan Zimmermann showed the very opposite. On fact after important fact, Zimmermann admitted that the foundation's researchers had been aware of them but had chosen not to publish them. Thus, not only was it wrong to argue that Standpoint merely republished material already revealed or acknowledged by the foundation, it was equally wrong for Evans to suggest in THE that the official history of 2000 and Zimmermann's biography of Toepfer published in 2008 had not been bowdlerised.

Zimmermann provided a variety of excuses. Toepfer's status as a sponsoring member of the SS had not been mentioned because it was a mere "detail" unconfirmed in German archives (though proven in British ones). Toepfer's actions after the war to help SS Major General Lauterbacher to establish a clandestine life in Argentina had been left out for lack of space, as had been Toepfer's assistance to SS Colonel Bickler while he was on the run from a French death sentence for war crimes. Far from exonerating the official history, which was its intention, Zimmermann's analysis for the foundation shows that Mommsen had presented a misleading and incomplete version of the events concerning Toepfer's application form for membership of the Nazi Party submitted in 1937. Other highly damaging matters omitted from the official history include documentation from 1937 published in 1999 by Professor Karl-Heinz Roth, which Mommsen dismisses in a footnote and does not reveal to the reader. There are at least 14 damaging pieces of evidence about which the foundation's historians apparently were aware but which they did not reveal. In other cases, adverse facts were included only in footnotes or in obscure parts of the text.

Therefore Evans is mistaken in his claim in THE that the official Toepfer history was not bowdlerised, though it is not clear in all cases whether the omissions were made under pressure from the foundation or came from the foundation's selected historians themselves. 

Equally important are the omissions in the official history resulting from the failure of the "Independent Academic Commission" to conduct any systematic investigation into Toepfer's activities and contacts after the war. It omitted to conduct  a  review of the background under the Nazis of those on Toepfer's post-war payroll. The list of known Holocaust perpetrators employed and aided by Toepfer — already extensive and shocking — is probably incomplete. Then there are the Nazi ideologues, writers and historians whom Toepfer honoured with prizes and scholarships for many years after the fall of Hitler.

When Edward Heath, British Prime Minister at the time, received a prize in 1972 from Toepfer equivalent to eight years of his pay as a Member of Parliament, he may not have appreciated who some of Toepfer's other prizewinners were. The Dutch historian Robert van Roosebroek was honoured while he was living in exile in Germany. A Dutch court had sentenced him to death for his wartime activities. In Austria, Alfred Quellmalz, Heinrich Zillich and Gertrud Fussenneger all received the Mozart Prize between 1969 and 1979. It is hard to decide which of these Mozart prizewinners was the most anti-Semitic or which had the most odious record. Fussenneger was a famous Austrian writer. An early Nazi, she had composed poems of hatred against the Jews of Prague. Zillich, a Transylvanian German writer, had been a prominent Nazi and anti-Semite whose associations with the far-Right continued after the war.

Evans's statement that I had, in the main, merely recycled published material, is quite unjustified. There were some two dozen new pieces of information published in Standpoint, more in the footnoted German-language version in the Fahlbusch/Haar volume and still more in the formal memorandum to Oxford.