Documents on Real History

Letters to David Irving on this Website

Unless correspondents ask us not to, this Website will post selected letters that it receives and invite open debate.

Quick navigation



Ann Masterson of Dublin, Ireland, writes on Sunday, December 24, 2000



New Zealanders exposed Prof. Evans's vicious bias on same date as Lord Justice Sedley relied on him

Mr. Justice Gray, having declared himself a judge and not a historian, proceeded to accept the historical evidence of Prof. Evans and the cultural historian Prof. Van der Pelt, et al, and used their "expert evidence" upon which to base his partial and extremely prejudiced judgment against you. Both Ms. Lipstadt and Penguin Books went on record, as saying the Gray judgement was more than they could have hoped for. Thousands of other academics felt the same - except for different reasons.

[In New Zealand] independent-minded qualified expert historians and a Judge were asked to judge the Joel Hayward case - should his MA degree be annulled because it dealt with the historical theme of revisionism -- anti-revisionist scholars had demanded that Hayward's MA be revoked because of its academic subject matter. The investigating body concluded that it could not be taken off him[1].

In justifying their verdict they rebutted the evidence of those who sought to have the MA revoked. And they responded to the principal antagonist Evans, and cited why his evidence was not taken seriously. They declared "[H]e is not an expert on the Holocaust"[2].

Consequently, they kicked out most of Evans's biased testimony. In fact, as working historical experts with a vast knowledge of historical research and methodology they declared:

"At times in his report tendered to the Working Party, Professor Evans appeared to diminish the objectivity required of an expert witness who, in a litigation context, has an over-riding duty to the Court and not to the party instructing him or her". See Stevens v. Gullis, [2000] 1 All ER 527.[3]

Lipstadt too is a known religious agitator with close connections to the Israeli government.

Continuing in their explanation as to why Evans's testimony was flawed they stated:

"Professor Orchard [a member of the Working Party] cited examples in the Evans report of exaggeration, omission, minimisation and misrepresentation when applied to Hayward's MA thesis". [4]

They refused to disqualify the thesis Hayward submitted for his MA degree. The content and subject matter of the MA thesis was based on solid academic work and was judged as such. A biased mediocre "non-expert" witness report does not fool accomplished researchers, working to a high standard.

Sadly, Gray, unqualified in history, accepted Evans testimony uncritically. The way Justice Gray and the Appeal Court used the Evans testimony is startling. Evans, as judged by his peers, is not an expert on German history. But you are acknowledged as one of the greatest scholars of German history over the period 1933-1945. Did they not spot Evan's hostility to you? Or was such hostility considered "fair?"

Lipstadt and Penguin Books used Evans and Van Pelt's testimonies et al to say you had a political agenda for your scholarly views. This is an unproven opinion and not a fact. But Gray seized on it and exploited the association so conveniently made for him. Though you have some political views, as we all have, your political views do not influence your scholarship any more and no less than is the norm in academia. To paraphrase Lord Tennyson: there is more truth in honest doubt, than in all the unchallenged orthodoxy's put together.

Truth did not matter. History did not matter. What mattered was giving a political signal: don't question the Establishment. I wonder will other historians who argue that Hitler and Germany never ordered or systematically planned the murder of Jews, suffer as you have? Or those who state that Hitler was not central to the dreadful tragedy, receive the unfair treatment you have suffered?

I personally believe that many Jews and others died in concentration camps due to the process of gassing. But I could be wrong. However I find your views interesting and have stimulated much useful debate in an important aspect of recent modern history. You do not deserve to be in the position you currently find yourself in.

Ann M. Masterson


[1] REPORT to the Council of The University of Canterbury [New Zealand] of the Working Party established to enquire into: the circumstances under which the degree of Master of Arts (with First Class Honours) was awarded by the University in 1993 to Joel Stuart Andrew Hayward, on the basis of a thesis entitled 'The Fate of Jews in German Hands: An Historical Enquiry into the Development and Significance of Holocaust Revisionism'
[2] Op.cit. 4.2
[3] Op. cit. 4.3
[4] Op. cit. 4.1
© Focal Point 2000 David Irving