Bing goes Hayward’s Ghost
On the Destruction of Academic Freedom Down Under
New Zealand is not exactly the counrty that causes headlines in the world's media, nor is it a place where one would expect infringements on civil rights of academics. But this is exactly what happened during the past couple of years. In the early 1990s, two young historians had written their master's theses on controversial topics of World War Two history. Their studies were highly praised by their supervisors, but several years later, mainly Jewish pressure groups claimed that these theses are an abomination simply because these Jews did not agree with the theses' conclusion, and they also demanded that the two young historians should lose their academic titles. Fortunately, they did not succeed with this. But both young scholars were harassed and humiliated, and an example was made for all historians to learn: should they dare to come to research conclusions that are unwelcome by Jewish pressure groups, they will be fair game. This proves once more that academic freedom does not really exist anymore, not even in the remotest corner of the world.
1. Introduction
In December 2000, the University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand, thought it had pleased New Zealand's Jewish lobby by going to extraordinary lengths to accommodate a complaint lodged against the university. The Jewish community lodged a complaint because in 1993 Canterbury had awarded to one of its students a masters degree that dealt with the 'Holocaust'. Now seven years later, Canterbury published its Report By The Joel Hayward Working Party, wherein a written apology to New Zealand's Jewish community almost took precedence over the maintaining of its own academic integrity.
The small but vociferous New Zealand Jewish lobby had taken great exception to the granting of an MA with First Class Honours to Joel Stuart Andrew Hayward for his thesis on revisionism,[1] thereby making so-called 'Holocaust denial' a 'respectable' branch of academic study. The dogmatists could not let this happen. For them the academic ideal consists of nurturing self-authored taboo topics that bolster and uphold their own fragile intellectual bankruptcy, where a regard for objective knowledge is discarded and despised.
2. Background
The early so-called warning signs that something was going on in academia, which could damage Jewish-Zionist interests, were sounded eight years earlier. On May 5, 1992, a group calling itself “Opposition To Anti-Semitism Incorporated”, Christchurch, sent a letter of complaint to the University of Canterbury's Registrar, Mr A W Hayward. Therein the president, Kingsley N McFarlane, details a discussion the group had with Joel Hayward, and cite Hayward's reporting that his supervisor Dr. Vincent Orange in November 1991 had stated to Hayward, “OK! I agree there were no gas chambers!”
On May 25, 1992, Professor and head of the History department, W David McIntyre, advised the Registrar:[2]
“Further to our conversation on the phone about Joel Hayward's MA thesis and the persecution that he has been subjected to […] I think it important that the University reply blandly but firmly to these people as the interference they have attempted is intolerable. Indeed, the inclusion of the quotation about the conversation with Vincent Orange in the letter to you was probably illegal since it was taken from a tape which was illegally filmed and is the subject of an injunction.”
This courageous stand against Jewish blackmail was also adopted by the External Examiner's Report, written by Waikato University History Department's Professor John H Jensen. Dated April 15, 1993, it states:[3]
“This study is a brave attempt to deal in a cool and critical fashion with one of the most emotional and political issues of our century. The candidate is to be congratulated on his courage in undertaking it. Nevertheless I have tried to deal with it as I would deal with any thesis, ignoring its political implications, and concentrating on the skillfulness or otherwise with which the writer has carried out his responsibilities as an historian.”
Hayward's Chief Supervisor, Professor Vincent Orange, Reader in History at the University of Canterbury, in his assessment of March 23, 1993, hits a raw nerve with anti-Revisionists when he states in his report:[4]
“Hayward's thesis is that the Nazis did not attempt the systematic extermination of Jews during the Second World War. In particular, he finds the evidence that gas chambers were built and used for this purpose unconvincing. His argument for and against this key point is based on a detailed, careful study of documentary, oral and scientific evidence. He may, of course, be mistaken, but in my judgment his case is nowhere flawed by improper use of evidence or extravagant language. More positively, he earns credit for adopting a scholarly approach to matters that most historians have flinched from investigating. For example, how many human beings can be packed into a particular space and how long does it take for a body to be wholly consumed by fire?”
That the thesis would become contentious had been expected by Hayward. As early as 1991, Hayward had written an article on Holocaust Revisionism in New Zealand for the Australian Institute of Jewish Affairs journal, Without Prejudice. Hayward's article was titled “The Thinking Man's Anti-Semitism?” Therein Hayward clearly focuses on the political aspect of Revisionism, and is quite critical of British historian David Irving and France's Dr. Robert Faurisson for their attempt to deny the National Socialist genocide of six million Jews.
Yet two years later, after having submitted his thesis in 1993, Hayward requested that his thesis be embargoed for three years. Although this was an unusual request by any academic who thrives on the 'publish or perish' maxim, Professor Vincent Orange approved the request.
It is little wonder Hayward was in panic mode because the final chapter of his thesis states:
“A careful and impartial investigation of the available evidence pertaining to Nazi gas chambers reveals that even these apparently fall into the category of atrocity propaganda.”
In 1996, Hayward requested another extension to the publication of his embargoed thesis until January 1, 1999, and again it was granted.
At the beginning of October 1998, Hayward sent his thesis to Adelaide Institute for photocopying, saying that it may be used in any way. Copies were made and distributed to all Associates. A copy was also handed to the Commissioners of Australia's Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, hearing the complaint laid by Jeremy Jones against both Fredrick Töben and Olga Scully.
Also in October 1998, Joel Hayward even contemplated being a witness in the Toronto Zündel trial.[5] The dilemma facing him was the worry that he may say something helpful for the defence, for example his view that Revisionism “can promote anti-Semitism (although I naturally don't think that it does in its own right).”[6]
Dr. Robert Faurisson anticipated this in one of his comments. Hayward's opinion, says Faurisson,[7]
“is that the Revisionists are right but that they have no heart and do not care distressing the Jews. He believes in Babi Yar and all sorts of stupid things. His testimony could be very harmful in a 'Human Rights' 'tribunal' since that kind of 'tribunal' thinks that 'truth is no defence'. Hayward could even be the ideal witness for the prosecution: Zündel is all the more dangerous since he is right!”
Faurisson also advised Fredrick Töben:[8]
“[…] there is nothing confidential, at least today, with this thesis since I see that in 1996 I purchased my own copy. Hayward asked me for the money (because of the photocopy), got it and never asked me to keep all this secret. He asked me my opinion about his thesis. I sent him my draft and asked him two questions:
- Would it be right to say that, for you, at the beginning of 1993 the revisionists were generally right as reason is concerned but wrong as sentiments are concerned?
- I heard you were from Jewish descent; is that right?
I asked those questions on 24 August, 18 November and 27 November. I told him that, being overworked, I need first his answer to my first question to go and read carefully his thesis. He sent me finally a rather rude answer but without addressing my two questions.”
Dr. Joel Hayward, 1998
Faurisson also pointed out that Hayward's thesis
“seems also to say that the revisionists tend to distress Jewish people. If he really says so, what are his arguments and, anyway, is this the role of an historian? […He] ignores that there is absolutely no physical violence from the Revisionists against the Jews.”
In the December 1998/January 1999 issue of the New Zealand Jewish Chronicle, a report appeared headed “NZ connection to Internet incitement case”:
“Evidence submitted by Dr. Töben days before the hearings included a 500-page Master's thesis on Holocaust revisionism by New Zealand Canterbury University student, Joel Hayward.”
When Hayward made another request to have his thesis embargoed for another period in 1999, the University of Canterbury refused and invited Hayward to add an addendum to his thesis, which he did. In essence the two-page Hayward Addendum states that his thesis contains “several errors of fact and interpretation”.[9]
Hayward also wrote a letter to the New Zealand Jewish Chronicle, which was published in its February 1999 edition at p.7. Among other things, he stated:
“First, Dr Fredrick Töben violated my rights as an author by presenting a copy of my 1993 Masters of Arts thesis to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC) in Sydney. He did so even after I had expressly forbidden him-in writing on October 17-from reproducing or distributing my work in part or in whole […] I have no involvement in the ferocious debate between Holocaust Revisionists and their opponents. I find it distasteful and refuse to be drawn into it. As a scholar I am much too busy; as a person I am much too sensible. I am sending a copy of this letter to Mr Jeremy Jones, Executive Vice-President, Executive Council of Australian Jewry.”
Hayward went further into damage control. In a letter dated December 8, 1999, headed “Strictly Confidential” and addressed to Canterbury's Vice Chancellor, Hayward stated, among other things:
“Toward the end of 1998, an Australian racist named Dr. Fredrick Tobin [sic], who has just completed a prison term in Germany for Holocaust denial, attempted to present a copy of my thesis to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC) in Sydney as proof that the Holocaust did not happen. I immediately wrote to the HREOC and asked them to withdraw the thesis from their proceedings. They kindly agreed to do so.”
J. S. A. HAYWARD, THE FATE OF JEWS IN GERMAN HANDS: AN HISTORICAL ENQUIRY INTO THE DEVELOPMENT AND SIGNIFICANCE OF HOLOCAUST REVISIONISM (MA THESIS, 1993)
[…]. Hayward's […] “understanding of the principles of historical research and ability to apply them” are demonstrated with exceptional industry, skill and judgment throughout. It is the most convincing piece of work that has been submitted to me at this level and, in fact, makes a positive contribution to knowledge. […]
Hayward has used an exceptional range of sources […]. These sources have been thoroughly mastered and skillfully woven together. He argues cogently and, given the extremely sensitive nature of his subject, consciously and consistently strives to achieve a balanced judgment. […] He writes clearly and fluently. Overall, the breadth and depth of research, the maturity of judgment and the ability to absorb, transmute and present material are of doctoral standard. His basic enthusiasm for historical research has already been so well honed and disciplined while preparing this thesis that he seems to me perfectly capable of a successful academic career.
Hayward's thesis is that the Nazis did not attempt the systematic extermination of Jews during the Second World War. In particular, he finds the evidence that gas chambers were built and used for this purpose unconvincing. His argument for and against this key point is base on a detailed, careful study of documentary, oral and scientific evidence. He may, of course, be mistaken, but in my judgment his case is nowhere flawed by improper use of evidence or extravagant language. More positively, he earns credit for adopting a scholarly approach to matters that most historians have flinched from investigating. For example, how many human beings can be packed into a particular space and how long does it take for a body to be wholly consumed by fire?
No question of denying Nazi brutality arises. […] These crimes, nevertheless, did not amount to genocide. They are no unique crimes; […].
[…] Hayward […] singles out those valid points (while refuting many invalid points) that Revisionists have made in criticism of some charges made by Jews and their sympathisers against the Nazis. He also demonstrates how far most Holocaust scholars have retreated from accepting all the charges made during the war and at the subsequent war crimes trials. The extent of this retreat, as Hayward shows, has not yet filtered down to mainstream surveys and much less to popular opinion. […]
I recommend four A+ marks […]. Overall, his thesis amply supports the award of First Class Honours.
Vincent Orange, Reader in History, [University of Canterbury, New Zealand], 23 March 1993
Commissioner Cathleen McEvoy, now dean of the law faculty at University of Adelaide, never informed Fredrick Töben of this Hayward communication, nor did Hayward forward a copy of his letter to Töben, though he did send an Email requesting that Töben stop using his thesis.
Graeme Wake, Dean of Postgraduate Studies, and Professor of Applied Mathematics at Canterbury, responded in a letter dated 3 May 2000 (with a hand-written note “Today's date January 2000 sent”):
“We share your distaste for the actions of racist persons like those you mention. Nonetheless it is incumbent on us, as a premier research University, to maintain open access to scholarship produced, and accepted for, a research degree. To act otherwise could lead to accusations of a cover-up and compromise us in other ways. So we have sought another alternative (which we broached with you by telephone).
In the interest of all, and especially the victims of the Holocaust, the University invites you to write a (brief) addendum to the thesis. This would presumably state your more recent views and insights on this topic and summarise results of any post-1993 scholarship which might point to different conclusions than you made originally […] it would further strengthen the stand against the likes of Dr Fredrick Tobin and his ilk.”
On December 15, 1999, Hayward wrote a letter to Greg Raven of the IHR:[10]
“Thank you for notifying me about this ratbag's attempt to post my old MA thesis on the Internet. I appreciate your kindness. Truly. I succeeded in having the server company delete my thesis after this mysterious person posted it last time, and I will try this method again.”
Also in 2000, Professor Dov Bing came on to the scene. A political science lecturer at Hamilton's Waikato University, Dr. Bing broadcasted the fact that Hayward had distributed his thesis to Faurisson, Irving, and Töben.
The New Zealand Jewish Chronicle of April 2000 whipped up a storm that was picked up internationally. Hayward apologized to New Zealand's Jewish community:
“I stuffed up. The conclusions are wrong […] without doubt, around six million Jews perished during World War Two. They were murdered by Nazis and their allies. The perpetrators used a range of methods, including gas chambers, shooting, physical exhaustion and starvation, to carry out this monstrous crime.”
K. R. Bolton, a New Zealand observer of the controversy, sums up the 89-page and 29 appendices Working Party Report thus:[11]
“After some five months and $200,000 a tribunal of eminent persons reached conclusions so predictable and cliché-ridden that a fiver and a day spent over a cuppa could have reached the same result.
The Party found that Dr Joel Hayward, now an eminent military historian and lecturer in his own right, did not merit an MA with First Class Honours from Canterbury University for his 1993 thesis: The Fate of Jews in German Hands: an enquiry into the significance of Holocaust Revisionism.
Upon seeking legal advice, the Working Party was unable to revoke the MA Hons. Degree, which had been demanded by the New Zealand Jewish Council because it could not be demonstrated that Hayward had acted dishonestly. However, the opinion was that Hayward did not merit such honours. The Working Party found that although Hayward had demonstrated superior abilities as a researcher and had put together his thesis with exceptional skill, his conclusions were flawed. He should not have offered an opinion as to which side of the Holocaust debate, revisionism or orthodoxy, was correct on the weight of evidence. Also, a particularly contentious point was that Hayward's thesis was three times longer than required. […] What irked the Jewish Council was that by awarding the Hayward thesis First Class Honours, this appeared to give academic legitimacy to holocaust revisionism. […] The Working Party was only required to consider if Hayward had acted dishonestly and therefore whether his MA Hons should be revoked. It found that he had not. It offered that Hayward was not required to render an opinion on the evidence in the Holocaust debate and that the thesis was too lengthy. What the Party should not have done is indulge in a large amount of unfounded criticism of revisionists and revisionism, on the basis of comments supplied by and for the Jewish Council. Outside submissions were not accepted. […] Despite the recommendations of two reputable New Zealand scholars the thesis 'did not deserve the highest accolade', and therefore the opinions of two acclaimed and experienced New Zealand academics are trashed in favour of Jewish ethnocentrists and their ally, a less than dispassionate Professor Evans from England.”
This same Professor Richard Evans was the so-called 'expert witness' at the 2000 London Irving-Lipstadt trial. Evans is professor of German history at Cambridge University.
Things began to quiet down a little for Hayward.
3. A detour covering similar grounds
While the University of Canterbury had its problems caused by the New Zealand Jewish community's representatives with their particular 'Holocaust' obsession, Waikato University attended to its own as well. The Jewish community had sniffed out a right-wing extremist who had been accepted into the university's doctoral program:[12]
“Berlin-born Hans-Joachim Kupka was accepted to study the role the German language played in contemporary New Zealand-a field which critics said would have meant his having to interview German-speaking Holocaust survivors. Kupka, the former deputy chair of the Bavarian branch of the extreme right-wing Republikaner Party, withdrew his candidature in the wake of the controversy.”
The restless paranoid Jewish community leaders would not let things be and demanded that the university investigate and apologise-which it did.
4. Updating the old issue with a new one
On October 9, 2002, Waikato University released its report A Review of the Case of Hans Joachim Kupka.[13] The Report, prepared by Mr Bill Renwick, detailed the University's handling of the Kupka case.
The Waikato Times, the regional newspaper, ran the story, and Professor Dov Bing weighed in heavily. However, generally there was not much community interest in the Kupka affair, and observant individuals realized that the alleged hysteria had been artificially whipped up by the leaders of the Jewish community. It seems that this displeased Bing somewhat. And so he issued a Press Release and sent it to the Waikato Times, which journalist Lester Thorley turned into an article that was published on October 23, 2002:
“Essay was revisionist: professor
By Lester Thorley
A Waikato University professor believes he has uncovered a Holocaust revisionist thesis at Canterbury University.
Waikato political science professor Dov Bing, who led Jewish academic outrage during Waikato's Kupka Holocaust denial affair, wants answers from Canterbury over the history thesis Judgment On Nuremberg, by Steven [sic] Eaton.
It was produced one year after the 1993 Hayward thesis, which attracted worldwide attention for its conclusion that the Nazis did not systematically exterminate Jews in gas chambers.
Prof Bing said the Canterbury theses had been hailed on an Alabama, US, Holocaust revisionist website. The Theses and Dissertations Press home page says it started in 1994 in response to 'the reception of two unpublished masters theses in history from a foreign university'.[[14]]
The company says its aim is to publish views which are 'suppressed' elsewhere.
Mr Eaton's thesis, which argued the 1945 Nuremberg war criminal trials were illegal, was part of an honours masters degree. He credits Joel Hayward: 'who first introduced me to Nuremberg and it is to him that I owe my enthusiasm for the subject'.
Prof Bing said, 'Holocaust revisionism, especially when it enters the halls of academia, is a matter of considerable public interest.'
A 2000 investigation into Hayward's paper led to Canterbury's apology to the Jewish community for accepting a 'seriously flawed thesis'. A working party said standards had 'slipped on just one occasion'.
Canterbury's chancellor Dame Phyllis Guthardt said yesterday the Hayward case was investigated fully.
'From the university's point of view the matter is closed.'
Canterbury would not investigate Mr Eaton's thesis unless there was clear evidence of fraud or dishonesty in his work.
Waikato professor John Jensen, who has since left, was the external marker for Hayward's work, which was given an A+.
Canterbury would not name Mr Eaton's external marker, but said it was not Prof Jensen.”
As this item mentioned the Hayward affair, it became relevant for the press in Christchurch, and the Canterbury Press's Amanda Warren elaborated and fabricated that the Eaton thesis[15] is about the Holocaust-which it is not-and that it is actually on Dr Robert Countess' website, when this is not a fact because Countess does not have a website:[16]
“Second Holocaust thesis under fire
By Amanda Warren
Canterbury University is under fire after claims that a second thesis by one of its students is being used by the Holocaust denial movement.
The thesis, by Steven Eaton, was supervised by Dr Vincent Orange who supervised Joel Hayward's controversial thesis questioning key aspects of the Holocaust […].
Mr Eaton's thesis questions the validity of the Nuremberg trials, conducted by the Allies after World War Two, to punish German war criminals. His thesis concludes that 'the Allies evidenced scant regard for the system known as international law', and their disposal of major Nazi war criminals was an 'arbitrary exercise of power'.
Mr Eaton, whose masters degree in history with first-class honours was confirmed in May 1994, argues that in 1945 no law existed to give the Allies the legal right to punish Nazis to the full extent. […]
An international law expert at the University of Canterbury, Alex Conte, said Mr Eaton's thesis was not the first to question the Nuremberg trials.
Mr Eaton's thesis has been seized upon by a well-known Holocaust denier, the Rev Dr Robert Countess, who posted details of it on his website.
Waikato political science professor Dov Bing yesterday said it was one of the base tenets of the Holocaust denial movement that the Nuremberg trials had no standing in international law and that German war criminals were falsely convicted.
Canterbury University could have prevented this latest controversy if it had identified other theses involving Holocaust denial, Professor Bing said.
The university's Chancellor, Dame Phyllis Guthardt, said it would be a huge undertaking to re-examine old theses. 'There is no suggestion of an investigation into the Eaton thesis. There is no evidence of fraud or dishonesty, there had been no criticism of it, and it had never been embargoed or withheld.' She did not believe a shadow had been cast on other history theses written in the mid-1990s. Dr Orange did not return The Press' calls and Mr Eaton could not be found.”
Written permission by Daniel Eaton to have his thesis published by Theses and Dissertations Press (click to enlarge)
Adelaide Institute's call to the University of Canterbury yielded the following response from a source that did not wish to be named, though the speaker met Fredrick Töben in 2000:[17]
“The Hayward thesis is behind us. The Eaton thesis is on the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials. It is not a Holocaust issue. The issue at any university is the freedom to research […] with sensitivity.”
5. The latest on the Hayward Affair
The above Press article spawned the following in New Zealand's premier Radio and Television magazine, Listener, November 2-8. 2002, but actually printed on Friday, October 25, 2002. Its article was introduced with the now famous libel suit British historian David Irving had launched against American Jewish Theologian Deborah Lipstadt, which Irving finally lost in 2002. It then went into detail about the Hayward, the Hupka, and the Eaton 'scandals' and ended with a statement by Richard Evans, Prof. for German history at Cambridge University, who testified against Irving in London. In a report prepared for Massey University about the Hayward thesis, Evans suggested to revoking Hayward's academic degree, and the Listener ended it article with quoting Evans accordingly:[18]
“There is a precedent. Evans cites the case of Henri Roques, a protégé of French Holocaust denier Robert Faurisson, who had his 'revisionist' doctorate revoked in 1986 by the French Ministry of Higher Education. Evans's report concluded: 'Allowing a work of Holocaust denial to appear with the imprimature of a university gives it scholarly credibility. In the present case, this has also been exploited by anti-Semites and political extremists seeking to argue for the validity of Holocaust denial. If a degree is awarded to a candidate who is subsequently found to have plagiarized his or her work, or who has systematically violated the canons of scholarship which the degree is intended to certify and endorse, then it is reasonable to ask the university in question to withdraw recognition of the degree originally awarded. This indeed happened in the case of Henri Roques. It should happen in the case of Joel Hayward, too.'”
Joel Hayward during his visit at the home of Dr. Robert H. Countess in 1994, here while shooting a gun in the backyard.
6. Conclusion.
Whenever a former Soviet-controlled country joins NATO, then it is required to pass before the joining date a specific law that outlaws 'Holocaust' denial. Poland passed a law in January 1999, and in April of that year it was permitted to join NATO.
The pattern has repeated itself, all for the well being of the 1500 families that control the thriving business enterprise called NATO, and of course for the 'memory of the victims of the Holocaust'.
New Zealand is as yet not going down this road-not yet. But the Jewish lobby's attempt to stifle debate on matters 'Holocaust' indicates it is well on its way. Outright 'Holocaust' denial is as yet not on the New Zealand legal books, as is the case in Australia, where the 17 September 2002 Federal Court of Australia judgments in Jones v Scully and Jones v Töben has enshrined in law a European-style 'Holocaust denial' law, albeit without criminal sanctions.
New Zealand is focusing on academia to reign in dissident thinkers, the road that Germany walked along in 1983 when Göttingen University withdrew its doctorate conferred upon Justice Wilhelm Stäglich during the 1950s for having written in 1979 the classic The Auschwitz Myth.[19] France has done likewise. Switzerland and Austria have not, as yet!
A call to New Zealand's well-known current affairs TV program Paul Holmes indicated that a general interest in the matters raised by the Listener article seemed not to warrant a specific program on the Hayward affair, so according to producer Vicky Poland. It remains to be seen whether Professor Dov Bing will let matters rest.
Editor's Note [Germar Rudolf]
Joel Hayward visited Rev. Dr. Robert Countess in early 1994,[20] and in 1999 he agreed to have some of his articles published by Castle Hill Publishers.[21] In 1994, Daniel Eaton agreed to have his thesis published by Theses and Dissertations Press,[22] as had Joel Hayward. All this indicates that Joel Hayward considered Dr. Countess and other revisionists to be friends. But according to the Listener, he is said to have told them:
“I also absolutely hate the fact that these people [Dr. Countess, Theses & Dissertations Press] wish to use my academic credibility to bolster their work, which commonly has anti-Semitic objectives. I detest anti-Semitism and other forms of racism.”
From private communications with both Daniel Eaton and Joel Hayward, where they apologized for their denigrating language, I can only conclude that both fear for their future. They both literally begged me not to publish anything anymore they had written, though I had written permission to do so. Dr. Hayward's health is severely compromised, which he puts forward as one excuse. However, both academics certainly did not prove that they have a spinal column capable of carrying the load of professing academic responsibility.
Notes
| [1] | Joel S. A. Hayward, “The Fate of Jews in German Hands: An Historical Enquiry into the Development and Significance of Holocaust Revisionism”, Master Thesis, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand, 1993; it was once posted online, but had to be removed after threat by Dr. Hayward, see https://codoh.com/media/files/downloads/engl/engl/hay/hayindex.html. |
| [2] | Appendix I, in: Report By The Joel Hayward Working Party, December 2000, University of Canterbury. |
| [3] | Ibid., Appendix M. |
| [4] | Ibid., Appendix L. |
| [5] | See the contribution by Ingrid Rimland in this issue. |
| [6] | Email from Hayward to F. Töben, dated October 5, 1998. |
| [7] | Letter dated October 16, 1998, from R. Faurisson to E. Zündel. |
| [8] | Letter dated October 18, 1998, from R. Faurisson to F. Töben. |
| [9] | Report…, op. cit. (note 2), Appendix B. |
| [10] | From: https://codoh.com/media/files/downloads/engl/hay/hayindex.html. For an account of the Hayward File it is well worth reading Serge Thion's comprehensive treatment of the moral and intellectual problems raised by Hayward's behavior and failure of moral nerve. |
| [11] | In: Western Destiny, February 2001, Issue #23. |
| [12] | Australian Jewish News, January 5, 2001. |
| [13] | http://unipr.waikato.ac.nz/news/kupka-report.shtml |
| [14] | Since summer 2002, Theses and Dissertations Press is the English language book publishing imprint of Castle Hill Publishers; see www.tadp. org/about.html |
| [15] | Daniel Eaton, Judgment On Nuremberg. An Historical Enquiry into the Validity of Article Six of The London Charter as an Expression of Contemporary International Law, Master's Thesis, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand, 1994; online: https://codoh.com/media/files/downloads/engl/hay/bobprefaceEa.html |
| [16] | October 24, 2002, www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,2089615a11,00.html |
| [17] | See the university's response: www.canterbury.ac.nz/search/intro.htm |
| [18] | Philip Matthews, “Special Report: Holocaust Denial and the NZ Connection. In Denial. The continuing story of why a New Zealand university refuses to dishonor a thesis denying the Nazi Holocaust.” |
| [19] | Wilhelm Stäglich, Der Auschwitz Mythos, Grabert-Verlag, Tübingen 1979; Eng.: The Auschwitz Myth: A Judge Looks at the Evidence, Institute for Historical Review, Newport Beach, CA, 1986; the German Federal Constitutional Court confirmed the revocation of Stäglich's PhD title, ref. 1 BvR 408f./83. |
| [20] | See his account “Die Neuseeland-Saga”, Vierteljahreshefte für freie Geschichtsforschung 5(3) (2001), pp. 330-333, and the photo in this article. |
| [21] | Joel S. A. Hayward, “Eine Fallstudie früher integrierter Kriegführung”, Vierteljahreshefte für freie Geschichtsforschung 3(1) (1999), pp. 4-16. |
| [22] | See the document reproduction. |
Bibliographic information about this document: The Revisionist 1(2) (2003), pp. 197-202
Other contributors to this document: n/a
Editor’s comments: n/a