personal interest in the fate of Father Seelmayer, or were you concerned with showing a firm front to the Vatican and not losing your good relations with Cardinal Pacelli ?
DR. VON LUEDINGHAUSEN: Mr. President, the document is just being submitted to me now; I have had no opportunity to look this document over or to check into it.
I do not know that up until this time, in this proceeding, there has been any question about a diary of the Reich Minister of Justice. Therefore, I am not in a position to judge how the Reich Minister of Justice could have made this entry in his diary. form a complete picture. The same is true of the defendant; he cannot draw any conclusion or significance from it.
Therefore, I must object to the admissibility of this; I have to protest against this question being put and the document being used.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: This is a perfectly good captured document. It is a copy of the original diary of the Reich Minister of Justice, and it is therefore admissible against the defendant.
THE PRESIDENT: DR. von Luedinghausen, you can see the original document.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My Lord, actually, I am just told, by my American colleagues that this diary has been used before, that extracts were put in in the case against the defendant von Schirach.
THE WITNESS: Mr. President, I have no misgivings-
DR. VON LUEDINGHAUSEN: I can't understand a word, Mr. President. I am sorry, I could not understand a word. I can hear new.
THE PRESIDENT: When you make an objection, you should see that the instrument is in order.
What I said was that you can see the original document. I am told now that the original document has been used before, and that therefore there is nothing to prevent its being used in cross-examination. It is a captured document, and you can see the original.
DR. VON LUEDINGHAUSEN: I did not know that, Mr. President. BY SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: Minister of Justice shows no concern for the individual priest about whom the complaint had been made; it is merely concerned with your relations with the Vatican and with Cardinal Pacelli, as he then was. Is that typical of your interference?
Is this typical of your interferences for the sake of ill-
treated priests? it ispictured in this excerpt hero, according to the notice, I said that we had no reason to show any special deference for the then State Secretary, rather, the Pope had attacked German justice, and for foreign political reasons I did not want to dampen our connections with Pacelli.
I can't quite see what conclusions you wish to draw from this.
Q Well, I don't want to trespass on the ground of my Soviet colleagues, but you know that the Czech report accuses you, with complete impartiality as far as sect is concerned, of your government ill-treating the Catholics, Protestants, Czech National Church and even the Greek Church in Czechoslovakia. You know that all those churches suffered during your protectorate. Do you agree that all these churches suffered under your protectorate?
A No, not at all; not at all.
Q All right, I won't go into the details, but I an suggesting to you that your care about the various religious confessions did not go very deep. prove.
Q Well, I would just like to put one thing. You remember telling the Tribunal this morning of the excellentterms that you were on with the Archbishop of Prague?
bishop.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FIFE: My Lord, this is a copy, but General Ecer assures me that he can get the original from the Czech Government files. I only received it a half hour ago. General Ecer, who is here from Czechoslovakia, says that he can vouch for the original.
Q (Continuing) Defendant, I would like you to look at it. Is that a letter which you received from the Archbishop?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My Lord, it is D-920, and it will be GB-517.
Q (Continuing) "Your Excellency, very esteemed Herr Protector of the Reich:
"Your last letter has filled me with such sorrow because I was to learn from it that not even you, Your Excellency, want to believe me that I fell unconscious and had to call the Professor of the University, Dr Tirasek, who remained at my bedside for an hour. He will come again today, together with a specialist for internal diseases." And then he gives his name.
"Your Excellency may be convinced that I shall always do what I can to please you. Pray, however, have mercy on me and do not ask me to act against the laws of the Church.
"With the greatest esteem, "Karl Kardinal Kaspar, brines Archbishop."
Do you remember that?
A I cannot say just what this document is referring to. I have no idea at all; it doesn't say. I cannot say to what it refers.
Q You can't remember this occasion when the Prince Archbishop wrote to you and told you the effect, the illness that he had suffered from and beseeched you not to ask him to do something against the laws of the Church? It doesn't remain in your mind at all, does it?
A No, no,; I don't know that. occurrences in 1937. You remember you dealt with your speech yesterday-
I think it was to the German Academy of Law. You remember the speech, in August of 1937? I can give you a reference. Would you like to look at it?
A No. Please tell me where I was supposed to have made this speech.
Q Don't you remember? I will put it to you if you like. It is the speech of the 29th of August, 1937, and I will give you the reference in one moment.
What I wanted to ask you was this. You said: "The unity of racial and national will created through Nazism with unprecedented elan has made possible a foreign policy through which the bonds of the Versailles Treaty were slashed."
What did you mean by "the unity of racial will produced by Nazism? more so thatn before. However, I really can't tell you at this time what I meant on that day. Apart from that, however, I just established and set down a fact in this speech.
Q Now tell me this. That was in August of 1937. You have told the Tribunal the effect that the words of Hitler, on the 5th of November, 1937, had upon you, and your counsel has put in the statement by Baroness von Ritter. After these words-
A (interposing) In November? discuss them among the people who had been present at the Hoszback interview?
25 June A LJG 15-1b
AA t Berchtesgaden? That is a mistake. This confer ence took place at Berlin rather than Berchtesgaden.
Q I didn't say Berchtesgaden; I said at the Hoszbach conference. We call it the Hoszbach conference because he took the minutes.
A I see. I have already testified with whom I spoke, Colonel-General von Fritsch, and with the then Chief of the General Staff, General Beck. I also testified that at that time we agreed to fight jointly against this tendency which Hitler had shown on this occasion.
Q Did you speck about it to Hitler?
A Yes. I testified to that in detail yesterday, that I only bad occasion to speak with Hitler on the 14th or 15th of January, because he had left Berlin and I couldn't see him before he left. That was the reason why I asked for my resignation at that time; that was the reason.
Q Did you speak about it to Goering and Raeder? secret Cabinet Council to which you were appointed after you left the Foreign Office. meeting on the 5th of November?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: M y Lord, it is page 81 in the English document book 12, and page 95 of the German document book.
Q(Continuing) It is only the first two sentences, defendant:
"The Fuehrer stated initially that the subject matter of today's conference was of such high importance that its detailed discussion would certainly, in other states, take place before the Cabinet in full session. However, he, the Fuehrer, had decided not to discuss this matter in the larger circle of the Reich Cabinet because of its importance."
Then, if you will look at the people who were there: There 25 June A LJG 15-2b is the fuehrer; the Minister for War; the three Commanders-inChief; and the Minister for Foreign Affairs.
Hitler had wanted to discuss Austria before the same Council, the same limited number of people. Just lot us see who would have taken the places of the people who were there. Instead of von Blomberg and von Fritsch, you would have had the defendant Keitel as Chief of the OKW, and von Brauchitsch as Commander-inChief, would you not? their positions; the defendant von Ribbentrop had taken yours; and you were the President of the Secret Cabinet Council. Lammers was Secretary of the Cabinet, and Goebbels had become more important as Minister of Propaganda. people were that formed the Secret Cabinet Council.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: Your Lordship will find that on page 8 of document book 12; and it is page 7 of the German document book.
Q Now, do you see who they are? There is the defendant von Ribbentrop, the defendant Goering, the Fuehrer's deputy, Hess, Dr. Goebbels, the Chief of the Reich Treasury, Lammers, von Brauchitsch, Raeder, and Keitel. You are saying, if I understand you, that this secret council had no real existence at all. Is that your case? matic information as president of the secret cabinet council?
Q Oh, didn't you?
Q Well, let us just have a look at this. Would you look at Document 3954 PS?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My Lord, it is Page 129 in Document Book 12-A. It will be CB 518. from Dr. Lammers to you:
"In conformity with your request, I have had the sum of RM 10, connection with the obtaining of diplomatic information, handed to Amtsrat Koeppen.
"I enclose the draft of a certificate showing how the money was used, with the request to send me the certificate after execution, at the latest by the end of the financial year". that at the end of March, which was toward the end of the financial year, you signed a certificate saying:
"I have received 'Ten thousand Reichmarks' from the Reich Chancellery for special outlay entailed in obtaining diplomatic information." for obtaining diplomatic information?
A Yes, I can tell you that. That is an expression used at the request of Lammers who had the Reich Treasury under his jurisdiction, so that I could meet the expenses of my office; that is, for one typist and for one secretary.
And in order to justify myself, because I had no special department, Lammers suggested that I use this expression. There was a letter -
Q That is all right. I am going to refer to the other letters. But why was it necessary that the expenses of your one secretary and one typist should not be audited?
DIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My Lord, the pages are 134 and 135.
THE WITNESS: I just said that. BY SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: Lammers:
"In my bureau there is a need to incur special expenses, to audit which it does not appear to me advisable."
Why wasn't it advisable to audit the expenses for your typist and secretary?
AAt the moment, I cannot tell you that. But at any rate, I did not use any moneys for diplomatic information; but these expenses mentioned here are office expenses purely and simply, in the letter which you have submitted to me.
A Please, may I finish my statement? ten by the secretary, in which he says -- No, this is not the lette I thought it was. say it was office expenses. Would you look at 3958 PS?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My Lord, that will be GB 519. BY SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: on the ordinary budget, the letter of 8 April 1942 to you.
THE PRESIDENT: Is that in the book?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My Lord, yes; I am so sorry. It is 140. I beg your lordship's pardon. BY SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE:
Q That is a letter to you which says:
"The Reich Minister for Finance has agreed that the budgetary needs announced by you for the financial year 1942 be shown in Single Plan 1.
"I therefore have no objections to having the necessary expen diture granted -- even before the establishment of Single Plan 1 -within the limits of those amounts, namely:
"for personal administrative expenditure up to 28,500 RM "for official administrative expenditure up to 25,500 RM "Total 54,000 RM". during the same period for which you were getting these additional sums.
So I am suggesting to you that these sums of 10,000 marks which you got every now and then were not for office expenditure, and I would like you to tell the Tribunal what they really were for. for I do not know.
Q They are your letters, and you got the money. Can't you tell the Tribunal what you got it for?
A No, at the moment I cannot tell you. But perhaps I can tell you later.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My Lord. Dr. von Luedinghausen makes the point that the letter I put was in 1939. Of course, there were other letters. I have not troubled the Tribunal with each one, but there is another letter in which there is a reference to a payment on the 9th of May, 1941, and, of course, another reference to a payment on the 30th of June, 1943.
My Lord, these are Pages 133 and 134. I am sorry; I did not give the details. Perhaps I ought to have indicated that.
THE PRESIDENT: The letter on Page 137, which may have some bearing, is a letter from the man signed "K", from the man who made the previous applications?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: Yes. BY SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE:
Q Would you like to look at that, defendant? It is No. 3945 PS, a letter of the 14th of July, 1943, signed "K":
"When I went into the matter of the Private Fund, the competent people in the Reich Chancellery showed an entirely understanding attitude to this matter, and asked for a written application from Your Excellency. When I replied that I did not wish to bring about such an application before success was announced, they asked for a little linger for a further exchange of views. After a few days I received an intimation that I could bring about the application without hesitation, upon which I handed over the letter whic I had previously withheld. The amount requested has been handed to me today and I have duly entered this sum in my special cashbook as a Credit".
Q Does that help you? Can you tell the Tribunal what were the special outlays for the obtaining of diplomatic information for which you received this money?
A I am sorry; I just cannot recall this matter at all. At the remarkable part is that this letter is dated the 14th of July, 1943, when I had no activity whatsoever any more. At this moment, I cannot tell you.
Q That is very strange, you know. In a further letter, in 3953 PS, on 8 January 1943, and in succeeding letters on the 4th of March and the 20th of April, the end of your occupation of the premises of 23 Rheinbarben Allee is explained there and when your expenses ceased when you went to live in the country. I was just going to ask you a little about that house. If you will just look at the affidavit of Mr. Geist, the American consul -- My Lord, that is 1759 PS, USA Exhibit 420 -- I referred to this this morning -the passage I want to tell you about is in the middle of a paragraph English version.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you have the separate document?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: Yes, My Lord, it is at the foot of Page 11. The paragraph begins: "Another instance of the same nature occurred with regard to my landlord --".
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My Lord, if your Lordship will go on another ten lines, after explaining about his landlord's having to give up his house to the SS, he says:
"I know that on many occasions whore it was thought necessary to increase the pressure, a prospective purchaser or his agent would be accompanied by a uniformed SA or SS man. I know because I lived in the immediate neighborhood and knew the individuals concerned, that Baron von Neurath, one time Foreign Minister of German got his house from a Jew in this manner. Indeed, he was my next door neighbor in Dahlem. Von Neurath's house was worth approximately 250,000 dollars." BY SIR. DAVID MAXWELL FYFE:
Q Was that 23 Rheinbarben Allee? non-existent secret cabinet council could have it as an official resident? Who acquired it?
A I did not quite follow you. Who did what?
Q Who acquired 23 Rheinbarben Allee? Who get it?
A That is something I cannot tell you about. In the year 1937, when Hitler tried to put up the large buildings for his Reich Channcellery, one day he told me that I would have to move from my flat, which is right behind the Foreign Office, for he, Hitler, need ed the garden for his Reich Chancellery. He told me that the house would be torn down. Building Administration so that they would find other living quar ters for me.
That agency then suggested several places to me. The had expropriated Jewish mansions. But I turned all of them down. my personal physician, to whom I mentioned this matter on occasion, and he told me that he knew of a place, No. 23, where he was the house physician to the owner. The owner of this property at 23 was Oberstleutnant Glotz, who was the brother of a close friend of mine I told the Reich Construction Administration about this, and told the officers to get in touch with the gentlemen involved. In the course of the negotiations, which were managed by the Reich agency, a contract of sale was brought about, and the price was in marks, not in dollars. cash, and on his wish this money was transferred to Switzerland. That is the way he wanted it, and I personally carried this through I do wish to state that I was foreign minister at the time. I did not find another one, and Mr. von Ribbentrop, my successor, moved into the old Reich President Mansion, Palais. Then in the year 1943, this house was destroyed. At the moment, I cannot explain to myself what the reason for these moneys was, whether they were official payments made by the Reich Chancellery. To the best of my knowledge, I cannot tell you. But the statements made by Mr. Geist here are completely wrong. I did not buy this house from a Jew, but I bought it from the Christian Oberstleutnant Glotz.
Q You tell us you passed the money on to Switzerland on 25 June A LJG 17-1 to his account?
A Yes, yes, or Mr. Geist went to Switzerland. I believe his wife was non-Aryan. will leave this document. "I know, too, that Alfred Rosenberg, who lived in the same street with me, acquired a house from a Jew in a similar fashion." Do you know anything of that?
A I do not know how Mr. Rosenberg acquired his house. 1938. Perhaps I con state this shortly if I have understood you correctly. You know that the prosecution complained about your reply to the British Ambassador with regard to the Anschluss As I understand you, you are not now suggesting that your reply was accurate but you are saying that that was the best of your information at the time; is that right?
A Yes, that is quite correct. That was an incorrect statement but I made it in good faith because I didn't know any better.
Q You say that you didn't hear that neither Hitler nor Goering told you a word about those ultimata which were given first of all to Herr von Schuschnigg and secondly to P resident Miklas; you were told nothing about that? Is that what you are telling?
A No, at that time I didn't know about these things. I heard about them later.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I am going to leave that. I am not going into that incident in detail--we have been over that several times--in view of the way the defendant is not contesting the accuracy.
THE PRESIDENT: I should like to know when he heard of the true facts.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am much obliged. BY SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE:
Q When did you hear of the true facts of the Anschluss?
A The details here, when this report of Legation Councillor 25 June A LJG 17-2 Hewel was submitted to me, I heard, of course, prior to this time that there had been pressure exerted on Mr. Schuschnigg but I had nothing else.
As I said, the details of the fact, I learned here in Nurnberg.
Q I only want to get it quite clear. You say that between the 11th of March and your coming to Nurnberg, you never heard anything about the throat of marching into Austria, which had been made by the defendant Goering, or Keppler or Gener Muff, on his behalf? You never heard anything about that?
A No, no; I board nothing of those facts. you gave to Mr. Mastny, the Czechoslovakian minister in Berlin. I would like you to look at document 122 which you will find in document book 12, page 122 of document book 12. The passage that I want to ask you about is in the sixth paragraph. After dealing with the conversation with the defendant Goering about the Czechoslovakian mobilization, it goes on to say: "M. Mastny was in a position to give him definite and binding assurances on this subject" -- that is, the Czechoslovakian mobilization -"and today" --that is, the 12th of March -- "spoke with Baron von Neurath, who, among other things, assured him on behalf of Herr Hitler that Germany still considers herself bound by the German-Czechoslovak Arbitration Convention concluded at Locarne in October 1925." of Baroness von Ritter--that the meeting on the 5th of November had this very distrubing effect on you and in fact produced a bad heart attack. One of the matters that was discussed at that meeting was an attack not only on Austria but also on Czechoslovakia, to protect the German flank. Why did you think, on the 12th of March, that Hitler would ever consider himself bound by the German-Czechoslovakian Arbitration Treaty which meant that he would have to refer any dispute with Czecho slovakia to the Council of the League of Nations or the Inter-25 June A LJG 17-3 national Court of Justice?
Why on earth did you think that that was even possible, that Hitler would submit a dispute with Czechoslovakia to either of these bodies?
A I can tell you that quite exactly. I testified yesterday already that on the 11th, Hitler had me summoned to him for reasons that I could not explain up to this day and he told me that the marching into Austria was to take place during the night. In reply to my question or to my remark rather, that distrubance and unrest would be created In Czechoslovakia through this step, he said that he had no intentions of any kind at this time toward Czechoslovakia and he said he looped through the marching in and through the occupation of Austria, relations with Czechoslovakia would markedly improve. From this sentence and from his promise chat nothing would be done, I concluded that matters would remain as they were and that, of course, we were still bound to this treaty, this Arbitration Treaty of 192 5; therefore, I could give assurances of that kind in good faith to Mr. Mastny. March? Did you still believe the words that Hitler stated on the 12th of March 1938?
Q I thought von Fritsch was a friend of yours; wasn't he?
A Who was that?
Q Colonel General von Fritsch; he was a friend of yours?
A Yes, indeed; yes, he was.
Q You didn't believe that he had been guilty of homosexuality, did you?
Q Well, didn't you know that he had been subjected in J anuary 1938 to a framed-up charge?
THE PRESIDENT: Will you please answer instead of shaking your head.
THE WITNESS: Yes, I knew that, of course, and I learned of it and the fact that this was trumped-up and faked by the 25 June A LJG 17-4 Gestapo and not by Hitler.
BY SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE:
Q Well, didn't you know that those unsavory matters concerning Fieldmarshal von Blomberg and Colonel General von Fritsch had been faked up by members of the Nazi gang, who were your colleagues in the government? when you come back into activity for some time, President Bones did appeal to this German-Czechoslovak Arbitration Convention and Hitler brushed the appeal to one side. Do you remember that in September 1938 he brushed it to one side?
A No; that, I don't know, for at that time I was not in office any longer and I didn't even see these matters at all.
Q You don't know? Of course, it was in the German press and every other press that he appealed to about this treaty and Hitler refused to look at it; but you say that you honestly believed on the 12th of March that Hitler would stand by that Arbitration Treaty; that is your answer?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, that might be a convenient moment to break off.
(A recess was taken.)
BY SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE:
Q. Defendant, you spoke yesterday with regard to the memorandum of Lt. General Frederici. Do you remember in that memorandum he referred to a memorandum of yours on how to deal with Czechoslovakia?
A. Yes.
Q. Well, now, I would like you just to look at Document 3859, so that the Tribunal can see your attitude towards the Czechs from your own words.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My Lord, that is at Pare 107 of Document Book 12-A.
Q. (Continuing) I will read first your letter to Lammers of the 31st of August, 1940.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My Lord, that will be GB 520.
Q. (Continuing) You say: "Dear Herr Lammers: Englosed I send you the memorandum, which I mentioned in advance in my letter of the 13th July 1940, about the question of the future organization of the Bohemian-Moravian country. I enclose another memorandum on the same question, which my Secretary of State K. H. Frank, has drawn up independently of me and which, in its train of thoughts, leads to the same result" -- I ask you to note the next words -"and with which I fully agree. Please present both memoranda to the Fuehrer and arrange a date for a personal interview for myself and Secretary of State Frank. As I have heard from a private source that individual Party and other Offices intend to submit proposals to the Fuehrer for separating various parts of the Protectorate under my authority, without my knowing these projects in detail, I should be grateful to you if you would arrange the date for my interview early enought for me, as the competent Reich Protector and one who understands the Czech problem, to have an opportunity, together with my State Secretary, to place our opinions before the Fuehrer before all sorts of plans are suggested to him by other people." memorandum. If you will turn it over -- this is your memorandum. Take the first paragraph, Section 1: "Any considerations about the future organization of Bohemia and Moravia must be based on the goal which is to be laid down for that territory from a political and national-political point of view.
From a State-political standpoint there can be but one aim; total incorporation into the Greater German Reich; from a national-political standpoint to fill this territory with Germans." And then you point to the program, and if you go on to Section 2, in the middle of Paragraph 2, you will find a sub-paragraph beginning -
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My Lord, it is the top of Page 109, Your Lordship's copy.
Q. (Continuing) "These 7.2 million Czechs, of whom 3.4 millions live in towns and communities of over 2000 ibhabitants and 3.8 millions in communities of under 2000 inhabitants and in the country, are led and influenced by an intelligentsia which is unduly puffed up in proportion to the size of the country. This part of the population also tried, after the alteration of the constitutional situation of this area, more or less openly to sabotage or at any rate postpone necessary measures which were intended to fit the circumstances of the country to the new state of affairs. The remainder of the population, i.e. small craftsmen, peasants and workmen, adapted themselves better to the new conditions."
Then, if you will go on to Paragraph 3, you say: "But it would be a fatal mistake to conclude from this that the government and population behaved in this correct manner because they had accepted inwardly the loss of their independent state and incorporation into Greater Germany. The Germans continue to be looked upon as unwelcome intruders and there is a widespread longing for a return to the old state of affairs, even if the people do not express it openly. By and large, the population submits to the new conditions but they only do so because they either have the necessary rational insight or else because they fear the consequences of disobedience. They certainly do not do so from conviction. This will be the state of affairs for some time to come."
Go on to Section 3: "But as things are like that, a decision will have to be taken as to what is to be done with the Czech people in order to attain the objective of incorporating the country and filling it with Gentians as quickly as possible and as thoroughtly as possible. 1) The most radical and theoritically complete solution to the problem would be to evacuate all Czechs completely from this country and replace them by Germans."
Then you say that that is not possible because there are not sufficient Germans to fill it immediately.
Then, if you go on to Paragraph 2 on the second half, you say: -
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My Lord, that is the last six lines of Page 110.
Q. (Continuing) "It will, where the Czechs are concerned, rather be a case of the one hand, of keeping thos Czechs who are suitable for Germanization by individual selevtive breeding whilst on the other hand, expelling those who are not useful from a racial standpoint or are enemies of the Reich, that is, the intelligentsia which has developed in the last twenty years. If we use such a procedure, Germanization can be carried out successfully." Now, Defendant, you know that in the indictment in this trial we are charging you and your fellow defendants, among many other things, with genecide, which we say is the extermination of racial and national groups or, as it has been put in the well-known book of Professor Lemkin, "a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups with the aim of anihilating the groups themselves." What you wanted to do was to get rid of the teachers and writers and singers of Czechoslovakia, whom you call the intelligentsia, the people who would hand down the history and traditions of the Czech people to other generations. These were the people that you wanted to destroy by what you say in that memorandum, were they not?
A. Not quite.
Q. But just before you answer, what did you mean by saying, in the last passage that I read to you: "expelling those who are not useful from a racial standpoint or are enemies of the Reich; that is, the intelligentsia which has develiped in the last twenty years"? Did you mean what you said? Were you speaking the truth when you said it was necessary to expell the intelligentsia?
A. To that I can only say one thing, yes and no. First of all, I should like to say that from this report it becomes apparent that the memorandum was written by Frank. I joined my name to it and this was on the 31st of August, 1940.