It has been suggested by your Counsel, and I am sure it must have been on some mistake of information that you were merely an honorary member of the SS. That is not the case, is it?
A That is no misunderstanding. That is exactly the way the situation was. I received from Adolf Hitler the SS uniform. I served no office in the SS, but as Foreign Minister or previously as Ambassador it was customary that one had a rank of some sort and I had the rank of SS Fuehrer. joined the SS before you became Ambassador at Large in May 1933, isn't that right? a uniform. I am putting it to you whether you joined the SS in May, 1933, in the ordinary way. Did you? I was always going around to assemblies in a brown coat and they wanted me to wear a uniform. I don't know when that was. It must have been 1933. rank of Standartenfuehrer, didn't you? Brigadefuehrer in June 1935 and Gruppenfuehrer on the 13th of September, 1936. That was after you became an Ambassador. And Obergruppenfuehrer on the 20th of April 1940. Before you were made an Ambassador you had been in all the SS offices for three years and you had received promotion in the ordinary way, when you did your work with theSS, isn't that so?
Q Just look. It is GB-24, Document D-744-A. The correspondence is 744-B. You may take it; you need not go through it in detail. That is your application, with all the particulars. I just want to ask you one or two things about it. You asked to join, did you not, the Totenkopf, the Death Head Division of the SS?
A No, that can't be so.
Q Don't you remember getting a special Death Head ring and dagger from Himmler for your services? Don't you?
A No, I don't remember. I never belonged to the Death Head Division. You were just talking about a Death Head Division, were you not?
A No, that isn't so. That is an error. It may be so that I at one time received a dagger; that is possible.
Q And the ring, too. Here is a letter dated the 5th of November, 1935, to the Personnel Office of the Reichsfuehrer SS: "In reply to your question, I have to inform you that Brigadefuehrer von Ribbentrop's ring size is 17. Heil Hitler, signed: Thorner." He is your adjutant. Do you remember getting that?
A I believe that everyone received such a ring but I don't remember precisely. But no doubt it is true.
Q And you took, didn't you, continuous interest in the SS from 1933 up to well into the war? I think your correspondence with Himmler goes on to well into 1941 or 1942.
A Yes, that is quite possible, yes. Of course, we had a great deal to do with the SS in all fields.
Q You had, and especially in the field of concentration camps, hadn't you? Are you saying that you didn't know that concentration camps were being carried on on an enormous scale?
Q I want you to look around for the moment. (A map in back of the witness-box was unveiled). That is an enlargement of the exhibits put in by the French Prosecution and these red spots are concentration camps. Now, I would just like you to look at it. We will see now what significance there is in the location of your various residences. There one north of Berlin, Sonneburg. Do you see roughly where that is on that map?
A Sonneburg is one hour's auto ride from Berlin.
Q North of Berlin?
Q Let's take another one. You are quite near it yourself -- your schloss or tower at Fuschl. That is quite near the border, just over the border, and very near it -- the group of camps which existed around Mauthausen.
Do you see them, just above your right hand? Do you see the group of camps, the Mauthausen group?
A I should like to state on my oath that I heard the word "Mauthausen" for the first time in Nurnberg.
Q Let's take another of the places. You say you didn't go there very often, but you used to -
A I believe I can make this much more brief for you. I can say I knew of only two concentration camps or had ever heard of them. One was Dachau, and Oranienburg, and Theresienstadt. All the others I heard here for the first time. Theresienstadt was an old people's home for Jews, and I believe was visited by the International Red Cross. I never heard previously of all the other camps. places, within a comparatively short distance, and 45 camps as to which the commandant didn't give the names because there were so many of them, and in the 33 camps there were over a hundred thousand internees? Are you willing to say that in all your journeys to Fuschl you never heard of the camps at Mauthausen, where a hundred thousand people were shut up? who can testify to that.
Q I don't care how many witnesses you produce. I ask you to look at that map again. You were a responsible Minister in the Government of that country from 4th of February, 1938 till the defeat of Germany in May, 1945, a period of seven and a quarter years. Are you telling the Tribunal that anyone could be a responsible Minister in that country where these hundreds of concentration camps existed and not know anything about them except two? incredible that it must be false. How could you be ignorant of those camps? Did you never see Himmler?
A No, I never saw him about these things. These things were kept entirely secret and I just heard about them here, as to what went on in them, and nobody knew what went on in there.
That may sound astounding but I am positively convinced that most of the menin the dock also knew nothing about what was going on.
Q We will hear from them in their turn. Did you know that from Auschwitz alone -
four million people were put to death in the camp. Are you telling the Tribunal that that happened without you knowing anything about it?
A That was entirely unknown to me. I can state that here on my oath. with, and here, fortunately, I am in the position of assisting your memory with some documents. It is a question of the partisans. I want you to look at a few documents, three documents, with regard to that.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you be able to finish tonight?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, I shall, if Your Lordship will allow me five minutes. That is what I have been trying to do. people in the occupied countries?
A Could you repeat the question? view by saying that you were in favor of the harshest treatment of--I will put it first of all--of partisans? of partisans. I do not recall having done so. In general, however, I felt the opposite.
Q All right, look at Document D/735, which will be GB 295. That is a discussion between you and Count Ciano in the presence of Field Marshal Keitel and Marshal Cavallero in the Fuehrer's headquarters after breakfast on the 19th December 1942. Now, if you will look at page two, you will see that there is a passage where Field Marshal Keitel had told the Italian gentlemen that the "Croatian area was to be cleaned up by German and Italian troops working in cooperation, and this while it was still winter, in view of the strong British influence in this area. The Fuehrer had declared that the Serbian conspirators were to be burnt out, and that no gentle methods might be used in doing this. Field Marshal Keitel here interjected that every village in which partisans were found had to be burnt down. Continuing, the Reich Foreign Minister declared that Roatta must not leave the third zone, but must on the contrary advance, and this in the closest collaboration with the German troops.
In this connection Field Marshal Keitel requested the Italian gentlemen not to regard the utilization of Croatian troops to help in this cleaning up operation as a favoring of the Creations. The Reich Foreign Minister stated in this connection that the Croatian Fuehrer to whom he had spoken very clearly, was 100 per cent ready to oome to an agreement with Italy."
Did that represent your view--that the "Serbian conspirators should be burnt out"?
A Please?
Q Did that represent your view, that "the Croatian conspirators should be burnt out"?
A I do not know that expression. At any rate-by fire.
A where did I say that? I do not believe I said that.
Q That is the Fuehrer's point of view. Was it your point of view?
A The Fuehrer took a very harsh attitude toward these people. I heard that occasionally also from other sources, including the military, harsh orders were issued, but they meant life and death.
Q You say that is not your point of view? Is that what you are saying? That it is not your point of view? Are you saying that it is not your point of view as to the way to treat them? Don't look at the next document. Tell me, is that your point of view? partisans? the rear should be treated harshly, yes. But I believe everyone is of that opinion, and every army and every politician.
Q Including women and children?
Lookat the document D/741.
My Lord, that will be document D/741. The last one is GB 296.
This is GB 297. My Lord, this will be GB 296.
Q Will you look at the end of that. That is a conference between you and Ambassador Alfieri in Berlin on 21 February 1943. The last paragraph says:
"Continuing, the Reich Foreign Minister emphasized that the conditions which Roatta's policy had helped to produce in Croatia were causing the Fuehrer great concern. It was appreciated on the German side that Roatta wished to spare Italian blood, but it was believed that he was, as it were, trying to drive out Satan with Beelzebub by this policy. The gans had to be exterminated, and that included men, women and children, as their continued existence imperilled the lives of German and Italian men, women and children." children?
A What page is that on?
Q It is on page 10 to 13. It is the last paragraph on my translation. "The gans had to be exterminated, and that included men, women and children, as their continued existence imperilled the lives of German and Italian men, women and children." excitement. That did not express my ral opinion. I believe that that has been proved by my other acts during the war. final one, if the Tribunal will bear with me. It is document D/740, which will be GB 297. This is a memorandum of the conversation between the Reich Foreign Minister and Secretary of State Bastianini in the presence of Ambassadors von Mackensen and Alfieriat, Klessheim castle on the afternoon of the 8th of April 1943. If you will look at the beginning, I think you were discussing some strike in Italy. You say:
"The Reich Foreign Minister's supposition that this strike had perhaps been contrived by British agents was energetically contested by Bastianini. They had been Italian communists, who still existed in Italy. The Reich was any good."
And then, after a statement with regard to the information, you say:
"He did not want to discuss Italy, but rather the occupied territories, where it had been shown that one would not got anywhere with soft methods on the endeavor to reach an agreement. The Reich Foreign Minister them emphasized his train of thought by a comparison between Denmark and Norway. In Norway brutal measures had been taken which had evoked lively protests, particularly in Sweden." And then you go on and after a certain criticism of Dr. Best-
A I can't find it; just what page is it on, please?
Q The paragraph begins: "The Reich Minister's supposition that this strike has perhaps been contrived by British agents"-
Q Well, you see what I have put to you. You say, "Only merciless action wouldbe any good. In Norway brutal measures had been taken." And at the beginning of the next paragraph: "In Greece, too, brutal action would have to be taken if the Greeks get fresh. He was of the opinion that the demobilized Greek Army should be departed from Greece with lightning speed, and that the Greeks should be shown in iron manner who was master in the country. Hard methods of this kind were necessary if one was waging a war against Stalin, which was not a gentleman's war but a brutal war of extermination." you say, "Coming back to Greece, the Reich Foreign Minister once again stressed the necessity of taking severe masures."
And in the third line of the next paragraph, "The Fuehrer would have to take radical measures in the occupied territories to mobilize the local labor potential in order that the American armament potential might be opposed by something of equal value." Do you agree? Does that fairly express your view, that you wanted the most severe measures taken in occupied territories in order to mobilize labor to increase the Reich war potential?
Q Well, you can say that, but you can answer my question first. Do these views express your view that-in occupied territories. Does that document express your views?
Q Then why did you say it? Why did you say these things? the Italian nose to the grindstone, because the relations between Germany and Italy were in complete chaos; and in the rear areas of the German Army things were in complete confusion. That is why I, on the commission of the Fuehrer, had to talk very harsh language. At that time the Italians were in part fighting against German troops, and for this reason I used rather harsh language to the Italian diplomat, or rather an exasperated language. But things actually were quite different.
Q It wasn't exaggeration, was it, in both Norway and Greece? You were taking the most brutal measures against the occupied countries.
A No, that is not so. We had nothing to say in Norway; we always tried to bring things about differently. And in Denmark we did everything to reduce these harsh measures, which were in part necessary, because of the paratroopers and so on. I think that can be proved from other documents. I and the Foreign Office worked toward compromise. I don't believe that it is fair and correct to take one or two such statements from the many documents that have been submitted where occasionally I did use harsh words. Before the war I used harsh language. I can recall to you that foreign statesmen also used harsh language rewarding the treatment of Germany.
Q Tell me this: every time today when you have been confronted with a document which attributes to you some harsh language or the opposite of what you have said here you say that on that occasion you were telling a diplomatic lie. Is that what it comes to? Thank you very much.
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, do you have all of these documents in evidence
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: Yes, My Lord.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 2 April 1946 at 1000 hours.)
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, Your Lordship will have noticed that I did not deal with the question of Jews. That will now be taken up by my learned friend, M. Faure, of the French Delegation.
DR. KAUFFMANN (Counsel for defendant Kaltenbrunner):
Mr. President, may I say a few words on an important question? Yesterday a map was discussed here, the map which is now visible in Court. From that map the Prosecution drew the conclusion that a large number of concentration camps were distributed all over Germany. The defendants are contradicting that statement energetically. My client, Dr. Kaltenbrunner, is going to try to prove that only very few of these red spots are correct. I would like to say that right now, so that during subsequent cases the impression will not be created again and again that that map is correct.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kauffmann, this is only a reproduction of what has already been put in evidence.
DR. KAUFFMANN: Yes, but I am at liberty, am I not, to prove the contrary?
THE PRESIDENT: Of course you are, but it is not necessary for you to say so now. The fact that the evidence was put in by the Prosecution at an earlier date, of course, gives you every opportunity to answer it, but not to answer it at this moment.
JOACHIM VON RIBBENTROP (Resumed) CROSS EXAMINATION (Continued) BY M. FAURE:
Q. Defendant, as Minister for Foreign Affairs, you were the head of the diplomatic personnel, were you not?
A. Yes.
Q. The personnel followed your instructions, did they not?
A. Yes.
Q. You declared yesterday that you were responsible for the acts of your subordinates?
A. Yes.
Q. Would you please indicate to me if Dr. Best, Plenipotentiary on Denmark, was a member of your Ministry.
A. Yes.
Q. Dr. Best told you, did he not, that Hitler had given an order to assassinate Danes when there were acts of sabotage?
A. May I ask you to repeat the question?
Q. Dr. Best, according to the documents that were produced before the Tribunal, saw you on 30 December 1943 and told you that Hitler had given the order to assassinate Danes when there were acts of sabotage in Denmark; is that so?
A. Yes, that was to be done against saboteurs. That was the order.
Q. The order, according to the terms employed by Dr. Best in the document was to execute without judgment persons, terrorists or non-terrorists. Can that not be considered as assassination?
A. From the beginning Dr. Best and I opposed the hostile measures.
Q. Defendant, I am not trying to say that you were pleased with this state of affairs. I am merely asking you if you were informed thereof. Is that correct?
A. Yes, the Fuehrer wanted that; that is true. I do not know details. I protested against it strongly with the Fuehrer. What was ordered afterwards I do not know because it went through another department, as far as I know.
Q. I note that you were really informed of the Fuehrer's order given that day to permit assassination. You therefore considered it normal to belong to a government, the head of which was a murderer.
A. No, exactly the contrary is true, Prosecutor. Exactly the contrary. I have told him that I was against these measures and that I was of the opposite opinion. Consequently, the Fuehrer was most dissatisfied with Dr. Best, and he had the matter handled by some other sources, since Dr. Best opposed the matter, and I opposed it, too.
Q. I am merely asking you to answer my question simply. You can give details through your Counsel later. in order to deport them. Did you not have anything to do with that?
A. I can not tell you anything about the matters relating to Jews in Denmark.
Q. You never heard anything about them, did you?
A. I can recollect that I once discussed the question with Best and that this question had no significance. He was not proposing to do anything violent about the Jewish question there, and I agreed.
Q. I ask that you be shown Document 2375-PS.
M. FAURE: This document has not been submitted to the Tribunal. I would like to submit it under French Number 1503.
Q. I would like to read with you the second paragraph of that document. It is an affidavit from a commander of the Police in Denmark.
"As command, I was subordinate to Dr. Best. In the matter of Jews, I asked Dr. Best to give me the reasons for the measures that were ordered. Dr. Best declared to me that the Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Reich obviously knew Hitler's intention to exterminate the Jews in Europe. He had furnished to Hitler a report about the Jewish problem in Denmark and presented his observation thereon.
"Dr. Best declared furthermore that Ribbentrop assumed the responsibility for the case of Jews remaining in Denmark. Dr. Best also had to carry out the measures that were proposed to Hitler by Ribbentrop. I was therefore to get in touch with Dr. Best --"
A That is absolute and complete imagination, what is written in this Apr-2-M-RT-2-1 document.
That is perfectly untrue. deposit under the French number 1502. It is an order of the 24 September 1942 from Hitler, addressed to his collaborators. I wish to read with you the first two paragraphs of that document.
"The Minister for Foreign Affairs has instructed me today by telephone to hasten as much as possible evacuation of Jews from different countries in Europem since it is certain that Jews incite against us everywhere and must be made responsible for acts of sabotage and attacks. After a short lecture on the evacuations now in process in Slovakia, Croatia, Rumania and the occupied territories, the RAM has ordered that we are to approach the Bulgarian, Hungarian and Danish Governments with the goal of getting the evacuation started in these Countries." participation in the deportation of Jews in Denmark. Do you agree?
A It is correct. It was the Fuehrer's plan at the time that the Jews should be sent to North Africa from Europe to Asia. They were to be evacuated, and he had given me the order to approach several governments so as to bring about an emigration of the Jews, if possible, and to have the Jews removed from important government posts. Such instructions were given by me to the Foreign Office at the time, and according to my recollection, on several occasions certain governments have been approached. This concerns the emigration of Jews to certain parts in North Africa, that is true. May I return once more to that affidavit? That is utter and complete imagination and perfectly incorrect on the part of Colonel Mildner. discussed the Jewish question with me, and he considered that as far as Denmark was concerned, it was of no particular importance, since there were so few Jews. I declared that he would have to leave things alone there. That is the truth. that you did give the order to evacuate the Jews of Denmark?
A No, I have just said no, not in Denmark. I don't know that document originally was Mr. Luther's.
Q Please answer my questions; otherwise we waste a lot of time.
Apr-2-M-RT-2-2 Do you say that both of these documents are incorrect?
A I didn't say that. That is not true. What I said was that I didn't know the Luther document, but what is true is that the Fuehrer gave instructions to me that I was to tell the Foreign Office to approach certain foreign governments in order to solve the Jewish question in such a way that they were to be removed from government positions, and that wherever possible an emigration of Jews should be favored.
Q The German embassy in Paris was under your orders, was it not? Government, was certainly under my jurisdiction. defined the functions if Ambassador bets. In this document, which you have already heard twice, I would remind you that you gave Abetz permission to put in a sure place the public and private art treasures, particularly those that belonged to Jews, and you laid down various conditions relating thereto. Abetz executed this mission by pillaging art collections in France? produced, and to which I should like to give the French number 15055. I will merely go over a few lines of that document with you. It is a report from the military administration which was distributed to 700 numbers. It is a report on the removal of French art objects by the German Embassy in France. If you will look at page No. 3a, you will see that the title in the margin is very significant: "The German Embassy right to remove articles of art from the Louvre."
A When may I refer to the individual points? Not at all or what?
Q When I ask you a question you will answer. I am reading a passage to you "Therefore Ambassador Abetz undertook, violating the prohibition pronounced by the military authorities to send to Germany"-
A I can't find the part you are reading. What page is it on?
Apr-2-M-RT-2-3 Q "Ambassador Abetz undertook, thereby violating the prohibition pronounced by the military authorities, to send to Germany a whole series of articles from the Louvre which had been placed in security."
A No, I want to say this: This is perfectly untrue. Not a single work of art has been taken out of the Louvre by Ambassador Abetz. That would have been contrary to my distinct orders and it would have been against the Mr Fuehrer's wishes, and he had prohibited it strictly. In other words, in this point the report is completely incorrect. ment wanted to present me with a work of ant from the Louvre. That was a painting by Bouchet. That painting was in fact sent to Berlin on the occasion of my Birthday and I returned it to the French Government. That is all I know about art treasures from the Louvre. I don't own any of them and the Foreign Office never saw a single work of art originating from the Louvre.
THE PRESIDENT: What is this report you are putting to him?
M.FAURE: It is a report from the German Military Administration, which is in the American documents in the PS series. The Tribunal received a general affidavit referring thereto.
It is an American document.
I indicate to the Tribunal that this report contains numerous other passages relating to Abetz's actions,
THE WITNESS: This isn't a report on booty, that document.
BY M. FAURE:
Q Please answer my questions. We are not going to engage in a controversy. Your counsel can interrogate you later on.
DR.HORN: (counsel for defendant Ribbentrop): Please may I clarify just submitted to the defendant? If it is said this is a captured document and it is not, then it has torbenput right here and at once.
MR. FAURE: I have already indicated that these documents belong to the PS series of captured documents. The document has a large number of such documents and I do not think that its authenticity will be disputed.
BY M.FAURE:
Apr-2-M-RT-2-3
Q I would like to ask you now the following question:
THE PRESIDENT: Are you going to ask further questions upon this document?
N. FAURE: No, Mr. President. Apart from the question of ext treasures, Abetz also looked after the question of treatment of Jews. with the Jewish question of France either. That question was being handled by other departments. view to settling the situation of German or Austrian descent who were residing in France?
A I don't know and I can't recollect it.
Q I would like to show you Document BG 265 (?), which I ask to lodge as French document 1504. It is a telegram from Abetz dated 1 October 1940. I will read merely the first and last pages.
"The solution of the Jewish problem in the occupied territory of France requires besides various measures a regulation as soon as possible of the citizenship status of the Reich German Jews who were living here at the beginning of the war."
And the last page:
"The measures proposed here above are to be considered as merely the first stop towards the solution of the entire problem. I reserve to myself to make ether proposals."
A May I please ask to be given time to read that telegram first?
THE PRESIDENT: That is a little too fast.
M. FAURE: Yes.
A (Continuing) So far as I can see, this telegram is concerned with the fact that Austrian and German Jews should be transported from France to Germany. I don't know anything about it. I am seeing this telegram for the first time today, and I can't give you any information on it. This is probably one of the measures taken in the ordinary course of work at the Foreign Office, which, however, was not submitted to me. Apart from that, those matters were dealt with by other departments and not by us. the distribution list. There were nineteen, including yourself, is that not so? You were number 2. or eight hundred such documents and telegrams reached my office, of which one or two percent were submitted to me. At any rate, I don't know this telegram. you collaborated with your subordinates at that Embassy and also looked after the question of French Jews. sentences from a document which was deposited before the Tribunal as French document number 1207. It is a report from Dannecker, who was charged with the Job** a affairs in France. This is what is said by Dannecker in his conclusion.
"In this matter, I cannot speak of this question without mentioning the friendly collaboration that is given to us by Ambassador Abetz and his representative Schleier, and Dr. Weitschel, Consul of the Embassy. I should like to make it clear that the German Embassy in Paris furnished, of its own initiative, large sums of money in this matter of the Jews, and that it will continue."
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Faure, we don't know where you are reading from.
M. FAURE: Mr. President, this document was not given to you in full in this folder because it was already produced before the Tribunal.
I merely wish to read the phrase that I have been reading.
THE PRESIDENT: All right. BY M. FAURE: German Embassy--Abetz, Schleier and Weitschel-- collaborated with Dannecker in the settlement of Jewish affair. That does arise from the document, does it not?
A Is that a question? Am I supposed to answer that? I don't know.
A To that question I must answer "certainly". Certainly, in some way, we collaborated in the Jewish question in France, that is perfectly clear. However, I can also add to that that the French Prosecution must certainly be informed about the fact that Ambassador Abetz was instructed by me, and also acted on his own accord, to alleviate that situation. Whatever the Embassy may have done in this respect, and just how it participated, for that, of course, I have to assume responsibility. But I want to repeat once again that my instructions and the activities of Ambassador Abetz were always to the contrary. It is perfectly clear that because of the principle, or the anti-Semitic tendency of German policy, this would spread to all departments, and that, of course, in some sphere or other, every department would come in contact with those matters. cases if we had the files here--was to act as an intermediary in this sphere. Quite often we had to act with the anti- Semitic policy, but we always tried afterwards to retrieve these steps and to alleviate the difficulties. In fact, so far as France is concerned, the Foreign Office does not bear the responsibility for any measures against the Jews.
THE PRESIDENT: Could you speak a little bit lower, or a little bit away from the microphone?
THE WITNESS: Yes, certainly. BY M. FAURE: a French document--which is a second report from Dannecker of the 22nd of February, 1942.
I should like to refer to page 3 of that document.
A I should like to say right now that I don't even know who Dannecker is. Perhaps you can give me some information on that subject. affairs in France. As a matter of fact, those documents were deposited a long time before with the Tribunal and communicated to the defense. particular paragraph entitled, "Action", from which I read one sentence: "Up to the present, three important operations have been undertaken against the Jews."
A May I ask you once mere where I can find that part, on what page?
Q Page 2 of the German version, under the heading "Action".
Q I read once more: "Up to the present three important operations have been carried out against the Jews in Paris." paragraph but one, we read as follows: "Since the year 1941 there has been a conference every Tuesday, One, two, and three, military commands; four, German Embassy; five, a representative of Rosenberg. The conference has, as a result, with very few exceptions, naturally, referred to the matters concerning Jewish policy that have been carried out in the occupied territories." being mentioned here--naturally, they would have included themselves in this proceedings. the German Embassy of the 27th of June, 1942, addressed to the head of the Security Police and the SD in France; and before asking you a question I would like to read with you the first two paragraphs of this letter:
"Following my interview with Dannecker on the date of the 27th of June, during which he indicated that he required that 50,000 Jews of the free zone be deported to the East and that it was necessary to support the effort:
of the Commissar, Marti de Pelpoi, where the situation appears, I informed Ambassador Abetz of this matter and Counsellor Hahn. The latter is to confer with *aval, and he promised me that he would speak to him at once about the handing over of these 50,000 Jews. Also, there is thematter of giving full powers to Marti de Pelpoi and to report to him at once as to the credits which have been promised to him."
Now, I should like to ask you a question. I ask you to answer as briefly as possible. Jews? it, when this document was read out before. subject without informing you, was it not because they thought they were following your general directives?
A No, I don't believe so. They were acting rather independently in Paris, but I would like to repeat that I am assuming responsibility for everything that these gentlemen have done. I want to repeat that and make it clear. However, I knew nothing about this matter regarding 50,000 Jews, and I don't even know whether it was carried out; and just where and when these men included themselves in the proceedings is not clear from the letter. mark time regarding those matters, and I made my conception clear to the men under me and told them not to do anything to force matters, but, on the contrary, to keep thorn down. I cannot say more on the subject. public prosecutor produced a document, 3319-PS, under the British number 287. I should like to refer to this document briefly for one question. In this document there is an account of a meeting, or a congress, at which were present all the reporters on Jewish questions in Europe. This congress was held on the 3rd and 4th of April, 1944. It was organized by Schleier, Did you know anything about this congress?