QMay it please the Tribunal, as an example I would like to refer to Defense Document Ritter 52, Exhibit No. 55, in my Document Book 5, on Page 4. It is a telegram from Ritter to Veesenmayer, on the 28th of March 1944. Just for the record, I would like to note that in the German-- and I suppose in the English Document Books too, which the Tribunal has -- the distribution list was, by mistake, not included; but when submitting the document before the Commissioner I noted that and dictated it into the record.
Now, please continue, Herr Ritter.
AThis task of coordinating the political situation with the military situation in Hungary, which was very difficult in itself, was made more difficult by another unforeseeable circumstance. Himmler did not trust Horthy's promiese; in his distrust he tried to get his own organizations in every possible form infiltrated into Hungary for security reasons-not only by smuggling in SS formations, German police formations, but also by having quite a number of his senior officers sent to Hungary and managing to get Hitler to agree that his chief representative in Hungary, Winkelmann, was not to be subordinated to the German Minister, Veesenmayer. In the authorization which Veesenmayer was supposed to be given, first, provision was made that Winkelmann, was, first to be alone competent for Jewish affairs, and, secondly, that Winkelmann was to be subordinated to the German Minister. This provision that Winkelmann was to be subordinated to the German Minister was taken back on Hitler's demand. These differences between Winkelmann and the German minister or between the Foreign Office, and Himmler run through Hungarian developments during the next few weeks like a scarlet thread.
QYou said that you had to handle the coordination of the political and military situations. Were there any other tasks by the way?
AYes. This assignment was not a purely military one; I would rather say that it was a political and military one which resulted in my being given assignments by Ribbentrop during the next two or three weeks, after the 19th of March, which, in actual fact, went beyond my actual limited function as liaison man -- or, shall we say that they were very much on the outer edge of my function. For instance, Ribbentrop repeatedly told me to get Keitel's opinion about the formation of the new Winkelmann Government, in particular with reference to the Hungarian Minister for War, or to negotiate with Keitel about the occupation of the highest Hungarian positions of command. Another question which occupied my time for two or three weeks, and went somewhat beyond the limits of this task, was the concentration of all German military and civilian agencies working in the Hungarian economics sphere. The purpose was to prevent what had been shown to be disadvantageous in other countries; that is, that a whole number of military or civilian economics agencies should be working side by side in Hungary. So there war quite a number of specific assignments which were very much within the limits of, or slightly beyond, my actual assignment.
QThe addition to the telegrams, "Also for Ambassador. Ritter," presumably was on all telegrams coming from Budapest and which were intended for Ribbentrop during this time after the 19th of March 1944; that also includes those telegrams the contents of which do ot concern military matters; and also those submitted in Document Book 62-A, which concern labor and Jewish questions. Is that right?
AThat's not quite right. This addition, the sub-address, during the whole of this time, while the special instructions to Herr Vessenmayer applied, never functioned properly. First of all, concerning the expression "Through Ambassador Ritter," there was a lack of clarity.
I had given the instructions to Veesenmayer on the train word for word, just as von Sonnleithner had given them to me and as they were read out from the note just a moment ago, that all information for the Foreign Minister was to be passed through Ambassador Ritter; and accordingly Veesenmayer, during the first few days, did put them "Through Ambassador Ritter." But, as we had not foreseen that unintended consequence, namely, that the telegrams intended for the Foreign Minister were sent to me first, for me to pass them on to the Foreign Minister. That, of course, was not intended. Then, I would have got them later than the Foreign Minister. So I called up Veesenmayer and said that this expression "Through Ambassador Ritter," wasn't right, and that in the furture he had better put "Also for Ambassador Ritter," so as to remove that misunderstanding. Then, during the first fortnight it happened again and again that Ribbentrop called me up and asked me, "Did you get that letter from Veesenmayer?" Then, I often had to say, "No, I haven't received it." Then, the angry reply would come: "But why haven't you? You've been instructed to receive all the telegrams." Veesenmayer sensibly and correctly enough, during the first few days, put the words "Also for Ambassador Ritter" on those telegrams which touched my assignment, with which he was acquainted, that is, matters of a military content. In order to put an end to these annoying and annoyed discussion with the Foreign Minister on the telephone, about my not having telegrams, I suggested to him that Veesenmayer should be instructed to put on all telegrams which he sent to the Foreign Minister, or which he assumed would be submitted to the Foreign Minister, the addition, "Also for Ambassador Ritter." That is how it happened that perhaps ten or twelve days after these first instructions were given all these telegrams were endorsed, "Also for Ambassador Ritter."
QIf I have understood you correctly, that explains why this addition was also on telegrams concerning Jewish and labor questions. Did these questions concern you at all?
AYes, that explains why this sub-address was finally on telegrams with which I was most certainly not concerned.
QAnd you think, that during that critical time that you mentioned, a large number of telegrams was sent to you which concerned other matters and not Jewish or labor questions?
AYes, certainly. I got many telegrams at that time with which I was not concerned, but after my vain preceding attempt to get this matter of the sub-address cleared up, I gave up my attempts to give Veesenmayer another gripping instruction. I just let it go, because that, at least, made it certain that I would get all the telegrams that Ribbentrop was likely to ask me about.
DR.SCHMIDT-LEICHNER: May it please the Tribunal, in this connection I refer to exhibit 53.
JUDGE MAGUIRE:That's Ritter's exhibit?
DR.SCHMIDT-LEICHNER; Yes, document number 61, a supplement in document book 5. That is an affidavit by Sonnleithner and as figure 5 of our exhibit 52 shows in document book 5, he passed on Ribbentrop's order to Ritter at that time, that until further notice information from Budapest to Ribbentrop was also to go through Ritter's hands and in that affidavit Sonnleithner explains this note.
" (By Dr. Schmidt-Liechner) Herr Ritter, you have already mentioned and that corresponds to figure 5 of your note in exhibit 52 that that note was to be made on the telegram "until further notice". From the telegrams submitted by the Prosecution from Budapest, for instance, exhibit 1807 to 1809 and 1811, show that all these were telegrams from the first period after the 19th of March, that is, from April, 1944. At a later date all these telegrams did not always carry this addition. Sometimes it was omitted altogether and then suddenly it would crop up again.
How long did this "until further notice" last and how do you explain the diminishing frequency of the addition of your name?
AAs the remark "until further notice" in the written memorandum shows and Ribbentrop's verbal remarks to me on the 19th of March that for the next period I was to look after Hungarian things for a bit, it is obvious that from the very beginning this was only intended as a temporary measure until this coordination of the political and military situation had more or less been brought about. After a new Hungarian government had been formed, after the disarming and confining to barracks of the Hungarian army had been rescinded and the first agreements with the Hungarian government and the Hungarian general staff concerning the use of the Hungarian troops on the Eastern front had been arrived at, this period had more or less come to an end.
But it was never formally conclude in the sense that Ribbentrop might once have told me, "Now it's over". But I noticed after a certain time, which I can't fix in the calendar, that Ribbentrop was no longer consulting me to the same extent about Hungarian matters as during the precedings days and gradually he didn't consult me any more at all, and from that I concluded that he considered this period to be finished and done with, which it actually was, and as far as I remember once when I was at Fuschl at the Minister's office, I asked "What are the Hungarian affairs doing? I don't get anything any more." And I was told, "The Minister is again discussing these with Herr Altenburg now, as he used to do before."
DR.SCHMIDT-LEICHNER: May it please the Tribunal, I would like to refer to a Prosecution document in book 38, exhibit 1197, NG-2174, page 29 of the German page 29 of the English. That is a telegram from Altenburg to Herr Veesenmayer himself dated the 12th of July, 1944. When submitting it the Prosecution stated, and I quote, "Top seretttelegram from Minister Altenburg, Ribbentrop's political advisor to Veesenmayer." And I also refer to Ribbentrop's telegram to Budapest dated the 16th of July, 1944, that is, exhibit 1824, document NG2739, pages 158 to 163 of the German and 354 pages of the English, and I refer in particular to Altenbrug's note of the 21st of July, 1944. In addition I refer to Defense documents 53 and 54, that is exhibits 55 and 56, in my book number 5, pages 4 to 5, also two telegrams from Altenburg to the Reich Plenipotentiary Veesenmayer, dated 19 April and 5 May 1944.
QHerr Ritter, I would now like to ask you; Herr von Steengracht on direct examination testified that after the 19th of March Herr Ribbentrop had given him definite orders that the Foreign Office in Berlin was to keep out of Hungarian affairs for the next time and he would do that himself in Fuschl At that time did Herr von Steengracht or Herr Ribbentrop tell you of this order?
ANo.
QYou yourself don't know whether this precise order was given in writing or verbally?
ANo.
QHerr von Steengracht further testified on direct examination that Ribbentrop had authorized him to send one official from each department of the Foreign Office in Berlin to the field headquarters. Do you know anything of that?
AYes, I know something about that because one fine day in Salzburg a number of Gentlemen, officials of the Foreign Office, who were more or less known to me, appeared in the same hotel where I was living, the Oesterreichischer Hof, and when I met them I said, "What on earth are you doing here?" And then I learned that they had been instructed to go to Salzburg to the field headquarters in order to handle Hungarian matters.
QWere these officials who were delegated subordinated to you by any verbal orwritten instructions from the Minister?
ANo.
QWas it perhaps the automatic custom in the Foreign Office that officials in any department were automatically subordinate to a higher official in another department or working another assignment if they were elsewhere?
ANo, that was not the case. In Salzburg in the Oesterreichischer Hof, there was a constant coming and going of officials of the Foreign Office and German heads of mission on visits from abroad. For instance, Ministerial Director Schroeder, Under State Secretary Luther, Geheimrat Wagner, Graf (Count) Schulenburg and many others.
None of these ever thought that they might be subordinate to me because I was senior to them in rank, nor did I ever have the idea that they could possibly be subordinate to me.
QHow long did these specially delegated officials remain approximately?
AAs far as I remember perhaps eight or ten days. A few may have remained a few days longer. Who instructed them to leave I don't know, just as little as I know who told them to go there in the first place.
QNow, Herr Hitter, what did you do with telegrams from Budapest where your name was given but which, for instance, concerned labor or Jewish questions, that is, in practice, for instance exhibits 1807, page 76 of the English, 1808, page 77 of the English, 1809, page 80 of the English, and 1811, page 89 of the English. Let us stick to this group for the time being.
AI didn't do any more with them than I did with telegrams which were no affair of mine and which were submitted to me. I presumed that these telegrams for the most part were not submitted to me by my assistant and if they were submitted to me I put them away again because I saw that it was no affair of mine.
QI would like to draw your attention for a moment to exhibit 1810, NG-2060, page 82 of the English. This telegram, dated 19 April 1944, bears the note "for the Reich Foreign Minister" and your name. On this telegram there is a distribution list but that does not contain your name. On this telegram there is a distribution list but that does not contain your name. How do you explain that?
AI am sure that this telegram was not sub-addressee.
That is because, I am not on the distribution list because in the Foreign Office there was no other way of sending us telegrams which had reached the Foreign Office except by putting us on the distribution list. That is somewhat surprising consequence or lack of consequence of the intentions of the Minister but the official in the telegram control office was working in accordance with his regulations. The official in the telegram control office presumably didn't know a thing about the Minister's special instruction in the case of Hungary, and he applied the general regulation of treating telegrams and documents to the top as received. There was one only if the sub-addressee was competent. If he was not, then they were sent to whatever department was competent for the matter. In this case, in this telegram as you see -- no, no, it doesn't say anything on here who got the working copy, but at the bottom place where usually it says working copy, it says Inland II, but both as far as I remember and from the official treatment of this document I must assume that it was not submitted to me.
QPerhaps you would look at exhibit 1810 for a moment, NG-2060page 87 of the German, page 82 of the English.
A 87 of the German you said?
QYes, 87 of the German.
ABut that's the same one we were just talking about?
QOh, is that the one you were talking about?
AYes, I was just talking about 1910-A.
QI beg your pardon.
AOh, you are asking about 1810-B now I suppose. There again I am not on the distribution list.
QSo we may assume that in cases where your name was given as sub-addressee and it was not on the distribution list, for some reason the telegram is actually not submitted to you; is that correct?
AYes, that's correct.
QNow, I refer once again to the aforementioned exhibits, 1707, 1808, 1809 and 1811.
First of all I would like to ask you what did you do with these telegrams when they were submitted to you?
AI thought I had already answered that question just now. I treated them in exactly the same way as any other telegram that was submitted to me where I saw that I had nothing to do with the matter.
If my office submitted it to me at all, which frequently did not happen, I put my initial on it and sent it away again.
QNow, if you will take exhibit 1814, that is NG-2061, on page 112 of the German and English, these are two telegrams from Budapest of the 2d and 20th of May 1944.
Was this exactly the same thing and if not, does it mean anything in particular that at the beginning of these telegrams it just says "for Ambassador Ritter" without as usual it's saying "for the Foreign Minister" above your name?
AWhy a telegram which was not addressed to the Minister should say "forAmbassador Ritter" I can't say.
What Herr Veesenmayer or whoever handled the matter under him had in mind I just don't know.
I am sure Herr Veesenmayer won't take offense if I say that I had the impression at this time that in matters of form the Legation under Veesenmayer didn't always quite do the right thing.
Herr Veesenmayer, after all, was not a trained official of the Foreign Office and he wasn't so used to these matters of form and formal exactitude with which we old officials worked.
That I think is the reason why this sub-address was put in here al though the Reich Foreign Minister is not mentioned.
For the rest when studying the documents now I have found out that all the telegrams which begin, "The Higher SS and Police Leader reports" and there are three or four more of those later, that none of these were sent to me although my name is on the front, but in the case of none of these telegrams which begin, "The Higher SS and Police Leader reports" is my name on the distribu tion list.
Why the official concerned in the telegraph control office didn't put me down I can't say naturally. Those matters were dealt with by either Inland or Germany as the documents show.
This here has the incoming stamp, Inland II, and then a note to the files, for the files, Thadden.
QHerr Ritter, how is it that in the case of the next two telegrams from Budapest, one of them, it is exhibit 1315, NG-2262 on page 118 of the English, the sub-address also for Ambasador Ritter is on it, on the one, but in the case of the other one, exhibit 1816, NG-2059, page 120 of the English, your name is not on it?
One has a stamp "sealed matter" and the other hasn't, al though they both concern exactly the same matter and are dated on the same day, that's the 4th of August.
One has a distribution list of 22 and the other of 17 agencies, and the working copy of one is entered under Inland II and the other under Inland I. Those are very strange differences.
AYes, it is strange and I am afraid the frequent repetitions that these are the accidents of treatment in the telegram control office, I am afraid this explanation is getting rather boring, but there is no other explanation.
One official would do it one day and the official on duty the next day would do it different.
One would think it was sealed matter and the next man the next day would think it wasn't a sealed matter.
QNow, would you please take exhibit 1817, NG-2980 on page 122 of the English, and exhibit 1818, NH-2190, page 129 of the English. It concerns Thadden's trip, the referent for Jewish affairs in Inland II, and his report of the 25th of May which has been submitted in three different wordings, one a little lonher and the other two partly abbreviated reports.
Some of these reports are also submitted in book 93.
This trip of Thadden's to Budapest was caused by the telegram of Gruppen leiter Wagner of the 21st of May.
That is exhibit 1817 on page 122 of the English.
Your name is not there, but I would like to ask you the following.
In the top left-hand corner of this telegram it says, and I quote, "Fuschl Number 116". Fuschl surely was Ribbentrop's field headquarters, wasn't it?
Was Wagner, Gruppenleiter of Inland II not in Berlin?
AWagner like Likus whom we mentioned yesterday, was a member of the personal staff of the Reich Foreign Minister, and the plan submitted by the Woermann defense has also listed him under the heading "personal staff". In this capacity which he had apart from his capacity as head of Inland II, he as often as he felt he ought, or without being asked to do so by Ribbentrop or presumably without getting the permission of the State Secretary every time, appear in Ribbentrop's headquarters and depart again.
He was there very often and sometimes he would only be there a few days and sometimes he was there very often and sometimes he would only be there a few days and sometimes he was there for months at a time. At this time I remember very well that he was there for monthe because he and his wife and children lived in the Oesterrichischer Hof like myself.
That is how I know that he was there for months.
QDid you know anything about Thadden being sent to Budapest?
ANo.
QWe have two notes here, one by Thadden of the 26th of May 1944, and one by Wagner of the 5th of June, 1944.
The first type written report of the 26th of May, you are not mentioned among the people to whom the report is to be submitted.
Only subsequently is there a handwritten note dated the 3d of June and I quote, "Right away, N. R." I suppose that means after return to Ambassador Ritter for information.
Was this report submitted to you?
ANo. If this document had been submitted to me, that would have to appear from the document itself because this is a handwritten note on an original document.
As you mentioned just now the type written distribution list does not include my name and the one copy of this typewritten copy which was before the State Secretary on the left-hand side, there is a note by the State Secretary's office "The State Secretary asks that this note be submitted to the Foreign Minister", and in the righthand corner also in handwriting, "immediately after return to Ambassador Ritter for his information, Wagner, 3 June."
So if it had been submitted to me only this actual document itself could have been submitted to me and then my initial would have to be on it; and this report was by an instruction of the 5t of June to be submitted to me once again and there again there is no initial on the document.
Why, in spite of this repeated instruction, it was not submitted to me by Inland II I really can't under stand.
I remember that in the Mesny case too, in book 42, it happened too that there were two sets of instruction from Wagner, that they were to be submitted to me on the documents but they were still not submitted to me and the explanation that I was away at the time, which is shown by the fact that it says "immediately after return" should really be a sufficient explanation of the fact because a careful office would, after my return, still have submitted the reports to me but they didn't do that.
Today I can only say, fortunately, but from the point of view of office routine of course it was a default.
QIf you take Exhibit 1819, NG-2237, page 139 of the English, in that telegram of 10 June 1944 you will once again find a report from the Higher-SS and Police Leader of the kind we had before, in Exhibit 1814,two telegrams, of the 2nd and 20th of May. Can you explain why you are not mentioned in this telegram, either as sub-addressee, or on the distribution list?
AWhy I am not mentioned as sub-addressee, that is natural. I said just now, and I do not think I forgot to say, that after a certain time I noticed that I was no longer being consulted in these Hungarian matters by Ribbentrop and so I told Veesenmayer that in the future he was to omit the sub-address. I cannot remember now exactly when I told Veesenmayer that; as far as I remember, it was immediately after my one dramatic incident with Ribbentrop in these matters, which I will come to later; that was about the end of April, or perhaps a little later. Anyway, on the 10th of June, which is the date of this telegram, Exhibit 1819, I had long since asked Veesenmayer to omit this sub-address. All the same, it still cropped up occasionally afterwards.
QI do not want to discuss the other telegrams in this book, where your name is only on the distribution list. Those are Exhibit 1821, NG-2263, page 147 of the English; Exhibit 1822, NG-1802, page 149 of the English; Exhibit 1826, NG-1806, page 173 of the English; and Exhibit 1828, NG-3157, page 178 of the English. To shorten matters I just want to ask, were you concerned with handling these reports, or do you remember at all whether they were submitted to you?
AI certainly did not handle these telegrams. Whether they were submitted to me I cannot say for certain today, in the case of all of them. In the case of one or another I may be able to say that it was definitely not submitted to me; for instance, Exhibit 1826, which is a sealed matter - that was certainly not submitted to me. The photostat, at least the one I saw, clearly shows that my name is not checked on the distribution list.
QI bag your pardon, which exhibit?
AExhibit 1826.
QOh.
AAccording to my notes, my name is not checked on the distribution list of this sealed matter. In the case of Exhibit 1822 I have made a note that I am not on the distribution list at all. No, no, I must correct that. Only the copy I have here, in the German, does not have my name but I have seen that I am on the photostat and in the English text. Whether the two telegrams, Exhibit 1821 and 1828, were submitted to me then, I cannot say today. With reference to Exhibit 1821 I doubt it. With reference to Exhibit 1828 I assume for certain that I did not see it. It is dated 24 October 1944; at that time, according to Ministerial Director Schroeder's statement, the Party finally demanded my dismissal. After that I only came very seldom to the Foreign Office and then only when my office had told me that there was something there which I absolutely must see. I am quite sure there was no terrible necessity for me to see this. But I can neither say yes or no with absolute certainty.
QAt any rate, you did not handle it?
ANo, I certainly did not handle it.
QIn discussing the various telegrams you frequently mentioned that the working copy was entered under Inland II. Now the witness Lohmann told us that that was the description of the competent department and Herr von Steengracht told us that in some cases it might just be a registration note. Now I do not want to go into these details of office management at the moment but I want to ask you - you said before, in another connection, that the head of Inland II, Wagner, was not subordinate to you and that, therefore, you could not give him instructions. Does that apply equally to the subject matter we are discussing now?
AYes. My former statement has no exceptions. I never gave an order to Herr Wagner and I could not have done so, except for the one thing, in the Mesny case, that you know about; but there again I did not give him instructions on my own behalf but only passed on to him a minister's orders.
For the rest, the same applies to his predecessor, Luther, Of course, Wagner was very keen about being as independent as possible and being subordinate only to the minister himself. I refer to Exhibit 1825. Wagner describes that note in the document itself as "A personal report to the Reich Foreign Minister" and did not dispatch it through the normal prescribed official channels, which proves that he believed that he was not bound by the instructions applying to all other officials, namely, that an official could only report to the minister through his director or his State Secretary.
QI think that was a mistake, about your quotation. You mean Exhibit 1823, don't you?
APerhaps I wrote it down wrong.
QDo you mean NG-2236?
ANo, I mean NG-2094, page 178 of the German. I would just like to look that up .. 2994 .. it is very difficult to read. Yes, I think I gave the wrong NG number. I said 2094 and the NG number is 2994. Now can I just look up the Exhibit number?
PRESIDING JUDGE POWERS: 1825.
DR.SCHMIDT-LEICHNER: Thank you very much.
A (continued) I have noted the Exhibit number 1825; and on this document which I just quoted, which is page 15 of the original, there you can see that he made a report to the minister's office for the Reich Foreign Minister, in which he says "This is a personal report to the Reich Foreign Minister" and it was not submitted through the prescribed channels. I only mentioned that as one example, among many, which we in the Foreign Office know, that Wagner very often reported to the minister directly, without passing through the hands of the State Secretary.
QHerr Ritter, may I sum up your testimony to the effect that you mean to say that you were in no way concerned with the handling of Hungarian-Jewish matters?
AAbsolutely correct. I took the trouble, just in Book 62-A, to make a list and note down the agencies handling the Jewish matters, which were all done without me. I do not want to take the time to quote all exhibits where I was not concerned. I would just like to count them up - 18 cases - which were handled in the Foreign Office, in so far as the Foreign Office had anything at all to do with it; and by "handling", of course, I also mean that they may have been received and a note made on them for the files and that is all; but I did not see them and I did not participate in handling them.
QSo all that remains for us to clear up now is how it came that one telegram to Budapest bears your signature. That is Exhibit 1812, NG-2196, dated 27 April 1944. Of all the documents submitted by the Prosecution in the Jewish question, that is the only case where your signature appears. Under Figure 1 of this telegram you pass on a statement from the Chief of the Security Police to Herr Veesenmayer, and under Figure 2 you give him some advice about his future reports.
AExhibit 1812, isn't it?
QYes.
DR.SCHMIDT-LEICHNER: If the Tribunal would prefer, we could close this chapter after the recess?
PRESIDING JUDGE POWERS:Well, if it is going to take very long I think we had better. It is recess time now. We will recess for 15 minutes.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL:Military Tribunal IV is again in session.
PRESIDING JUDGE POWERS:I wish counsel and the witness both would take a little more care and see if we can't eliminate some repetition. We haven't made much progress this afternoon.
DR.SCHMIDT-LEICHNER: Mr. President, I believe I can assure you that I shall be able to conclude my direct examination, inclusive of Count VII, in about one hour.
PRESIDING JUDGE POWERS:Well, that is all right. BY DR. SCHMIDT-LEICHNER:
QMr. Ritter, before the recess I had requested you to describe to us what brought about this telegram, Exhibit 1812, NG-2196.
AThis telegram, dated 27 April 1944, in which the expressions "Jews" and "working camps" are used, is signed by me, and the appearances speak against me, and indeed for the fact that in this particular instance I did indeed work on such an affair. I shall, however, confine myself to testimony which is strictly factual, but in this particular instance, since the appearances seem to speak against me, I request Your Honors to permit me to go into the actual state of affairs for a little longer detain in order to explain that Ribbentrop and Veesenmayer and myself were concerned with something quite different than a Jewish affair or an affair about working camps. One day Ribbentrop called me on the phone and I noticed, by his excited voice, that something special was up. He started by asking me, "What did Veesenmayer do in this Jewish affair? He sabotaged this entire Jewish affair." And I said, "You know that I have nothing to do with Jewish matters. Therefore I can not answer this question. Why don't you let Veesenmayer report to you about this?" Subsequent to this interchange, Ribbentrop's temper exploded and he became more excited than I had ever seen him before, although I was used to quite a bit from him in that respect. He began to shout, "Veesenmayer sabotaged all of this Jewish matter and Imredy" - who was a former Prime Minister of Hungary - "has bribed him with Jewish money."
He said, "The Prince Primas," - who was the highest Catholic ecclesiastical functionary in Hungary - "was used to sabotage the Jewish matter, and this swine," - and I beg your pardon if I mention this invective here, but that is what he said - "I'm going to have this swine called for by a plane and I am going to put him against a wall and shoot him." He said, "If I had only listened to Himmler at the time. Himmler at the time warned me against Veesenmayer. He said Veesenmayer was unreliable." And he repeated again to complain and exclaim, "If I had only listened to Himmler. Now I have the mess." I tried to interrupt him repeatedly but I was unable to do so. After he had finally calmed down a bit, I told him I must protest against this abuse and suspicion against Veesenmayer. I said, "Whatever you have to reproach him with, I don't even know yet what it actually is. You haven't told me yet. But nevertheless no matter what charge you have against him, Veesenmayer is not a swine and he is not corruptible." As a result the whole thing started all over again. I contradicted him once more, and he blew up again a third time, and he reiterated, "I'll pick him up in an airplane and put him against a wall and shoot him." And finally he broke off the conversation and he told me, "Call up Veesenmayer and then report to me what happened."
QI have one question here, Mr. Ritter. What was the cause for Ribbentrop to pick out particularly you and inquire with you about this affair. He had to know, didn't he, that he couldn't discuss Jewish matters with you?
ACertainly, he never discussed Jewish affairs with me, and although at the moment when the telephone conversation came in I didn't know what actually happened, I assumed that something else was behind this because otherwise he wouldn't have taled to me about it. I wanted to ask him, "Why should I call him up? What's really the matter?" But he had already hung up. I then called up the ministerial office in order to find out whether perhaps some new telegram had arrived, but they said no such telegram had arrived.
However, they said that after midnight the minister just came in from Hitler's home in Berchtesgaden in the Berghof and was visibly excited. When I heard that he had just come from Hitler, I called up the liaison man, Hewel, in Berchtesgaden, and Hewel told me that he too didn't know what actually had happened, but he knew that something had occurred. He said that a conference had taken place after midnight between Hitler, Himmler, and Ribbentrop, and the gentlemen had talked quite loudly. When I heard Himmler's name, I put two and two together. I assumed that Himmler had been given a report by the representative, Winkelmann, containing complaints against Veesenmayer, and that these complaints were the subjects of the conference after midnight. I then called up Veesenmayer, whom I was able to reach only late in the day, and I told him, "What is the matter, Veesenmayer? The Minister is very much excited and accuses you of having sabotaged the Jewish matter." It was a little difficult for me to conduct this telephone conversation because on the one hand I had to expect the Hungarian Secret Service to tap the lines and I certainly had to expect the Gestapo to be in on our conversation and I had to expect that this whole conversation would be before Hitler, Himmler and Ribbentrop on the very next day. In answer to my inquiry, Veesenmayer told me that he had constant disputes with Winkelmann. He said that he was in an extraordinarily difficult situation. He said that he had been sent down there with the assumption that Winkelmann was subordinate to him. But, he said, a few days later he had actually found out that Winkelmann was not subordinate to him. He, Veesenmayer, was in constant dispute with Winkelmann about the Jewish matters for which Winkelmann was solely responsible. He said that he had not concealed from Winkelmann the fact that he was opposed to Winkelmann's Jewish policy, and he said that he had also not concealed in his reports to the Foreign Office that he was opposed to it, and he requested me again to tell the minister of his opposition. But he said that his hands were tied.