In general the reason is the obligation to maintain secrecy which many people observed and which finds its deposit in the three commandments of the Fuehrer. I discussed this matter with many SS leaders here in Nurnberg because the question interested me, people who know of these extermination of Jews and who perhaps participated, and I found out that actually a circle of people no larger than one hundred was initiated in the matter of this extermination. These people were under constant threat of death. Also that all the transports to the places of extermination had been so camouflaged with a continual changing of the accompanying guards, with the setting up of pseudo-delousing installations and pseudo-railroad stations through which the intended victim passed step by step until he finally reached his destination; all these measures which were intended to conceal these dreadful facts, helped the victims themselves to suppose that they might still save their lives. There were the people who disposed of the corpses, Jews who had been given promises that they would thus remain alive, and whether or not this promise was kept, of course, I don't know.
QWitness, I believe that suffices to answer the question, and I want to ask you something else. How do you explain the information that Hitler gave you in five reports, and which Himmler gave you on the occasion of three discussions with him, and which we now know do not correspond with the facts?
AOnly after the collapse has it become clear to me that both the Fuehrer,during those five reports of his to me,and Himmler,also in the three conversations described,were deliberately lying to me and were putting me off with false statements. I am convinced that particularly the Fuehrer deliberately refused to hear my reports, continually put off hearing them, or pushed them aside merely saying a few words of some sort, and that he deliberately gave me mollifying statements or made mollifying facts in that aforementioned order about the privileges not being rescinded or by saying that the whole Jewish question should be postponed until the end of the war.
I believe today that he gave Himmler a specific directive, but that he did not want to say anything to me about it. I, at that time, had to believe what he said and hold it to be binding. I had no competency or power to institute investigations of my own, and those matters which did come to my attention through rumors I always looked into. My officials will all corroborate this.
QWhat explanation do you have for the already mentioned meetings of 20 January 1940 in Wannsec, and on 27 October 1942 in the Reich Main Security Office, notes or minutes on which have been put in evidence by the prosecution ?
AI am convinced today that these meetings that you mentioned were deliberately camouflaged on the part of some Reich Ministers in order to deflect people. In my opinion, as a camouflage, questions were discussed which were more or less secondary or incidental for the Reich Main Security Office, or the people concerned with the Jewish question. For example, treatment of half-Jews, treatment of the privileged Jews, and so forth, and interest was deliberately turned to those questions at a time when the evacuations, which as we know today were already underway, and perhaps when exterminations were also going on, that is to say, when an actual plan was already underway. The effort was made through those meetings to deflect the Reich Ministers invited from the main problem and to direct their attention to the secondary questions.
QWitness, if you really had had knowledge of the mass extermination of Jews, would you then have drawn inferences from that for your office and for yourself?
AAlthough as I have already said I was not a friend of the Jews and considered a moderate reduction in Jewish influence as the correct path, and if although in the period from 1933 to 1944 I had to accept certain too severe measures against the Jews because I did not have the power nor competency to prevent those measures, nevertheless had I had before the knowledge of mass exterminations of Jews which I had after the collapse in 1945, then it would indubitably have given me occasion to separate myself from such a blood-stained government, a government which was ruining my Fatherland's reputation in the whole world.
QWitness, we don't want to discuss any inferences drawn in the IMT Judgment with respect to other defendants, and in connection with the guilt of Rudolf Hess; consequently I shall turn to my next question which is as follows. Before the collapse did you receive reports regarding the Einsatzgruppen or did you hoar anything of the activities of these Einsatzgruppen?
AThe concept of Einsatzgruppen in its present meaning came to my knowledge for the first time here in Nurnberg in the spring of 1946.
QYou have spoken of the evacuation of German Jews and testified that you had heard of it but did not participate in it. Did you participate in the evacuation of foreign Jews in the occupied territories?
ANo. Moreover, my field of work was in no way affected by this. For the evacuation of the Jews nothing was done in the way of legislation for the home Jews, and much less was done for the foreign Jews. For this program in the occupied territories Himmler and Heydrich who was subordinate to him had a pretty unlimited police power through which he, in conjunction with the Reich Commissars or the Military Commanders, could carry out the evacuations.
At least, I was never involved in the question of evacuations of Jews from the occupied territories, neither from the sphere of the Reich Commissars nor from the sphere of the Military Commanders.
QWe have spoken now of the evacuation of Jews from occupied territories, but Jews were also evacuated from countries that were not occupied by Germany butwere and remained sovereign states. Did you participate in any way in the evacuation of those Jews?
AI participated in no way whatsoever in that sort of evacuation and otherwise the evacuation of foreign Jews who were citizens of a sovereign state was something that I was not involved in at all.
QThen how does it come about that the Reich Chancellery sent representatives to the meetings of 6 March 1942 and 27 March 1942 with strict and limiting instructions.
THE PRESIDENT:Are you referring to exhibits, now, counsel? If you are, please give us the exhibit numbers.
DR. SEIDL:Yes, I am referring to NG-2586, Prosecution Exhibit 1544, page 195 and 213 in the English.
THE PRESIDENT:Well, that's the exhibit we have already discussed in this connection.
DR. SEIDL:Yes, this has already been mentioned, that's correct. BY DR. SEIDL: (Continued)
QWitness, will you answer the question?
AYou asked whether the Reich Chancellery had sent representatives. I personally sent none. My officials did that on their own initiative. The invitation of Kritzinger to the Wannsee meeting on 20 January 1942 I had not seen before. I knew nothing about it, gave him no instructions and he went nevertheless. Regarding the other two meetings on 6 and 27 October, on these occasions Kritzinger in my absence sent representatives to the meetings because, as I can assume without question, he thought that the Reich Chancellery because of legislation that was about to be enacted might be involved, because the question here in these meetings was whether the half Jews should be included under the Nurnberg Laws and the same question arose in connection with the privileged Jews. For this an alteration in the Nurnberg Laws would have been necessary in which the Reich Chancellery would have been involved so far as it concerned the drawing up of legislation.
That must be the reason why representatives were sent to these meetings.
QThe prosecution alleges that you participated in the setting up of aprogram for the extermination of all European Jews still alive. What do you have to say about that?
AI dispute most emphatically that I participated in setting up a program for extermination. I didn't even participate in a program for the evacuation of Jews, native or foreign, and I cannot have participated because apparently - and even demonstrably - such a program of extermination already existed on the part of Himmler and Heydrich and other persons at the time of the Wannsee meeting of 20 January 1942, if you use as your basis the minutes of that meeting. I participated in no way whatsoever in carrying out the evacuation. As we know, the carrying out of this evacuation was already under way at that time and so far as the treatment of half Jews and privileged Jews -
THE PRESIDENT:We are being repetitious now. Just a moment. We are just repeating what we have already said, counsel. We have allowed you to go to great length here and now you are just going to hash it over again. Devote your time to being specific on evidence now advanced by the prosecution to sustain these alleged charges of extermination and final solution as used and so forth, but let's not have any more general discussion on this thing. Now you are just going right back over it again. BY DR. SEIDL:
QWitness, I believe your answer suffices to answer my question and I came now to my next question. You testified previously regarding two stopping decrees by the Fuehrer in this matter.
What was the actual consequence of these stopping decrees - obtained by you - with respect to the various cases in question?
AWith respect to the half-Jews and privileged Jews nothing happened at all. So far as individual complaints reached me I saw to it that Himmler obeyed these stopping decrees and that took place, and so far as evacuations continued that doesn't rest on me but on the fact that the Reich Security Main Office, despite this stop decree, continued the evacuations for some reason or another, probably on instructions from the Fuehrer.
QIn what then did the problem of the final solution consist so far as you understood that term at that time, and I emphasize your understanding of the term at that time?
AThe solution was to lie in the evacuation of full blooded Jews, and secondly, a regulation of some sort concerning the privileged Jews and the half Jews.
QWitness, on the basis of the minutes of the three meetings of 20 January 1942, 6 March 1942, and 27 October 1942 put in by the prosecution, are you still of the opinion that no program for exterminating the Jews was ever set up and that secondly, with regard to including half Jews and privileged Jews in the evacuation or other measures, no program was set up?
AYes, I am of that opinion. At least this program never came to my attention. The program cannot have been set up.
QWill you explain that answer please?
AOn the basis of the knowledge of these minutes and on the basis of what the IMT judgment informs us of and from what we find out from other Nurnberg trials, I can only say -
THE PRESIDENT:Well now you are getting into conclusions that you might well draw in your argument, counsel, instead of calling upon the witness to draw them.
This is the very thing we don't want. BY DR. SEIDL:
QWitness, you have heard the request of the Tribunal so I will have to ask you another question. How do you know that at the time of the Wannsee meeting of 20 January 1942 the evacuation of the Jews was already in process and when did you receive reliable information to that effect?
AI found it out through the IMT judgment but in particular I was able to ascertain it through a letter which the chief of the Security Police and SD directed on 29 November 1941 including an invitation by Hoffmann, the chief of the Race and Settlement Main Office, to the notorious Wannsee meeting, though to be sure the date was changed, and I remember that in this letter it said that since 15 October 1941 Jews were being evacuated from the Reich, including the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, to the East in continual transports.
QWitness, I must interrupt you now. When did you find that out?
AI found that out here from the documents that I have before me, Document 709-PS. You probably know the exhibit number.
QWitness, we will come back to that later but I want to make clear that you found that out only here from the documents put in by the prosecution. Is that your answer?
AYes.
THE PRESIDENT:Now, this is all so nonsensical, to go all around the bush like this to tell us that he didn't find it out until after the war was over. He could have told that in just about half a dozen words.
This love of the use of words is trying the patience of the Court, unnecessary use of words.
DR. SEIDL:Mr. President, I am trying to keep the question as brief as possible but in view of the serious charges brought against this defendant I must be of the opinion that he must have a chance to testify to what appears important in connection with the documents.
THE PIESIDENT:Yes, but you must have known the nature of the answer to the question you were going to get when you asked the question. Is it necessary to ask the question when you know that it is going to elicit an answer by such a circuitous route to take all this time? If you want to know that he did not know of the evacuation until after the war was over you can very easily elicit it from him through a very direct question. Let's do better in the future. We don't have to have all this tremendous use of words, words, words, to answer just a very short and simple question, to elicit a very simple fact. I know you can do better than that. I know the witness can do better than that. Go ahead.
DR. SEIDL:I direct the Tribunal's attention to Document PS-709, Prosecution Exhibit 2506, Document Book 90, page 312 in the English text.
THE PRESIDENT:What is that exhibit number again please, counsel?
DR.SEIDL: 2506, Book 90, page 312.
THE PRESIDENT:Thank you.
DR. SEIDL:This is the document to which the witness just wanted to refer and it was necessary to come to it circuitously because the document isn't where it ought to be namely, in volume 76.
Q. (By Dr. Seidl) Witness, if one, however, should nevertheless be inclined to the opinion that in these three meetings the program for all 3 points of the final solution was set up, what can you actually say about such a contention?
A.I can say that I did not participate. Kritzinger's attendance at Wannsea was not participation on my part. He was there without my knowledge or instructions, and the participation of a Reich Chancellery official in the other two meetings is likewise no participation on mypart and certainly not in approving participation, and finally I must also say that even if you did assume that I participated in some way there is no causal connection between what happened.
Q.Witness, I have to interrupt you. That is a conclusion which the Tribunal doesn't want you to draw. That thenconcludes the general questions on this problem, and I come now to the discussion of various documents put in evidence by the prosecution.
THL PRESIDENT:Go ahead, counsel.
Q. (By Dr. Seidl) The first document is NG-1526, Prosecution Exhibit 1527, page 1 of volume 76. This document contains a copy of a letter that you sent on 21 July 1938 to the Fuehrer's deputy regarding the treatment of Czechoslovak Jews. I must ask you first, is this document complete?
A.Please let me see the photostat.
Q.I will hand it to you.
A.The document is incomplete to the extent that the letter is missing which contains the questions that Hess asked me. This letter is a reply to a letter of Hess's and the questions that Hess asked me cannot be seen from this document.
Q.Did you express your own views in this letter?
A.No, I transmitted the views of the Fuehrer which can be clearly seen from the opening words of the letter.
Q.Is that true also of the sentence in the index where it says, "Jewish persons of foreign nationality should be treated as Jews since the Jewish question is independent of the nationality question."
THE PRESIDENT:Just a minute, counsel, the statement in the index is not in evidence. It is merely an assertion by the prosecution. It is not evidence and now you don't have to reply to that, asking the witness concerning that. Confine his comment to the instrument that is in evidence. You may proceed.
Q. (By Dr. Seidl) In dealing with this question did you wish to express any opinions of your own at all?
A.No, it's perfectly clear here that I wrote that the Fuehrer, in agreement with the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister of the Interior , took this point of view. As always I refrained from adopting a view of my own because that was not my job.
Q.Were exceptions possible from the basic decision of the Fuehrer in this matter?
A.Yes, they were possible to a large extent and moreover some of yhese exceptions are listed to such an extent that the exceptions actually constituted the rule.
Q.What was the purpose of permitting these exceptions?
A.Explicitly to give scope to the view of the Foreign Office that foreign Jews should be basically treated the same way as native Jews, but at the same time to emphasize that for urgent reasons of foreign policy, particularly in view of treaties with other countries, exceptions had to be made for foreign Jews, not only exceptions in the field of legislation but also, as it says in the last paragraph of the letter, in the daily administrative practice, and in the last analysis this administrative practice was more important than the legislation.
Q.That suffices to explain that document so far as your participation in it is involved, and I turn now to the next document. This is document 2537-FS put in evidence as Exhibit 491. We already dealt with this in connection with volume 35 so I needn't go into it again here. I come now to NG-944, Prosecution Exhibit 1528, Volume 76, page 3. This document is a draft for a decree to nut down uprisings in the incorporated Eastern territories. Who brought this decree to the Reich Chancellery?
A.It wasn't brought to the Reich Chancellery but to the Ministerial Council for the Defense of the Reich by the Plenipotentiary General for Administration, namely, the Reich Minister of the Interior, Dr. Frick. It was submitted to the Ministerial Council through my hands. The work on this draft was certainly in the competency of the Plenipotentiary General for Administration. I cannot see from this document who submitted the report, what other Ministries he availed himself of before and to what extent he got in touch with the Minister of Justice.
Q.That 'as your task once the document had been submitted? You can be very brief here.
A.I prepared the usual conies to be distributed. To be sure I had to inform myself and I did t at from the memorandum of my official, Kritzinger, which is here in this document. On the basis of this memorandum I did not choose the usual procedure.
Q.Did you submit this document without any further ado to the various ministries?
A.No. Kritzinger advised me that it was necessary to inform the Fuehrer and to hear what Goering, thechairman of the Ministerial Council , had to say before distributing it, and since I had already certain misgivings about getting the matter into motion I refrained from distributing it for the time being, on his advise.
Q.Then you first submitted the draft to Goering for his approval; and then what happened?
A.I have to deny that. My letter to State Secretary Koerner requests--this is the letter of 28 February 1940--this letter doesn't request Goering's approval but I asked him to submit the matter to Goering and to inform me whether he basically approved the draft, it was not submitted for his approval. I refrained from expressing any view of my own.
Q.Then we can leave this document and turn to NG-2490, Exhibit 1529, Book 76, Page 7. This document is an anonymous letter entitled "The Deportation is being Continued." What do you have to say about that?
A.Although it was anonymous, I did not throw this letter into the wastebasket but transmitted it to the Reichsfuehrer SS, Himmler, who was alone competent, and that shows in my opinion that I dealt with the matter in the only way I could. Normally I gave no consideration at all to anonymous letters, but in this case I drew Himmler's attention to this and he, moreover, declared himself ready to investigate anonymous letters because I say here "In accordance with the wishes expressed in your letter I am sending you herewith a photostat copy," etc. So you must deduce from this that I had spoken about this matter to him and had asked him to conduct investigations on the basis of this anonymous letter.
Q.We can now leave this document and I turn to NG-2297, Exhibit 1530, Book 76, page 11. This document concerns legislation dealing with Jews in Luxembourg. What do you have to say about it?
A.The Reichminister of the Interior is here sending me drafts of decrees by the chief of the Civilian Administration to Luxembourg regarding the regulation of the Jewish problem and expresses misgivings. He asks me, if necessary, to get a decision from the Fuehrer on the matter because I had formerly informed him that the Fuehrer had ordered the cessation of such measures after I had reported to him on the subject, which manifested my attitude toward the whole question.
After I received this letter it turned out, however, that the Fuehrer had already approved the decrees which the chief of the Civilian Administration intended to promulgate and had told the chief of the Civilian Administration this fact which made it unnecessary for me to answer the letter and I did not answer it.
Q.Then if I understand you correctly, you didn't approve these measures?
A.No. I had neither occasion nor reason to comment on these decrees because I knew that they had already been approved and probably already been promulgated. However, it can be seen from the letter of the Minister of the Interior itself that I was of a different opinion. It is sent to me on the basis of the fact that I had told him that the Fuehrer did not wish that, and I was also of that view; otherwise I should not have so quickly transmitted that fact.
Q.And you didn't participate in the Fuehrer's approval of these measures as expressed to the Chief of the Civil Administration? you were not asked about it? Is that what I understand you to be saying?
A.I was not present when that decision was reached. I attended no meetings. I was not at all involved except that I received the letter and did not later have to deal with it because the matter had already been solved by a Fuehrer decision.
Q.That suffices for this document and I turn now to NG-1143, Exhibit 1531, Page 24 of Volume 76. The document deals with the treatment of Jews under the labor law. It contains a letter from the Reich Minister of Labor, dated 6 April 1940. (Document handed to witness.) I shall have this document put to you. I ask you first of all, is this procedure typical for dealing with such matters in the Ministerial Council for the Defense of the Reich in the Reich Chancellery?
A.This document shows that I was not actually but only formally involved in this matter and in my capacity in the Ministerial council for the defense of the Reich in which I handled correspondence.
Q.Then please briefly describe the procedure because this document is very appropriate for that purpose. Who actually had to decide on whether the document was to be submitted?
A.The letter comes into my hands but it is expressly addressed to the Ministerial Council for the Defense of the Reich. Only this Council could decide and not I, and if it says in the letter, "I ask that you decide," that refers only to the Ministerial Council.
Q.But did you at least distribute this document from the Reich Minister of Labor on your own initiative to the Ministerial Council?
A.No. I had certain misgivings in this regard and that's the reason why I ask here, first, of the Chairman of the Ministerial Council, Goering, whether he agrees that this document of the Reich Minister of Labor should be distributed. That can be seen in my letter of 20 April 1940 which is to be found in the document.
Q.But in the meantime a letter of the Plenipotentiary-General for the Administration, of 30 April 1940, was directed to the Ministerial Council and I ask you now, what did the Reich Chancellery do on the basis of it?
A.I did nothing.
Q. let me remark for the record that this document is on page 33 of the Document Book.
A.I did nothing except making arrangements for the further handling of the matter in a routine fashion.
After that I have nothing more to do with the subject.
Q.Do you know whether there was any further correspondence between the Ministries involved in this matter and were you, yourself, involved?
A.There was a further exchange of opinions in writing between the Reich Minister of the interior and the Minister of Labor and other agencies but without my participating, as can be seen from the document in which repeatedly, with reference to various documents, it says, "Not in the office." That means that the correspondence carried on by the others did not reach me, and only one letter of the Reich Minister of Labor of 3 January to various offices was sent to me solely for my information.
Q.Then how did the matter go on?
A.There was a discussion in the Ministry of the Interior on 9 January 1940 in which an official of the Reich Chancellery, as assistant Referent participated. The result of this discussion was the drawing up of a new decree which was to be submitted to the Ministerial Council by the Minister of the Interior in whose hands the matter was. Then there was a discussion of the copy of this draft which; because it was of no interest to me, as the document shows, I dealt with only by laying down the date on which it was to be brought up. Then the Ministries continued to work the matter out among themselves without my being involved.
Q.And then who finally promulgated this decree?
MR. LEWIS:If the witness knows, the prosecution would like to know the names of those officials of the Reich Chancellery that the defendant refers to in his testimony. He says assistant Referent; he says Ministerialdirigent. Those are important for the prosecutions
THE PRESIDENT:Well, doubtlessly they are and you will have an opportunity to insist upon more of that story in your cross examination, if they are not inclined to tell you now, of course. I think it would probably save time if they care to give the names now.
MR. LEWIS:It is merely for the purpose of saving time.
THE PRESIDENT:If not, you can inquire on cross examination if he knows what he is talking about. BY DR. SEIDEL:
Q.Witness, let's ave time and not wait for the cross examination. Tell me in a few sentences who the officials of the Reich Chancellery were who were involved so that the prosecution will have an opportunity to ask questions of these witnesses if they appear before the Commission.
MR. LEWIS:I didn't mean that. It is only where the witness says the assistant Referent took care of it that we want it because the document shows who the other three or four were in this matter.
It is only when he says assistant Referent that we want to know who it was if he knows; we don't want him to repeat what the document says.
THE PRESIDENT:Perhaps this won't be satisfactory. You may have to wait for cross examination. Dr. Seidl, if he knows and if you can save time by asking him now who these parties are, let'd do it. BY DR. SEIDL:
Q.Can you answer that question briefly, witness? Can you see that from the photostat copy before you?
A.I'D have to go through the document in great detail; because of the great number of documents I couldn't do it on the spur of the moment.
Q.Witness, by whom was this decree finally promulgated?
A.Later, without my participation and without the Ministerial Council being called upon again, a decree was promulgated which Goering, as plenipotentiary-General for the Four Year plan, issued under his own authority in which he empowered the Reich Minister of Labor to regulate working conditions for Jews in conjunction with the chief of the party Chancellery and in conjunction with the Reich Minister of the interior.
DR. SEIDL:For the record, let me remark that this refers to Document NID-13880, prosecution Exhibit 2188 and that is in Volume 150 of the prosecution, page 54. BY DR. SEIDL:
Q.Witness, did you co-sign this decree or did you participate in any way?
A.Neither the one nor the other.
Q.According to this decree, who regulated working conditions for the Jews?
A.I have already said that. On the basis of the decree of the plenipotentiary-General for the Four Year plan this had now become the affair of the Reich Minister of Labor -
THE PRESIDENT:Why have him spend time here reciting the obvious to us? What is the purpose of this?
DR. SEIDL:That concludes all questions on this document and I can turn to the next one.
THE PRESIDENT:Well, perhaps we will have to recess now. I think the hour is 12:15 although the clock on the wall doesn't indicate that. The Tribunal will now recess until one-thirty.
(A luncheon recess was taken until 1330 hours.)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The Tribunal reconvened at 1330 hours, 16 Sept.
1943.)
HANS HEINRICH LAHMERS - Resumed
THE MARSHAL:Military Tribunal IV is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT:Mr. Marshal, are the defendants present in the courtroom?
THE MARSHAL:May it please Your Honor, the defendants are all present in the courtroom with the exception of Defendants Ritter, Krosigk and pleiger who are excused by the Tribunal; and Keppler, Rasche, Stuckart, Schellenberg and Erdmannsdorff, who are in the hospital.
THE PRESIDENT:Very well. At this afternoon's sessions judge powers will preside.
PRESIDING JUDGE POWERS:Doctor, do you have something?
DR. GRUBE:Your Honor, I would like to have the Defendant Kehrl excused all day tomorrow. I would like to have him taken to Room 55 in the morning and in the afternoon I'd like him to stay in prison. His absence is made necessary by working in the interests of his defense and his interests will be safeguarded in court.
PRESIDING JUDGE POWERS:Very well. Kehrl will be excused all day tomorrow and tomorrow forenoon brought to Room 55. Are you ready to proceed?
DR. SEIDL:Yes.
PRESIDING JUDGE POWERS:Very well.
DIRECT EXAMINATION (CONTINUED) BY DR. SEIDL:
Q.I now come to NG-2610, prosecution Exhibit 1533. It is in Book 76 on page 45 of both the English and German. I am having the photostat handed to you. It concerns an implementation ordinance for the Reich Citizens Law. From whom did this draft emanate?
A.The Minister of the interior, in a letter of December 1940, invited a number of departments and myself to a conference which was later postponed.
I don't suppose the date matters. He put on the agenda the draft of a tenth implementation ordinance to the Reich Citizens Law. He gives a reason for this draft in his invitation. To be accurate, I suppose it should be called the eleventh ordinance because I think the number must have been changed later because this is now called the eleventh ordinance.
Q.This document also contains a file note of 13 December 1940 and that is on page 50 of the English and page 51 of the German. Who made that note?
A.My Ministerialdirektor Krigzinger. In this note he is against the suggested ruling that the Jews should become protected persons.
Q.This file note says, and 1 quote, "For the rest it is questionable whether, in view of the fact that at not too distant a date the Jews will have disappeared from Germany, it is worthwhile at all giving them a privileged legal status."
How did you interpret this formulation, supposing that you saw it at all?
A.Yes, I did sec it. I thought it meant that first of all, by his remark concerning the disappearance of the Jews, he meant the current emigration which was going on continuously through a Reich Central Office for Emigration. And obviously he interpreted this solution to make the Jews protected persons as being a mockery which annoyed him and that, in my view, is the reason for his formulation.
Q.But this note is dated as early as 1940. Did anybody at that time think of evacuation of Jews?
A.No, I don't think so. Maybe he meant that. Of course, I didn't know what he meant. It is not my note.
Q.That is enough, witness, I pass to my next question. Who made the decision by which the suggestion to discard the Jews as protected persons was turned down? What action did you take?