VON RIBBENTROP: To that question I must answer “naturally.” They
certainly collaborated to some extent in the Jewish question in France;
that is perfectly clear. But I can also add that the French Prosecution
surely is informed that Ambassador Abetz was not only instructed by me,
but also acted on his own initiative in always attempting to reach some
kind of conciliatory settlement of this question. It goes without saying
that the Embassy was involved, one way or the other, in this sphere of
action. And it also goes without saying that I must assume
responsibility for anything done by the gentlemen in the Embassy, and I
should like to repeat that my instructions as well as the activities of
Ambassador Abetz were always in the opposite direction. It is quite
clear that the basic anti-Semitic tendency and policy of the German
Government spread over all the departments and naturally, in any
sphere—I mean, every Government office somehow or other came into
contact with these matters. Our task in the Foreign Office—which could
be proved in thousands of cases if the documents would be submitted—was
to act as an intermediary in this sphere. I might say, we often had to
do things in accordance with this anti-Semitic policy, but we always
endeavored to prevent these measures and to reach some kind of
conciliatory settlement. In fact, the German Embassy was not responsible
for any anti-Semitic measures of any description in France.
M. FAURE: I would like to draw your attention to another document,
Number RF-1210, a French document which is a second report from
Dannecker of 22 February 1942, Page 3 of the document, Page 2 of the
German text.
VON RIBBENTROP: I should like to say here and now that I do not even
know who Dannecker is. Perhaps you can give me some information on that
subject.
M. FAURE: I informed you that Dannecker was the person responsible for
Jewish affairs in France. As a matter of fact, these documents were
submitted a long time ago to the Tribunal and communicated to the
Defense.
At Page 3 of the document, which is Page 2 of the German, there is a
paragraph entitled, “Actions,” from which I read one sentence: “Up to
the present, three large-scale operations have been undertaken against
the Jews in Paris.”
Now, if you will look at the last page of the document, the last
paragraph but one, we read as follows:
“Since the middle of 1941 there has been a conference every
Tuesday in which the following services participate:... I, II,
and III, military commands, administrative, police, and economic
sections; IV, German Embassy, Paris; V, Einsatzstab Westen of
Reichsleiter Rosenberg.
“The result of the conference is that—with very few exceptions
naturally called for by outsiders—the anti-Jewish policy is
being brought into one common line in the occupied territory.”
This document clearly shows, does it not, that your collaborators were
in agreement with the anti-Jewish policy in the occupied territories and
that this policy included the arrest of Jews?
VON RIBBENTROP: May I reply to this statement? According to my
information, in this case, as so often happened in such cases, the
German ambassadors could have served as the branch offices. They might
have joined in with a view to guiding matters into peaceful channels.
M. FAURE: I ask that you be shown French Document RF-1220, which is a
letter from the German Embassy of 27 June 1942, addressed to the head of
the Security Police and the SD in France. Before asking you a question I
would like to read with you the first two paragraphs of this letter:
“Following my interview with Hauptsturmführer Dannecker on the
date of 27 June, during which he indicated that he required that
50,000 Jews from the unoccupied zone be deported to the East as
soon as possible, and that on the basis of notes sent by the
Commissioner General for Jewish Questions, Darquier de
Pellepoix, under any circumstances something had to be done for
this, I reported the matter to Ambassador Abetz and Minister
Rahn immediately after the discussion. The latter is to confer
with President Laval this afternoon, and he has promised me that
he will speak to him at once about the handing over of these
50,000 Jews; also he will insist that Darquier de Pellepoix be
given complete freedom of action according to the laws already
promulgated, and that the credits which have been promised to
him be handed to him immediately.”
Now, I should like to ask you a question. I ask you to answer as briefly
as possible: Were you aware of this _démarche_ for the handing over of
these 50,000 Jews?
VON RIBBENTROP: No, I was not; I heard about it here for the first time,
when this document was, I believe, read out once before.
M. FAURE: If your collaborators Abetz, Rahn, and Zeitschel took such
action on this subject without informing you, was it not because they
thought they were acting in accordance with your general directives?
VON RIBBENTROP: No, I do not think so; they worked very independently in
Paris, but I should like to repeat once again that I am assuming
responsibility for everything that these gentlemen have done. I make a
point of emphasizing this fact. I did not, however, know anything about
the proposed measure against the 50,000 Jews. And I do not even know
whether it was ever put into effect, and in what manner these gentlemen
had implicated themselves in the matter. The letter does not make it
clear. I know only one thing, and that is that my general instructions
were to tread cautiously in such matters and, if possible, to bridge
difficulties according to my own basic concepts and not to do anything
to force matters but, on the contrary, to smooth them over. I can say no
more on the subject.
M. FAURE: During the interrogation of your witness Steengracht, the
British Prosecution produced a document, 3319-PS, under the British
Exhibit Number GB-287. I should like to refer to this document for one
question only.
In this document there is an account of a meeting, or a congress, at
which were present all the reporters on Jewish questions from the
various diplomatic missions in Europe. This congress was held on 3 and 4
April 1944 in Krummhübel. It was organized by Schleier. This was read
the other day. You knew about this congress, I suppose?
VON RIBBENTROP: No, this is the first time I have heard about it. What
congress was that? I have never heard that such a congress ever took
place. What kind of congress was it supposed to be?
M. FAURE: This document has already been submitted; it was a congress
held...
VON RIBBENTROP: I know only about one congress which I asked the Führer
not to hold. That I do know. But I know nothing at all about a congress
which did take place. Please give more detailed information on the
subject.
M. FAURE: The document was handed over to the Tribunal, and I would like
to ask you one question. You testified that you were unaware of this
meeting at which 31 persons, most of whom belonged to the diplomatic
service, were present. I will inform you that during this meeting
Embassy Counsellor Von Thadden made a declaration which was reported in
the following terms:
“The speaker explained the reasons why the Zionist solution of
Palestine and similar alternative solutions must be rejected and
why the Jews must be expatriated into the Eastern territories.”
I suggest that this declaration made by an embassy counsellor in the
presence of 31 people belonging to your service voiced your own attitude
on these matters.
VON RIBBENTROP: Yes, but I do not know in the very least what you mean.
May I, to begin with, please have some information on the matter with
which we are dealing? I do not understand it at all. I have told you
once before that I know nothing about any congress except the one which
I countermanded. That was an international congress which was to have
been held. I know nothing of a congress of diplomats. Would you kindly
place the document in question at my disposal in order that I may make
my reply?
M. FAURE: I do not intend to show you this document. I read one sentence
contained in this document, and I am merely asking you if this phrase
represents your opinion or not. Answer “yes” or “no”.
VON RIBBENTROP: Then I must request you to repeat the sentence. I wish
to confirm again, however, that no congress took place; it is not true.
DR. HORN: Mr. President, I object to that question, if the opportunity
is not afforded the defendant to give a truthful answer.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal thinks the question was proper.
M. FAURE: I ask you whether this sentence which I have read out to you
corresponded to your opinion.
VON RIBBENTROP: May I ask you to repeat the sentence. I did not
understand it correctly.
M. FAURE: “The speaker explained the reasons why the Zionist
solution of Palestine and similar alternative solutions must be
rejected and why the Jews must be expatriated to the Eastern
territories.”
Was that your thesis?
VON RIBBENTROP: No, it was not.
M. FAURE: Was your attention drawn to the fact that the Italian
authorities in France protected the Jews against persecution by Germans?
VON RIBBENTROP: Yes. I recollect that there was something of the kind
but I no longer remember exactly.