STÁTNÍ TAJEMNÍK U ŘÍŠSKÉHO PROTEKTORA V ČECHÁCH A NA MORAVĚ, PRAHA, inv. 1747, sig. 109-4/1502 (poškozeno) Page 35 · 35 of 57
STATE SECRETARY FOR THE RUSSIAN PROTECTOR IN THINGS AND IN MORAVA, PRAGUE, inv. 1747, sig. 109-4/1502 (damaged)
English Translation
31 - 3 - in the morning of 21.9.1938 - Benesch had called and recommended that he now negotiate directly with Berlin. v. Popelka's writing was in the Czech text. Jch asked to give me a translation, and cut the question whether it was not appropriate to make the answer available to the Reichsprotektor's office for propagandistic evaluation, as the enemy radio had expressed itself to the letter of Benesch and threatened with the publication of the answer of Hácha. Popelka, that I will present his remarks to group leader Prank. On 9 May 1942 the third meeting took place between v. Popelska and me in his office. In accordance with the instructions of group leaderPrank, I opened v. Popelka that the letter would form a unit. Therefore, the postscriptum could not be omitted during the publication. The requested statement to the press will be given. Then, by Popelka, I was given the German translation of the transcript written by Kliment (Appendix 5). The further discussion related to the presentation of the answer from Hácha to Benesch v. Popelca stated that he had searched with Háha in his desk for the draft answer and found it there as well. Since I saw the design - a note covered with pencil notes - lying in a double sheet, on which was a note with a paraphrase dated April 10, 1942, I asked about the meaning of this note. v. Popelka rebutted without hesitation that a registrar of his firm had found the note at the beginning of the previous month, had made a record of it and had then taken the process to the files. Neither Hácha nor he had known that. Since the contradiction in the presentation of the location of the note was obvious, I have refrained from discussing this matter. v. Popelka pointed out in the course of the discussion that, unfortunately, the final version of the draft cannot be drawn from the note. He tried to reconstruct the draft and presented me with a corresponding elaboration in German and Czech language (Annexes 6 and 7). My objection that the publication of this reconstructed draft was impossible could not be accepted by V. Popelka.