Germany'S MINISTRY FOR CHEATURES AND MORAV, PRAGUE (1906) 1939 - 1945 (1965), inv. 986, sig. 110-9/2 (damaged)

Page 88

English Translation

- 10 - he could not make any understanding of the concept of the Protectorate, as he openly admitted, since for the French the name Protectorate had a kolo- nial taste through the association of thought with Tunis and Morocco. 2.) Casadesus made the impression of an extremely skilled and clever journalist who is not opposed to Germany. He was at any rate one of the most serious participants of the delegation. 3.) The Holl-änder Huyts made the appearance of a returning, prudent and dignified journalist, who was German-friendly. In his remarks he showed himself very cautious, but made no secret that the majority of the Dutch population opposed the new conditions. Only in the last few months did he receive letters from the e people, which made a discussion possible. 4.) The Romanian journalist Popa can be described as an average who has an honest and positive attitude towards the Reich. From this very positive attitude, he expressed strong criticism of the post-war design of the DNB over a German member of the autonomous Ministry for People's Enlightenment in a confidential conversation. The DNB only issues news about first-class events when all the people, even the whole of Europe, are talking about it. After leading speeches, e.g., the Reuterbüro delivers the entire text an hour after the end of the speech, of course with tendentious distortions, while the DNB delivers at best 4 hours after. Finally, the speech in part and in comment form. For 5.) The Swedish journalist Gernandt openly emphasizes his imperial friendliness, but with particular emphasis preserves his personal Swedish peculiarity and also advocates in conversations especially for the respect of the Swedish mentality by the Reich. For his Swedish lifestyle, for example, it is important for him to emphasize that he has a Swedish lifestyle. M Gernandt made comparisons between German politics in Bohemia and Moravia and those in Norway, which were clearly in favour of Prague. He again expressed himself very passionately about the gross mistakes the Germans had made in Norway.