SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: With what was that conversation concerned?
SCHELLENBERG: This conversation, as far as I could gather—for I took no part in it—concerned the subsequent covering for the shooting of about 50 English or American prisoners of war. The gist of the conversation was, as far as I remember, that there had evidently been an inquiry from the International Red Cross as to the whereabouts of 50 English and American prisoners of war. This request for information by the International Red Cross appears to have been passed on to the Chief of the Security Police and the SD by way of the Foreign Office. From the conversation I could . . .
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Was it already in the form of a protest against the shooting of prisoners of war?
SCHELLENBERG: I believe it was lodged in the form of a protest, since from fragments of this conversation I gathered that there was a discussion as to how the shooting of these prisoners of war, which had already taken place, could be covered up or disguised.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Did Kaltenbrunner discuss this with Müller and Nebe?
SCHELLENBERG: Kaltenbrunner discussed this matter with Müller and Nebe, but I heard merely fragments of the conversation. I heard, incidentally, that they meant to discuss the details in the course of the afternoon.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Did you hear any suggestion put forward as to what explanations should be given to cover the shooting of these prisoners?
SCHELLENBERG: Yes, Kaltenbrunner himself offered these suggestions.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: What were the suggestions?
SCHELLENBERG: That the majority should be treated as individual cases, as “having perished in air raids”; some, I believe, because they “offered resistance,” that is, “physical resistance,” while others were “pursued when escaping.”