1. U. S. National Archives, Washington, D.C., microfilms of captured German documents, Microcopy T–175 (Reichsführer SS and Chief of the German Police), Roll 534, Frame 9394463, an agent of the SS Security Service (Sicherheitsdienst, SD), quoting a high-ranking official of the German Foreign Office, Günther Altenburg. Hereafter the documents of the Reichsführer SS will be cited T–175, documents of the High Command of the Wehrmacht (Oberkommando der Wehrmacht, OKW) T–77, documents of the German Foreign Office T–120, and documents filmed in Berlin on behalf of the American Historical Association T–580, with the roll number (R) and, where applicable, the frame number.

2. The Catholic, extreme nationalist Hlinka Party was founded in 1918 by Father Andrew Hlinka (1864–1938).

3. Lipták, L'ubomír, “Príprava a priebeh salzburských rokovaní roku 1940 medzi predstaviteľmi Nemecka a slovenského štátu,” Historický časopis SAV, XIII (1965), 365 (hereafter Lipták, “Príprava”).Google ScholarCf. Čulen, Konštantín, Po Svätoplukovi druhá naša hlava (Cleveland, 1947), pp. 263–68 (hereafter Čulen, Po Svätoplukovi).Google ScholarLettrich, Jozef, History of Modern Slovakia (New York, 1955), p. 166.Google ScholarKirschbaum, Jozef, Náš boj o samostatnosť Slovenska (Cleveland, 1958), pp. 103–106 (hereafter Kirschbaum, Náš boj).Google ScholarStanek, Imrich, Zrada a pád. Hlinkovštî separatisté a tak zvaný slovenský stat (Prague, 1958), p. 223 (hereafter, Stanek, Zrada).Google ScholarOddo, Gilbert L., Slovakia and Its People (New York, 1960), pp. 281–83 (hereafter Oddo, Slovakia).Google ScholarVnuk, František, “Prvých šesť mesiacov posalzburgskej éry,” Kalendár Jednoty, 1960, pp. 65–81 (hereafter Vnuk, “Prvých šesť”).Google ScholarNovák, Jaroslav, Im Zeichen zweier Kreuze (Prague, 1962), p. 52.Google ScholarKrál, Václav, Pravda o okupaci (Prague, 1962), pp. 292–95 (hereafter Král, Pravda).Google ScholarMikus, Joseph A., Slovakia. A Political History 1918–1950 (Milwaukee, 1963), p. 120.Google ScholarVnuk, František, Dr. Joseph Tiso, President of the Slovak Republic (Sidney, 1967).Google Scholar

4. L'ubomír Lipták, published the most detailed and comprehensive study written so far about the Salzburg Conference (Lipták, “Príprava”). Unfortunately, Lipták did not use the extensive German documentation captured by the Western Allies. Therefore, many important details elude him. For another analysis of the Salzburg Conference, see Chapter III of my unpublished dissertation, “Hlinka's Slovak People's Party, 1939–1945” (Indiana University, Bloomington, Ind., 1966); hereafter Jelínek, “Hlinka Party.”

5. Ďurčanský was initially omitted from the list of guests. Writers, including Ďurčanský himself, gave controversial accounts about his invitation. Actually, as the documents disclose, rumors picked up by an SD agent about Ďurčanský's alleged plans induced the German Foreign Office to extend an invitation to him as well. (T–77, R–879, 5627006, Dispatch, the German Military Attaché in Bratislava to OKW, July 27, 1940; T–120, R–1318, D498577, Dispatch, SS Brigadeführer Jost to Martin Luther, for Ribbentrop, July 28, 1940.)

6. U. S. Department of State, Documents on German Foreign Policy, 1919–1945, Ser. D (1937–1945) (Washington, 1953), X, 345–48 (hereafter DGFP);Google ScholarPravda (Bratislava), Dec. 15, 1946, Trial of Tiso et al.; Čas (Bratislava), Aug. 1, 3, 1946, Trial of Tuka; Čulen, Po Svaätoplukovi, p. 265.

7. T–77, R–879, 5627622, Dispatch, the Chief of the German Military Mission in Slovakia to OKH (Oberkommando des Heeres, High Command of the Army), Jan. 17, 1941. According to one not very reliable source Mach also hoped to become the Minister of National Defense (T–175, R–541, 9415049, Report of the SS Oberscharführer Pamer about his discussion with Consul-General Rudolf Vávra, Dec. 12, 1940). Since Berlin had only limited objections to General Ferdinand Čatloš, the Slovak Minister of National Defense, it had not asked for his removal. (T–77, R–879, 5626966, Tour of Lt. General Löbisch to Slovakia, Aug. 10–19, 1940. Cf. T–120, R–1301, 479884, Dispatch, Killinger to the German Foreign Office, Aug. 19, 1940.

8. In the tense days before Salzburg, Galan had replaced Mach in the command of the Hlinka Guard, at the personal request of President Tiso. Now Galan surrendered his post, and instead was trusted with the party's administration. Mach again became Commander-in-Chief of the Hlinka Guard, while a fanatic, Otomar Kubala, took the position of the Chief of Staff. Something went wrong in Galan's assignment, and the president did not grant him the job permanently. According to reports of the SD, Galan resigned in protest over being only acting Secretary General, while Kirschbaum still held the definitive title. Dr. Kirschbaum denied these claims of the SD. Nevertheless, Dr. Galan eventually joined the anti-Nazi underground and died in a concentration camp. T–175, R–531, 9402996, Dispatch, SS Stumbannführer Dr. Hahn to SS Brigadeführer Jost, Oct. 24, 1940;T–175, R–531, 9402997, Note to the files, SS Hauptsturmführer Wisliczeny, Oct. 26, 1940; Letter, Dr. Kirschbaum to the author, Sept. II, 1965; Lipták, “Príprava,” p. 364; Paučo, Jozef, Tak sme sa poznali (Middletown, Pa., 1967), pp. 173–75 (hereafter, Paučo, Tak sa poznali).Google Scholar

9. No serious harm was done to Ďurčanský, Kirschbaum, and Čulen. Indeed, Ďurčanský and Čulen retained their positions in the parliament and the party. Ribbentrop, already in Salzburg, invited Ďurčanský to cooperate. Similar invitations were repeated later, and Tuka joined the Germans in luring Ďurčanský and Kirschbaum into the proNazi camp. All three victims of Salzburg survived the Second World War while holding positions of eminence in the administration and life of the Slovak state. (Dr. Kirschbaum in an interview with the author, April 1965, in Toronto. Letter, Kirschbaum to the author, Sept. II, 1965; Vnuk, “Prvých šesť,” pp. 66, 68, 98; Paučo, Tak sa poznali, pp. 78–79, 125–29; Čulen, Po Svätoplukovi, p. 266; Paučo, Jozef, ed., Pätdesiatník Dr. Jozef Kirschbaum [Middleton, Pa., 1963].)Google Scholar

10. T–120, R–1301, 479884, Report, Killinger to the German Foreign Office, Aug. 19, 1940.

11. Killinger entitled his autobiography Fröhliches aus dem Leben eines Putschisten (Rosie Waldeck-Goldschmidt, Athene Palace [New York, 1942], p. 336, hereafter, Waldeck, Athene Palace).Google Scholar

12. See various documents in the file Handakten Luther in the Political Archives of the German Foreign Office, Bonn.

13. DGFP, Ser. D, IX, Doc. No. 537, pp. 537–44; x, Doc. No. 248, pp. 345–48; T–175, R–524, 9394404, SD Report: The Crisis in Slovakia in May and June 1940, June 13, 1940.

14. T–120, R–2198, E086097, Dispatch, Killinger to Luther, Aug. 27, 1940; T–120, R–2198, E086096, Dispatch, Luther to Killinger, Sept. 4, 1940.

15. Political Archives of the German Foreign Office, Bonn, Handakten Luther, Letter, Killinger to Schröder, Oct. 26, 1940. Cf. T–120, R–2198, 338260, Dispatch, Killinger to Ribbentrop, Oct. 27, 1940.

16. For Tuka's aspiration to the presidency, see T–175, R–524, 9394407, SD report: The Crisis in Slovakia in May and June 1940, June 13, 1940.

17. T–175, R–528, 9398829, Report, J. Oršula to J. Joštiak, Aug. 1, 1940.

18. Čas (Bratislava), Feb. 15, 1946, Trial of Tiso et al., testimonies of Dr. Karol Murín and Dr. Martin Sokol; Čulen, Po Svätoplukovi, p. 417.

19. T–175, R–119, 2643751–66, Report, SS Gruppenführer Gottlob Berger to Himmler, Feb. 19, 1943; U. S. National Archives, Washington, U. S. Military Tribunal, Nuernberg, Official Record, Case No. II, Vol. XXVIII, p. 11514, testimony of Ernst Woermann.

20. T–120, R–1307, 489923, Deutsches Nachrichtenbüro, Eigendienst, Aug. 9, 1940. Cf. Vnuk, “Prvých šesť, ” p. 66.

21. Vietor, Martin, “Príspevok k objasneniu fašistického charakteru tzv. slovenského štátu,” Historický časopis SAV, VIII, No. 4 (1960), p. 488.Google Scholar

22. T–120, R–1301, 479883, Report, Killinger to the German Foreign Office, Aug. 19, 1940.

23. Ibid.

24. T–77, R–87a, 5626991, Dispatch, Becker to OKW, July 30, 1940. Cf. Vnuk, “Prvých šesť,” p. 67.

25. Oddo, Slovakia, p. 282.

26. Čulen, Po Svätoplukovi, pp. 462–63; Čas (Bratislava), Feb. 15, 1947, Trial of Tiso et al., testimony of Dr.Paučo, Sokol;, Tak sa poznali, pp. 57, 58, 142, 143.Google Scholar

27. Vietor, “Príspevok,” p. 488; Sidor, Karol, Šesť rokov pri Vatikáne (Scranton, Pa., 1947), p. 293 (hereafter, Sidor, Šesť rokov); Letter, Dr. Kirschbaum to the writer, Sept. 11, 1965; Paučo, Tak sa poznali, p. 192.Google Scholar

28. Čulen, Konštantín, “Snem a vláda Slovenskéj Republiky,” in Slovenská Republika, 1939–1945, ed. Mikuláš, Šprinc (Scranton, Pa., 1949), pp. 119, 120 (hereafter, Slovenská Republika); T–580, R–877, “Berliner Dokumente: Die Lage in der Slowakei in November 1940,” Dec. 4, 1940;Google ScholarPravda (Bratislava), Aug. 8, 1946, p. 2, Trial of Tuka, testimony of Vojtech Husárek.

29. Dr.Paučo, Jozef, previously one of the important Nástupists, and the last editor of the organ of the Hlinka Party, Slovák, has in his recently published memoirs only scorn for Minister of the Economy Dr. Gejza Medrický, Minister of Transportation Julius Stano, or Jozef Sivák. Tak sa poznali, pp. 147–60.Google Scholar

30. Neumann, Jirmejahu Oskar, Im Schatten des Todes (Tel Aviv, 1956), pp. 135–61.Google Scholar

31. T–120, R–1318, D498510, Chief of the Security Police and the SD to the Head of the Department “Germany” in the German Foreign Office, Report of the Dutch Catholic priest van der Bergh on his discussion with Tiso, Sept. 9, 1940; T–120, R–2198, 338152, Dispatch, Ludin to the German Foreign Office, Feb. 4, 1941. Cf. T–175, R–524, 939465, Report, SD branch Prague to the Chief of the Security Police and the SD, May 21, 1943.

32. Ibid.; T–120, R–2198, 338198, Dispatch, the German Military Attaché in Bratislava to OKW, Oct. 1, 1940; T–175, R–517, 9385342, 9385346, Monthly report, Adviser for Propaganda Dr. Anton Endroes, Sept. 1, 1940; T–120, R–2198, 338237, Report on a visit to Bratislava, Consul-General Walther Wüster to Ribbentrop, Sept. 11, 1940; T–120, R–2198, 338260, Dispatch, Killinger to the German Foreign Office, Oct. 27, 1940.Google Scholar

33. T–120, R–336, 248439, Telegram, Killinger to the German Foreign Office, Oct. 17, 1940; T–120, R–2198, 338260–62, Dispatch, Killinger to the German Foreign Office, Nov. 4, 1940; T–120, R-2198, 338243, Telegram, Killinger to the German Foreign Office, Oct. 30, 1940; T–580, R–877, “Berliner Dokumente: Die Lage in der Slowakei in November 1940”; Čulen, Po Svätoplukovi, p. 463.

34. T–120, R–2198, 338264, Dispatch, Killinger to the German Foreign Office, Oct. 28, 1940. Cf. T–120, R–2198, 338260–62, Dispatch, Killinger to the German Foreign Office, Oct. 27, 1940.

35. T–175, R–524, 9394551, SD report, Dec. 10, 1940.

36. Čulen, Po Svätoplukovi, pp. 464–65.

37. DGFP, Ser. D, XI, Doc. No. 393, pp. 693–98, Report of Tuka's visit in the Reichskanzlei; T–120, R–336, 248815, Guidance for the meeting between Ribbentrop and Tuka, prepared by Under State Secretary Woermann, Nov. 21, 1940; Vnuk, “Prvých šesť,” p. 75.

38. T–77, R–879, 5626806, The German Military Mission in Slovakia to OKW, Report for the months July, August, September, Oct. 19, 1940.

39. Ibid.; T–77, R–879, 5626803, OKW, Abt. Ausland, Vortragsnotiz, Nov. 2, 1940. Cf. T–77, R–879, 5626966, Tour of Lt. Gen. Löbisch to Slovakia, Aug. 10–19, 1940, Aug. 24, 1940.

40. T–77, R–879, 5627211, Dispatch, the German Military Attaché in Bratislava to OKW, Nov. 18, 1940. Cf. Paučo, Sidor, p. 95.

41. T–77, R–879, 5627653, Dispatch, the German Military Attaché to OKH, Jan. 16, 1941; T–77, R–879, 5627621, Dispatch, the Head of the German Military Mission in Slovakia to OKW, Jan. 17, 1941.

42. T–120, R–280, 208084, Dispatch, Killinger through Luther to Ribbentrop, Aug. 5, 1940; T–120, R–2198, 338325, Killinger to the German Foreign Office, Oct. 24, 1940; T–120, R–2148, 338238, Report, Luther to Ribbentrop, Oct. 30, 1940; T–120, R–2198, 338237, Telegram, Killinger and Endroes to the German Foreign Office, Oct. 30, 1940.

43. T–580, R–877, “Berliner Dokumente: Die Lage in der Slowakei in November 1940”; R–66, “Berliner Dokumente: Slowakische Politik um Mitte Januar 1941”; Grenzbote (Bratislava), Jan. 1, 1941, p. 1, “Tuka: In das neue Jahr der slowakischen Revolution”; Slovák (Bratislava), Jan. 1, 1941, p. 1, “S Andrejom Hlinkom do nového roku” (With Andrew Hlinka into the New Year); Jan. 8, 1941, p. 1, “Mužovia režimu—mužovia charakteru” (The Men of the Regime—Men of Character); Jan. 9, 1941, p. 1, “Autorita strany a konsolidacia” (The Party's Authority and Consolidation); Jan. 16, 1941, p. 1, Tiso's speech in the meeting of the party's presidium; Jan. 19, 1941, p. 4, “ Rečo revolucií” (Talks about a Revolution); Jan. 15, 1941, “Revolucia a konsolidacia” (Revolution and Consolidation); Murgaś, Karol, Der Pakt der mannhaften Verpflichtungen (Eine politische Reportage über die historische Tage von 23–26. November 1940) (Turčianský Sv. Martin, 1941), pp. 45–49.Google Scholar

44. The post of Secretary General of the Party went to the minister Dr. Gejza Medrický, one of Tuka's targets in the cabinet. Tiso disregarded completely the Guardist candidate for the position. With one exception the president abstained from nominating any HG radical to leadership of the five corporate organizations. The Slovak Press Agency published the nominations on Dec. 28, 1940, and took Tuka and Mach by surprise. The attempts of the radicals to change the list of nominees failed. (T-175, R-531, 9403036, Letter, SD Bratislava, urgent, to SS Standartenführer Ohlendorf, Berlin, Dec. 29, 1940.)

45. Čas (Bratislava), Jan. 16, 1947, p. 2, Trial of Tiso et al. Dr.Paučo, Jozef claims that he himself brought the news to Ćatloś one Sunday in January 1941 (Paučo, Tak sa poznali, p. 167).Google Scholar Paučo represented the planned coup in simplistic terms as an independent initiative of the Hlinka Guard from the city of Ruzomberok. L'ubomír Lipták wonders whether the whole story of the coup was not a fabrication of Slovak Army Intelligence, aimed against the Hlinka Guard (“Politický režím na Slovensku v rokoch 1939–1945,” in Slovenské národné povstanie roku 1944 [Bratislava, 1965], pp. 28, 29).Google Scholar

46. A search of the archives in the West failed to locate any documents from January 1941 referring to the coup. This description, therefore, relies on later documents, testimonies in court, memoirs, and secondary sources. Cas (Bratislava), Aug. 8, 1946, p. 2, Trial of Tuka; Aug. 13, 1946, p. 2, Aug. 14, 1946, p. 1, Trial of Kubala; Dec. 18, 1946, p. 1, Jan. 12, 1947, p. I, Trial of Tiso et al.; Pravda (Bratislava), Dec. 17, 1946, Jan. 16, 1946, p. 2, Trial of Tiso et al. For further evidence, see footnotes 45 and 47.

47. Dispatches of Hans Elard Ludin, who replaced killinger as minister, demonstrate his discomfort with the way Killinger acted in Slovakia (T–120, R–2198, 338189–93, Dispatch, Ludin to the German Foreign Office, Jan. 17, 1941; T–120, R–2198, 338163–83, Dispatch, Ludin to the German Foreign Office, Jan. 29, 1941). Even if Killinger had been in Bratislava only on a “ war mission,” his transfer appears too sudden. Professor Charles Murin, once Tiso's personal secretary, is of the opinion it was the approaching crisis in Rumania that caused the transfer (Letter, Professor Murin to the author, Feb. 15, 1966). Luther's extremely cordial New Year's greeting to Killinger expressed the same idea as Murin. Nevertheless, Luther's cordiality and emphasis on the new responsibilities which had fallen on Killinger's shoulders in Bucharest leave an impression of consolation (T–120, R–2198, E08600–601, Letter, Luther to Killinger, Dec. 30, 1940). SD documents from 1944 also point to Killinger as instigator of the coup (T–175, R–541, 9415134, Dispatch, SD Bratislava to RSHA Berlin, May 2, 1944; T–175, R–541, 9386437, Dispatch, SD Bratislava to RSHA Berlion, Oct. 26, 1944). Cf. Král, Pravda, p. 296; Culen, Po svätopukovi, pp. 409, 462; Oddo, Slovakia, p. 283; Stanek, Zrada, p. 220; Ǧašpar, Tido J., “Zpämatí,” Slovenské pohlady, No. 9, 1968, pp. 110–11Google Scholar. Mr. Hans Gmelin, who since Jan. 13, 1941, served as the First Secretary of the German Legation in Bratislava, expressed in an interview with the author the opinion that Killinger was assigned to his Rumanian post long before he left Slovakia.

48. T–77, R–879, 5627575–83, Report, German Military Attaché in Slovakia to OKW, Jan. 22, 1941. Cf. T–120, R–336, 248530, Woermann's note to files, Jan. 24, 1941.

49. T–175, R–528, 938002, Note to the files, SD Vienna, Jan. 29, 1941.

50. T–77, R–879, 5627653, Dispatch, German Military Attaché in Bratislava to OKH, Jan. 16, 1941; T–77, R–879, 5627621, Dispatch, the Head of the German Military Mission in Slovakia to OKH, Jan. 17, 1941. Cf. T–120, R–336, 248514, Telegram, Ringelmann to the German Foreign Office, Jan. 10, 1941; Ĉas (Bratislava), Nov. 26, 1947, p. 2, Trial of the officers of the Slovak Army; Aug. 20, 1946, p. 3, Trial of Otomar Kubala; Dec. 18, 1946, p. 1, Trial of Tiso et al.; Pauco, Tak sa poznali, pp. 167–71.

51. Ibid. The German agents insisted that Tiso's desire to dominate the party's Secretary General was one of the reasons for choosing a weakling, Medrický, for this important post. Given Tiso's personality and psychology, one cannot easily dismiss this charge.

52. For sources, see footnotes 46, 47, and 50. Professor Murin, in a letter to the author of Feb. 15, 1966, expressed the opinion that Tuka's frequent interference in Čatloš' work caused the latter's change of mind.

53. Slovák (Bratislava), Jan. 23, 1941, Editorial. Cf. T–120, R–518, 9386538–55, which gives a full text of the speech. The “Guardist Slovakia” was supposed to furnish the counterpart to the “People's Slovakia.” Dr. Anton Endroes of the German Embassy had written the program of fourteen points. The diplomatic corps referred to it ironically as “the fourteen points of [President] Wilson” (T–120, R–2198, 338163, Dispatch, Ludin to the German Foreign Office, Jan. 29, 1941).

54. Slovák (Bratislava), Jan. 29, 1941, Editorial, “Náš prevrat a Strana” (Our Revolution and the Party). Cf. Ibid., p. 4, “Reč…o revolucií” (Talks about a Revolution).

55. T–175, R–531, 9403066, Slowakisches Pressbüro, Inlandsdienst, Janury 21, 1941; Vnuk, “Prvých šesť,” p. 76; T–120, R–2198, 33168, Report, Ludin to the German Foreign Office, Jan. 29, 1941.

56. T–120, R–2198, 338189–93, Dispatch, Ribbentrop to the German Foreign Office, Jan. 17, 1941.

57. A day before, on Jan. 20, 1941, the daily Slovák published a letter from an anonymous German praising Tiso's policy and condemning the attempts to establish Nazism in Slovakia. The publication resulted in an outburst of anger on the side Germans and HG radicals. The days between January 19 and 22 also saw important speeches by Tiso, Tuka, and Mach, and several other irritating articles in the press.

58. T–120, R–2198, 338189–93, Dispatch, Ludin to the German Foreign Office, Jan. 17, 1941; T–77, R–879, 567575–83, Report, German Military Attache to OKW, Jan. 22, 1941; T–120, R–2198, 338167, Dispatch, Ludin to the German Foreign Office, Jan. 29, 1941.

59. T–120, R–2198, 338163, Dispatch, Ludin to the German Foreign Office, Jan. 29, 1941.

60. T–175, R–531, 9403075, Report of the German adviser to the Hlinka Party, Hans Pehm, Jan. 23, 1941; T–120, R–336, 48530, Note to the files, Under Secretary of State Woermann, Jan. 24, 1941.

61. T–580, R–66, “Berliner Dokumente: Slowakische Politik um Mitte Januar 1941,” no date given; T–120, R–2198, 338163–83, Report, Ludin to the German Foreign Office, Jan. 29, 1941; T–120, R–2198, 338151–56, Dispatch, Ludin to the German Foreign Office, Feb. 5, 1941; T–580, R–66, “Berliner Dokumente: Slowakische Politik,” Mar. 31, 1941. Cf. Slovák (Bratislava), Jan. 28, 1941, Editorial and Mach's address, p. 4.

62. T–120, R– 336, 248533, Telegram, Endroes to Luther, Jan. 31, 1941.

63. T–120, R–2198, 338156, Dispatch, Ludin to the German Foreign Office, Feb. 4, 1941; T–120, R–2198, 338159, Letter, Ludin to Luther, Feb. 5, 1941.

64. For the evidence for this paragraph, see Jelínek, “Hlinka Party,” Chapters III–VIII.

65. German documents provide a great deal of information as to how and why the decisions were eventually taken. Rather detailed dispatches of the Reich's legation in Bratislava, as well as reports of the German military and SS men, and the bulletins of the Supreme Office for Education of the NSDAP enable one to piece together a good picture.

66. The German documents include clear indications for the future of Slovakia and the Slovaks. But that topic is outside the limits of this article. Cf. Yeshayahu Jelínek, “Bohemia-Moravia, Slovakia, and the Third Reich during the Second World War,” East European Quarterly, III, No. 3 (06 1969), 238.Google Scholar

67. T–120, R–2198, 338163–83, Report, Ludin to the German Foreign Office, Jan. 29, 1941. Cf. T–120, R–2198, 338189–93, Dispatch, Ludin to the German Foreign Office, Jan. 17, 1941.

68. Ibid.

69. Ibid. Cf. also pp. 245, 251, 253–54.

70. Ibid. Cf. T–77, R–879, 5627575, Report, the German Military Attaché to the OKW, Jan. 22, 1941.

71. Ibid.

72. T–120, R–2198, 338163–83, Report, Ludin to the German Foreign Office, Jan. 29, 1941. Cf. T–77, R–879, 5627653, Dispatch, the German Military Attaché to OKW, Jan. 16, 1941.

73. T–120, R–2198, 338189–93, Dispatch, Ludin to the German Foreign Office, Jan. 17, 1941. Cf. T–120, R–2198, 338163–83, Report, Ludin to the German Foreign Office, Jan. 29, 1941.

74. T–580, R–66, “Berliner Dokumente: Slowakische Politik,” Mar. 31, 1941.

75. Slovák (Bratislava), Feb. 4, 1941, p. 3, “Na okraj dňa: Rumúnsky príklad” (The Rumanian Example); Jan. 19, 1941, p. 4, “Reč o revolucií” (Talks about a Revolution).

76. Waldeck, Athene Palace, p. 75.