182 J.-A. PEMBERTON
out that the German Institute for Foreign Policy Research was under the
control of Ribbentrop and that its main function was that of propagan-
dising on behalf of the Third Reich’s foreign policy.^334
The ISC’s International Study Group on Colonial Problems had been
‘very anxious’ to obtain the collaboration of German colonial study
groups in preparing materials for submission to the peaceful change con-
ference in Paris. In particular, information was sought on German pre-
war colonial administration and the implications of the ‘present political
philosophy and practice in Germany would have for a possible German
colonial policy.’^335 Securing these materials, however, proved to be a
rather fraught process. Indeed, by late November 1936, it appeared that
German collaboration had come to a ‘dead end.’^336 Berber wanted the
IIIC to circulate the German materials but was adamant that the German
memoranda must not bear the imprint of either the LON or the IIIC.^337
Bonnet, however, insisted that he would not agree ‘under any circum-
stances’ to the distribution by the IIIC of any German memoranda with-
out a frontispiece bearing the names of these two institutions.^338
Christophersen, in his role as secretary-rapporteur of the International
Study Group on Colonial Problems, sought to negotiate a compromise
during meetings with an extremely busy Berber in Berlin in October and
November 1936. Berber told Christophersen in late October, that he
had been especially busy because he had to visit England once a fortnight
(^334) Bardo Fassbender, ‘Stories of War and Peace: On Writing the History of International
Law in the “Third Reich” and After,’ European Journal of International Law 13, no. 2
(2002): 479–512, 491–92. Bardo Fassbender records that after 1939, the Institute for
Foreign Policy ‘was closely associated with the Deutsche Informationsstelle (German Office
for Information), a propaganda institution working for the Foreign Office and also headed
by Berber. Perhaps Berber had originally conceived the Institute rather as a think-tank, but
Ribbentrop, eagerly following each of Hitler’s moves, was not interested in original or crit-
ical ideas....The Institute readily and continuously supported the Socialist policy of con-
quest. In the main, it appears, its publications abstained from using anti-Jewish or racist
language’ (ibid., 492).
(^335) Christophersen to Berber, 13 August 1936, Conférence permanente des études inter-
nationales: Groupes internationaux d’études, à partir du 1er juin jusqu’au 1er septembre
1936, AG 1-IICI-K-I-18.a, UA.
(^336) Gross to the Christophersen, 25 November 1936, AG 1-IICI-K-I-18.d, UA.
(^337) Christophersen to Bonnet, 28 and 29 October 1936, AG 1-IICI-K-I-18.d, UA.
(^338) Christophersen to Bonnet, 29 October 1936, and Gross to Christophersen, 4 and 25
November 4 1936, AG 1-IICI-K-I-18.d, UA.