I would imagine that the existence of the Karlspreis is proof enough that he did something. His role is as originator and disseminator of the whole rotten business. Can culpability be more certain? His intentions are plainly stated, are they not?
You seem rather more concerned at the possibly faulty attribution of an offence than in the offence itself. It would seem that this incredible plan is of less moment to you than the defence of the planner and the need to identify the exact role he plays. I find that rather sanguine for such a revelation, but no doubt you are concerned about fair play being done.
Richard von Coudenhove-Kalergi was a traitor?? Sorry what?? He betrayed people because of his ideology of European integration and unification?? I'm not quite sure how he's betraying people when during his lifetime, Europe was extremely divided, you know two massive, devastating wars that became global wars come to mind immediately!! Richard von Coudenhove-Kalergi didn't really hold any power to do anything, sure he promoted an ideology but people do that all the time, but he didn't hold office at the head of any government to take action so I don't see how he did anything you are claiming he did.
European integration is not what he was doing. He was mixing different races in a huge eugenics action to produce a human he approved of. Arrogant is not the word. Self-appointed God-like is closer. This intermixing was always going to be violent.
Any creative person will tell you that the idea is the valuable thing. Anyone can paint a Mona Lisa. Anyone can build a car, or make a television. It is the idea, the ideology, which is the be all and end all. Without him there would be no plan - he's the inventor and the others, the politicians, are just the operators putting it into action. And why even come up with an idea like that? The man is indefensible any way you look at it.
If the name of traitor is objectionable to you then choose another. But you can't deny what he did by disputing names.
Musashika.