Recent events suggest that if stuff like that isn't considered at the top, a hierarchy of yes-men won't fill that gap. Note that "made ... a priority" does not necessarily mean "got involved in actual decisions"
Not really, because in a hierarchy like that, credit falls upwards to the highest level that didn't actively ignore the problem. Even if a leader just signs off a suggestion to prioritize it's still him making it a priority, not the person suggesting.
This is what I was asking for: whether there is evidence that he himself made a deliberate decision or at least consciously acknowledged it.
Such details can be of importance. When Ernst von Weizsäcker was tried in the last Nuremberg trial, one of the most important pieces of evidence was a document countersigned by him on the deportation of French jews to Auschwitz. Without this evidence it would not have been possible to proof his knowledge. And even in the light of this evidence it was still debatable to what extent personal responsibility arose from this. The presiding judge wanted to acquit v. Weizsäcker, but was overruled by the other two judges.
But it means, he and nobody else made ... a priority.