Seyss-Inquart states in this connection that he had never written to the police directly at any time but that he had in three personal letters to Himmler directly objected to the treatment of Jews and that in one of his letters he had mentioned sterilization. This, presumably, was the cause for that witness mentioning it and presumably she gained knowledge of these facts through seeing the original or copy of the letter which Himmler may have passed on to the RSHA. My client has requested me that in this important question, I should make an attempt to obtain permission for these letters to be obtained, these letters which he has written to Himmler, in order to disprove the statement given by witness Hildegarde Kunze, which is implicating. I do not wish to conceal that it will probably be difficult to find those letters amongst the very many documents of the RSHA.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you made your application in writing about this?
DR. STEINBAUER: Yes, I have made a written application.
THE PRESIDENT: Giving the dates when the letters were written?
DR. STEINBAUER: Yes, everything I could ascertain regarding the time and when received and it is contained in my application.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will consider that but you understand that the work involved in this sort of thing is very great indeed.
DR. STEINBAUER: Mr. President, far be it from me to underestimate the difficulties which are connected with my application. Apart from this, I have no further application I wash to make.
THE PRESIDENT: You will adjourn now.
(A recess was taken until 1400 hours.)
(The Tribunal reconvened at 1405 hours, 3 July 1946.)
The PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will not sit in open session on Saturday next, nor will it sit in open session on any Saturday in the future unless it gives notice that it is going to do so.
Yes, Dr. Thoma.
DR. THOMA (Counsel for the defendant Rosenberg.) : Mr. President, yesterday I mentioned an affidavit of Dr. Heinz Oeppert, Reichshauptstellenleiter. I have now received this affidavit from Dr. Oeppert, and I have conferred with Mr. Dodd in this connection. Mr. Dodd has no objections to the submission of this affidavit on my part.
May I read but a brief passage taken from this affidavit, Mr. President ?
THE PRESIDENT : Can you tell us what the affidavit is about ?
DR. THOMA : Yes, Mr. President. Dr. Oeppert had the Office of Ideological Enlightnment for the Plenipotentiary who was charged with the enlightenment and education of the party in ideological matters, and he testified about the activity of this office. In this connection we are almost exclusively concerned with observation of matters and incidents in this sphere, party would not have been possible even if they had wished it, for this office had no executive powers of any kind. There were constantly very intense differences between the state and party organizations who participated in this sphere of activity, between the Propaganda Ministry and the Church and the Party and Chancellery. The measures taken against specific clergymen, as far as I know, were taken by the SD or the Gestapo. This will be Exhibit No. R-051.
THE PRESIDENT : Is anyone representing Dr. Fritz ?
DR. SCHILF : Dr. Schilf on behalf of Dr. Fritz, who is absent on behalf of the defendant Fritsche.
Mr. President, Dr. Fritz applied in writing last Monday concerning affidavits which are still outstanding, one an affidavit of Clifton Delmar a journalist, and the other an affidavit of His Excellence Feldscher, Ambassador of the Protective Power from Berne. Both of these affidavits have not reached us, and we are asking the High Tribunal if we may submit and be allowed these documents later.
I have no further comments. No other applications have been made.
THE PRESIDENT : I didn't hear the name of the second one. Was it Feldscher ?
DR. SCHILF : Ambassador Feldscher. He is now at Berne in Switzerland. He was the Ambassador of the Protective Power.
THE PRESIDENT : Have these affidavits been placed before the Prosecution
DR. SCHILF : No, Mr. President, they have not been submitted to the Prosecution. They have not been received; they have not reached us.
THE PRESIDENT : Are they affidavits or interrogatories ?
DR. SCHILF : They are two interrogatories, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT : I see. Well then, when the interrogatories come back answered, they can be shown to the Prosecution if they want to put in cross interrogatories, and then they can be translated and submitted to the Tribunal.
Dr. Schilf, there was an application -- I am not sure whether it was in writing or whether it was only oral -- with reference to Schoerner and Voss, and one other man, whose names were used in cross-examination by the Prosecution. I think they were affidavits; I am not sure, and there was an oral application, I think, to cross examine those persons. Do you want that to be done, or have you withdrawn that ?
DR. SCHILF : Mr. President, that application has not been withdrawn, but it was put in only as an auxiliary application, to have effect only if the interrogatory notes or records submitted by the Russian Prosecution would not be considered as affidavits, only interrogation records.
Dr. Fritz made application to this effect, that if these three documents were to be used as a basis of evidence, we cannot forego cross examination. There three documents were used in the examination of the defendant Fritsche only in part, and only short passages were submitted to the defendant in his examination in each instance.
THE PRESIDENT : What you want to say is that if the Prosecution don't want to use the whole of those documents, but only the parts which were put to the defendant Fritsche in the course of cross examination, then you don't need to have those persons called for cross examination, but if the Prosecution wish to put in the whole document, then you want to cross examine them. Is that right?
DR. SCHILF: Mr. President, that is correct.
THE PRESIDENT: Are you meaning that you are asking the Tribunal to strike out the passages in the defendant Fritsche's evidence which deal with these statements or are you merely meaning that if the prosecution wished to use not only the parts which they have put to the defendant in cross-examination but other parts of the document, that in that event you would like to cross-examination the deponents Voss and Schoerner ?
DR. SCHILF: Mr. President, only in the case of the three interrogatories in toto shall be accepted and considered pieces of evidence, then cross-examination shall take place.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, then you do mean what I first of all put to you. is wanting to put in the whole document or whether he has put enough of it in
GENERAL RUDENKO: Mr. President, as I have already stated to the Tribunal, when these written statements were submitted and the protocols of the interrogations were written down in accordance with the procedure which is in existence in the Soviet Union the Prosecution will only use these parts which were read here before the Tribunal and on which defendant Fritsche was cross-examined.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, then it is not necessary to have those witnesses brought here for cross-examination.
DR. SCHILF: Yes, indeed, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Then that brings the Tribunal to the end of all the evidence for the Defense, with the exception of two witnesses who are here and to be called on behalf of the defendant Bormann.
DR. FLAECHSNER: Mr. President, on behalf of the defendant Speer may I submit a document which has already been translated and is known to the Prosecution. This is the Fuehrer protocol of 4 January, 1943. This shall have the number Speer Exhibit 35. I had it in the table of contents, where it was included as Exhibit 35 but at that time it had not been translated. May I submit it, therefore, at this time ?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, certainly, on behalf of the defendants with the exception of interrogatories which have already been granted, the answers to which have not yet been received.
Of course, those interrogatories, subject to thier being admissible, will be admitted when the answers are received and that applies also to anything in the shape of an affidavit which has been allowed by the Tribunal but otherwise the evidence for the defendants is now closed with the exception of Dr. Bergold.
DR. SERVATIUS: (Counsel for defendant Sauckel): Mr. President, I have a question regarding the testimony of the witness Walkenhorst in case he is not called as a witness. I have an affidavit at my disposal which I have received and I assume that I may submit this in case this witness is not examined here before the Court. It deals with but a very brief question ; the telephone conversation which Sauckel had regarding the evacuation of the concentration camp Buchenwald and Walkenhorst was the man at the other end of the wire. This is the one question and I have an affidavit as to that. ask him but in case he is not examined here I may use the affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: You are speaking of Walkenhorst ?
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes, the witness Walkenhorst.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, he is going to be examined now.
DR. SERVATIUS: I hope so, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I believe he is here. they have all been dealt with in the discussion which we have had during the last two days. If there is any other matter which the defendants' counsel wish to raise they should raise it now. is now concluded, subject to the reception of documents which I may describe as outstanding, either interrogatories or affidavits.
DR. MARX: Mr. President, may I be permitted, please, to introduce three documents with the permission of the Tribunal. We are concerned with the following questions:
German population. This fact is decisive and how the circulation of this paper increased and it is important to know to what circumstances we can trace back the fact that at a certain period of time there was a marked increase in circulation, which actually did take place. "Stuermer" did increase its circulation.
THE PRESIDENT: We have already dealt with this application. We have had the application before us and we have considered it and we have refused it.
DR. MARX: Yes, I beg your pardon, Mr. President. ascertained that in the year 1935 a very sudden increase in circulation took place and the Prosecution would like to prove that this increase did not result from within the German people but rather that high Party functionaries and agencies used their influence in bringing about a threefold increase. Of course, it is of essential significance whether a three-fold increase results from a demand by the people or whether it is the result of the German Labor Front using its influence in the person of Dr. Ley and a special edition was given out and through Exploiting the huge machinery at the disposal of the Labor Front. of extreme significance to the Defense to determine which case applies.
In this direction, Mr. President, I have three pieces of proof or data and with the permission of the Tribunal I shall read a directive and I ask that I be allowed to use this as a piece of evidence from which we can conclude that Dr. Ley as the director of the German Labor Front, gave directives to all agencies of the German Labor Front to disseminate this special edition and to see to it that the greatest possible circulation be brought about amongst all workers and in factories. It is one of the most significant prints of the Prosecution, that the German people, through the "Stuemer" and through the defendant Streicher, was influenced in that manner and was later made ready to support those measures in the east, the mass destruction which was carried out in the east.
declared relevant.
THE PRESIDENT: You said you have got three documents. The first one is a directive.
DR. MARX: Yes, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: What are the other two ?
Dr. MARX: One is an excerpt from the newspaper the "Stuermer" in May 1935, edition number 18 and this statement reads as follows:
"Mr. Bernhardt, who fled from Berlin to Paris says under date of 29 March 1935, in the Paris dailies, under the heading "Stuermer circulation increases three fold " He says the following: -
"Support is being given by the highest agencies of the Reich as the circulation of the "Stuermer" shows in less than a year the circulation has increased three-fold through the help of the highest party -- "
THE PRESIDENT: Wait. You have already told us that the circulation of the Stuhrmer went up three fold. It is not necessary to repeat it all again. We only want to know what the documents are. The first one is a directive of Ley. The second one is an issue of the Stuermer. what is the third one?
DR. MARX: The third, Mr. President, is a summary of the circulation from January 1935 until the middle of October 1935, and from this summary we can see that within the period of one year, the circulation increased from 112,000 to 480,000.
THE PRESIDENT: That is sufficient. We do not want to know any more about it.
DR. MARX: Very well, Mr. President. Then, may I be permitted-
COLONEL PHILLIMORE: It is entirely in the hands of the tribunal, but we should see no objection from the Prosecution point of view admitting these documents. The first would appear to directly link the defendant Streicher with another of the conspirators. It would be a most important document.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, Dr. Marx. The three documents will be admitted.
DR. MARX: I should like to submit the documents under Exhibit Numbers 19, 20, and 21.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. MARX: I beg your pardon, Mr. President. May I make one more remakr? This matter came about in this way and was delayed in this manner, for I personally did not know anything about this. It was only by accident that heard from the records of the Stuermer, and of my own initiative I considered it to have a probitive value. I himbly beg your pardon for submitting this material at this late date.
DR. SAUTER (Counsel for Defendants Funk and Schirach): Mr. President, I, of course, do not wish to put a further application, but I should like to put a legal question in order to clarify it.
At this time in the Commissions interrogations are being carried on in order to gather evidence with regard to the organizations.
In this connection, witnesses are being interrogated, witnesses whom we here do not know, and documents which we do not know are being submitted in these interrogations. Only in the course of the next few weeks will we of the Defense know the results or the findings of the material gathered in these commissions.
We. the Defense attorneys who are active in this Court, have in mind the following case: It could be, for instance, that one of these defendants in the dock, on the basis of a now witness' statement, could be involved and accused as a member of one of the organizations, or that documents would be submitted, documents to which we, as Defense Counsel for those defendants, have to show our attitude, or use them in refutation.
We. are quite agreed that the taking of evidence and the presentation of evidence be concluded here. However, we wish to reserve the right in case of that kind-
THE PRESIDENT: I think you will find when you look carefully at the order which the Tribunal made, that this matter was provided for, and that if there is any matter in the course of the hearing of the case against the organizations which in any way materially or directly affects any of the individual defendants, the Tribunal, of course, has discretion to hear counsel for that defendant upon the matter, and I think that is psecifically dealth with in the order that we have made.
DR. SAUTER: This resolution is known to us, of course, Hr. President, but we just wanted to be clear on this point, that this regulation will be maintained and be in force, even though our presentation of evidence here will be concluded.
THE PRESIDENT: Certainly. Tribunal?
COLONEL PHILLIMORE: I have eight documents to put in. My Lord, they are documents which it is intended to refer to in the final speech and accordingly I would not propose to do more than just to indicate their nature to the Tribunal and put them in very quickly. I have a list of them which I will hand up first. It may be convenient to see their nature.
THE PRESIDENT: Are they documents which have not yet been offered in evidence?
COLONEL PHILLIMORE: Yes, My Lord; I am offering them in rebuttal.
THE PRESIDENT: You have a list here?
COLONEL PHILLIMORE: Yes, My Lord. My Lord, the first document, 1519-PS-
THE PRESIDENT: Have they been communicated to the defendants' counsel?
COLONEL PHILLIMORE: No, My Lord; I have copies here. of Soviet prisoners of war. My Lord, that is not strictly offered in rebuttal, but theTribunal has before it a document, EC 338, which was put in as USSR 356. That document consisted of a commentary by Admiral Canaris on these orders, and your Lordship may remember the document. Defendant Keitel had made certain notes on it on which he was crossexamined, the reference in the shorthand notes being pages 7219 to 7223. My Lord, it seems appropriate that the actual orders should be before the Court and not merely the commentary. it consists of a covering letter from the Defendant Bormann to Gauleiters and Kreisleiters, covering the OKW letter signed by General Reinecke, the head of the Prisoners of War Department, and then there follow the actual regulations.
THE PRESIDENT; Has not this been in before?
COLONEL PHILLIMORE: My Lord, I am told not. What was put in was the commentary on this document which was by Admiral Canaris. It was included in the Keitel document book, but it was not formally put in.
THE PRESIDENT: I see. You mean it will be GB -
COLONEL PHILLIMORE: 525, My Lord.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
COLONEL PHILLIMORE: My Lord, the second document, D-912, will be GB 526. This is a series of boradcasts from German stations between 6 September and 22 October 1939, monitored by the British Broadcasting Corporation and dealing with the "Athenia."
My Lord, I offer that document in view of the defendant Raeder's evidence. The Tribunal will remember that, according to him, the article on the 23 October in the Voelkischer Beobachter came as a complete surprise. The reference in the shorthand notes is page 9832.
to the defendant, Fritsche, and it confirms his evidence that broadcasts blaming Mr. Winston Churchill for being responsible for the sinking of the "Athenia" started at the early part of September and went right on through the month. Actually, these broadcasts, the Tribunal will see -The first one 6 September. I might perhaps one sentence in the second line:
"The German press refutes the accusations of the British press that a German submarine had sunk the 'Athenia'. Churchill, as one of his first actions, ordered the 'Athenia' to be sunk in order to stir up antiGerman feeling in the USA." again on the 7th, the 11th, the 25th. I have not got the one on the 27th put in by General Rudenko, but there is one by the defendant Fritsche on 1 October, and so on, culminating with a broadcast by Goebbels on the 22nd, the day before the article appeared. My Lord, that will be GB 626. before the Peoples' Court on 7 and 8 August 1944, when seven defendants were tried for the attempt on Hitler's life. My Lord, I am only putting in a translated extract, but the photostat is in fact complete -- I should have said what is before the Tribunal is on a translation of certain extracts, but the exhibit contains the complete record of the proceedings.
THE PRESIDENT: Unless we have it translated, we shan't be able to have it in evidence.
COLONEL PHILLIMORE: My Lord, we do not intend to refer to more than the translated excerpt.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
COLONEL PHILLIMORE: I only said that for the benefit of defense counsel, who may wish to look elsewhere.
My Lord, I put that in in view of the defendant Jodl's evidence that it was only because British Generals obeyed orders that the German Generals were now being tried. That is page 11043 of the shorthand notes. The nature of the passages is that the President of the People's Court is refusing to accept the defense of superior orders put forward by the defendant. That will be GB-527, My Lord. a Gauleiter to Gauamtsleiters, Gauinspektors, and Kreisleiters on the subject of the law of hereditary health, and sterilization on the ground of imbecility. It is an important document in connection with the defendant Frick, and I put it in in view of the statements made on his behalf by his counsel at page 8296 of the shorthand notes, My Lord, when he said in effect that Frick had no control over the political police and that Himmler's subordination to him was purely nominal. that the decree -- and indeed its administration -- was the responsibility of the defendant Frick. My Lord, the next document is of a similar nature and I attribute it to the same page of the shorthand notes. It is M-151, and I offer it as GB-529. It consists of three letters on the subject of the murder of mental patients in institutions. The first is dated the 6th of September and is addressed by the supervisor of a sanitorium at Stettin to the Reich Minister of Justice. It sets out the feeling of insecurity in the neighborhood of the sanitorium administered by this inspector, in viewof the number of deaths which are occurring. acknowledging the complaint and saying that it has been passed on to the defendant Frick.
The third, of the same date, is the Minister's letter to his colleague passing the complaint on to him.
My Lord, the next document is again on the same subject. It is M-152, and I offer it as GB-530. It consists of four letters. Frick as Reich Minister of the Interior, by Bishop Wurm, the Provincial Bishop of the Wuerthemberg Evangelical Provincial Church. My Lord, it again sets out the mass of complaints he is receiving, and then goes on to deal with the wickedness of the practice which is apparently going on. Minister of Justice referring to the letter cent the defendant Frick. Frick reminding him of the previous letter of the 19th of July to which no reply had been received. communication again to the Minister of Justice. is a note on the Minister of Justice's file indicating that an official of the Ministry had informed the Bishop's Dean, presumably being Kemka, that the matter was entirely one for the defendant Frick. pamphlet prepared by the German Military Government authorities in Belgium. It comes from the files of the German War Office, the OKH, and it is entitled, "Belgium's Contributions to Germany's War Economy", and it is dated the 1st of March, 1942. occupation was benevolent. The Tribunal has heard, again and a gain, the suggestion that they did a great deal of good to the countries they occupied. This document is a very graphic illustration of the falsity of that evidence out of the mouths of the defense.
If I might take the Tribunal very quickly through it, My Lord: and it shows that more than half the working population was working for Germany.
Of the 1,800,000 workers and employees in Belgium, 901,280 were employed with the German armed forces and in the German interests. in terms of percentage of workers employed as slave labor. Belgian contribution to Germany, and in the 7th line, I think it is, it is summed up: Output to the value of 1.2 million Reichsmarks. and the same amount produced in the year in the Ruhr. used in the West wall.
Page 9 deals with cement; page 10, textiles; and page 11, metals. up of what had been taken out:
"It was possible to achieve these results only by exhausting the last reserves of the country." individuals. It is a comparison between Belgium, Holland and France. there is a chart on page 14. total earned income of the Belgian workers for the last year. for safekeeping in the Reichsbank. of I. G. Farben, the comparison being seven hundred million Reichsmarks as against the share capital of I. G. Farben of eight hundred million. had imported food into Belgium, but that, despite that, the rationing was the lowest of all Western countries. the Belgian rations by a comparison between 1938 and under the benevolent rule of the German military Government in 1941. My Lord, it speaks for itself.
France. It comes from the same source, and I offer it as GB-532. to finish photostating the English copies, but I will hand them in, if I may, subsequently. For the moment I will hand up German photostats.
My Lord, I offer it in view of the defendant Sauckel's evidence, at page 10617 of the shorthand notes, where he said that the total slave labor figure was not more than five million. My Lord, at pages 8 and 9 of this document, the Tribunal will see the slave labor position of Germany at the end of 1943, so that to this must be added slave labor drawn in during 1944. My Lord, it amounts to just under seven million, of which 1,462,000 were prisoners of war, so that the figure of slave labor, at that date, was slightly over five million; that is, slave labor excluding prisoners of war was slightly over five million, and to that, as I say, one must add the increase during 1944.
My Lord, on Page 8 are the figures and comparisons:
Men, civilians, 3,631,000:
Prisoners of Mar, 1,462,000; of it They were taken from France, are very similar to those in the case of Belgium. I would not propose to take the Tribunal through it unless it is desired that I should do so.
My Lord, that is all the documents that I have to offer. I understand myfriend, Mr. Dodd, has some.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: May it please the Tribunal; at the time of the cross-examination of the defendant, Hermann Goering, we confronted him with a document, numbered 3787-PS. It was received as U.S.A. Exhibit 762. It was the report of the second meeting of the Reich Defense Council. Goering acknowledged the authenticity of the minutes when they; ere presented to him in the German text. But the document at that time had not been translated, and consequently it was not possible to read into the record the many parts of that document which we considered important as bearing upon his credibility and testimony, and as bearing upon the denials of many others of the defendants that they knew of the planning of the war and that they participated in it. consider extremely important as rebuttal of testimony received from several of the defendants. of July, 1939, from the Supreme Command of the Armed Forces, on the subject, "2nd Meeting of the Reich Defense Council."
One hundred copies were prepared, and our copy is the 84th. It is labeled, "Most Secret", and merely transmits in the name of the Chief of the Supreme Command of the Armed Forces, the enclosed document to the following parties, among others. I shall name only the ones to which we have attached some importance.
To the Party, the Fuehrer's Deputy, the first copy; to the Chief of the Reich Chancellery; to the Ministerpraesident General Field Marshal Goering; to the Reich Air Ministry and the Commander in Chief of the Air Force; to the Foreign Office; to the General Plenipotentiary for Reich Administration, there are nine copies, including one for the Ministry of the interior, the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Education, the Ministry for Church Affairs, and the Reich Office for Planning. including copies for the Ministry of Economy, the Ministry of Food and Agriculture, the Ministry of Labour, the Chief Forester, and the Commissioner for Price Control; to the Ministry of Finance, the Ministry of Transport, Motor Transport and Roads, and the Ministry of Railways; the Post Ministry; the Ministry of Enlightenment and Propaganda; the Reichsbank Directorate; the General Inspector of German Roads; and to the Armed Forces, including ten copies for the OKH six copies for the OKM, the Reich Minister for Air and Commander in Chief of the Air Force; the Supreme Command of the Armed Forces. Defense Council held on a date to which we attach importance, the 23rd of June, 1939.
"Place: Large conference Room of the Reich Air Ministry.
"Commencement: 1110 "Termination:
1300.
"President: Ministerpraesident General Field Marshal Goering.
"Persons present: --" the list is very long:
The Fuehrer's Deputy, the Chief of the Reich Chancellery (Dr. Lammers), Reichsministerpraesident General Field Marshal Goering's staff, Secretary of State Koerner, Secretary of State Neumann, Councillor Bergbohm, and several others.
General Plenipotentiary for Reich Administration: Reichsminister Frick, Reichsfuehrer --SS Himmler, General of the Regular Uniformed police Daleuge; General Plenipotentiary for Economy:
Reichsminister Funk; the Reichsminister of Finance, Kresigk; Minister of Transport; General Inspector of German Roads, Dr. Todt; Supreme Command of the Armed Forces; Generaloberst Keitel, Warlimont; and Generalmajor Thomas. Artillery Haider; Supreme Command of the Navy, Grossadmiral Raeder; Reich Minister for Air: Milch and Bodenschatz.
The minutes of the meeting:
"Ministerpraesident General Field Marshal Goering emphasized, in a preamble that, according to the Fuehrer's wishes, the Reich Defence Council was the determining body in the Reich for all questions of preparation for war.
It is to discuss only the most important questions of Reich Defence. They will be worked out by the Reich Defence Committee.
"Meetings of the Reich Defence Council are to be convened only for these d e c i s i o n s which are unavoidable. It is urged that the Departmental Chiefs themselves be present.
"B. DISTRIBUTION OF LABOUR. "I. The President announced the following directives to govern the distribution and employment of the population in wartime.
"The total strength of the Armed Forces is determined by the Fuehrer. It includes only half the number of those fit and liable for military service. Nevertheless, their disposition will involve difficulties for economy the administration and the whole of the civil sphere.
"When a schedule of manpower is made out, the basis on which the question is to be judged is how the remaining number, after those required for the Armed Forces have been withdrawn, can be most suitably employed.
"Of equal importance to the requirements of the Armed Forces are those of the Armament Industry. It, above all, must be organised in peace-time, materially and as regards personnel, in such a way that its production does not decrease but increases immediately with the outbreak of war.
"The direction of labour to the vital war armament industry and to other civilian requirements is the main task of the General Plenipotentiary for Economy.
"War armament covers not only the works producing war materials, but also those producing synthetic rubber (Buna), armament production tools, hydrogenation works, coal mining etc.
"As a rule, no essential and irreplaceable workers may be taken away from "war decisive" factories, on whose production depends the course of the war, unless they can be replaced.