It says there the Plenipotentiary for manpower on the 5th January -- it is 204 in my book and in the English text it should also be 204.
THE PRESIDENT: Probably that 8000 should be 800.
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes. Yes, it should be 800. I have also mentioned that document already and read the central parts from it. essential parts. same lines, the essential that in 1943 they had the same tendency as they had before. They show the same tendency as before.
Document 86 is a speech of the 24th August '43 to the presidents of the labor offices. Here again Sauckel stresses in his speech responsibility of the labor presidents, his basic principles which he has mentioned here frequently. He adheres to that on the 17th January '44. That is document 88. Again in his speech before his presidents, by stressing that point of view, and by saying: The foreign workers have to be treated better and better, and in the end: "The more I do for the foreign laborers working in Germanh, the better I treat they , the more I influence them spiritually, to that much larger extent will I have their productive capacities at my disposal." And that was shortly -- two months before he succeeded in the equalization between foreign and domestic workers.
THE PRESIDENT: We have heard the defendant Sauckel explain.
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: That the work was carried on. And will you tell us where the group of speeches -- how far does the group go?
DR. SERVATIUS: It does up to and including document 89.
Document 94 I have read already. Document 95, 96, 97 I have already read as far as necessary. And that brings me to the end of the presentation of documents. Now, I would have to mention affidavit which is attached to document book by the Witness Karl Goetz.
I submit, then, as Exhibit No. 10 an affidavit by Karl Goetz. That is an interrogatory Which has been submitted very early, and therefore was kept in a general way, because details at that time were not very apparent. Therefore, the witness could not say anything specific to a number of questions. he has given, and also in answering the questions raised by the prosecution, he refers to that introduction. Therefore, I believe that I have also to read these passages from the introduction.
The affidavit is of the 20th of March, 1946. From the introduction, I should like to emphasize on the second page where it mentions a conference in Paris that witness Goetz was a banking expert in Weimar in southern Thuringia, who assisted Sauckel and his staff. He was a statistician and took part in the negotiations with Laval. He said that negotiations led to a long conference, and according to his observations, "in correct and polite manner. Laval took notice of Sauckel's proposal and agreed to accede to his demand. But he made counterporposals for political reasons." less significance.
Then he said again on the third pa*e, "During a later conference in Paris the proceedings were similar. Laval had assumed a stiffer attitude, and he pointed out that great difficulties had to be overcome before additional workers could be procured. He emphasized that the French labor employment should not be stripped of its best forces."
I believe I can turn on to Page 4. The witness says, "My last mission for Sauckel was to determine whether it was possible by means of pooling all banking connections to purchase an additional amount of grain from Rumania and Hungary (about 50-100,000 tone of grain). This grain was to be used for additional luncheon br*ad to be distributed to foreign laborers."
Then he says that that could never be worked out, in fact. Then he gives a general impression of Sauckel, and says briefly that Sauckel approached that task with his particular energy, and pointed out frequently that it was the major duty of the various offices to see to the correct treatment of workers at their place of employment.
Then he described the details. First of all, he demanded that foreign workers should not have the feeling of being imprisoned, and he continues by saying that he believes that Sauckel said that the workers had to be returned at their native countries as German propaganda agents. of atrocities. I should like to read on Page 6 in order to show what kind of person this Goetz is.
THE PRESIDENT: What page is your excerpt from?
DR. SERVATIUS: Page 6, or Page 266 of the document book, at the top of the page.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Go on.
DR. SERVATIUS: It says: "I feel that I should mention that following my arrest by the Gestapo after the affair of 20 July 1944, Sauckel spoke in my behalf with Security Headquarters (Kaltenbrunner?). I cannot say whether my discharge from the concentration camp Ravensbrueck was thereby affected.
" I wish to state that I have not received from Sauckel any material remuneration nor have I received honorary titles or decorations.
" I found it expedient to conceal from him my own political convictions and also my connections with Goerdeler and Popitz. In his blind obedience to Hitler, and in spite of our old friendship, he would no doubt have handed me over to the Gestapo, from which he endeavored to free me in November, 1944." who was then active in the staff of Sauckel, takes position on a question which is interesting to all of us. He says:
"I am thinking how the above conditions compare with the official publication of gruesome conditions as they were found to exist in concentration camps. In spite of my concentration, I have not been able to come to any definite conclusion on this subject. I perceive on one side the foreign workers -
THE PRESIDENT: What page is this? Page 265?
DR. SERVATIUS: Page 265. It is near the top of the page. Where it is in the English text, I cannot say; but it should be Page 265.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. SERVATIUS: "I perceive on one side the foreign workers, men and women, who circulate freely and in great numbers, and associate with the German people. I had a personal interest to speak with Frenchmen and Belgians. They were happy to hear and to converse in their native tongue. They were speaking freely, hoping the war would soon end. They were critical of their employment, but they never spoke very bitterly. On the other side appears the unbearable picture of the new revealed mass atrocities. It was known that foreign workers were tried and sentenced. But it was not known that mass sentences were handed down. They probably became the victims of the same punitive measures and miscarriage of justice as was applied to the Germans. But that had really nothing to do with the employment of labor. I find it impossible to reconcile what I heard and what I saw in those days with the present revelations. It is possible that the above is a development which took place in the last year and a half. I was not able to observe the situation during that time because of my arrest, and the time I spent in seclusion in the country. It is also possible that there existed a vast concentration camp pool besides the regular pool of foreign workers. It is also possible that Sauckel was not able to supervise the whole system clearly, and was not informed of certain phases, or that he deceived himself with his written and oral orders. I an unable to understand the latter course." witness has stood on the side of the men of the 20th of July and certainly observed Sauckel carefully; and his judgement has to be taken very seriously. relevant; also, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. All of those are answers which are of minor importance when compared to Question 10, which is on Page 276. The question was "Who was responsible for billeting, maintenance, and messing of foreign workers after they had arrived at the place of work?"
And the answer was: "I heard only that, from, the moment work was started, the responsibility rested on the work manager (and in most cases on subordinated employees)."
Question 11 is: "What order did Sauckel issue for the treatment of these workers in the plants?"
introduction which I have read.
The next questions, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 are irrelevant. Question 18 is: "Did Sauckel receive reports about irregular conditions? What measures did he take? Do you know of any individual cases?"
Answer: "I remember only one case. Sauckel was informed that the workers of a certain plant were still housed in a barbed wire enclosed camp. I cannot recollect the none of the place or the plant concerned. I heard that he ordered the immediate removal of the enclosure."
Then we come to the questions which are put by the prosecution. I believe that Question 1 is not relevant, because it deals with the personal relations to Sauckel, and how he met him. He met him as a prisoner of war.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Servatius, Mr. Riddle thinks that the prosecution ought to be asked to read, anything they wish to out of those interrogatories.
M. HERZOG: The prosecution, Mr. President, does not wish to read any excerpts from this cross examination,
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Servatius, you know that the witness Jaeger is present, do you not?
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes, he is present.
THE PRESIDENT: You know he is present.
DR. SERVATIUS: Then with the permission of the Tribunal, I will call the witness Jaeger.
DR. WILHELM JAEGER, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows: BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q Will you state your full name. please?
A Dr. Wilhelm Jaeger.
Q Will you repest this oath after me: and will withold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath.)
THE PRESIDENT: You may sit down. BY, DR. SERVATIUS: of caring for the camps of foreign workers as a doctor?
Q Is that true?
Q Who put you in charge there?
A I was apponted by the firm of Krupp. which employed me, since the change war brought about by the fact that the organization of doctors had to take over the care of foreign workers.
Q Were you not also put in charge by the German Labor Front?
A No. The Labor Front aid have the contract which was made between the firm of Krupp and myself. It went through the German Labor Front.
Q If I unerstand you correctly. you did not conclude the contract immediately with the labor Front, but you were under obligations to the German Labor Front, were you not? respect. about the conditions in the camps?
A That happened only in a few cases as near as I can remember. Mostly, I sent these reports to the hospitalization agency and to the firm of Krupp.
Q Didn't you also report to the official work inspectorate?
A Not always. I reported to the health office of the City of Essen, but only in urgent cases in which it appeared, important to me to have the health office informed.
Q Do you know of the office of health and national protection?
Q With what office was that connected?
Q Not as far as the locality is concerned, but with what office was it? Wasn't it with the German Labor Front?
A I could not say that precisely. I only know that there was a department of that with the hospitalization agency in Essen. Labor Front?
Q Always as far as their health was concerned?
Q Do you know of the institution of the Gau camp doctors? not succeed. At the time when we had just come through a typhus epidemic I approached the Gau Health Leader -- that was a Dr. Heinz Buehler -- and I suggested to him instituting such an office; then, also, in a meeting I spoke about a air, but I did not hear anything about that any more from the Gau Health Leader
Q How many camps,did you supervise?
A That varied. First there may have been five or six; then later maybe seven teen or eighteen; then again they were reduced to a lower figure. But I am not able at this moment to give you these figures exactly.
Q What was your task?
Q Did you have anything to do with the treatment of sick workers? sonally tried to care for individual cases in the camps whenever I inspected the self in the camps?
A Yes. When I was in any camp I was asked by the camp doctors and I advised them.
Q What was the job of the camp doctors? sick ones in general.
Q So your activity was a supervisory one? court room. is that true?
Q You have been in Nurnberg before, in this building here? That was when the proceedings statrted?
Q Did you sign an affidavit about the conditions in the Krupp camps?
Q I will put this affidavit to you. This is an affidavit of 15 October, '45 Did you give that affidavit as a witness for the prosecution? made at that time?
Q I shall read the statements to you: "My name is Dr. Wilhelm Jaeger. I am a Physician in Essen --"
The PRESIDENT: Dr. Servatius, we can't have the whole document read to him. You can put to him anything you want to challenge him upon.
DR. SERVATIUS: Very well. BY DR. SERVATIUS:
Q You say, at about the middle of the third page: "I began my work with an overall inspection of the camps. At that time, in October of '42, I found the following conditions: --" and you go on to say: "The eastern workers were house in the following camps: Seumannstrasse, Grieperstrasse, Spendlestrasse, Haegstras Germaniastrasse --"
THE PRESIDENT: Are you challenging that?
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Where were these camps?
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes, that is what I want to ask him.
BY DR. SERVATIUS:
Q Did these camps exist at the time?
A So far as I can remember. One has to take into consideration that until I started my work I did not know at all what camps existed. In a meeting which had been called of Physicians of various nationalities, I asked first of all what kind of camps there were; one didn't know it. Thereupon, first a list was brought which mentioned these camps. that these camps existed at that time, in October, '42? ginning of my activities. Also, I had to go to each one of these camps personally and I had to depend entirely upon myself. will look at the second page of the document, you said the following; "The food for the Eastern workers was quite unsatisfactory. They received one thousand callories per day less than the minimum for Germans, --"
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Servatius, below the names of the camps, he says: "All surrounded by barbed wire and were closely guarded." I understand you are challenging that? BY DR, SERVATIUS:
Q But you don't know whether that was the same in the case of all camps, do you?
A The camps which I visited where they didn't know me yet, for instance, Kraemerolatz and Dechenschule, they were closely guarded and I had to show my credentials in order to get in.
Q I repeat the question concerning the food. You said the Eastern workers received one thousand callories per day less than the minimum for Germans; whereas German workers who did hard work received five thousand callories per day, the eastern workers who performed the same kind of work received only two thousand callories per day. Is that true?
A That was true at the beginning of my activities. The Food for Eastern workers, as I could see from the list, was established, and there was a difference in the supply for Eastern workers.
The five thousand callories which I mentioned here were given to specific categories of German workers who did the hardest type of work. That was not generally established.
DR. SERVATIUS: I submit to the Tribunal a copy of this chart. That is a table of callories to which the individual categories of workers were entitled. It begins with the 9th of February, '42, and it shows the individual quotas for types of workers, and on the last page there is a summary of the average quotas of callories which were appropriated. BY DR. SERVATIUS: Q It is shown there in the summary, Group I, Eastern workers and Soviet prisoners of War, average workers 2651 callories; heavy workers 2615; heaviest workers 2909; agricultural workers 2444. Are you familiar with these figures?
Q Will you compare what the German workers received; the normal consumer 2846 callories; heavy workers 3159; heaviest type of work 3839; agricultural workers 2046. Is that inaccord with your statement, according to which you said that German heaviest workers received five thousand callories whereas the Eastern workers received only two thousand?
THE PRESIDENT: It is very hard to follow these figures unless you give us the exact page. Are you on the last page?
DR. SERVATIUS: On the last page there is a summary -
THE PRESIDENT: Well, which page are you on?
DR. SERVATIUS: On the last page, the last sheet on the right side. First are the nutritional groups 1, 2, 3 on various pages, and then 011 the last page on the right side, next to Group 3, there is a summary of callories for Eastern workers, for Germans and for Poles; and if you compare here the columns, the amount of callories, then that should be according to what the witness has stated here. He picked out the heaviest workers and says that the Germans received five thousand. The table shows that they only received 3839. And he says the eastern workers received two thousand whereas, according to the table, they received 2800. That is, instead of a proportion of five thousand to two thousand, it is from 2800 to 3800, and that is a thousand callories and not, as the witness has said here, three thousand callories. Is that correct? Do you stand on your -
THE PRESIDENT: I din't hear the witness' answer.
DR. SERVATIUS: A difference has to be made here -
MR. DODD: I think it would be more helpful to the Tribunal and certainly to the Prosecution if it was established who made up this chart and whether or not the figures given here cover the camps where this witness had jurisdiction. From looking it over I can't tell where it was made up, except on the front page it says: According to food Schedule by Dr. Hermann Schall, Medical Superintendent of the Sanitarium West End. Calculations of controlled victuals for the community camps of the firm Krupp.
And so on. But these things can be made up by the bale and presented to witnesses. Unless there is some foundation laid, I think it is an improper way to cross examine.
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, I have an affidavit here which explains to the Tribunal where that table comes from.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you ever seen this chart before?
DR. SERVATIUS: It is the affidavit of the witness Hahn.
THE WITNESS: Was a question put to me, please?
DR. SERVATIUS: The witness has the original. May I ask the witness to return the document to me?
THE WITNESS: I wanted to make a statement. At the beginning of my activity, the Eastern worker's food definitely differed from that of the German population and also that of the so-called Western workers, the French and Belgiums and so on. It can be seen from the figures that, even though it might not be in thousands, at least there is a difference of 700 to 800 calories In thebeginning -- until I believe February or March 1943 -- the Eastern workers received neither additional rations for long work, heavy work or heaviest work. These additional quotas were given only after a decree by Sauckel, and that was, if I remember correctly, at the beginning of 1943. At that time, if I remember correctly, the Eastern workers were put on an equal footing with the German workers, as far as food was concerned, and they received quotas for long work, for heavy work and for heaviest work, additional quotas that they had not received before. BY DR. SERVATIUS: table may be right but that, in fact, the workers did not receive that which we find listed on the table. Did I understand you correctly? table shows a difference of about 1,000. workers, of workers doing the heaviest type of work, such as miners, and that they received up to 5,200 calories, but that was not general. There were only special workers, specially skilled workers up to 5,200 calories. that. You say generally that, whereas the German worker who did the heaviest type of work received 5,000 calories, the Eastern workers who did the same type of work received only 2,000 calories per day.
That is a general statement, is it not, and it can not be seen therefrom that you are referring to exceptional cases of individual types of workers.
Is that correct? way.
THE PRESIDENT: Now, where does this chart come from, and are you putting it in? Will you put it in?
DR. SERVATIUS: In the affidavit the following assertion is made, and the witness has said clearly that at that time the workers doing the heaviest type of work, if they were German, received 5,000 calories, and if they were Eastern workers, received only 2,000. That is a very clear statement in the affidavit, which is not according to the table.
THE PRESIDENT: Are you offering it in evidence?
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: What will it be? What number will it be?
DR. SERVATIUS: That wall be Exhibit No. 11.
THE PRESIDENT: Does the affidavit refer to the chart?
DR. SERVATIUS: I asked concerning the affidavit whether it is correct.
THE PRESIDENT: No, I asked whether the affidavit refers to and identifies the chart, the chart which the witness has just had in his hand.
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Servatius, you have put in an affidavit by Walter Hahn. Does that affidavit mention the chart and say where the chart comes from and by whom it was made up, to what it refers?
DR. SERVATIUS: The affidavit which is here as document D-288 does not mention the chart, but the affidavit which I have submitted -
Yes, now I have understood. That is the affidavit by the witness Hahn, and the chart is attached and it is covered by the affidavit made out by that witness. That document I submit in evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: I said the affidavit by Walter Hahn--does it identify and attach to the chart? What page is it? There are seven pages, you know. we can not find it unless you tell us.
DR. SERVATIUS: In the German text on page four.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, do you mean where it says, "The percentage of calories contained in this foodstuff results from the calorie schedule covering the whole war time appendix"? Is that waht you mean?
That is on page four of our copy. It is under the heading "C","Food Supply of French Prisoners of War and Italian Military Internees."
DR. SERVATIUS: That is there where I have said before, on page four in the German text, which says that the nutrition quotas were established according to the calories, and the calories can be seen from the calculations which I have made and which cover the entire duration of the war, and that is the document attached.
THE PRESIDENT: But, it is all right to say that the document is attached, but it does not refer to it by any name.
DR. SERVATIUS: But the document is attached, so that it can be seen that it must belong to it.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
MR. DODD: Mr. President, I do not want to be contentious about this, but--maybe I do not understand--I think we ought to knew when this schedule was made, by whom. This affidavit says it was an appendix. Maybe it was made by the man Hahn, but we do not know it yet, and this witness has not testified to it, and Counsel has not told us.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Dodd, the position is this, is it not: The man named Walter Hahn made an affidavit, annexted to this chart. That affidavit is dated, I imagine-
MR. DODD: Yes, 1946.
THE PRESIDENT: -- after the affidavit had been made by this witness and replies in detail to the evidence given by this witness.
MR. DODD: Yes. What I wanted to understand fully was that this schedule, concerning which this witness is being cross examined, was apparently not made up at the time when he had responsibility for these camps, and so far it does not appear from the examination that that is so, and I think it would have great bearing on the weight of the evidence adduced through the cross-examination. he had nothing to do with thefeeding and care of these workers after they came into Germany but that it was the responsibility of the DAF. I think it might be more helpful if Counsel cleared that up so that we wouldknow whether he does admit responsibility after they came in, and whether that is the purpose of this cross examination.
THE PRESIDENT: Go on.
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President -
THE PRESIDENT: Wait a minute. The Tribunal does not think that you need interrupt your cress examination. You can go on.
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, the Prosecution has just made that assertion as an accusation against Sauckel. If the Prosecution today is of the position that Sauckel wasnot responsible for the happenings in the industries but the management of the industries was responsible, and that he was not responsible for prisoners of war but that the armed forces were responsible, then I do not need this witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Go on with your cross examination, please. BY DR. SERVATIUS: made some statements. You have said that they slept in the same clothes in which they had come from the East and that almost all of them lacked overcoats and were therefore forced to use their blankets and to carry their blankets in the place of coats in cold and rainy weather.
Was it always like that? Was it a general occurrence or only an individual observation? I have to state in the beginning of my activities I depended entirely upon myself. There was nobody else to work with me. rectly--only after April 1943. The phase which I intended to describe and have also described in my statements is always at the time when I started to work. At that time the conditions were in fact as I have described them, and I had to so something about it. It was also so concerning clothes, as has been stated here. as far as clothing was concerned, for quite some time, and as far as I could see, they did not receive anything at that time.
Q What was done about that?
A I reported these conditions. I do not remember when. As 1 could see, the intention was to establish tailor shops and shoe shops in the camps, and some of them were established.
Q One question. Did things get generally better in the course of your activities, or did they become worse?
A They did not become worse. After 1943, after the first heavy air raids, of course the confusion was very great. A great deal was burned up, and I may recall that during only one night, 19,000 persons lost their housing; and of course, clothes and underwear burned also, and their losses took quite some time to replace. supervision on the part of the Labor Front?
AAs I have said, I met the Labor Front only once in a camp. At that time, that commission, indeed, criticized conditions. It was in the camp at Kraemerplatz, and they wanted to have the firm of Krupp fined because of the conditions, but that was the only time that I got in touch with the Labor Front.
Q. Did the firm of Krupp object to the improvements so that the Labor Front had to do something about it?
A. What I could not say. I had no influence and didn't know about it because I only had to do with medical affairs and did not participate in meetings of the firm of Krupp or the Labor Front.
Q. Witness, you also made statements concerning the conditions of health, and you said that the supply of medical instruments, bandages, drugs, and other articles was quite unsatisfactory in these camps. Is that true or were those exceptional cases, or was it a condition which existed all the time?
A. That was the way I found the camps in 1942, and I tried to improve it. Later, of course, there was such an improvement.
Q. You are saying here that the number of eastern workers who fell sick was twice as high as the number of German workers, that tuberculosis was especially prevalent, and precentagewise there were four times as many people among eastern workers affected with tuberculosis as among Germans. Is that correct?
A. That was so in the beginning because we received the workers without any physical examination. When I went through the camps, I heard from the camp doctors, and saw for myself on the occasion of inspections, that many people were sick. The figure was considerably higher than among the Germans as far as I could see at that time.
Q. And what was done about that?
A. Then, after we found out it was tuberculosis, we were confronted with, we made examinations in large numbers, group examinations, and those affected with tuberculosis were separated from the others and put into hospitals.
Q. Then you mentioned typhus, and said that that was also widespread among the workers.
A. I said specifically that we had about 150 cases of typhus.
Q. In what period?
A. During the entire period from 1942 to 1945.
Q. How many workers did you have during that time?
A. Oh, that varied.
Q. Approximately, Give us some approximate figure.
A. Well, if I remember correctly -- but I have to make certain limitation because I don't know exactly -- there may have been 23,000, 24,000; there may have been more. Later, there were about 9,000 but these figures varied.
Q. Do you consider it correct, if 150 people of such a large bumber are affected by typhus over that period of time, to say that it was widespread among the workers?
A. Well, we had none at all among the German peopulation. Then, of course that statement was justified. If, out of a population of 400,000 or 500,000, such as it was at Essen at that time, there was no typhus at all, and if -let's take an average figure of 20,000 -- among the 20,000 we had about 150 cases, then we can say that.
Q. In other words you maintain that statement is a correct statement, that typhus was widespread. fleas and other vermin that tortured the ibhabitants of those camps. Was that true about all the camps?
A. It was the case in almost all the camps at the beginning of my work. Later on, on institution for disinfection was established by the firm of Krupp which was destroyed immediately when it started. It was rebuilt and destroyed again.
Q. You say that in cases of disease, the workers had to go to work until a camp doctor made out a certificate that they were unable to work, that in the camps at Seumannstrasse, Griperstrasse, Germaniastrasse, and KapitaenLehmannstrasse, there was no daily sick call, and at these camps the doctors not appear for two or three days; that as a consequence, workers were forced to go to work despite illness until a doctor appeared. Is that correct?
A. A worker had to work unless a camp doctor certified he was unfit for work. It was the same with the German population. I know that in many cases, if a man did not report sick he had to go to work, but there was no difference there.
Q. And you say that that was the case in the camps mentioned, that there was no daily sick call and it meant that a man could not possibly report sick?
A. Oh yes, he could. He could go to a doctor. If there were no doctors there, I had arranged that wherever possible these people should come to me in my office, to me personally.
Q. You have said here -
THE PRESIDENT (Interposing): I think we had better adjourn now.
(A recess was taken) BY DR. SERVATIUS: ill even when there was no doctor present, that there was another means at their disposal. You said, in this connection, that these camps were visited only every second or third day by the regular doctor. As a consequence, the workers, despite illness, had to report for work until the doctor was actually there. Is that correct?
A That is not expressed correctly. If anyone reported himself ill, he had to be taken to a doctor, or the doctor was notified. spreading of typhus. How many death cases resulted? where the case was diagnosed too late. These people who had typhus were brought into the hospital immediately, and I was the person who was responsible for their being taken to the hospital. to the regular allotment there was just a little meat prescribed, such as horse m eat or meat which was diseased or was not considered good by veterinary. Does that mean that the foreign workers received spoiled meat?
A You have to define the expression "meat that was given cut." The meat which was not given out in the regular allotments by the veterinary-- after this meat had been treated in a certain way it was entirely suitable for human consumption. Even in time of peace, and afterwards, the German population used this meat for food. During the war the German population received the same kind of meat, and they received a double allotment.
Q Then it was used as the regular allotment?
A Yes, after it had been treats. Meat which had been condemned at first, after it had been treated, was used for human consumption; and it was quite suitable.
Q Then the expression "condemned by the veterinary" means that it was used later on?
A Yes; you would have to carrect the statement to say that it was condemned in the beginning.