English Translation

The Reichsprotekior in Bohemia and Moravia OF THE CONTRACTS FOR THE RULES OF PRAGUE, 3 October 19942 THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE BAUwirtschaft Burg, Central wing II. St. IN THE FIELD OF PROTECTORY Telex 6014l Hausklappe 3624 JII/5 GB 5216 AS 1o0. in Jeaa n ua tagcen An den Etng: - 5. OKT. 1942 Mr. Deputy Reichsprotektor 4j-Oberstgruppenführer D a l u e g e by Mr. State Secretary Subject: Equipment levy of POSISTA A.G., Prague Supplements: win OCSV A representative of STtaG Strassen- und Tiefbau-Unternehmen A. G., Vienna, stated on l.lo.d. that he wanted to arrange for an intervention of the State Council M e i n - b e r g (chairman of the Supervisory Board of STUAG A.g.) with the Deputy Reich Protector in the above-mentioned matter. I therefore inform the following about the situation: According to a reciprocating licence issued by the General Plenipotentiary for the regulation of the construction industry on 29 August 1942, in the rest of the Reich, all companies of the building industry are obliged to make available about 1/5 of their field railway equipment for direct use at the Wehrmacht in the East, regardless of any further use in the areas of the OT, etc. In the area of the Protectorate, I carry out the order in the form that I collect 1/5 of the entire equipment stock; the delivery is initially voluntary by negotiation. The representatives of PostsTA A.G./ were also invited to such a negotiation, but they proved completely inaccessible and declared that their company had been transferred to STuAG A. G., Vienna, for a long time now, so that they did not take any protectorate company. According to them, sTUAG AG. may have bought only part of the shares of PösIsTA AG. Therefore, there is no doubt that PosisTA A.G. is still legally a protectorate company, which is affected by the seizure ordered by the notice of 8 July 1942 concerning the seizure of large-scale construction equipment vBlrProt. s. 2lo. The company has now requested that it authorize the transfer of all its equipment. If PosIstA A. G. in Vienna should not be regarded as a protectorate company, would also have to be a device levy of 2% in Vienna. It would therefore only be the transport -2-