Germany's MINISTRY for Chechnya and Moravia, PRAGUE (1906) 1939 - 1945 (1965), inv. 425, sig. 110-4/272

Page 10

English Translation

\ 1. On form: It is strange that the DPO should be presented before completed facts, while in turn he had asked the RProt. for consent before sending the letter to RJM. 2. The business relationship with the RJP sought by the RPO contradicts point IV of the Führer Order of 20 August 1943; in preparation for the proposals of the DPP for the R Prot. The management of business, in particular correspondence with other parties involved, is also part of the RJM. 3. It would be wrong if two places from Prague were to negotiate with the RM. in these matters. The DPO, however, could never be cut off from direct business because it was political matters. It should also be noted that until now - as far as since the end of August 1943 there has been commercial traffic in high treason matters with the RJM - this has been carried out exclusively with the DPO. In the DStM, even before the favors reach, there are already indictments and verdicts and any reports ssp taa, it would lead to a complete confusion, the long-running business traffic would break through. 4. The treatment sought by the RProt. does not serve to accelerate. On the contrary, even if the receipt by the RProt was a formal matter and the files were immediately passed on to the DPO, the transactions, since they are almost exclusively classified, would have to be registered first under all formalities in the office of the Rprot. and then filed here against receipt service. 5. The RProt. has been quite in agreement with the material treatment envisaged here also in high treason cases. The rprot. in Kempfenhausen has agreed with OStA. Dr. Nüßlein to the local cry to the RJM (see Appendix I). It is also written to him by letter dated 7 September 1993 confirming his declaration to Dr. Nüßlein.