STÁTNÍ TAJEMNÍK U ŘÍŠSKÉHO PROTEKTORA V ČECHÁCH A NA MORAVĚ, PRAHA, inv. 1643, sig. 109-4/1398 Page 34 · 34 of 49
STATE SECRETARY FOR THE RUSSIAN PROTECTOR IN THINGS AND IN MORAVA, PRAGUE, inv. 1643, sig. 109-4/1398
English Translation
19 ~ 2 1 - Care according to the nature of other public authorities and works canteens was held to be a social and comradely duty and believed that the whole company was covered by the agreement of Minister Ježek.He had informed Minister Jeżek of the measures under consideration before the start of the "buppenaktivn" and had received his consent. After the introduction of the trademark obligation, however, he had notified him of the implementation of the "supplementary action" and of the existing difficulties in obtaining the soup tobats.Jeżek had not asked for further details and had merely pointed out that the accused Biskup was aware of his instructions and that he was not aware of them. that Biskup therefore "must take care of his people," since the Minister's budget from the meat allocations had been taken care of without contradiction, he -Biskup - had also been given permission to approve the supply operation and to provide ministerial support for the minister's silent acceptance of the allocated meat portions. closed. The questioning of the witnesses Kohout, Hemmerka, König, Cerny, Vinzenz and Emilie Kučera, Belinger, Riedl, Jirasek, Jardyk and Sebesta, which led to the verification of this defence, did not provide any sure proof that Minister Ježek was blacking out meat in the context of the self-sufficiency campaign carried out by Biskup, or even that he was actually responsible for it. On the other hand, on the basis of the unanimous statements of the witnesses Riedl and Jirasek, as well as on the grounds of the information provided by the defendants Müller and Jindra, it is clear that Biskup has variously interpreted the Minister's agreement in more or less specific fornms,and therefore in the In addition, the whole type of regular distributions of the meat delivered to the defendant must be taken into consideration in the wake of the fact that he believed in the ministerial back cover personally and according to all the circumstances.