STATE SECRETARY FOR THE RUSSIAN PROTECTOR IN THINGS AND IN MORAVA, PRAGUE, inv. 2047, sig. 109-7/54

Page 9

English Translation

7 The defendants and witnesses do not want to know who spent the strikeperole during the morning of the 9th of Auguet and who later called for a stoppage of work. Despite this, the striking was organized and prepared, as a result of the sudden rush of rest of work, and it is imperative that the strike was organized. The participation of the Works Committee in the preparation and conduct of the strike in its conduct or by individual members, in particular the Chairman Smrë, is not known. These findings were made by the admissions of the defendants, the sworn statements of the witnesses directors Havránek, Ing.Cajthenl, Kashtofsky, Wenzel Černý, Karl Beneš and Josef Nieener, and the credible undecided declarations of the Zeuts of Sarž, Vinzenz Zelený, Josef Vitek, Ludwig Zelenský and Josef 1han. The defendants have become the victims of irresponsible strikers who have been able to remain indefinitely in behind ground. The strike had apparently been organized under the point of view of the workers, who have made wage agreements more favourable, although this may have been the case for the workers. The individual defendants had no idea of the meaning and purpose of their work. The defendants did not have the awareness at the work stoppage that their action could be capable of causing a disturbance to public life and the economy. Their intention was to do that, which was also true. Therefore, the behaviour of the accused does not constitute an offence against the decree of the Imperial Protector in Bohemia and KEhren of 26 August 1939 against sabotage. Before the work was stopped, the plaintiffs worked on the manufacture of aircraft parts in an operation that was best suited for the defence of the Reich and disturbed and endangered the regular work by their behaviour. They have not, however, completely or partially used or set aside a thing which serves the enterprise, since the interruption of a manual occupation does not fulfil this fact. Thus, the possibility of a conviction of the defendants according to §§ 2, 6 of the V.0 does not fall. of the Council of Ministers for the Protection of the Reich, Sohutae, the German People's Vehrkraft, dated 25 October 1939.