of them in the 6 regions of the unoccupied territory, with one additional commission each in Marseille and Lyon. In addition to these Screening Commissions, the working staffs which were formed in the individual Armament Command districts remain in existence and serve for the preparation and support of the activity of the Screening Commissions. The Screening Commissions are organized in the following way: (1) As chiefs one higher official of the Labor Commitment Administration who will be deputized here from the Reich for this purpose. (2) One representative of the armament command concerned. For this the most qualified men (officer or official) are to be committed, if possible, from the Procurement Group. Knowledge of the French language is desired. To assist him and depending on the product in the plant he is supposed to check, he is joined by an expert from the jurisdiction of the Commissioner-General for Labor Commitment in France (procurement officer). (3) Depending on requirements, one member of the Military Administration Headquarters [Feldkommandantur] concerned, provided that V- and other plants are to be checked by the Commission. (4) A member of the French Work Commitment Administration, who, in cooperation with the Recruiting Office concerned has to take care of the designation and removal of the workers to be transferred. For the Screening Commissions in the French territory heretofore unoccupied, experts will be taken from the armament command for a short time (about 2-3 weeks); if possible, they should come from the Procurement Group. These men will be used for the support of the Armament Control Commissions not yet experienced in the labor commitment questions of the occupied Western territories. Besides skilled workers, the provided unskilled workers are to be procured by the commissions at the same time. Directives for the work of the commissions are being set up rapidly by the Commissioner-General for Labor Commitment, France. Some Screening Commissions are being created right away by the Commissioner-General for Labor Commitment, France, and will start their activity immediately, insofar as chiefs are at their disposal for that purpose. The members of the Screening Commissions are being called to Paris for a conference on January 23 [*]. Further instructions for it will follow. Signed as Draft Copy Weigand A certified true copy Major [illegible pencil mark] [*"by the Commissioner-General for Labor Commitment, France", has been crossed out here.] Conference of the Chiefs with the Chief of the Department Report of the Chief of the Department on the conference on 23 March with MILCH, WITZELL, LEEB, in Minister SPEER's Office. The Fuehrer looks upon SPEER as his principal mouthpiece, his trusted adviser in all economic spheres. SPEER is the only one who to-day can say anything. He can interfere in any Department. He already disregards all other Departments. SPEER wishes that all questions of Armament shall be settled solely by Rue-In, [Armament Inspectorate] which is subordinate to him and that all other tasks shall be eliminated. This will be further discussed later on. The Head of the Department emphasizes that we must join the SPEER organisation and pull together, otherwise SPEER will go his own way. In general SPEER's point of view is purely technical. Technical consultation with SPEER. He will not initiate any scheme which cannot be carried through to the end. COPY POLITICAL POLICE OF BAVARIA B.No 17311135 I & B Munich, 27 March 1935 To the Government of Upper Bavaria Ministry of the Interior, attention of the High Councillor to the government [Oberregierungsrat] Dittman. Subject: Occurrences in Freising on 18 February 1935 1 file/folder with contents 2 copies of interrogation Munich With reference to the discussion with the High Councillor to the government [Oberregierungsrat] Dittman, the following information has received all the above mentioned matters: Inquiries were made in Freising by an official of the Political Police of Bavaria, from March 11 to 16, 1935, to clear up the facts relative to incidents occurred there on February 18, 1935. In total 12 witnesses were interrogated and some of their statements vary greatly: It was not possible to determine which party had attempted to put Cardinal Faulhaber's sermon on records: Further, there was no proof whether the recording of the sermon was successful. Regens Westermayr, as well as the witnesses indicated by him, were unable, to give name or description of any of the participants. There seems little doubt that these culprits were people from out of town, as most people know each other in Freising. It was impossible to determine whether the church window was shattered for the purpose of conducting the wire into the inside of the church, as this action was not watched by anybody. In any event, it is true that one window on the further side of the church has in its left lower corner a hole the size of a hand. It is further true that a clod of glazier's putty, which showed clearly the marks of a wire, was found near this window. As far as the occurrences in the church are concerned; according to the evidences given by all witness, there can be no talk of a general disturbance of the service and even less of a threatening of the Cardinal. When he was interrogated, Praefect H. Johann Wiesneth declared that he had talked to Cardinal Faulhaber and the latter had mentioned he had not noticed any disturbance. He knows nothing about a threatening of the Cardinal. It is true that about 100 men of the Storm Troops of Freising in civilian clothes were present, together with the Nazi Party's Women's Organization, to listen to the sermon of Cardinal Faulhaber. Mayer Lechner, also, at the same time, is local commander of the Storm Troops of Freising, had issued definite orders to all members Nazi Party organizations not to disturb the service, not even if Cardinal Faulhaber should in his sermon contradict National Socialism. Mayer and SA Leader [Sturmbannfuehrer] Lechner indicated that he himself was present at the service on February 18, he was standing in the nave [Mittleschiff] of the Dom. Only the following day did he learn about the disturbance caused presumably by the installing of a cable. He further declared, that if he would have noticed any disturbances, he would have interfered immediately. Also he was not asked for protection from any party, although Regus Westermayr as well as the other clergyman knew that he was in the Dom. It was difficult to make the necessary inquiries, since Police inspector Heinrich Wagner, also until a short time ago, was chief of the Police in Freising, is at present at a forced furlough, and his place of residence is unknown. Wagner declared in his written report, dated February 2, 1935, that he was not in the Dom during the service, while several persons stated to the contrary. As Regens Westermayr had to admit in his interrogation on March 16, 1935, the statements, given in his written report, concerning his fears and anticipation are highly exaggerated and cannot be proved in details and also cannot be verified. As far as the request made to Major Hoffmeister, Freising, regarding the employment of armed forces is concerned, considerable contradictions are noticed, for instance, in his interrogation of March 16, 1935 Regens Westermayr denies having asked Major Hoffmeister for military protection. He indicated further, that the main reason for his visit was to learn from Hoffmeister whether armed forces were really on the alert the evening of February 18, 1935; further he denies having said that the police in Freising are completely dependent upon the local Storm Troops and the city counsel also will not grant him the necessary protection. It is a fact, however, that Regens Westermayr has never asked the city police, nor the Mayor, nor the city commissioners [Oberramtmann] Heidenrich for protection. To the new evidence given by Regus Westermayr, Major Hoffmeister states that what he reported to the regiment on February 22, 1935 still stands. Major Hoffmeister declared unmistakably, that the request of Regens Westermayr, was quite clearly and obviously aimed at the employment of the armed forces for the protection of the Dom [Domberg]. Westermayr did not come to inquire if it was true that the garrison will be alerted on February 18, 1935, but solely to get assurance of employment of armed forces for the protection of the Dom [Domberg]. The fact that Regens Westermayr now denies several important parts of the report made by the major, shows clearly how embarrassed the clergyman is today about his original exaggerated report on the occurrences. Major Hoffmeister is willing any time to take an oath on his written report of February 22, 1935. As far as the incident with glazier Hans Hiedle is concerned, it has been found that he was at no time unable to write, and that he is not interested in opening case. On the whole it can be said that the facts about the occurrences in Freising have been very much exaggerated by the Catholic clergy in order to expose the National Socialistic city counsel. Besides, the church has opened a case on this matter with the district court Munich II, denouncing wilfull destruction and disturbance of the service, and therefore the incidents will be investigated legally. Reference is made to the attached copies of the protocol interrogation of Regens Westermayr and Hans Lechner. signed [signature] Report was given by glazier Hans Hiedl, Freising, regarding the mistreatments which were inflicted upon him during the night of February 18/19, 1935. On Monday February 18, I went to the Dom to listen to the sermon of the Cardinal. When I ascended the stairs next to the Seminary, the bells rang for the people to come. I entered the church through the northern entrance and found myself a place from where I could hear the sermon and see the Cardinal. So I came to the epistle side of the altar of St. Mary. I could not advance further, as people were crowded closely around the altar. An advancing to the side of the gospels would have been hardly possible. The reading from the testament was just over, when a noise coming from the church window on the epistle side of the altar of St. Mary became audible. A clergyman in a stall, who was on duty to keep order among the church goers in the Dom, and also, at that time, was on the gospel side of the altar, became aware of the noise, as well as many of the other faithfuls in the church, and he looked for the cause of the noise. I pointed out to him with my finger that the noise was coming from the window at the epistle side. At the same time I noticed that a cord was pulled in 2 |