He did not want to join the Polish Legion in Switzerland. He was not at all aware that such a legion existed there. He had however heard of a relish Legion existing in England. He had merely pushed back the customs official who wanted to arrest him.
"The prosecution charges the defendant with the intention of going to Switzerland in order to join the Polish Legion there. Several important suspicious reasons lead to support this intention of the defendant. Considerable parts cf the Polish Legion formerly active in Franco wore interned in Switzerland for which a lively propaganda was being made among the Poles, Furthermore, at the same time numerous Poles had been picked up at the German-Swiss frontier some of which could be convicted of planning to join the Polish Le ion in Switzerland. In addition, the statements made by the defendant for his reason to escape from Germany are not worthy of belief. Even if at that time fighting was still taking place between the French and the English in Syria, it does not follow that the defendant, a racial Pole, was determined to fight on the side cf Vichy-France. The defendant has, furthermore, contradicted himself in relation to the request which he alleges his French friend made, which was the alleged cause of his behaviour. In the preliminary procedure he stated that he received the request in a letter, whilst according to Ms present explanation this request was sent to him on two postcards which ho has destroyed. The final evidence, however, that the defendant intended to join the Polish Legion in Switzerland is lacking. The trial did not show any concrete evidence that the defendant, contrary to his protestations, had any knowledge cf the existence of a Polish Legion in Switzerland. Due to lack of evidence of his intention to join the Polish Legion, the defendant could not be convicted of the crime cf preparation for treason and of treasonably aiding the enemy.
"The defendant is, however, guilty according to the result of the trial, of an offence against penal law relating to Poles of 4 December 1941 The general condition cf this ordinance are fulfilled, as the defendant is, by origin, education and sentiment, a racial Polo and was on 1 September 1939 resident in the former Polish State.
In leaving his place of work as an agricultural laborer, of his own accord, at the end of July, during the harvest, he disturbed the orderly procedure of the harvest work of his employer to the detriment of the harvest. His action, moreover, was detrimental to the whole of the German people for, in leaving his place of work in order to go abroad, he deprived the German people forever of his labor. Germany, in order to cover her war needs and to ensure food supplies for the front as well as for home, however, needs all persons employed, including foreigners. Every worker who by escape abroad deprives the German war economy for good of his labor, reduces the number of the badly needed manpower and thus endangers the interest of the German people. This consequence was recognized by the defendant when he escaped from his working place, as he considered what his leaving his place of work during harvest time meant, Nevertheless he left because - as the senate is convinced - being a Pole, he did not wish to work for the German nation any more from political opposition The defendant, therefore, by his behaviour knowingly endangered the welfare of the German people and has thereby actuated the exterior and interior facts of a crime according to number I sub-paragraph 3 of the Penal Code Ordinance for Poles.
"The defendant has, furthermore, offended against this ordinance by having committed an act of violence against the customs official who wanted to arrest him when illegally crossing the border, who was acting in a legal capacity and in the execution of his duty. It is irrelevant in this respect whether the defendant knocked the official to the ground by a blow of his fist, which he denies. The extent of violence used by him against the official was considerable enough to prevent this official from arresting the defendant, according to his duties. The defendant, a Pole, therefore, knowingly committed an act of violence against a member of the German police."
Skipping to the next paragraph:
"Both these crimes committed by the defendant come under the Penal Code Ordinance for Poles as committed."
Skipping to Page 72, "III, The amount of punishment. According to figure 1 paragraph 3 of the Penal Regulation for Poles, only the death sentence on the defendant can be meted out --" may I interpolate here a moment. There are two or three phrases on this page, if it please the Court, that were mistranslated, or so the Prosecution contends. This also will be taken up out of court with this translation procedure that is now in the process of being set up. I will interpolate the correct translation, so far as the prosecution is concerned, and note each instance. If the defense has any objection, they can enter that out of court in the machinery which we will set up.
"According to figure 1 paragraph 3 of the Penal Regulation for Poles, only the death sentence on the defendant can be meted out unless a less serious case can be realized in his favor. The senate was not able to recognize such a case under the circumstances accompanying the offense. The mere fact that the defendant left his place of work if considered separately, could be considered as a less serious case in the meaning of the law. For his flight was undertaken alone and had not been discussed with anyone else. But by using violence against the customs officer who was going to arrest him, and thus resisting the legal German authority, he has proved himself such a fanatical and violent Pole that he has forfeited any right for clemency. After the grave bloody guilt which the Polish nation has carried since the weeks of August and September 1939, it is the duty of every member of this nation to obey willingly the rules of the German authorities. A Pole who, on the contrary, uses violence against a German official can only be punished sufficiently by the highest degree of punishment. Accordingly, this has been applied to the defendant."
The Prosecution offers as Exhibit No. 128 Document NG *5.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be received in evidence, but is that really 128? My record shows 127.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Our records show 128, Your Honor.
THE COURT: That is correct.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Thank you, sir. Turning now to Page 74 of the English book, which is page 87 in the German Book, Document NG 352. NG 352 is another case record of the People's Court. When it was unearthed no indictment could be found which accompanied it. Since we cannot, supply the indictment that instituted this proceeding, we would like to refer in this connection to several pages of Exhibit No. 126 which was introduced last Friday. This was the Lautz affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: While we are on that, I suggest that we have not been advised of any paging in the document book of that Lautz affidavit.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Your Honor, we did not repage the document book to account for this document, since we will be referring to it but once or twice more only, and we thought that calling the Court's attention to the document itself could allow you to page through its eight or ten pages and find whatever pages we arc referring to, rather than repage it.
THE PRESIDENT: We have no difficulty in finding it, but-
MR. WOOLEYHAN: You would prefer to have the book repaged? We have not done it as yet.
THE PRESIDENT: It can be put either at the beginning or and of some book, so as to have everything uniform in the bock.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: In that connection then I suggest that the document be placed at the end of Book 3-A and repage it or not, whichever is most convenient.
Just slip is in at the end of the book.
THE PRESIDENT: It would then b come Page 147 of Book 3-A.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Yes, sir. To recapitulate one moment, in view of the fact that Document NG 332, to which we have just turned on Page 74, bears no indictment, the Prosecution submits it is apropos to road the following excerpts from Exhibit 126, namely, the Lautz affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: What document number did you say?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Sir?
THE PRESIDENT: What document number of the Lautz affidavit?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: The Lautz affidavit is Document NG 659, but it was offered and accepted into evidence as Exhibit 126.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Reading from Page 5 of the Lautz affidavit, starting at the top of the page:
"When I entered my office as Senior Reich Prosecutor, the Reich Prosecution Office consisted of four departments. At the head of each there was a Reich Prosecutor. Each department had as specialists three First Public Prosecutors and a number of assistants with the rank of judges and prosecutors. I estimate that the total number of higher officials in the Reich Prosecution Office at the time of my assumption as Senior Reich Attorney was about twenty-five. This figure increased strongly during the war because of the expansion of the People's Court jurisdiction, partly as a result of the addition of new fields, partly due to the increase in political delinquency. The highest figure reached by the higher officials under my supervision amounted to about seventy, according to my recollection. The four departments were in creased to six, during the war, to correspond to the number of People's Court Senates.
At the same time, the number of First Public Prosecutors in each department was increased to five, and a Senior Public Prosecutor was added to each department.
"According to the existing regulations, it was my duty to sign all indictments, all suspensions of proceedings and all reports to our superiors, in other words, to the minister of Justice. These regulations were in force until the end of 1943 when, because of a partial transfer of our office to Potsdam it became necessary to entrust WEYERSBERG with my representation in the signing of the verdicts, suspensions of proceedings and less important reports prepared in Potsdam. When during the second half of 1944 and the beginning of 1945, the amount of work became so vast than some of it had to be taken away from no even in Berlin, a p rt of these matters were referred to my permanent deputy for signature, out in much a manner that important matters were still reported to me. This provision, of course, also applied to Potsdam. Indictments which I signed had to be read by myself, and I would in fact, read then. Of course, it wasn't expected of me and could not be expected of me that I study the individual records. I sometimes sampled then, however, particularly the very important cases. The heads of departments could develop considerable initiative, if they wanted to sec to it that much a case was treated properly and rapidly. I had neither the choice nor the desire to change much in the papers which my tried and trusted department heads submitted to me for signature. In general, I gave them free rein in other natters as well.
"Whenever it had been decided, with the consent of the department heads, to ask for a death sentence, I asked for the prosecutor of the case to report to me concerning the case in the presence of the department head.
I then either approved or disapproved of the death sentence in individual cases.
"It was always my principle to have omitted from the indictment any mention of the punishment to be expected, since it could not be foreseen whether, for instance, a case which was regarded as serious by us would not, during the main trial, turn out to be less serious. Reich Prosecutor ROTHAUG once made an attempt to have the rather sober form of verdicts used by my office changed, since ho felt that the verdicts had to be more political. He once submitted an example of such an indictment to me."
That will be all of the excerpts that we desire to read at the moment. We will turn now to Document NG-352, Page 74, Reich is Page 87 of the German Book.
"In the name of the German people, in the criminal proceedings against: the miner Florian Mazur, the locksmith Kubisz, the locksmith Nowakowski, for preparation for high treason and treason, the People's Court 2nd Senate in its main session of the 12 August 1942, represented by the following judges: "--interpolation, whose names we will not read-"has pronounced the following sentence:
"The defendants Florian Mazur, Mieczyslaus Kubisz and Alois Nowakowski are condemned to death, because they, as Poles, harmed the welfare of the Germ n People and because in a treasonable way they helped the enemy and also prepared for high treason."
Page 75, which is Page 89 in the German book:
"Reasons. The Personal Circumstances of the Defendants.
"All the defendants arc former Polish Nationals and also racial Poles.
"On the 1st September 1939 they were resident in the territory of the former Polish State.
"1) Mazur, after attending the Polish school in his home town Wapno was occupied as a worker in a plaster factory in the area of the former Polish State which was taken over by the Solvay works after the end of the campaign in Poland.
"2) Kublisz, after leaving a Polish school learned in the territory of the former Polish State, the locksmith trade and also worked as a locksmith. From February 1936 to September 1937 he did his military service in the Polish army, and then voluntarily remained in the army where ho was promoted to the rank of sergeant. He took part in the Polish campaign and fought against the German troops, and was taken prisoner. He returned to his homo at Podlin in the district of Wongrowitz and from the 16th of April to the 21st October 1940 also worked in the Solvay works in Wapno.
"Nowakowski"-- skipping to the last five lines of that paragraph --"From April to October 1940 he worked in the salt mines in Podolin in the district of Wongrowitz, which wore also taken over by the German Solvay works after the Polish campaign had ended.
"In October 1940 the defendants together with other Polish workers were sent to Buchenau in Thurinia to the soda factory which belongs to the Solvay works.
II.
The Facts The defendants, after previous agreement, left on 23 August 1941, their place of work at the soda factory of the Solvay works in Buchenau, Thuringia, went by train via Munich and Innsbruck to Feldkirch in the Vorarlberg and the next day crossed the Swiss border.
A few hours later they were stopped by a Swiss border official, taken bact to the frontier and handed over to a German border official.
III.
The argumentation of the Defendants and its Consideration.
The defendants state, that is page 90 of the German, that they wanted to and other work in Switzerland, that they had left their place of work although they knew that this was punishable. NOWAKOWSKI and KUBISZ testified that they did not like to work on Sundays and that they were not allowed to move freely during their leisure hours. They had also been punished by a fine of RM. 54. - each for an unauthorized visit to a circus and for arriving home late at the camp where they had been housed in a barracks together with 42 other Polish workers of the Solvay works; although they did not pay the fine. According to the statement made by the defendant KUBISZ the food supplied by the employer was insufficient, as it always only consisted of soup. MAZUR declares he was dissatisfied because a coupon (Bezugsschein) for shoes had been refused him, also the wage deductions had been too high. He also asserts that the work - he had been employed in the quarry of the factory - had been too hard for him, he had been afraid he would not get through the winter. He had hoped to find work in Switzerland as a shepherd.
All three defendants deny they had intended to join the Polish Legion in Switzerland, and deny any knowledge of the existence of the Polish Legion in Switzerland. MAZUR adds that he is unfit for military service, and NOWAKOWSKI states that he has had enough of military service.
"During the trial, the senate came to the conclusion that the defendants had the intention of joining the Polish Legion in Switzerland. The reasons given by the defendants for having left their place of work cannot justify their action. They had no reason to complain about the treatment at their place of work nor do they do so. Moreover, their net earnings were such that they were able to pay for their needs out of these, as is proved by the fact that according to their statement they had, when arrested, money on them, namely amounts of RM. 80, 70, and 10. Neither can the food have been insufficient since Mazur and Nowakowski did not criticize it, and Kubisz merely maintained which was not confirmed by the other two defendants that they received 'nothing but soup'. The fines which Wowakowski and Kubisz are alleged to have received for unauthorized visit to a circus and for arriving home at the camp, cannot either be considered grounds for the excape; for the defendants did not have to pay them. The same applies to the statement of Mazur that the work was too hard for him especially as he has given no reasons why he did not apply for lighter work, though he alleges he feared that he would not last through the winter. The further statements of the defendants according to which they considered themselves handicapped" -- "incriminated against" is obvious gibberish. It should be "handicapped" and the German word so indicates. "They considered themselves handicapped through Sunday work and through insufficient leisure, and of the defendant Mazur by being refused coupons for shoes, finally do not constitute valid reasons for leaving their place of work at the present time of intensified work and essential restrictions in the many necessities of life caused through the war. The defendants were also aware that they would be punished for leaving their work. "That the condition at the place of work could not really have induced the accused to escape is shown by the fact that they remained there for nearly one year. On the other hand, the labor-conditions in Switzerland as reported in the press, could not have raised their hopes of finding employment as foreign workers there. Thus the expectation of securing work in Switzerland could not or could not entirely have caused them to escape. The reasons given by the accused for their escape, are so ill founded that they may be considered as sheer subterfuges.
This particularly applies to the statement of the accused MAZUR, who said that he intended to work as a shepherd in Switzerland although he had always been active as an industrial worker. Therefore one cannot believe the accused that they merely wished to look for other work in Switzerland. The Court is convinced that the defendants' submissions are merely a blind for their real intentions which induced them to escape. This applies particularly to the statement of the accused MAZUR to be unfit for military service disproved by the testimony of the official physician at Feldkirch on 18 February 1942. This medical testimony was used at the trial. The accused's escape to Switzerland must also have had the purpose of joining the Polish Legion. The accused denied, however, to have known that a Polish Legion existed in Switzerland, though this is well known. The Court is convinced that the accused, as is only natural and understandable, discussed with each other and with the other Polish workers living with them in the campbarracks, the fate of their nation and of the former Polish state and it's future, end the relevant developments and circumstances as well as the Polish Legion in Switzerland. It is furthermore known to the Court that shortly after the beginning of the campaign in Russia, the Polish emigregovernment an the USSR signed a pact and also that the English radio reported on this in several languages. The Court is convinced that this also was discussed among the accused and the other Polish workers. Furthermore, it is known to the Court from other trials that since the beginning of the Russian-campaign, Polish workers repeatedly escaped or tried to escape from the Reich to Switzerland and that there they are picked up by recruiting officers and enlisted in the Polish Legion. All these circumstances lead to the conclusion that the accused also aimed at joining the Polish Legion in Switzerland. Furthermore, it may be assumed that the accused KUBISZ and NOWAKOWSKI, as former volunteers and corporals in the Polish Army, had a particular inclination to serve in the Legion. After the defeat of France in the present war, as is known to the Court from other proceedings, detachments of the Polish Legion crossed the border into Switzerland and were interned in camps. The Legion continues under the command of Polish officers and kept in readiness for military action against the Reich on the side of the enemy in the event of German troops invading Switzerland.
Furthermore the Polish Legion conveys with English assistance some of its members through the unoccupied part of France to England, where the Poles are also being enrolled in military units. In Switzerland, Polish and Swiss officers agitate for enlistment in the Polish Legion. The economic maintenance of the Legion was made possible through funds of the former Polish state, administrated by the former Polish embassy at Bern.
The Polish Legion, which was constituted after the defeat of Poland by the Polish rulers who had escaped abroad, aims at aiding the enemy to bring about the defeat of the Reich in the present war, in order to reestablish the former Polish state on a considerably enlarged scale. Thus, these efforts aim at forcibly detaching the Eastern regions incorporated in the Reich as well as parts of the Altreich (Reich before the annexations) from the German Reich. Thus the Polish Legion carries on highly treasonable aims according to paragraph 80, Art. 1 of the Criminal Code. Anyone, supporting these aims by making arrangements to join the Legion, abetts the territorial high-treason furthered by the Polish Legion, in accordance with the paragraph 80, Art. 1, 83, Art. 2, of the Criminal Code. The accused have thus committed the crime of preparing for high-treason and they did this in the aggravating sense of paragraph 83, Art. 3, number 1 and 4 of the Criminal Code, inasmuch as their action was directed, by joining the Legion towards establishing an organisatory connection for the preparation of high-treason and because the offense had partly been committed abroad. The defendants were, there can be no doubt, aware of the importance of their activities and of the aims of the Polish Legion. By attempting to join the Polish Legion the defendants are also guilty of a crime of treasonably aiding the enemy according to Article 91-b Penal Code. They have, in their native country, attempted to aid the enemy, during a war against the Reich; for by joining the Legion, they wanted to support the enemy. The defendants were well aware of this." Skipping to Page 81 of the English Book, Paragraph 4:
IV The Measure of Punishment.
"The full measure of the law must be applied to the defendants. This demands for"--It is also gibberish. The reasonable translation is the way I shall read it, assuming there is no objection. "This is necessary in the interest of the protection of the German nation, particularly during the war. The punishment must also revenge the hostile attitude to Germany of the defendants expressed by the offense, which is of a conspiratory character. The defendants no longer wished to place their working ability at the disposal of the German nation. The offense of the defendants is, as stated, especially dangerous and damaging to the welfare of the German nation.
"Accordingly, the death sentence is the only adequate one. This has been pronounced."
The prosecution offers as Exhibit No. 129, Document NG-352.
DR. GRUBE: (Attorney for Defendant Lautz) I would like to raise an objection.
The Prosecution concerning this sentence in connection with the defendant Lautz by referring to this affidavit i.e., Document 659, to use the affidavit in this connection, I consider inadmissible for the reason that approximately it amounts to nothing but argument which, in my opinion, should be left to the plaedower. These arguments on the part of the Prosecution are not correct, and at least this affidavit by Lautz in NG-679, Exhibit 126 cannot be used as evidence for the fact that the defendant Lautz in effect signed the indictment, which is the basis of the sentence in this document. That this supposition cannot be founded is revealed by the following: The sentence in Document NG-352 dates the 12th of August, 1942; the previous document, which has just been read out in full, Exhibit 128, the sentence was signed two days previously, that is on 10th August; and in this case the indictment was signed, as revealed by Exhibit 128 by Parisius, not by Lautz. Therefore, I consider it neither admissible nor founded by the facts mentioned together; the document and the affidavit, NG- 158refer to them together in this connection. Therefore, I would ask that the passage in the records concerning Document NG-659, Exhibit 126 should be crossed out. It merely constitutes argument, and secondly it consists of arguments which are not based upon facts.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Only a brief word, if it please the Court. I don't think that Defense Counsel will deny that the affidavit of the defendant Lautz is not argument, but a fact; the words that it state are facts. Moreover, it cannot be inadmissible at this time because the document has already been introduced into evidence. I expressly reserved the right several days back to refer to it again, and as I remember the Prosecution advanced no argument at all, but merely read from that which we had formally introduced into evidence, which we have sought to do at the present time; no argument was intended.
DR. GRUBE: May it please the Court, I maintain my objection that reading the quotations from Lautz' affidavit in connection with this document presented last is inadmissible for the reason that this affidavit as introduced in this is purely for reason of argument as the Prosecutor himself admitted to bring about a connection between this and the signature of the sentence, but this is really a matter for plaedower.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal feels that there is without a doubt sufficient references in the affidavit, on the signing of the affidavit, to connect him with the signing of this indictment, but you made some statement about a discrepancy of dates that is not clearly understood by the Tribunal Will you repeat what you wanted to say about the discrepancy of dates between the 10th and 12th of August, 1942; would you kindly repeat that. We only want to hear from you concerning your former statement about discrepancy of dates.
DR. GRUBE: I beg your pardon, Mr. President; I didn't get the translation.
THE PRESIDENT: In your former statement, the first statement you made in this objection you spoke of an alleged discrepancy of dates that the sentence was pronounced two days earlier than the finding of fact. We do not understand your statement; I wish you would repeat it.
DR. GRUBE: The Prosecution, in connection with presenting NG-352, that is the sentence of 3 August, 1942, the Prosecution said that the indictment was not available, but it could be assumed that the indictment had been signed by the defendant Lautz.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: I must object to that; I made no such observations regarding the signing or not signing of the affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Grube has some statement to make to clear up the discrepancy of dates; we will hear from you on that alone.
DR. GRUBE: In Document NG-352, which is now about to be introduced as an exhibit, the sentence of 12 August, 1942, the previous Document, Exhibit 128, contains a sentence which was issued two days previously, on the 10th of August, 1942, and this sentence was based upon an indictment which was signed by Parisius. Consequently, one cannot simply, such as the Prosecution intends, assume that the sentence of 12 August, i.e., the sentence and Document NG 352 is based upon a document which was signed by the defendant Lautz.
Therefore, I consider it materially unfounded if the Prosecution in this connection refers to the affidavit; but also formally I consider it inadmissible to bring it together, to connect the affidavit with the sentence simply because the Prosecution introduces this affidavit in connection with Document 352 and refers to it again, as the Prosecution says in order to establish a connection with the defendant Lautz. That is a matter for the plaedower review, but not a matter to bring up here as evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal fully understands the objection raised by Defense Counsel, and the objection will be over-ruled and the exhibit will be offered in evidence.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: The Prosecution offers NG-352 as Exhibit 129.
Turning now to page 84, which is page 97 in the German book, Document NG-641, here again we find, through circumstances completely beyond our control no indictment is available. However, this document again is a case record of the People's Court, "dated 27 May, 1943; In the Name of the German People; In the criminal proceedings against the electrician Piotr Kalicki, the auxiliary worker Czycz, and the type-setter Iwaniszyn, and ", setting out various dates in Poland which we won't read. "At present in custody on remand because of preparation of high treason, etc.; the Peoples' Court, 1st Senate, pronounced in the trial of 21 May 1943, in which participated as judges:" And thereafter follows an enumeration of judges whose names we will not read. "The defendants Kalicki, Czycz and Iwaniszyn, who are Poles, left their places of work in Kempten in the summer of 1942 and proceeded in the direction of the frontier of the Reich in order to seek connection with the Polish Legion in Switzerland. They wanted to fight as members of the Polish Legion for the restoration of an independent Polish State. They were prevented from doing so through their arrest. Through their actions they undertook to help the enemy of the Reich. Therefore, they are sentenced to death."
MR. WOOLEYHAN: I am against to do, for the benefit of the interpreters, considerable skipping through this case record so I will try to give you the German page whenever possible. Page 85 of the English Book, page 98 in the German. Still reading from this same case record; Reasons for the foregoing death sentences:
R E A S O N S "The defendants are Polish nationals, are former Polish citizens and, on 1 September 1959, *** their residence in the territory of the former Polish Republic.
They all had come from the East for labor service in Germany. In summer 1942, at different dates, Kalicki and Iwaniczyn the latter together with the Pole Mendrala - left their respective places of work in Leipzig without permission and proceeded to the Allgau. In Kempten they get work, Kalichi as electrician in a machine factory and Iwaniszyn, who, together with Mendrala had been picked up by police, in a cheese factory.
"On 28 June 1942, three days after they started working, Iwaniszyn and Mendrala quit work without permission and fled in the direction of the German - Swiss border at Bregenz (Verarlberg).
"During the night of 5 July 1942 they were picked up by a custom official at the railroad bridge loading into Switzerland, between the border points Loustenau and St. Margethen (Switzerland) and were taken to the police jail at Bregenz. When interrogated, Iwaniszyn adopted the false name of Serecka. On 7 August 1942 he and Mendrala were brought back to their former places of work at Kempten. But soon thereafter, both, together with the other defendant, decided to make a new attempt at escape.
"In Kempten Iwaniszyn, Mendrala, Kalicki and also Czycz lived together in an inn, managed by nuns.
In March 1941 Czycz, left his place of work in Leuhdds (district of Kempten) without permission, had been brought back to his place of work after having been imprisoned for three weeks, had been repeatedly admonished because of violation of the work discipline, was then held in the police jail because he refused to work, and, during February/March 1942 had been interned in a Disciplinary Work Camp. He too, had finally been working in a cheese wholesale business in Kempten.
"The three defendants Kalicki, Czycz and Iwaniscyn used their quarters -- which they shared -- to confer with Meddrala how they could manage to go to Switzerland in order to join the Polish Legion there. Obviously for security reasons they reached the agreement to set out for the escape together, but then to head for the Swixx border separately. So, on 13 August 1942 the defendants and Mendrala left their places of work without permission and at first proceeded together in the direction of Bregenz, after they had removed the Polish insignias from their jackets.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: The following is a brief description; I interpolate here, of the facts of their attempts to escape to the border and their arrest.
"The defendants admit the essentials of these facts, but state (and this objection is important) that they did not know that a Polish Legion existed in Switzerland and that, therefore, they neither decided nor intended to go to Switzerland. As to the purpose of their leaving Kempten, Kalicki and Czycz state, that they had tried, either through an acqquaintance, or through the Bregenz Labor Office, to obtain better employment. Iwznyszin defended himself by stating that he and Mendrala intended to work in Maurenstutz for a farmer, as they had done it before at the end of June 1942."
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Skip to the next paragraph.
"These statements are not worthy of belief. All of the defendants had work in Kempten and were paid adequately as Poles. they had even less good reasons to leave their places of work without permission just in order to look for new employment, since they knew exactly that they would then be called to account for breach of contract and that they could not keep the new jobs they pretended to seek."
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Skip to the top of page 87, which is page 101 in the German book.
"According to the experiences of the Senate in similar cases, and according to the result of the numerous investigations made by the clerk of the Police Schleicher, who is working in the German-Swiss border and was heard as a witness, the way chosen by the defendants had been used by many Poles, escaping from the labor service in Germany to go to Switzerland and to join the Polish Legion there. There was a whisper propaganda among the Poles, especially - as the Court stated only yesterday in the sentence against Papuga, and others - in the region of Kempten since spring 1942. In consequence of this whisper propaganda, which was due to enemy influence, it was generally known that through the Consul of the Polish shadow government or through the English Consul in Switzerland the possibility existed to get from there by various means into parts of the Polish Legion, a formation whose purpose, as known by the Court, is aimed at the restoration of an independent Polish State by military operations conducted on the side of the enemy and by separating the annexed Eastern provinces from the greater German Reich by force. There is no doubt that the three Polish defendants, at least during their stay in Kempten, were informed of these conditions, and that they get in this way the idea to escape to Switzerland and that they made their decision together with Mendrala.
They are also persons in the best age for military service, and absolutely able to serve in the Polish Legion. They were also willing to do so; they proved their anti-German attitude by leaving their former places of work without permission. The witness Schleicher stated - and his statement is worthy of belief, that during the investigations Czycz, who was interrogated by clerk of the Police Schleicher, confessed frankly - after denying his guilt at first - that he and Kalicki agreed to flee to Switzerland, secretly, and to use in case of failure on evasive explanation similar to the one used in the trial. As to Iwaniszyn it can be added that he and Mendrala had already previously - in June 1942 - started to proceed in the direction of the Swiss border and that they were arrested right in the immediate vicinity of the border. This proves the intensity of their desire to reach the border by any means.
"The behavior of the three defendants in August 1942 only permits one conclusion, - considering the circumstances given and the completely unsuccessful attempt of the defendants to exonerate themselves, - that they decided in Kempten to escape together - even though they were using different way, to Switzerland and to join there the Polish Legion in order *** flight with the legion against the armed forces of the German Reich during the war. In spite of their denial the Court is convinced that the defendants were aware of the treacherous character of the Legion's aims and that they wanted to further these aims. Thereby, they are convinced of the crime of the common preparation of high treason according to Articles 80, Sec. 1, 83 Sec. 2 and Sec. 3 and of the crime of assisting the enemy according to Articles 91b, 47, 73 Penal Code.