 |
number. Noeggerathstrasse was practically destroyed by an air raid in
1944. Nevertheless the French prisoners of war remained there. On 12 June 1944
the medical officer in charge of the camp protested to Dr. Jaeger, senior camp
physician, that there were 170 men living in a “damp railway tunnel not
suitable for permanent accommodation of human beings.” The medical
treatment was given out of doors and those living in the plants were forced to
go for sick call to [the toilet of] a burned out public house; that medical
orderlies were sleeping in a men’s lavatory, and that drugs and wound
dressings were lacking. The same conditions existed 3 months later. On 2
September 1944, Dr. Jaeger wrote the defendants Ihn and Kupke, among others,
that the camp “is in a terrible condition. The people live in ash bins,
dog kennels, old baking ovens and self-made huts. The food is barely
sufficient. Krupp is responsible for housing and feeding. The supply of
medicine and bandages is so extremely bad that proper medical treatment was not
possible in many cases. This fact is detrimental to the prisoner of war camp.
It is astonishing that the number of sick is not higher than it is and it
varies between 9 and 10 percent. It is also understandable that there is not
much willingness to work when conditions are such as they are mentioned above.
When complaints are made that many of the prisoners of war are absent from work
for 1 or 2 days, the camp can be blamed to a great extent for having
insufficient organization.” (D-339, Pros. Ex. 917)¹
As
a result, two barracks were built for the prisoners. There has been no
substantial attempt on the part of the defense to deny that the accommodations
at Noeggerathstrasse were not as described. The insistence is that the French
prisoners of war themselves insisted upon remaining there because of the
protection against air raids which the railroad tunnel afforded them,
notwithstanding that another camp for their accommodation had been built at
another location. The testimony of Borchmeyer,² the representative of the
Stalag, a witness for the defendant, describes the situation and gives the
results. He stated |
| |
“This camp was rebuilt
several times. When, one day, it was again completely wiped off the map —
and I think on the day of the air raid or at the latest the day after this air
raid — I visited this camp together with Dr. Lehmann who I used to
accompany through the camps in cases like this, and on this occasion Dr.
Lehmann said he could not take the responsibility for rebuilding the camp
which, if you are superstitious, you might say had its fate cut out for itself,
that it was destroyed |
__________
¹ Reproduced above in
section VIII G 1.
² Further testimony of defense witness Josef
Borchmeyer appears in section VIII G 3 above.
1392 |
. 
