Tenth day of the hearing, 4 December 1947
Commencement of the session at 9.05 a.m., composition of the Tribunal as on 3 December 1947.
Presiding Judge: Please summon the witness Erwin Olszówka.
Witness: Witness Erwin Olszówka, 31 years old, a white-collar worker, religion – Roman Catholic, relationship to the accused – none.
Presiding Judge: I would like to remind the witness of the obligation to speak the truth, pursuant to the provisions of Article 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The provision of false testimony is punishable by a term of imprisonment of up to five years. Do the parties want to submit any motions as to the procedure according to which the witness is to be interviewed?
Prosecutors and defense attorneys: We release the witness from the obligation to take an oath.
Presiding Judge: The witness shall be interviewed without taking an oath. Would the witness please state what is known to him in the case at hand, particularly as regards the accused who are present in the courtroom. Does the witness recognize them and what testimony can he provide about the behavior of the individual accused with respect to the prisoners? Please look around and provide surnames.
Witness: During my five-year period of incarceration in the concentration camp at Auschwitz, I encountered the majority of the accused present here. In the first row, I recognize the accused Liebehenschel, and thereafter the accused Aumeier, Möckel, Grabner, Kraus, Josten, Gehring, Müller, Plagge, Bogusch, Szczurek, Ludwig, Schumacher, Kirschner, Münch and Kremer. Amongst the women, I can identify the accused Mandl, the accused Brandl and the accused Orlowski.
Presiding Judge: For how long was the witness detained at the concentration camp?
Witness: I was incarcerated at the concentration camp from 25 June 1940 until the time of its liquidation, that is until 18 January 1945. Initially, I was employed in the various working brigades, however during the last year of my detention, when I occupied the post of camp clerk, due to the duties that I was tasked with I had a number of occasions to encounter the accused whom I have mentioned previously.
As regards the accused Liebehenschel, it is a proven fact that he somewhat improved the conditions of the prisoners, however this did not prevent him from acting as the master of Auschwitz when the “Höß action” was in full swing. His humanitarian motives did not stop him in any way from conducting a campaign of extermination. Namely, he worked hand in hand with the late infamous Höß. As the commandant of Auschwitz, he was the direct replicator of Höß’ disgraceful tradition. During his tenure, the extermination campaign reached its zenith. Concerning the mass gassing of prisoners in Auschwitz, one must cite the fact that although Höß played the most important role in the entire macabre undertaking, Liebehenschel – as commandant and commander of the Auschwitz garrison, the so-called Standortältester [senior garrison officer] – was able to impact the course of events taking place on the grounds of the concentration camp as he pleased. During his rule the “action” became so intense that one may confidently state that together with Höß he annihilated three million people in Auschwitz. And even if he did introduce certain measures that made the prisoners’ lives somewhat more bearable, these were no more than tactical concessions, for the simple reason that the War was drawing to a close and the defeat of Germany was visible to all. In other words, having a knife put to his neck, he changed course. Furthermore, while a prisoner at the camp I learned that he had gained an unsavory reputation at other camps, and also while working at the main administration of concentration camps in Berlin. I was informed of these facts by my colleagues who worked in the political department.
The next in turn, the accused Aumeier, came to Auschwitz in February 1941 from Flossenbürg. While there, he imposed the strictest discipline, and applied the same tactic at Auschwitz concentration camp. He ruled with an iron fist, and he cared naught for the consequences – he had a complete disregard for human life. This man had the audacity, whenever fresh transports arrived at the camp, to tell the Polish prisoners – while standing in an arrogant manner and raising his voice – that Poland would never be reborn, that Poland simply had to have perished, for the country could not rule itself, and that Poles were being sent to the camp in order for the country’s biological potential to be destroyed. They would be allowed to live only until such time as they perished on the “battle-field”. For the concentration camp was viewed as a battle-field. This man treated all prisoners with arrogance and beat them at every step – [each and every] inmate that he encountered standing in his way. This man would shoot prisoners in cold blood. This man shot at people during executions, firing off the so-called “shot of honor”, the honorable shot – Gnadenstoß in German. During his infamous period of service in Auschwitz, Aumeier would always attend executions, all of them: selections, killings ordered by the political department, or by the accused Grabner.
Grabner was the master of life and death with respect to the political prisoners. While tormenting them, he had no scruples in making the fullest possible use of inmates who wore a green triangle on their chests. The green triangle designated career criminals, and these usually had the blackest pasts. These criminalists were in the main German citizens. Whenever prisoners tried to break free from the administratively imposed rigor, Grabner would intervene in the most brutal way. His explanations to the effect that he was only enforcing orders passed on from above are completely baseless and false, for the political department never waited for instructions from Berlin. They acted exactly as they wished, and Grabner – as head – was responsible for everything. I would like to cite the following example. When I was sent to the camp in 1940 and was a month into my sentence, I committed an innocent offense, namely due to exhaustion and fatigue I fell asleep while working in the attic of block 18a, subsequently 25a. The deputy of Lagerführer [camp leader] Fritzsch, Meyer – nicknamed “the Doll” – ordered that I be given 25 lashes. This penalty was clearly influenced by the political department, which acted hand in hand with the camp commandant.
The penalty was administered by the accused Plagge together with Palitzsch. I was lucky, however, that they stopped at 25 blows, for I gave out no sound while being whipped.
In the evening, I was summoned to the Lagerartzt [camp doctor], one Popierz [Popiersch]. He announced that I had been sentenced to a whipping and that he was to examine me in order to determine whether I was fit enough to undergo it. This was ironic, for I was at the time a “Muslim”. Only when I announced that I had already received 25 lashes, which he ordered me to prove, did he state that there had been some error. He released me back to the block. When later I was working in the office, I found my files and saw that the sentence sent in from Berlin had called for 10 lashes.
After I received this penalty, they sent me to the penal company. Our work consisted in rolling the sports field. The enormous roller, which should normally have been drawn by four pairs of horses, was operated by the exhausted prisoners. I managed to survive all this thanks to my excellent health, iron constitution and strong will to live.
Whippings were the norm for me and, indeed, for all of the prisoners.
It is sufficient to recall the kapo of the penal company, Frankemann, who did not escape justice. He was transferred to another camp and, while there, died a shameful death.
As regards the accused Grabner, I would like to add that he could have done a lot [to help]. But he did not want to do anything and – in actual fact – being a German, this would have been difficult for him. During the many years spent in the camp, I witnessed a number of scenes, and among them a quarrel between Grabner and Höß concerning his [i.e. Höß] gardener, who had been sentenced to death. Grabner insisted that the sentence must be carried out.
What the sentence was and how exactly it was to be administered, I do not know. I know, however, that if the camp authorities had so wanted, they could have limited the number of murders. All the executions were no more than common murders, pure and simple.
The next of the accused, Sturmbahnführer Kraus, arrived in Auschwitz in 1943 and for a certain time had no function to perform. Lagerführer Hössler told me at the time that the man was a fit-for-nothing. Kraus was known amongst the prisoners as an inveterate drunk, who when inebriated would beat anyone who crossed his path. He was usually to be found in the office of the kitchen chief, whose surname – if I remember correctly – was Egersdorf; he was nicknamed “Uncle”. Once, when leaving the kitchen intoxicated, he would make it difficult for me to hold roll call. For as the camp clerk, I was responsible for conducting the evening roll call. Namely, a column was marching through the gate into the camp, and he stopped it and proceeded to beat up one of the inmates who had broken rank. This was how Kraus found fulfillment.
Another of Kraus’ stunts was when he beat up a prisoner, a friend of mine, who had come to meet me in the office late one evening. Kraus barged in after him and, without saying anything, kicked him black and blue and thereafter led him away personally to block 11, to the bunker. After I explained what was going on, the man was released, but no one recompensed him for the pain he had suffered. Kraus was later transferred to Birkenau, where he was placed in charge of camp II.
The next of the accused, Josten, was the second deputy to the Lagerführer of Auschwitz concentration camp. He was responsible for the anti-aircraft defenses. This man was an utter coward. I cannot say that he helped the prisoners in any way. He was an eminent sadist amongst the senior SS men seated in the dock today. He did not do any harm to me personally. He had a grudging respect for us, because my friends and I did all the SS men’s work in the camp office. In all probability they did not have anyone who could have assumed our roles. And there was a lot of work. People could think that the prisoners working in the office had an easy job. But we labored for 14 hours a day, and on more than one occasion we had to assist at night, when the transports arrived, or when lists were drawn up of prisoners leaving the camp.
This may be confirmed by Bogusch, a man who was incompetent at everything, but regularly criticized our work. On the other hand, he would frequently beg us for foodstuffs – to obtain which we had to risk our lives – or indeed extort them from us.
I would also like to mention the accused Gehring, who was the Blockführer [block leader] of block 11. He was employed in this capacity because he was considered reliable.
He passed his “exam” with flying colors, for as a janitor in the bunker he would not let anybody pass without giving them a kick. He took part in each and every execution carried out at block 11.
But I do not know whether he himself shot anyone. I witnessed one incident that occurred in block 11, when a woman was murdered along with her child. I do not know whether anyone else also saw this, however I witnessed the killing. I think that I am the only person to have seen it. I looked on through a crack in the window frame of block 10a, where I had managed to hide from the watchful gaze of the SS men, having twice fallen ill with typhus fever in 1942. Block 10 was hastily emptied, and so we assumed that something would happen in the courtyard of block 11. Looking through the crack I saw a terrible sight, which I cannot forget to this day. A woman holding a child walked through the gate of block 11. Behind her came Palitzsch and Gehring, their keys ringing. They talked between themselves for a while, but I do not know what about. They interrupted their discussion for a moment, Palitzsch killed the child – in its mother’s arms – with a shot to the nape of the neck, and thereafter dispatched the mother, whereupon both men calmly walked on to block 11, evidently considering that they had done their duty. Indeed they had, as the best of Germans.
Next in line is the accused Müller, who as a Blockführer would beat the prisoners – as all of the camp personnel did, in fact – both in the course of duty and because such behavior was encouraged. For during their numerous briefings the SS men were made to understand that political prisoners, and in particular Russians, Poles and Jews, stood in the way of the development of the Third Reich. And so, they were told, it was their duty to destroy these nationalities. As the Arbeitsdienstführer [head of the camp labor service] – and this was a high rank in the camp hierarchy – he would beat, kick and otherwise torment prisoners, sending many to the penal transport.
I cannot say whether or not he killed anyone. In any case, it is sufficient to take but one look at his patently criminal physiognomy. Without a doubt, he had more than one life on his conscience.
As regards the accused Plagge, he was an SS man whom I had the misfortune of encountering immediately upon my arrival in Auschwitz. It was he who over the first few weeks would organize “sports” for the prisoners. These “sports”, although the name sounds banal, were the first step towards the extermination of inmates.
Presiding Judge: These are things already known to us, and I would like to ask the witness to tell us something special about the accused who are known to him.
Witness: I will therefore pass over the activities of the accused Plagge and proceed straight to the accused Szczurek, who as the Blockführer of block 25a also beat and otherwise tormented prisoners. I must add, however, that he was the only Blockführer who spoke to us in Polish. But it was normal behavior for him to make fun of our patriotic feelings and mock us. He was a traitor of the Polish nation, for he had lived in Poland before the War, and had become a die-hard German only after its outbreak.
As regards the accused Ludwig, I must say that as a Blockführer he also fulfilled his duties most diligently, of course in the negative sense of the term. He would beat and kick people without any restraint.
Concerning Schumacher, I got to know him when, while working in the camp office, the windows of which opened onto the food warehouse, I saw on a number of occasions how he bullied the prisoners who were unloading bread or other foodstuffs, always whip in hand. For him, this was an attribute of power and authority. My friends told me that they had to take great care to keep out of Schumacher’s way, for he was most dangerous.
As regards the accused Kirschner, he was Plagge’s assistant at the quarantine block. I cannot confirm that he beat prisoners. I must admit that his sense of humanity was not yet completely eroded, and that he was better than the others.
I would also like to mention the accused Seufert. As the so-called SS nurse, that is an SDG [Sanitätsdienstgrade, auxiliary sanitary personnel] – although I am unable to explain this abbreviation – he took part in the test gassings of the first prisoners of Auschwitz concentration camp, which took place in July 1941. The victims were Russian commissars, some 700–800 people in total. He was assisted by both Palitzsch and Schörke. I did not see this myself, for I was not allowed to be present at such actions. In any case, I was told this by the clerk from block 1 and the orderly [Polish kalifaktor from the German Kalfaktor] at block 11, a German by the surname of Kurt. He told me everything in detail, for he had access to all the locations at which the SS men committed their crimes.
Presiding Judge: The witness mentioned Kremer and Münch. Can he provide any specific information regarding these two?
Witness: I know these accused, but there is nothing specific that I can say about them.
Concerning the female camp, I must say that in spite of the strictest prohibitions on entering the facility, we always found some way to stay in touch with them. As the clerk, I was able to get through to the female camp on a number of occasions, and the women told me their stories, some of which were deeply shocking. There, the accused Mandl was in her element. She would beat the women. One of the Greek female prisoners from the first Greek transport told me that when their group arrived at the camp late in the evening, they were placed for that night in the male camp, I think in the Wäscherei [laundry], and there Mandl committed acts unworthy of a woman. The above notwithstanding, Mandl left the Wäscherei with a dog, accompanied by SS men.
As regards the accused Brandl, she too bullied the women and was considered as a patent sadist.
Concerning the accused Orlowski, I encountered her on her first day at the camp, where she arrived with the firm intent of imposing strict discipline in the “Buna” kommando.
Presiding Judge: Considering that the witness was incarcerated there for a number of years, did he meet the accused Hoffman?
Witness: No.
Presiding Judge: The witness mentioned the accused Kirschner, that in comparison with the others he had some human qualities. What specific acts can the witness cite as proof of his humaneness in his contacts with prisoners?
Witness: When Kirschner dismissed Plagge, he ordered all those in initial quarantine to sing songs; however, learning them was very difficult for us. Their lyrics referenced, so to speak, the idyllic and pastoral. They were sad. If not all, then at least some of the prisoners saw that during the short rest breaks Kirschner would come into the room and cry. This detail is an indisputable fact.
Presiding Judge: Why did he cry?
Witness: Because he had a sliver of feeling.
Presiding Judge: Maybe he was influenced by the songs that you sung?
Witness: I am of the opinion that if he did show some feelings, it was because the songs were very sentimental, and apart from this he saw that we were all suffering terribly.
Presiding Judge: The witness thus assesses Kirschner’s feelings in connection with songs that he sung.
Thank you.
What can the witness say about the accused Orlowski?
Witness: I heard from some of the women that she introduced unimaginably strict discipline in some of the kommandos, although I do not remember in which. She would beat the women without mercy. She battered one of my friends until she bled.
Presiding Judge: Are there any questions to the witness?
Prosecutor Szewczyk: While assessing the activities of Liebehenschel, the witness testified that he introduced certain tactical changes, for political reasons. Since the witness worked in the office, could he specifically state – on the basis of orders received by Liebehenschel from the authorities or issued by him, or otherwise from what he said – whether these acts were indeed inspired by the authorities and whether the introduction of the said changes was intended to suit the needs of the regime?
Witness: As regards tactical moves on the part of Liebehenschel, I may indeed cite them, although these were small matters …
Prosecutor Szewczyk: I do not want the witness to enumerate them, but to associate the said changes with the central administration. Did the witness observe anything that would indicate that the commandant’s office received instructions specifying that the approach towards prisoners was to be changed?
Witness: I am unable to say whether these changes were made on his own initiative, or whether he was so ordered by the authorities.
Prosecutor Szewczyk: In which offices was the witness employed?
Witness: In the main office on the grounds of the camp.
Prosecutor Szewczyk: The witness mentioned the accused Kraus in a negative sense. Could the witness cite a fact pertaining to his participation in selections at the ramp?
Witness: By the very nature of his office, Kraus had to take part in the acceptance of transports at the ramp.
Prosecutor Szewczyk: The witness himself did not see this?
Witness: No.
Prosecutor Szewczyk: Some of the witnesses testified that during the evacuation of the camp Kraus bustled around the camp with great zeal, shooting his pistol and forcing the prisoners to join in the evacuation.
Witness: I also heard this, but I did not see it, for all this happened in Birkenau, and I was in the central administration.
Prosecutor Szewczyk: The witness testified regarding the accused Mandl that she committed acts unworthy of a woman. In what did Mandl’s actions – so negatively assessed – consist?
Witness: Mandl approached the transports of new arrivals from Greece with her dog and a stick, defiling the naked women. The hairdressers stated so.
Prosecutor Szewczyk: And so this, too, the witness knows from third party accounts?
Witness: Yes.
Prosecutor Pęchalski: The witness has called Josten a sadist. Did the witness see him beat and kick prisoners, and – if so – under what circumstances?
Witness: I was an eyewitness to an untold number of instances of such behavior.
Prosecutor Pęchalski: Did the accused stand at the gate, search the prisoners, and beat them there?
Witness: Yes. Josten stood at the gate and in the event of the slightest infraction, if he found that the prisoners had anything on them, he would beat them unconscious.
Prosecutor Pęchalski: And now I would like to ask the witness when was it that Kirschner cried? For I am unable to figure out whether this happened after the “sports”, after the classes?
Witness: It was during the singing of the songs.
Prosecutor Pęchalski: Did you perform any exercises apart from the songs, or did you only sing?
Witness: We did exercises: frog leaps, knee bends, the so-called duck walk, rolling, etc., all in turn.
Prosecutor Pęchalski: Did Kirschner assist Plagge in the carrying out of these exercises throughout the whole day, and were the exercises performed under the instruction of Plagge or Kirschner?
Witness: Plagge and Kirschner were present in turn at the exercises. The difficult exercises were administered solely by Plagge. During Kirschner’s shift, we had lighter exercises, limited to marches and songs.
Prosecutor Pęchalski: Is the witness aware that the said Kirschner, who cried during your exercises, is responsible for the gassing to death of a few thousand people, for he also poured Zyklon B into the gas chambers?
Witness: I heard about this, for all the Blockführers took part in gassing people.
Prosecutor Pęchalski: Kirschner too?
Witness: Yes.
Prosecutor Brandys: The witness recounted that Aumeier arrived at the camp in February 1941. I would like to ascertain whether the witness was not mistaken in his statement?
Witness: In February 1942.
Prosecutor Brandys: The witness also recounted that Bogusch forced prisoners to hand over foodstuffs. Apart from this, did Bogusch beat and kick the prisoners, and otherwise torment them?
Witness: As regards the accused Bogusch, I must say that he had little contact with the general prison population on the grounds of the camp. He had contact only with the Schreibstube [administrative office].
Prosecutor Brandys: Does the witness know when Bogusch came to the Schreibstube?
Witness: In 1943.
Prosecutor Brandys: And what did he do previously?
Witness: I do not know, for I had never seen him previously.
Prosecutor Brandys: Is the witness aware whether the accused Ludwig forced prisoners to make performances on his behalf, under threat of repressions, similarly to Bogusch?
Witness: He did the same as Bogusch.
Prosecutor Brandys: When did the witness start working at the Schreibstube?
Witness: On 13 January 1944, [and I worked there] until the evacuation of Auschwitz. There were two offices: one was called the Schutzhaftlagerschreibstube [office of the protective custody camp], and the other the Häftlings schreibstube [office for prisoners’ affairs]. I did not work in the latter.
Prosecutor Brandys: Is the witness aware of the total number of prisoners?
Witness: The last number was 218 thousand something.
Prosecutor Brandys: These were only men?
Witness: Yes. We should not pass over the fact that there was also a separate numbering system for Jews.
Prosecutor Brandys: What other sections [categories] were there?
Witness: Apart from these, there was also the prisoner category “E” – Erziehungshäftlinge [prisoners undergoing education].
Prosecutor Brandys: How many of these were there?
Witness: If I remember correctly, the last number was 12,000. There was also a category “A” – “transport Jews”. Their numbers ended at 20,000, and the authorities introduced a new numbering category, “B”. When the camp was evacuated, the numbers had run up to 9,000. There was also a category “Z”, which had some 20,000 numbers. As regards women, their numbers went up to 132,000.
Prosecutor Brandys: Is the witness aware of how many prisoners were shot dead at the camp, or perhaps gassed? With respect to the numbered prisoners?
Witness: Concerning those who were shot dead and gassed to death, I would put their number at more or less 150,000 in total, both men and women.
Prosecutor Brandys: What happened with the Gypsies?
Witness: The Gypsies were liquidated in July 1944 – some were sent to other camps, but only a proportionately small number, around 3,000 if I remember correctly, while the others were put to death.
Prosecutor Brandys: In what way?
Witness: All were gassed to death.
Prosecutor Brandys: Does the witness remember any special executions or actions aimed against Poles?
Witness: I remember an execution that took place in 1941. I think that this was the first execution to become well known. Some 40 Poles were executed behind the kitchen, in the gravel-pit. The next execution that I recollect took place on 12 June 1942.
Prosecutor Brandys: Can the witness provide us with numbers and dates?
Witness: On 12 June 1943, 380 people were shot dead, of whom 120 were from a Silesian transport at block 11, while the rest [were shot dead] in Birkenau. Thereafter, there was a great number of executions in October 1943, when nearly the entire Lublin transport was killed.
Prosecutor Brandys: How many people could it have numbered?
Witness: More or less 350 prisoners.
Prosecutor Brandys: Does the witness know anything about the transports from the Zamość region?
Witness: We all knew that transports from the Zamość region were taken to block 21. These transports included children. The children were murdered, all of them, with lethal injections at block 20.
Prosecutor Brandys: Were these transports larger?
Witness: Usually up to one thousand people.
Prosecutor Brandys: Thank you.
Prosecutor Pęchalski: I would ask the witness – for the sake of clarity and precision, when the witness said that the number of those shot dead totaled 150,000, was the witness referring to numbered prisoners?
Witness: Only to numbered prisoners.
Defense attorney Kossek: Does the witness remember when Liebehenschel came to the camp as its commandant?
Witness: Liebehenschel arrived in the autumn of 1943.
Defense attorney Kossek: Why does the witness associate the atrocities committed under Höß with the person of the accused Liebehenschel?
Witness: I mentioned the “Höß action”, which was conducted in 1943.
Defense attorney Kossek: The witness stated that he does not know of any documents that would have influenced the course of policy followed by Liebehenschel.
Witness: I did not say that it was conducted in line with orders from Berlin, only that during his tenure the course of action became a bit more lenient.
Defense attorney Wolska-Walas: Did the said woman, whose surname is unknown, tell the witness about her being beaten, and when did the witness see signs of the beating?
Witness: This was in the winter of 1944.
Defense attorney Rymar: Did the witness encounter the accused Ludwig?
Witness: I met him daily in the camp, and I know him from my own observations.
Defense attorney Minasowicz: You were present during the evacuation of the camp ... who was in charge of the evacuation?
Witness: The evacuation was commanded by Kessler, and Josten was his right-hand man.
Defense attorney Minasowicz: During the evacuation, were those prisoners who were unable to walk shot?
Witness: I must admit that in their hurry the SS men did not manage to murder all of us. Our next stop was Wodzisław. All those who grew weak during the march were shot dead on the spot.
Defense attorney Minasowicz: Did you, sir, see the accused Bogusch accompanying the convoys?
Witness: I did not see Bogusch with my transport.
Defense attorney Minasowicz: And when did Bogusch disappear from your sight?
Witness: Sometime in October 1944.
Defense attorney Minasowicz: Are you aware where he was transferred?
Witness: I am not.
Defense attorney Minasowicz: Are you aware of the fact that, purportedly, he forced prisoners to hand over foodstuffs? If yes, then how did he go about this, how did this occur?
Witness: As regards Bogusch, he extorted us for foodstuffs and we handed them over; we had obtained these articles from friends and contacts who worked in the warehouses and at the transports.
Defense attorney Minasowicz: So it all came down to giving him something?
Witness: Yes.
Defense attorney Minasowicz: And if a prisoner failed to comply?
Witness: Maybe he would not have done anything to individuals, but we in the office wanted to have him off our backs.
Defense attorney Minasowicz: Did the witness see the accused beating anyone?
Witness: No, I did not.
Defense attorney Rappaport: Does the witness know the accused Dinges?
Witness: I did not see him in the camp.
Defense attorney Czerny: You testified that Kirschner took part in the gassings. When was this?
Witness: When the executions reached their zenith, in 1944. At this time the accused Kirschner was the Arbeitsführer [labor leader].
Defense attorney Czerny: Was he in the Passierscheinstube [office responsible for issuing passes]?
Witness: I have not heard of such an institution.
Defense attorney Czerny: Who told the witness that Kirschner took part in the gassings?
Witness: Prisoners in the camp. What is more, one of the Blockführers had a moment of honesty and told me all about it.
Defense attorney Kossek: When was this gassing, the one in which Kirschner took part? In the spring or in the autumn?
Witness: The whole campaign was reaching its zenith, it all started in March and lasted until the end of June.
Presiding Judge: The accused Szczurek may make a statement, or otherwise ask a question of the witness.
The accused Szczurek: I would like to ask the witness whether during my period of service I performed any duties at block 11.
Witness: Insofar as I recall, Szczurek did not serve at block 11.
Presiding Judge: The accused Bogusch may submit a statement.
The accused Bogusch: Your Honor, I would request permission to ask the witness whether I served as a Blockführer?
Witness: I do not recollect the accused Bogusch holding this position on the grounds of the concentration camp.
The accused Bogusch: The bill of indictment charges me with being a Blockführer.
Witness: This may be due to the fact that SS men usually held the position of Blockführer, whereas Bogusch as the head of the Schreibstube would meet with some of the Blockführers, and in any case his post was equivalent in rank to that of a Blockführer.
Presiding Judge: Are there any questions to the witness?
Prosecutor Brandys: Is the witness aware of the post held by the accused Bogusch before he was assigned the post of Schreibstubeführer, which he held from May 1942?
Witness: I cannot provide an answer to this question, for I do not know what position he held previously.
The accused Bogusch: I would like to ask the witness whether I personally made any reports regarding the witness, or indeed any of the people working at the Schreibstube?
Witness: The accused did not make any reports concerning myself or my colleagues working at the Schreibstube, for after all we had bribed him.
The accused Bogusch: I would also like to ask whether the witness is aware of me tormenting any girls or women in the office?
Witness: This I did not see.
Presiding Judge: The accused Kraus may submit a statement.
The accused Kraus: The witness declared that he worked at the Häftlingschreibstube. Did he deal with any reports concerning the number of prisoners?
Witness: Yes, by way of my function I dealt with such reports.
The accused Kraus: Maybe, therefore, the witness can inform me whether he received any reports concerning the number of prisoners in Birkenau?
Witness: Yes, I also came into contact with reports concerning the number of prisoners at camp II, that is Birkenau.
The accused Kraus: Can the witness state who undersigned these reports?
Witness: I do not remember.
[…]
The accused Seufert: Esteemed Tribunal, I request permission to ask the witness whether he still remembers the theater building.
Witness: Yes, I do.
The accused Seufert: What was located in this building?
Witness: I did not see myself, but I heard that the cellars of this structure hid small anti-tank cannons and weapons.
The accused Seufert: Thank you.