Presiding Judge: Please ask the next witness, Franciszek Targosz, to approach.
(The witness Franciszek Targosz approaches.)
Presiding Judge: Please provide your personal details.
Witness: Franciszek Targosz, 49 years old, religion – Roman Catholic, an office worker at the State Museum in Auschwitz, relationship to the accused – none.
Presiding Judge: I hereby instruct the witness, pursuant to the provisions of Article 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, that you are required to speak the truth. 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: No.
Defense counsel: No.
Presiding Judge: I hereby exempt the witness from taking an oath. What information does the witness possess regarding the case itself, and also the accused?
Witness: I arrived at Auschwitz concentration camp on 18 December 1940. During the first few days we were assigned to various kommandos, which were tasked with performing hard and arduous work. We were allocated to different workshops, depending on requirements. 90 percent of the work was performed outdoors. During this time it was cold in the camp, and we were usually hungry. The living conditions were terrible. As regards the accused, I can say that I first encountered Grabner, Bogusch and Aumeier, and thereafter Liebehenschel. Grabner was the head of the political department, and had the rank of Untersturmbannführer. My friends warned me about him, and indeed about the entire political department. The whole world now knows what a man he was. This was one of the branches that had as its task the extermination of all non-German elements. Grabner himself was surrounded by a network of informers. He had subordinates in the SS, and also informers within the camp, amongst the German criminals, and they would be regularly summoned to Grabner’s political department and to Woźnica, who debriefed them in detail. The accused Kirschner, Boger, Lachman and numerous others were subordinate to Grabner. I am sure that he remembers his activities at block 11, as well as the numerous interrogations of prisoners conducted by the political department.
Grabner once loudly reported to commandant Höß, who happened to enter the camp with a group of higher ranking officials and SS officers and asked Grabner how many transports, more or less, arrived at the camp, that on average – I did not hear this clearly, for I was some 12 m distant – 9 or 19. Höß then instructed Grabner to learn the exact number – and Aumeier was also present during this exchange – how many were delivered, literally, wieviel abgestellt [how many were separated]. Grabner replied durschnittlich 32 tausend [more or less 32,000]. Höß then rebuked Aumeier, saying that I could have overheard them (this took place in the camp museum, to which all the commissions and foreign or party delegations were taken). Aumeier walked up to me, Höß said something to him, and thereafter Aumeier explained that I could not possibly have heard anything. What he was referring to was that, indeed, in 1943, when incinerations were carried out in all of the crematoria, in open pits and in special barracks, where on average you could burn some 1,200 – 1,500 bodies at one go, the daily extermination rate totaled around 32,000 people.
In January 1943, Grabner shot a certain prisoner in the corridor; the man must have undergone terrible torture during the investigation and, in desperation, started running down the corridor. I encountered Grabner on a few occasions, when he was going to block 11, and I also saw him a few times when the first transports of women were received at the camp, and during selections. He was present when these women were broken up into groups; he conducted this process personally, together with Aumeier. There were a few other SS men apart from him, but I do not see them here. In January 1944, Grabner was officially present in Auschwitz, but he was suspended for some time following the burning down of certain barracks in which a great many things were stored. These barracks were torched in order to destroy some kind of evidence. I last saw Grabner in 1944. At the time, he served elsewhere, and only came to our camp on occasion. His place in the camp was taken by Schurz. This is all that I have to say about Grabner.
Presiding Judge: Can the witness provide any information about the other accused?
Witness: Aumeier arrived in the camp in January or in the beginning of February 1942. He was an irritable, malicious and vindictive man. If a prisoner strayed too close to him, it was certain that he would be insulted and beaten. He frequently assisted in the administration of punishments at block 11, and was present during executions, penal roll calls – during which people were whipped, and at all the hangings. Aumeier left in 1943, in August or October. My colleagues from the political department – and a few of the SS men – told me that Aumeier himself carried out selections at the ramp at Birkenau, and when the penal company rebelled, he personally shot at people. This was not an execution – Aumeier simply selected some individuals and shot at them as if he were on a hunt.
In 1943, but before Aumeier left, an execution was held at block 11, during which hostages from the coal basin – women, children and men – were killed; these people had not been entered in the files of either the political department or block 11. As a matter of fact, they were killed on the very same day on which they arrived. The shooting was attended by Höß, Hessler, Kirschner, Bogusch, Lachman and Dilowski. I encountered Aumeier once more at the camp command after his removal from the camp (he was probably sent to Riga), in 1944. I did not see him again.
Liebehenschel arrived at Auschwitz in 1943, in November. Conditions at the camp improved. Everybody now knows what was going on at the time – they were obsessed with Stalingrad. Thereafter they required ever more laborers. Nevertheless, Liebehenschel visited Birkenau and other locations where prisoners were humiliated, and he knew about everything. Although he did not require the prisoners to doff their caps to the SS men during roll call or on wintry evenings, but the transports continued to arrive throughout 1943 and 1944, although they were redirected from Auschwitz to Birkenau. I had heard of Liebehenschel in 1940, even before I was arrested, when party members Walter Tetzner, Holm and Kraft, who was the appointed steward of Archduke Stefan in Żywiec, mentioned Liebehenschel, Höß and Schwarz as those who were to carry out the Jewish "action". In addition, I heard that Höß "action" was to be similar to Liebehenschel’s. Schwarz or Schwarlehr also fulfilled a similar role – but this was not the Schwarz who was active in Auschwitz, this man’s rank was higher, because he was the commandant of some camp in the Reich.
Although at some time Liebehenschel did in fact forbid the political department to move freely around the camp, and also transferred the informers to other camps, he later brought in some special kapos-cum-informers who were assigned to individual workshops, lived amongst the prisoners, and always reported on what went on – either to him personally, or to the political department as such. They called them the Lagerpolizei [camp police]. This Lagerpolizei sought out all and any prisoners who were involved in helping others. So if someone secured a better job for a friend, these policemen would always be the first to know. For this reason arrests in the camp were frequent, and such arrestees were sent to block 11, where they would be sentenced to a whipping, penal deportation, or death. In all probability, Liebehenschel left Auschwitz in May or June 1944.
I also knew numerous others. I can see Bogusch, Unterscharführer – and subsequently Scharführer – Kraus, Josten, Müller and others. Kraus arrived at Auschwitz towards the end of 1944. I think that his job was to inspect the internal affairs of the camp, and also improve discipline. Some time later he was transferred to the camp at Birkenau, where he worked in a similar capacity. My friends who were employed in the fire brigade told me that he also took part in the deportations; they said that at that camp Kraus was involved in handling the so-called family transports, that is larger transports from abroad.
Bogusch initially worked for Lagerführer [camp leader] Aumeier. He was malicious and annoying, frequently reporting on people and stealing whatever he could lay his hands on. He would appropriate anything valuable, not caring whether this would cause a prisoner to be reported on or sentenced to death. I know a few instances where, acting with complete impudence, he stole watches that had been entrusted to prisoners by SS men in order to be repaired. He clearly thought that as the secretary of the then chief – Hoffmann or Hessler – he could do whatever he pleased.
Müller was initially the Blockführer [block leader] at block 11, while later he was placed in charge of the Arbeitseinsatz [labor deployment office]. He held the rank of Scharführer; colleagues of mine who worked with him could say more about his activities. He attended a dozen or so executions carried out at block 11. When Auschwitz was evacuated in 1945, Bogusch was in charge of our escort. While we traveled between Auschwitz and Pszczyna, I witnessed him ordering the execution, by shooting, of a few prisoners (mainly Jews) who did not have the strength to walk any further. I do not remember where they were leading us, for he went missing already in Wodzisław, although I did hear him order the guards to shoot at people along this route. He would beat prisoners who could not walk fast enough along the slippery road.
Another Unterscharführer, fourth in the row from the right. He took part in the executions at block 11, he assisted Palitzsch and he was a Blockführer; he was later assigned to a different kommando, and therefore no longer came to the parent camp.
Prosecutor Pęchalski: Esteemed Tribunal! I would request that the surname of the said accused – the one mentioned by the witness – be stated.
Presiding Judge: Please provide your surname.
The accused: Herman Kirschner.
Witness: Now [the man] fourth from Josten. At block 11, he was most useful to the SS authorities in the shooting and tormenting of prisoners.
Presiding Judge: I request the accused to provide his surname.
The accused: Ludwig Plagge.
Witness: There is also the accused Szczurek, whereas I have no specific information concerning the others. When they caught one of my colleagues who had escaped from the camp, Szczurek tormented him mercilessly, saying that he should have poisoned himself instead of getting caught. The execution took place at block 11.
Presiding Judge: The witness mentioned Josten.
Witness: Josten assisted with the transports; he was at every execution and every roll call, and on a few occasions he was present at the executions carried out at block 11.
Presiding Judge: Is this everything that the witness wanted to testify?
Witness: The doctor, the second man in the front row (the witness looks towards the dock), he was generally considered alright. I know many of the accused, but I do not remember their surnames.
Prosecutor Pęchalski: I would like to remind the witness about a fact that he mentioned during the investigation – that the witness had important visitors (Hohen Besuch). To whom did this refer?
Witness: Aumeier and Grabner assisted during visitations of this type, made by higher-ranking dignitaries, but there were also two officers with the rank of Hauptsturmführer. Höß turned with some question to Grabner, who left and returned after more or less 20 minutes, reporting as follows: durchschnittlich 32,000. This would suggest that he was referring to the number of prisoners.
Prosecutor: The surname of Liebehenschel has been mentioned. Why?
Witness: Unfortunately not that of Liebehenschel, but Grabner. I heard about Liebehenschel in Bielsko. His "action", and I heard this repeated many times in the camp, was designed to exterminate the Slovakian Jews.
Prosecutor: Please read out the pertinent paragraph from volume 54, card 141, which concerns the said conversation.
Presiding Judge: Of course.
Prosecutor Pęchalski: Since there will be other questions, I would request that the paragraph be read out later.
Presiding Judge: Alright.
Prosecutor Pęchalski: Does the witness remember, with reference to Josten, whether he took part in the "special actions"?
Witness: No.
Prosecutor: And in the selection of the Jews in 1944?
Witness: Yes, together with Unterscharführer Seel.
Prosecutor: In 1942, a transport of women from the Sosnowice Basin arrived in the camp, and it was sent to block 11. How did Grabner and Aumeier treat these prisoners?
Witness: Aumeier beat and otherwise maltreated pregnant women.
Prosecutor Brandys: And as regards the accused Bogusch – did Bogusch verbally abuse the inmates?
Witness: He shouted polnische Schweine [Polish swine] and also used other obscenities.
Prosecutor: Did Bogusch take part in the selections and special actions?
Witness: Yes, together with Unterscharführer Gres.
Prosecutor: How many people from your transport were shot?
Witness: Approximately 400. Some said that 370.
Prosecutor: Did the accused Bogusch try to blackmail prisoners?
Witness: He threatened that a prisoner who did not do something for him would be sent to the bunker.
Prosecutor Brandys: And as concerns the accused Szczurek, did he take part in the special actions?
Witness: He took part in the special actions, however he did not come to the camp.
Presiding Judge: Please read out the paragraph from card 141 in volume 50. (The reporter reads out the paragraph) "On the occasion of each Hohen Besuch, the visitor would be taken to the museum. In August 1942 it was visited by some SS dignitary, accompanied by his entourage, and he was shown around by Höß and his staff. During the tour of the museum, this dignitary conversed with Höß on the topic of mass transports of Jews. If my memory serves me right, the issue concerned mass transports of Jews from the Netherlands. From what they said it appeared that the transports were administered by Liebehenschel, however he did not send them to Auschwitz, instead redirecting them elsewhere. Majdanek was mentioned. The said dignitary declared categorically that this matter was being taken care of by Liebehenschel, and that he had been instructed to deal with it in the same way as he had dealt with the transports of Slovakian Jews. The Slovakian Jews had been destroyed in Birkenau. This conversation started when they were looking at Jewish liturgical vessels, which they made fun of. I overheard the discussion, for I was in the same room, although at a certain distance from the group that was talking".
Witness: As regards the last issue, I remember very well, for I saw Liebehenschel often.
Presiding Judge: Are there any further questions?
Defense attorney Kossek: The witness has stated that during Liebehenschel’s term of office the situation in the camp improved. Did it remain in this improved state after he left?
Witness: Yes, that was the case.
Defense attorney Kossek: The witness stated that he heard about Liebehenschel in Bielsko. From whom did he receive this information?
Witness: There was a great reception in the castle in Wisła, at which Pohl was present. All of the local party, SA and SS functionaries were invited. At the time, I was the signing clerk of a certain company that was owned by a German. While at the reception, he talked with an SA man from the Silesian political department who said that the Jewish action had been entrusted to sworn-in, higher-ranking SS officers, amongst whom he mentioned Höß, Schwarz and Liebehenschel, saying that the latter had been tasked with conducting the selection.
Defense attorney: The witness stated that Liebehenschel took part in the execution. Was he also active at the ramp in Birkenau?
Witness: I heard this from Unterofizier Vogt. He had been removed from the political department and transferred to another department, for he had fallen ill while watching the bestialities occurring at the ramp. He was favorably inclined towards the prisoners.
Defense attorney Kossek: What opinion did Liebehenschel enjoy in the camp as a man?
Witness: The prisoners had a good opinion of him. However the inmates were not aware of all his behind-the-scenes machinations.
Presiding Judge: Are there any further questions?
Defense attorney Minasowicz: Who took over in the camp from Höß?
Witness: Liebehenschel directly.
Defense attorney Minasowicz: When did Hoffman come to the camp?
Witness: Hoffman came to the camp later and became the camp leader, with the same rank as Aumeier.
Defense attorney Minasowicz: How did the witness come to encounter the accused Bogusch?
Witness: I was managing the postal correspondence of all the prisoners from both the parent camp and the subcamps. I frequently had to take various files to the camp leader, Hauptsturmführer Aumeier. Bogusch learned that we were employed at the camp museum and frequently asked us to give him some paintings or sculptures, even though he was not authorized to enter the museum. I could not submit an official report, for I was a prisoner, and reporting an SS man would have been dangerous.
Defense attorney Minasowicz: Did Bogusch also perform the duties of a guard?
Witness: This I do not know.
Defense attorney Minasowicz: What were his duties?
Witness: Keeping the files and entering current results in the camp register, serving various files for signature, and also elaborating diverse instructions.
Defense attorney Minasowicz: Did the witness see the accused Bogusch beating prisoners?
Witness: Female inmates worked at the blocks in which he officiated, and he did not allow them to go to the toilet; a few of them even fell ill because of this. But I know nothing as regards beating prisoners.
Defense attorney Minasowicz: How long was your working day?
Witness: From 8.00 a.m. until 4.00 p.m. in winter, and longer in the summer. We had a one- hour dinner break, during which all of us had to leave the blocks in which we worked.
Defense attorney Minasowicz: Did the witness himself see the accused Bogusch beating a prisoner?
Witness: No, I did not.
Defense attorney Minasowicz: Does the witness know when the accused Bogusch left the camp?
Witness: He left in 1944. I did not meet him again until 1945, when the camp was being evacuated – I saw him pushing some prisoners, forcing them to march quicker.
Defense attorney Minasowicz: Is the witness not mistaken in this regard? For the accused Bogusch has testified that he was in Norway at the time.
Witness: I knew Bogusch too well to have been mistaken. During the evacuation he threatened my friends, saying that "you will never see Auschwitz again, while the place to which you are being taken will be your last. If you do not make an effort and steel yourselves for the march, I will kill you where you stand".
Defense attorney Minasowicz: For how long was he in the escort? For how many days?
Witness: Until we reached Wodzisław.
Defense attorney Minasowicz: Did the witness talk with him?
Witness: In the column, no.
Defense attorney Minasowicz: Was there not some other person who resembled the accused, for example Boden, whom the witness could have mistaken therefor?
Witness: No.
Defense attorney Minasowicz: The witness mentioned the selections. In which selections did the accused allegedly take part?
Witness: All of the SS men from Auschwitz, even those from the postal detachment, which was occupied solely with censoring incoming and outgoing correspondence, had to assist with a transport from time to time. This is what we called "special actions".
Defense attorney Minasowicz: The witness means to say that he [i.e. Bogusch] served as an escort there?
Witness: Yes, exactly.
Prosecutor Brandys: In connection with the questions posed by the defense and in order to clarify the issue of Bogusch’s presence in January 1945 and his role in the escort of the transport headed for Wodzisław, I motion that a fragment be read out from volume 63, cards 1–7 of Allied files, in which it is stated that following his transferral to Norway in March 1944 he returned and was present at the camp in Auschwitz in January 1945, and transported prisoners to Mauthausen.
Presiding Judge: I order that the said fragment be read out.
(Court trainee Jaślen reads out the pertinent fragment) "November 1941 – March 1944, an official at the office of the camp commandant, thereafter in Norway with an SS unit from April 1944 to January 1945. January 1945, at the camp in Auschwitz. Transport with prisoners to Mauthausen".
Presiding Judge: May the accused arise. Does the accused admit that he took part in the said transport?
The accused: No.
Prosecutor Pęchalski: I request that the accused Kollmer be presented to the witness. The witness has testified that Kollmer served as an inspection officer and took part in these actions in Birkenau.
Witness: Yes, exactly.
Presiding Judge: Accused Josten, please arise.
The accused Josten: I request permission to ask a question of the witness. The witness stated that I was present during a selection at block 11. Could the witness please tell me when this was supposed to have occurred?
Witness: In 1943.
The accused Josten: How does the witness know that I took part?
Witness: I saw the accused walking towards block 11.
The accused: And the witness states that I took part in a selection on the basis of the fact that I walked to block 11? Could I, in my capacity of commandant of the anti-aircraft defenses, have not gone there to inspect these anti-aircraft defenses?
Witness: If a camp commandant went to block 11 accompanied by functionaries of the political department, headed by Grabner, and we in the registration office already knew that a group of persons had been earmarked for shooting, then if Josten went there too it was obvious that he must have taken part, even if only as a spectator, in order to see the show, for I had seen him at each previous general execution, behaving with nonchalance during hangings.
The accused Josten: Just in case, I would like to submit a declaration to the effect that I was never present at a selection at block 11.
Presiding Judge: The accused is guilty of imprecision, for the reference was to executions, not selections.
The accused Josten: But this does not tally with the truth. The witness stated that I was present and took part in selections at the ramp in Birkenau. How was the witness to know this if he was working at the museum in Auschwitz?
Witness: All of the officers were on duty whenever a transport arrived. If someone did not turn up at work on the following day, whether this was a Sunday, then I would be informed that fresh transports had been directed to Birkenau. While walking to the office, Kraus – at the time Aumeier’s secretary – said that he had been present at the arrival of transports, and I remember this well for the simple reason that not a day went by without me seeing these SS officer or non-commissioned officers, closely associated with us as they were.
The accused: Your Honor! I must state that the witness is basing his statement solely on conjecture, for he himself never witnessed what went on and could not have seen this.
Presiding Judge: The accused Kraus.
The accused: (turns to the witness) You sir have declared that you heard from members of the fire service that while performing my duties in Auschwitz I had been "present at transports". Please tell me, therefore, whether these were inbound or outbound transports?
Witness: I would like to reply by stating that there is no doubt that colleagues of mine who were witnesses to the activities of all of the SS men were most certainly telling the truth, for they knew the surnames of individual SS officers very well, and so if they said that Sturmbannführer Kraus had been present, then that must have been the case – there is no doubt that they were not lying. All the more so as in successive days all the SS officers, both higher- and lower-ranking, were trying to expel memories of the transport from their minds, to this end drinking to excess. The reasons could have been different, but whenever they returned from a transport they were different people, or rather they were no longer people, only animals.
The accused: You sir have stated that this occurred towards the end of 1944. And you are unable to inform me whether these were inbound or outbound transports?
Witness: It has been stated – "present at transports". Since I did not personally witness these happenings, I am unable to answer the question.
Presiding Judge: Accused Szczurek.
The accused: The witness has testified that I allegedly caught a certain prisoner and led him to block 11.
Witness: The said prisoner was taken to the Blockführerstube [guardhouse] near the entrance to the camp, where he was subjected to verbal abuse and kicked by the accused. The accused spoke to him thus: "You swine, you should not have allowed yourself to get caught".
The accused: This prisoner had been led into the camp by the same gendarme who had caught him, and an order had been given to take the man to block 11.
Witness: This is correct, he did not catch him, only the prisoner was led to the Blockführerstube and handed over to Szczurek, for the gendarme was not allowed to take anyone to block 11 himself. While walking to the post office, I witnessed the prisoner being insulted and kicked by Szczurek.
The accused Kollmer: You Honor! With reference to the testimony given by the witness I would like to declare that I was instructed to bring in only those transports that were intended to be received by the camp. A separate kommando brought people in for selections. This is what the whole so-called Sonderaktion was about.
Presiding Judge: Does any other of the accused have further questions?
The accused Aumeier: Does the witness remember that a superior rabbi was employed at the museum for the purpose of translating the Talmud?
Witness: At the time, I involved two Jews in the translation of the Talmud, namely Jerzy Numan, a Master of Arts from Tarnów, and Uscher Brünn, whom I found in block 11 on the recommendation of Fritsch; this job allowed both of them to survive.
The accused Aumeier: Please provide the surname of the superior rabbi who translated the Talmud.
Witness: There was no superior rabbi, only a paint salesman – one Uscher Brünn.
The accused: I would also like to ask the witness whether he recalls, for he was the head of the prison library, how many volumes the library had at the time?
Witness: 1,700 volumes, including National-Socialist brochures, the latter obviously in German.
The accused Kirschner: I would like to ask the witness in which year did I serve at block 11.
Witness: In 1941.
The accused: And in which month?
Witness: During the summer.
The accused: Has the witness not made a mistake as to the person and surname?
Witness: I remember well, for I saw the accused frequently. He was nicknamed "the Duck" or "the Frog".
The accused Grabner: I would ask the witness once again to explain what special important visitations (Hohe Besuche) was he referring to, and when these took place, and also to tell me what uniforms did the persons who made these visitations wear.
Witness: These were higher-ranking SS officers, very senior, namely generals, and SA men with retinues, as well as the camp commandant and a few functionaries from the political department.
The accused Grabner: Where did the witness see me making reports?
Witness: This was at block 24, which had to be evacuated by all the prisoners, and only the senior block orderly remained. The orchestra provided a musical backdrop. I had to remain in the museum. All the artists had to leave [the building], for no one was allowed to be there.
The accused Grabner: I would like to ask the witness when did this take place?
Witness: In August 1943, it was summer.
The accused Grabner: The witness has testified that Aumeier was present during the period when I submitted reports.
Witness: Höß was there, but Liebehenschel’s surname was mentioned, and it was said that he was to take care of these transports. Liebehenschel was not present there. He arrived in November 1943.
The accused Grabner: I would further ask the witness to explain the figure of "32,000" that he referred to, the one that I was supposed to have reported?
Witness: Höß asked a question, and it concerned the elimination of Jews – that is why the number reported was so high. The accused was sent by Höß and returned after some 20 or 25 minutes, and stated: 32,000. Furthermore, my colleagues in Birkenau said that the number of prisoners was somewhere around 32,000.
The accused Grabner: I would like to ask where did the witness see me – in fact who saw me – shooting at people?
Witness: In January 1943, this occurred on the premises of the SS hospital, on the ground floor, the third door to the left. That was where the accused had his office at the time.
The accused Grabner: May I ask who was present there at the moment in question?
Witness: My friend Kral, but he was facing the wall, and a few others. The interrogation took place inside. I withdrew, for I did not want to witness the scene.
Presiding Judge to the accused: Does the accused have any further questions?
The accused Grabner: I have one more question. I would like to remind the witness that I was never present at the sick ward, this would have been impossible for me to do, and anyway the area lay outside my competences, and – finally – I could not have committed the said act in the presence of so many people, both prisoners and members of the SS.
Witness: The SS hospital was on the upper floor. The ground floor was occupied by the SS coffee shop and hairdresser’s. Inside, there were two rooms in which the accused officiated. My friend Kral was in the corridor, facing the wall. I heard a loud cry. The accused Grabner jumped out, as if in a fit, and fired his weapon. Grabner was not wearing his jacket, and had his sleeves rolled up to his elbows. That was where the interrogations took place.
Presiding Judge: Does the accused have any further questions?
The accused Grabner: I would ask the witness once more to keep in mind that I never once held an interrogation in the sick ward, and that all the murders that took place in Auschwitz could not have occurred at the sick ward, and I would not have been semi-dressed, jumping out after a prisoner to shoot again and again.
Witness: The shot was fired in the courtyard, while the SS hospital was located on the first floor; the ground floor housed the dentists’ office, a few official rooms, and the SS hairdresser’s.
Presiding Judge: Do the Prosecutors or the accused have any further questions?
Prosecutors: No.
The accused Kollmer: If I have understood the witness correctly, he is stating that I took part in "special actions".
Witness: Untersturmführer Kollmer was present at transports arriving in the camp, and during these transports he assessed the physical capabilities of persons and segregated arrivals in terms of abilities. There were three or four officers present at each transport.
The accused Kollmer: I would ask the witness to tell me whether he knows who ordered me to take part in the receipt of these transports?
Witness: A prisoner could not have heard these orders. A prisoner had only his eyes and his ears, in order to see and hear what went on in the camp. The officers thought that no one knew anything about the goings-on at the camp, and that no one understood them. But many inmates spoke German and were informed about everything in detail.
The accused Kollmer: I would like to ask the witness whether he saw me in person at a transport.
Witness: In 1942 I saw the accused in person at a transport of Slovakian women at the Bauhof.
Presiding Judge: Are there any further questions to the witness?
Prosecutors: No.
Presiding Judge: The witness may therefore step down, and I also order a recess until 4.00 p.m.