Presiding Judge: Witness Feliks Myłyk.
Witness: Feliks Myłyk, 35 years old, a civil servant by profession, married, religion – Roman Catholic, resident in Gliwice.
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: We release the witness from the obligation to take an oath.
Defense counsel: As do we.
Presiding Judge: Please inform the court what you know in the case, and particularly as regards the accused.
Witness: Of the accused present in the courtroom today, I have encountered Maximilian Grabner and a few others, about whom I shall not speak; my testimony will center on the political department, where I worked. I arrived in Auschwitz in 1940 with the first transport of Poles. I was given number 92. There I encountered the accused Maximilian Grabner. I do not want to repeat what has already been said by others – and I have read this in the newspapers and heard it on the radio. Instead, I would like to touch upon issues that have not been mentioned by my co-prisoners, limiting myself solely to the political department. I have learned from newspapers and radio broadcasts that Grabner has presented himself as being completely innocent, stating that he knew nothing and did not take an active part in the selections and shootings of prisoners. And he even had the audacity to point out prisoners whom he purportedly helped – myself amongst them. Grabner states that he is not guilty of the killings and maltreatment that occurred in Auschwitz concentration camp. I however shall recount the first incident, which took place in Auschwitz on 11 July 1940, when the first successful escape attempt was made, by one Wiejowski. When all of us, more than a thousand inmates, were grouped at blocks 1, 2 and 3 – as was usual on Saturdays – we were instructed to hand over our underwear to the camp laundry. The majority of prisoners, instructed by the block leaders, had already turned in their clothes in the morning, before leaving for work, and stood there in summer dress, in ordinary prison garb, having no other clothes to put on. Once the escape was noticed – this occurred at 3.00 p.m. – the entire camp was ordered to gather; at the time, it consisted of three blocks, which housed more or less 1,300 people. Our standing punishment commenced between 3.00 p.m. and 6.00 p.m., and lasted without pause until 3.00 p.m. the next day. It was then that the accused Grabner showed how lenient he was towards prisoners. Wanting to determine how Wiejowski had managed to escape and whether anyone knew something about his breakout, he asked people who had information to come forward, promising that nothing untoward would happen to them. Initially – quite obviously – the prisoners did not believe him, however when they learned that he was an Austrian, from Vienna to boot, they started thinking that maybe they could trust him, and thus some individuals came forward, even though they knew nothing about Wiejowski’s escape. The standing punishment dragged on. As I have already mentioned, the prisoners had no underwear, and night soon fell. We were surrounded by SS men and kapos, the former armed. Hoping to bring the punishment to an end, other prisoners started coming forward. Inmate no. 1244, Erwin Michalik, was chosen as interpreter. He was a stenographer. Grabner promised that no harm would befall the prisoners who testified. But the Germans set up a so-called buck (German Bock). In the meantime, any witness who came forward with information would be locked up in a box, which was so small that it restricted all movement. Two SS men would hold the prisoner down on the buck. The accused Grabner stood to the side and asked questions, while two other SS men hit the inmate with a whip, and prisoner Michalik wrote down his testimony. The inmates who testified, and there were a dozen or so of them, all died during the night. In actual fact they knew nothing about Wiejowski’s escape, but they wanted to help their friends who were standing in the cold, without any food. The punishment lasted right until 3.00 p.m. the next day. We were not given any food or water, nor were we allowed to go to the toilet, while Grabner instructed the SS men to keep guard, threatening us with a decimation and ordering us to perform knee bends and squats with our hands on our necks.
I worked in the political department, and I would be ordered to carry out all sorts of tasks. I performed many various functions – I wrote down the personal details of newly arriving prisoners, cleaned Grabner’s shoes and those of the other SS men, I completed death certificates for the Reichshaupt Kanzlei [chief administrative office] and the authorities which sent in the transports, and also wrote telegrams to the relatives of those who had died or been shot dead in the camp.
The first gassing took place in 1941; it was mentioned on the radio, and they said that 600 Russian officers had been killed. I will not talk about this incident. I would like to say that the accused Grabner regularly sentenced people to death on a personal whim. In 1942, for example, the majority of prisoners, mainly Silesians, were sentenced to death by shooting with a small caliber weapon (6 mm) – employees of the political department, acting with Grabner’s full knowledge, had a hand in this; as a matter of fact, Grabner even assisted in the killing.
I would also like to give the surnames of a few of the victims: the Grzegorzyckis, Pniok, Krawczyk, Młosek and Hanus, that is inmates who arrived at the camp with the first transports. These prisoners bid their companions farewell with a heartfelt warmth – some cried, others behaved cheerfully, while others still shouted “Long live Poland!”. This was before noon. All were taken to block 11, from where none returned. I had known these men personally, and I had talked with them on the very same day, standing on the spot before block 11 where they were executed. The next day I wrote notifications to Berlin and to the Gestapo, and also telegrams to their families, stating that they had died of natural causes [Herzschwäche – cardiac insufficiency, Lungenentzündung – pneumonia].
The are other examples, too, of Grabner’s “gentleness”. The extermination of the Jews from Będzin, for example. I do not remember the exact date, just that all the SS men took part in the operation, and first and foremost all of the functionaries of the political department, headed by Grabner. We, the political prisoners employed in the department, were summoned to unload the trucks that had returned from Będzin. These vehicles contained all sorts of personal and professional items that had belonged to the Jews – instrumentation taken from dentists’ and doctors’ offices, private furniture, and foodstuffs. Prisoners like myself, who worked at the political department, were used in order to protect the secrecy of what these vehicles contained. The foodstuffs – vodka, spirit – were given to us to taste, so as to make sure that they were not poisoned. The accused Grabner also stole furniture, which later turned up in his residence (I know this for a fact, because for two years in a row I was employed to pick fruit in his private garden, which I subsequently carried to his home for boiling). Grabner also plundered other items left behind by the Jews, and even ordered me to bring such articles for him from the camp. Duly instructed, I packed these belongings and sent them to his family and friends in Vienna. They were intended not only for him, but also for other of the accused, who are not present here today: Kirschner, Lachman, and others.
I would also like to mention the humanitarianism of the accused Grabner, which he so readily references in his testimony. As I have stressed, during the initial period of the camp’s existence shootings were carried out by a firing squad, that is by soldiers with helmets, who used normal weapons – rifles. Later, in order to avoid publicity, the killings were performed using small caliber (6 mm) weapons. I saw these firearms at the political department. They would be collected by Grabner’s lackeys, among them Kirschner and Lachman, who paraded with it through the camp towards block 11, following their master. Obviously, there were times when those shot from a small caliber weapon did not die at once. They would then be taken to the crematorium and – as I was told by colleagues who worked there, but who unfortunately cannot appear as witnesses, for they were killed – thrown into the fire, many of them still alive. There was even one instance when a woman who was to be shot dead at block 11 was not even wounded by the gunfire, but only lost consciousness due to the shock and fear. She was taken together with the corpses to the crematorium. Since, however, the crematorium was overloaded with bodies for incineration, she and the other corpses were put to one side, in order to be burned in the evening. The crematorium crew worked in two shifts through the day and night. The night shift, in which my friend Mietek worked, came to the crematorium and approached the pile of bodies intended for incineration. And this is what happened next. The woman regained consciousness and started begging to high heaven that they let her go. But there was a guard in the crematorium, and he informed Grabner. He came over immediately and shot her with his own revolver. This is further proof of his humanitarianism. The accused has also mentioned one of the former prisoners, engineer Plaskura, whom he purportedly freed. As it happens, I am intimately familiar with the case, for I met Mr. Plaskura in person during the first few days of my incarceration at Auschwitz and know everything about his release. Mr. Plaskura, a very capable engineer, used the agency of his family and relatives, who lobbied actively to secure his freedom, to be released from the camp. I read about this in the letters that he received from his relatives. The document freeing engineer Plaskura came from Berlin, and I saw it with my own eyes. On the basis of this official paper I prepared release documents at the political department, just as I made out death certificates. Equally often I completed writs transferring prisoners to other camps. The accused Grabner helped engineer Plaskura in that instead of releasing him at the beginning of 1942, he made every effort to keep him incarcerated, for he did not want to sanction his release. A lot of correspondence was exchanged between Berlin and the camp, however for reasons known only to himself Grabner did not want to free Mr. Plaskura. But the people in Berlin insisted and finally Grabner had to give in to their demand, although he personally ensured that engineer Plaskura was kept under close surveillance; as a matter of fact, his mother lived in Brzeszcze, some six kilometers from the camp, but he was not allowed to see her, for he had to report to Grabner daily. Grabner also threatened him that if he were to breathe a word about what went on at the camp, he could well imagine his fate. This was how Grabner contributed to the release of engineer Plaskura.
Further, I would like to say a few words about the accused Liebehenschel, whom I also recognize and who, as I have learned, is trying to put on a good front, stating that during his reign – so to speak – conditions in the camp changed for the better. I must say that in a sense they did, but not due to his intervention; indeed, those who can think even a bit and know how to put facts together will assess the reality of what happened differently. The Esteemed Tribunal may want to consider that Liebehenschel arrived somewhere in the middle of 1943, and thus at a time when Grabner had left the political department. Aumeier departed at more or less the same time. These facts are connected, and it is in no way due to Liebehenschel’s action or inaction that during this period conditions in the camp improved; his own changes were no more than a whitewash – the official abolishment of the Stehenbunkers [standing punishment bunkers] and the order whereby SS men stopped carrying truncheons. I learned about Grabner’s removal at the political department, when I once eavesdropped on a conversation between some of the SS men who worked there. They said that he had been arrested by his own superiors and put before court, however only in order to appease foreign critics of the concentration camp system. This is why, as far as I know, Grabner was sentenced by an SS court.
This is all that I have to say about the accused.
Presiding Judge: Can the witness provide any information about the other accused?
Witness: From amongst the accused, I also encountered Josten, Müller, Plagge and Bogusch.
Presiding Judge: Can the witness say something about them?
Witness: I would not like to talk about these accused, for I would be repeating what has already been said by the witnesses who testified before me. In any case, I did not have direct contact with them.
Presiding Judge: Are there any questions to the witness?
Prosecutor Pęchalski: The witness mentioned that when an execution was held on Grabner’s orders, the victims were noted down in the records as having died of natural causes.
Witness: Yes, that was the procedure.
Prosecutor Pęchalski: Were other executions also carried out at Auschwitz, on orders sent from outside the camp?
Witness: Yes.
Prosecutor Pęchalski: Were natural causes also given as the reason of death in such instances?
Witness: No. A report would be drawn up containing fictitious surnames.
Prosecutor Pęchalski: This fact is known. I am interested only in determining how the victims were registered.
Witness: They were recorded as having been executed by firing squad, and the competent authorities in Berlin and Auschwitz were thus notified.
Prosecutor Pęchalski: Does the witness know anything about the old crematorium in the parent camp also being under Grabner’s command?
Witness: Yes.
Prosecutor Pęchalski: Was Grabner in charge of the gassing campaign?
Witness: Yes.
Prosecutor Pęchalski: Does the witness know anything about Grabner changing the Sonderkommandos [special squads] in such a way that the existing kommando would be sent to the gas chamber, and a new squad chosen?
Witness: Yes. I will provide a specific example. The Sonderkommandos were made up solely of Jews. Every once in a while the political department would recall such a kommando from the crematorium back to the parent camp, ostensibly to be transferred to another camp. And indeed, these people would be taken back from Birkenau to the parent camp, where they rested – that is where they suffered terrible anguish and torment, for they soon learned from their companions, while standing near block 24, what their fate was. Later, at night, they would be loaded onto trucks and transported to the crematorium for incineration, whereafter the political department would receive a document with the annotation “SB” and the date.
Prosecutor Pęchalski: SB stands for Sonderbehandlung [special treatment]?
Witness: Yes.
Prosecutor: Thank you, I have no more questions.
Defense attorney Ostrowski: For how long did the witness work at the political department?
Witness: From 16 June 1940 until 16 October 1944.
The accused Grabner: The witness maintains that I caused the Sonderkommando to be replaced, and also that the Sonderkommando was located in the political department. May the witness inform us where exactly in the political department was it located?
Witness: I did not say that the Sonderkommando was located in the political department.
The accused: Thereafter the witness stated that I kept Mr. Plaskura at the camp, that I did not aid his release. The witness had access to the documentation, to the files, and whenever I needed a letter or document, I asked him to fetch it for me. The witness also brought me the files concerning his own person, as well as those of engineer Michalik and others. I declared that I was going to Kraków and that I would try to arrange whatever was in my power. May I ask the witness to tell the truth and not to act with such ungratefulness?
Witness: What Grabner has stated is true – he ordered me to bring over my files, he instructed me to bring the files of engineer Erwin Michalik (no. 1244), and he also told me that he would go to Kraków regarding my case, in order to secure my release; all this is true. That was in the beginning of 1941. Grabner’s efforts were so successful that he left the camp earlier than I did.
Prosecutor Pęchalski: Supreme National Tribunal! At this point, in connection with Grabner’s statement, I would like to report that the Prosecutor’s Office has received a letter authored by engineer Plaskura, in which he has made a statement concerning the assistance provided him by the accused Grabner. Since engineer Plaskura is not on the witness list, and his detailed statement is set forward in the letter, I would request the Supreme Tribunal to admit this letter as evidence.
Presiding Judge: Does engineer Plaskura live in Poland and, if yes, then is his address known? Prosecutor: Yes.
Presiding Judge: Pursuant to the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, this letter cannot be read out, however the Prosecutor’s Office may appoint engineer Plaskura as a witness.
Prosecutor: I hereby motion for Mr. Plaskura to provide testimonial evidence.
Presiding Judge: The Tribunal admits the witness.
The accused: The witness maintains that I stole furniture, which was then put into my official residence. I would like him to explain how he knew that these items had been stolen.
Witness: I have already explained in my testimony.
Presiding Judge: The witness has explained this when saying that he saw the furniture in Grabner’s living quarters.
The accused: I assume that there is furniture in every residence, but the fact that it is there does not mean that it was stolen.
Presiding Judge: May the witness clarify this point?
Witness: As I have already stated, prisoners who worked in the political department were tasked with unloading the furniture that arrived at the camp from Będzin, following the extermination of the Jews who lived there. And we, the inmates employed at the political department, were the only people who unloaded these vehicles. I was therefore able to see what the furniture looked like.
Presiding Judge: Can the witness be allowed to step down?
Prosecutors and defense attorneys: Yes.
Presiding Judge: I hereby order a recess.