Twelfth day of the hearing, 6 December 1947
Presiding Judge: I would ask the next witness, Tadeusz Paudyn, to approach.
Witness Tadeusz Paudyn, 47 years old, a trader by occupation, religion – Roman Catholic, relationship to the accused – none.
Presiding Judge: I would like to remind the witness of the obligation 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 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. I would ask the witness to tell us what he knows about the case in hand, and in particular what facts connected with the presence of individual of the accused in Auschwitz are known to him. Please take a good look at the accused, so that there occurs no error in identification.
Witness: Amongst the accused I can precisely recognize Liebehenschel, Aumeier, Grabner, Kirschner, Josten, Müller, Lorenz, Szczurek and Schumacher.
Presiding Judge: What can the witness say as regards the accused Schumacher?
Witness: I first encountered the accused Schumacher in 1942, when I was working in the kitchen. I was not directly subordinate to his kommando at the time. Whereas in 1943, until 1944, up to the end of July or perhaps August, I was under Schumacher’s direct command. At the time I worked in the Kartoffelfahren [the “potato carrying” squad]. Initially, my friends and I transported potatoes from Auschwitz to individual kommandos, even to those located outside the camp proper, e.g. to Rajsko, or in the other direction – from Rajsko to the main camp. On numerous occasions I met the accused Schumacher near the crossing over the Jewish ramp; this was before a direct line had been set up to Birkenau. At the time, there was only track XXI behind the train station, the Jewish ramp, and the accused could frequently be seen there, near the Jewish transports arriving to be gassed. His role was usually to appropriate the food left behind by the gassed deportees and take it back to the warehouses in the camp. In 1944, when the number of transports from Hungary reached its peak, a sorting station of food parcels left by the Jewish transports was organized in the potato bunker in which Schumacher was the commandant. And so I worked for a few months under Schumacher’s command.
I also remember that in the autumn of 1942, when I was present at the unloading of potatoes from wagons – we would arrange them in mounds in Birkenau – the accused, being one of the heads of the warehouse, took part in the carrying of these potatoes from the wagons to the mounds, acting as the prisoners’ supervisor. He behaved in no way better than the other SS men who were there, and this is attested to by the fact that our kommando, which numbered a few hundred men, would bring back a few bodies to the camp every day. Schumacher was less hostile towards those of us who were permanently employed in the kommando, but those prisoners who were sent to assist us in unloading the potatoes on a temporary basis he treated with considerable bestiality, beating and tormenting them.
Presiding Judge: That should suffice as regards the accused Schumacher. Does the witness have any observations regarding the treatment of prisoners by the other of the accused?
Witness: The accused Lorenz was a driver. He would drive up to our kommando very frequently and take potatoes for the other kommandos, which were located outside the camp, such as “Buna”, Świętochłowice, etc. As regards his treatment of the prisoners who worked on loading the potatoes, he would only sporadically allow himself to hurry them on with a stick. I later encountered him frequently, when he was transporting parcels left behind by the Jewish transports to the potato bunkers where the sorting station was located.
The accused Dinges would drive up in a truck – full of parcels – to the bunkers where the potatoes were stored.
I ran into the accused Szczurek in 1942, when he was the Blockführer (block leader] at block 25. Szczurek did not behave better than the other Blockführers.
I remember the accused Müller as the Blockführer of block 25. Frequently, as an Arbeitsdienstführer [labor service leader], he would have some business to take care of with our kommando. In his relations with prisoners, he was extremely brutal and threatening.
I remember the accused Josten very well as the commandant of the anti-aircraft defenses. I would see him at the gate, keeping order amongst the prisoners. In the event that anyone stepped out of line, he would beat and kick the offender.
When I worked at the slaughterhouse in 1943, Josten forbid us to leave the facility during a possible bombardment. In such a situation, the other kommandos would leave the camp. Only after one bombardment in July, when the prisoners broke down the doors during an air- raid, was the ban lifted.
I also remember the accused Kirschner, nicknamed “the Duck”, who treated prisoners [badly], beating them and making their lives as difficult as possible – all with complete premeditation.
The accused Liebehenschel. It is true that following his arrival a lot changed: the order to remove caps was rescinded, a number of improvements were introduced for prisoners, and they were also freed from the kapos and spies, however this was because they [i.e. the informers] had already been exposed in the camp and had practically no value for the political department. As one of these spies I would like to mention Malorne, who during his period of service in the camp served the Germans very well.
In 1945 this spy was penally deported to Flossenbürg, however after arriving there – due to his services – he was assigned not to the penal company, but to the camp administration.
It was standard procedure for the political department to finish off inconvenient people who had previously worked for it. I know of a Slovak from the camp, he was an unterkapo in block 4. This man worked for the political department. One time he was summoned by someone from the Schreibstube [office] to appear at the political department, whereupon he – knowing that something was on the cards – started milling around the barrack. A Läufer [runner] came up and led him away. Thereafter Boger took him in an ambulance to Birkenau. After he was driven off, one of our friends looked through his things and found a letter written in Slovak to Boger, in which he said that he wanted to explain the reports he had submitted regarding his colleagues. He said that as a Slovak, while in Slovakia in 1941, he had discovered an enormous group of communists, and some 1,000 of them were arrested; he stated that he had been acting in good faith, in order to contribute to the “victory of the Great Reich”. The letter was kept by a friend, Stefan Dedyk, and I translated it.
The accused Grabner was present at the majority of executions carried out at block 11. I witnessed this, for I worked near the kitchen as a Reiniger [cleaner]. I would walk up with a wheelbarrow and a broom, and very frequently see Aumeier and Grabner entering the block. Muffled shots could be heard, accompanied by screams; the two would leave after the execution.
Presiding Judge: And the reason for these executions?
Witness: Executions were carried out at random. This may be confirmed by the fact that a kapo put one Zagórski, a prisoner who worked in the potato warehouse, before court. The next day he was attached to a group of inmates who were to be executed.
Presiding Judge: Are there any questions?
Prosecutor Brandys: The accused Schumacher would beat prisoners for no reason at all. Did he also submit reports to Schebeck?
Witness: Indeed he did.
Prosecutor Brandys: What did they result in?
Witness: A prisoner would be transferred from a kommando considered as better to the penal detail, and he would be whipped and forced to stand as punishment.
Prosecutor Brandys: Foodstuffs were brought in from the ramp to the bunkers in the potato warehouse. Were there any valuables hidden there as well?
Witness: When the number of transports was large, some 15–20 trucks would drive up to the potato storehouse. The food would be sent to the warehouse, while all valuables would be collected by Schumacher in person at the office and locked up there. After some time, when a large quantity had been gathered, he would send it further on.
Prosecutor Brandys: Does the witness know anything about the accused Schumacher beating up a Jewish lawyer at the ramp? This was when the Hungarian transports were arriving at the camp.
Witness: I never walked up directly to the ramp, however we would drive by it to the nearby potato mounds. I do know, however, that such an incidence took place.
Prosecutor Brandys: Why did he beat him up and how severely?
Witness: The prisoner, seeing as it was his first day in the camp, did not know what he was supposed to do. When Schumacher ordered him to go to work, he said that he was sick, and in any case that he was a lawyer and had never worked with a shovel in his hand. Schumacher beat him up, however the inmate kept on repeating one and the same thing. After the thrashing he lay down under a stack of straw. Schumacher threatened that he would send him to the crematorium. A while later our chief, Schebeck, came over and the prisoner was sent to a different kommando; I did not see him again.
Presiding Judge: Does the defense have any questions?
Defense attorney Kossek: The witness said that after Höß was dismissed, Liebehenschel introduced some changes in the camp. Could this have possibly been due to the political situation?
Witness: It is a possibility, but whatever the case may be, the things that happened when Höß was in charge continued to happen, however from then on they were masked. The “wall of death” was taken down, and the executions were now carried out in the crematoria.
Defense attorney Kossek: Did the vehicles which took prisoners to the crematoria differ in any way from those transporting potatoes or cabbage?
Witness: These were the same trucks, which if necessary were driven up to the hospitals and loaded with prisoners earmarked for death in the gas chambers.
Presiding Judge: Do any of the accused want to make statements?
The accused Josten: Your Honor! I would request permission to ask the witness a question. The witness stated that I did not allow a group working outside the camp to return to the camp grounds during an air-raid warning. With reference to this incident I would like to declare that in the event of an air-raid warning all of the teams had to return to the camp as quickly as possible. This may be confirmed by commandant Liebehenschel.
Witness: I know that the kommandos returned to the camp, but some had to stay behind, and as proof of this I may state that prisoners working in the new camp, the so-called Landwirtschaft [farm], and also in the Bekleidungswerkstätter [clothing workshops], perished. These kommandos had to remain in place, and the prisoners were not allowed to leave their workstations.
The accused Josten: In response to this I would like to state that the new buildings which housed the warehouses with equipment for various rooms, where this unfortunate accident occurred on 13 September 1943, were located outside the camp. The ceilings and walls were secured with iron bars. The unfortunate accident was caused by the fact that the bomb fell very close to the wall and knocked it down, and in consequence the heavy concrete ceiling collapsed onto the prisoners. Obviously, I cannot be considered liable for this state of affairs. I could have also acted differently and allowed the prisoners to return to the camp, but the bomb could have fallen there and killed them too. I would like to ask one more question – did the witness see me personally, trampling the prisoners?
Witness: Yes.
The accused Szczurek: I would like to ask the witness whether it was I who was on duty at block 11?
Witness: I heard so, however I did not see this myself. I said that I saw the accused at block 25. I would like to pose one further question to the accused Ludwig – whether in 1942 he was the Kommandoführer [kommando leader] of the mowing kommando?
The accused Ludwig: No.
Witness: I heard from friends of mine who worked there that the accused Ludwig was in fact the Kommandoführer and treated the prisoners in a bestial manner.
Presiding Judge: Are there any further questions?
Prosecutors: No.
Defense attorneys: No.
Presiding Judge: The witness may therefore step down.