The tenth day of the trial, 4 December 1947.
The Chairman: The next witness, Stefan Wolny.
I inform the witness that pursuant to Article 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the witness should speak the truth. Making false declarations is punishable by a custodial sentence of up to five years. Do the parties wish to submit any proposals regarding the way in which to hear the witness?
Prosecutors: We absolve the witness from swearing an oath.
Defense attorneys: As do we.
The witness: Stefan Wolny, 43 years old, railway clerk, Roman Catholic, with no relationship to the parties.
The Chairman: May the witness tell us what the witness knows about the defendants in this courtroom? Does the witness recognize them? I want specific facts regarding them.
The witness: I was sent to the camp in 1941.
The Chairman: How long were you detained in the camp?
The witness: Until 28 October 1944.
The Chairman: Which of the defendants did you meet during your detention in the camp?
The witness: I met many of those who are here. I would like them to stand up when I mention their names.
The Chairman: Please, go ahead.
The witness: The first to mention is my boss. There is his deputy Schumacher and the one next to Schumacher is Medefind.
I met Schumacher in 1942 when I was assigned to the Häftlingsmagazin kommando [prisoners’ storeroom] and worked in “Canada”. For two years I observed the way he behaved.
Although he never hit me throughout this time, he was a sadist.
He inflicted constant torment on prisoners striving to get a crust of bread. He shot at starving men as they scrambled for different goods that had been brought in to “Canada”.
He would have loved to mistreat us too, but he didn’t dare. What held him back was his own involvement in stealing from “Canada”. This was probably the reason why he spared us. However, he often informed on us to his boss Franz Schebeck.
Medefind was the second deputy who arrived later in Häftlingsmagazin from the camp in Pustków near Dębica.
The Chairman: Does the witness know him?
The witness: Very well.
Although he wanted to make us believe that he didn’t like what was going on in the camp (it was already 1944), he still beat prisoners for trying to “organize” a piece of bread or for trying to get something in the storeroom.
I would also like to mention co-workers, those who are here – a driver whose name I don’t know.
The Chairman: Lorenz.
The witness: And the second one, Dinges. Drivers were obliged to transport food to our storeroom. Although they were in no need of the food, they stole it, while at the same time treating prisoners, whom they kicked and beat, in a very brutal way. The latter were under obligation to keep an eye on them [and for this reason they were mistreated].
These drivers and the whole Häftlingsmagazin staff were involved in the selection of Jewish transports which was carried out in the railway ramp. Those who were going to work were separated from those who were going to be gassed.
I can see here a number of Blockführers and other SS-men: Müller, Ludwig, Jeschke.
The Chairman: I want you to provide us with specific facts regarding the behavior of the defendants whom you have just mentioned.
Witness: I often saw Müller mistreating prisoners during the roll-calls.
The Chairman: In what way?
The witness: When he disliked something, for example, a prisoner wasn’t standing straight up or didn’t have his camp hat on the right way during the roll-call. I saw Müller leading prisoners off to the bunker in block 11 and then to the political department, already beaten.
The Chairman: Were they beaten by Müller?
The witness: Yes. They were beaten by Müller. Besides, he noted down the names of those who were to be punished.
The Chairman: You have mentioned the drivers. What criminal acts did you see them commit?
The witness: I recognize them, although I don’t remember their names. However, their faces are deeply engraved in my memory. I knew that one day I would be able to testify against them. They worked at the storeroom, which is where I worked too. So I could observe the way they behaved. They weren’t authorized to beat us or to force us to work faster, but this is what they did. We were appalled because we had our own guards, 13 in number, superintending us.
The Chairman: Did these drivers beat prisoners?
The witness: Yes. They beat my colleagues and me.
The Chairman: Can you tell which ones did it?
The witness: The defendants Lorenz and Medefind.
The Chairman: In what circumstances did they beat prisoners?
The witness: They seized every opportunity to beat us. If they took a dislike to a prisoner, they walked up to him, hit him in the face and kicked him.
The Chairman: Is that all that you can say about the defendant Lorenz?
The witness: Yes.
The Chairman: And what can you tell us about Dinges?
The witness: He was the same [as the rest]. He even knew a few Polish words.
The Chairman: Did he ever hit you?
The witness: Yes. He frequently beat me.
The Chairman: The witness has indicated Schumacher and Medefind. What can you say about these defendants?
The witness: Schumacher didn’t hit me, but not a single day passed without him beating other prisoners. I often saw him drag those whom he caught picking up crusts of bread or trying to steal some bread, into a storeroom, into a separate room and massacre them there. Once, I had to carry a prisoner out of the storeroom and to clean the floor left covered with blood.
The Chairman: Did you see it directly?
The witness: Yes, I did.
The Chairman: What can you say about Medefind?
The witness: He arrived in 1944, after the liquidation of the camp in Pustków, and behaved in the same way as Schumacher.
The Chairman: Did you see him beating prisoners?
The witness: Yes, I did.
The Chairman: When was he in the camp?
The witness: I would see him in the camp until 28 October 1944, that is, until I was brought out of it.
The Chairman: The witness has said that Schumacher mistreated outside prisoners. What does the witness mean by “outside”?
The witness: I mean those who didn’t work at the storeroom.
The Chairman: The witness has also indicated Jeschke.
The witness: He was, it seems, Blockführer. However, it is difficult for me to determine his position because the roles they were given often changed. But I remember seeing him beat and mistreat prisoners.
The Chairman: In which year did you meet Jeschke?
The witness: I don’t remember which year it was, but I remember that he was active in the camp.
The Chairman: When were you in the camp?
The witness: From 1941 to 1944.
The Chairman: When were you sent to the camp?
The witness: On 6 December 1941 and my detention lasted until 28 October 1944.
I can also testify about Ludwig. I remember him as a Blockführer who treated prisoners with sadistic cruelty. Prejudiced especially against those who worked at the storeroom, he was known for accosting and beating prisoners. That is why I tried to keep out of his way.
I also have much to say about Aumeier, Josten, Liebehenschel.
The Chairman: Are there any questions?
Prosecutor Szewczyk: The witness recalls that which hasn’t so far been mentioned, namely that there was a “Canada” hidden in the storeroom area.
The witness: Yes. There was a “Canada”. It was supplied with the food of which transports of Poles and Jews were deprived of, and I was one of the five people who sorted through the food picking jewelry, gold and money hidden there. Everything was then segregated into big sacks.
Prosecutor Pęchalski: The witness has mentioned these two drivers who urged prisoners to work faster. Would the witness also see them at the railway ramp?
The witness: During a two-year period I often saw them at the ramp. Since the head of the storeroom, Schebeck, was Grabner’s friend, we always knew in advance about the arrival of new transports, and the drivers had their cars waiting to take us to the ramp to get the food to be found in the transports.
Prosecutor Pęchalski: What we want to know is whether those who were about to be gassed were taken by these two drivers from the ramp and whether the witness saw this?
The witness: Yes. I saw it many times. When they pulled up in front of the storeroom to load food, I saw traces of fingers, noses and ears left in their cars.
Prosecutor Pęchalski: Did the witness see this?
The witness: Yes, I did.
Prosecutor Pęchalski: Did they stand watching or did they beat and hurry up those who had been brought in?
The witness: The whole retinue was in the ramp, both Blockführers and drivers. The latter were used to carry out fast selections of new transports as they were coming in. Sometimes the entire retinue had to be used to segregate families and load them into cars. The drivers were also involved in the execution of these tasks.
Prosecutor Pęchalski: And these two also did this?
The witness: Yes.
Prosecutor Brandys: Can you provide us with some specific facts regarding Szczurek?
The witness: I met him and I can say that he was one of the worst SS men. Once he grabbed hold of a prisoner he always finished him off.
Prosecutor Brandys: Did you see this?
The witness: Yes, I did. In 1942.
Prosecutor Brandys: Did Russians also work under Schumacher at the storeroom?
The witness: No, they didn’t.
Prosecutor Brandys: [I am asking] because you mentioned some Russians who worked under Schumacher.
The witness: Yes. Kartoffelkommando [potatoes kommando]. It was an auxiliary labor unit working at the storeroom.
Prosecutor Brandys: How did he treat them?
The witness: I can’t say anything specific. I know that he was filled with hatred of the Jews and Russians. He also felt hatred for the Poles.
Prosecutor Brandys: Did he appear at the railway ramp?
The witness: As Schebeck’s deputy he had to.
Prosecutor Brandys: Have you heard that he appropriated different things at the ramp?
The witness: He would come to the storeroom and we would give him different things.
Prosecutor Brandys: You don’t mean things which were yours but those which you were required to sort through.
The witness: Yes.
Prosecutor Brandys: Did Schumacher take these things for himself?
The witness: Yes, he did.
Attorney Ostrowski: You have testified that you don’t remember when you saw Jeschke. Can you at least tell us whether this was at the beginning of your detention in the camp or toward the end of it?
The witness: It is hard to say, but I saw him in Auschwitz.
Attorney Ostrowski: At the beginning?
The witness: I am unable to determine this.
Attorney Ostrowski: Do you remember if you met him on a regular basis for a longer or shorter period of time? Or perhaps you saw him only once?
The witness: For a short period of time.
Attorney Ostrowski: When?
The witness: In Auschwitz.
Attorney Ostrowski: Do you remember anything else?
The witness: Nothing.
Attorney Ostrowski: What did you do on the railway ramp?
The witness: I attended the ramp because of the food and food packages to be found in transports of prisoners. Our task was to collect the packages and to transport them to the storeroom. In executing the task we were often made to throw corpses out of train cars and to load the sick into cars.
The Chairman: Does the defendant Dinges want to ask any questions?
The defendant Dinges: Yes, I do. Does the witness claim to have seen me at the ramp?
The witness: I can say that he was a driver and he often drove up in a car that took us [to the ramp].
The Chairman: Did you see the defendant on the railway ramp?
The witness: A car drove up to take us to the ramp, so he was with us.
The defendant Dinges: The witness probably knows that I served as a driver for the Central Construction Management and not for the Emergency Headquarters.
The witness: But when need arose or there were no cars left or when one of the cars broke down, drivers who had their cars available were entrusted with the task in question.
The defendant: This never happened because the Central Construction Management was established as an independent unit and as such it had nothing to do either with “Canada” or with transports.
Attorney Ostrowski: I would like to ask the witness once more about the defendant. In response to my question, the witness has confirmed seeing the defendant in Auschwitz. But as I can see from my notes, the witness had earlier also accused the defendant of beating prisoners. Could the witness tell us when and in what circumstances the defendant beat and maltreated prisoners? It is one thing to see someone’s face and another to see someone beating others. Does the witness uphold his testimony?
The witness: I stick to my testimony. I saw Jeschke beat prisoners.
The Chairman: Please answer the attorney’s other questions. Was it at the beginning or at the end of your detention in the camp that you saw the defendant beat prisoners?
The witness: Your Honor! I am unable to determine when this took place but I saw no SS man in Auschwitz who wouldn’t beat prisoners.
The Chairman: This doesn’t resolve the issue raised by the defense attorney. Please, answer yes or no.
Attorney Ostrowski: Do you assume that the defendant beat prisoners because all the SS men did this?
The Chairman: It is about whom he beat and in what circumstances.
The witness: I am unable to give you the precise date because I don’t remember when it took place.
Attorney Ostrowski: Perhaps the witness is able to say where Jeschke beat prisoners? In the storeroom?
The witness: No. It was in the campground.
Defense attorney Rappaport: The witness claims that Dinges was often seen at the railway ramp and that the witness drove with him to the ramp to collect transports and to assist in loading the sick into cars. Was Dinges also involved in doing these things?
The witness: Drivers were often used to carry out these tasks.
Defense attorney: So you accuse Dinges of doing things that you were involved in doing yourself?
The Chairman: You can’t put it this way. The witness is simply answering questions.
Defense attorney Rappaport: The witness claims that the defendant hit him once.
The witness: He hit me many times. I worked at the storeroom for two years and I know these faces very well.
Defense attorney Rappaport: Lorenz or Dinges?
The witness: I remember Lorenz’s name. I don’t remember the name of the other one, but I recognize his face, and I know that he beat prisoners.
The Defendant Dinges: May I ask the witness a question?
The Chairman: Yes you may.
The Defendant Dinges: Does the witness know that in my capacity as a driver for the Construction Management I never transported food and, consequently, I had nothing to do with the storeroom?
The witness: It isn’t true. I maintain... and I can ask him what he and his car were at the storeroom for while I was loading or unloading food.
The defendant: Your Honor! I would like to submit a motion to swear the witness in for this part of his testimony.
The Chairman: What is the defense’s opinion of this motion?
Defense attorneys: We leave it to the Supreme Tribunal to decide.
The Chairman: And what is the opinion of the prosecutors?
Prosecutors: We leave it to the Supreme Tribunal to decide.
The Chairman: The Tribunal goes into consultation.
(After the break)
The Chairman: The Supreme Tribunal has considered the motion. Given the fact that the witness was absolved from taking an oath at the beginning of his examination, the Tribunal can see no grounds for changing the position adopted with regard to the hearing of the witness.
Are there any questions?
Prosecutors: No.
Defense attorneys: No.
The Chairman: If there are no questions, then the witness is free to go.
I order a break until 9.00 a.m. tomorrow.