Eleventh day of the hearing, 5 December 1947
Chief judge: The next witness, Janina Frankiewicz.
I must warn the witness of the necessity to speak the truth pursuant to article 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The submission of false testimony is punishable by imprisonment of up to five years. Do the parties submit any requests regarding how the witnesses should be interviewed?
Prosecutors: We would like the witness to be heard without oath.
The defense: We too.
The witness Janina Frankiewicz, aged 34, housewife, no occupation, religious affiliation – Roman Catholic, relationship to the accused – none.
Chief judge: Which of the accused does the witness recognize, in what circumstances did they meet and what exactly can she say?
The witness: I recognize Mandl and Brandl.
Chief judge: How long was the witness in the camp and under what circumstances did she meet the defendant Mandl?
The witness: I was in Birkenau since 10 October 1942. First I was in the Aussenkommando [external detail] and then in the kitchen until 15 December, because at that time I fell ill with typhus after general delousing.
When I was in the camp hospital, in block 23, the defendant Mandl arrived after Christmas and took control of the block. The defendant, along with the doctor, were to control the number of patients. This was done in such a way that Mandl pulled back the blankets and wrote down the numbers of the sick. In the evening, five or six women were taken to the ambulance for injections. That happened very often.
I was in hospital until mid-January 1943. Then I went back to the camp to the kitchen. At that time there was a general roll call behind the gate. We, from the kitchen, didn’t take part. In came the defendant Mandel who said that we didn’t have to cook so many dinners, because there would be fewer people. The next day the kitchen received news that we should cook 4 thousand less servings for dinner.
In December 1942, a Polish woman gave birth to a child who was taken away from her after two days. The mother lost her senses.
Chief judge: What was the reason for this?
The witness: The reason was that her baby had been taken away and the mother couldn’t cope with it.
Chief judge: What was done with this child?
The witness: I don’t know exactly, because I was still recovering from typhus fever.
In 1943, the people who worked in the kitchen, including me, were ordered to go to the camp for the tureens used for serving the prisoners’ dinner. Once when I was in the camp to bring the tureens, in block 9, I saw Mandl and Brandl selecting the so-called Muslims for the gas. I saw one of those “Muslims” kneeling before the defendant Mandl and asking her for something. I was interested in this and, moving slowly from the block, I heard that the prisoner asked her to leave her mother in the block or to be taken with her mother to the gas. Mandl, in response to this, beat and kicked her.
Chief judge: How does the witness know they had been selected for gassing?
The witness: I know, because they were immediately escorted to block 25. In January 1943 there was a general roll call and 4,000 prisoners were selected who were kept in the block without food or water. We could not give them anything out of the kitchen, because it was strictly forbidden, and they were guarded by SS men.
I had a friend, Boryczko, who worked in a kommando, and one of Aufseherins reported to Mandl that she wasn’t working during work time. Mandl summoned her and beat her so terribly that she was taken to the hospital but could no longer stand on her feet – she died after a few months.
In our kitchen, we also had a night shift. Two of my fellow inmates were serving there one night, and some SS man came to them, and when he couldn’t enter, he unhinged the door.
The next morning the head chef didn’t know what to do so that the defendant Mandl wouldn’t find out about it. But he had to report it. These two prisoners were summoned to Mandl for interrogation and received 50 lashes as punishment. Dr. Rhode decided that one of them couldn’t get 50 lashes because she had a heart disease. Mandl’s compromise was to give her 25 lashes per day. None of these victims ever came back, as they were taken to the crematorium from the hospital a few months later.
In April 1944 Mandl came to the hospital and began to select patients for the gas. At that time, about 800 people were grouped in block 11. From block 10, I saw the defendants Mandl, Drechsel and Taube do this. They later transported them to the crematorium. One of the Jewish women jumped out of the car and hid behind the bricks that stood beside the road. Taube and Mandl spotted it, caught her and beat her up badly. [I don’t know] what came next, because I had to leave the window when I was moved on by the block leader. In the evening, my friend came from the camp and told me that the Jewess had been shot.
Who shot her, I don’t know.
I had dealings with the defendant Brandl in 1944 when I came from the “Sauna” for an evening roll call. Brandl began to inspect my bag and found bread, a photo of my children, an iron and a navy blue skirt. When I was asked whose skirt it was, I answered that one of the cooks had given it to me to iron. When she asked me where I’d got the iron, I replied that I had borrowed it from the Bekleidungskammer [clothes storeroom]. Then she asked me where I had the photo from. I replied that one of my friends had given it to me. All my explanations didn’t help, because Brandl then beat me so badly that I had black eyes and my nose wouldn’t stop bleeding. In addition, she reported me. After three days I was summoned to Drechsel. Again I was asked how I’d got hold of the photo. The Aufseherin told me how to respond and even went to the interrogation with me. At first I got a month of SK [Strafkompanie, punitive unit], and later the sentence was relaxed to two weeks.
The defendant Brandl was also involved in the selections, both in the camp and on the ramp when the transports arrived. In 1944 these selections took place without a doctor, only Taube, Mandl and Brandl were present.
In 1944, I saw Mandel checking male prisoners and when she found something, she even beat the men.
I recall an incident in 1944 when one of the Jewish women escaped from the camp with a Polish man. After two weeks they caught her and brought her back to the camp, after which she was put in the bunker. A few days later in the evening there was a roll call; the overseers who took this roll call came and said: “Old Jewish women are to report to the lager B “Sauna” and line up there”. From block to block the news went round that Mala had been caught and brought back. After the roll call, the older Jewish women and prisoners went to camp B, and I returned to the “Sauna”. Through the window I saw Mala standing with her arms folded, and next to her was Mandl and some other overseers, whose names I don’t remember and they said something to her, and then I saw Arbeitsdienstführer [work manager] Ruiters hit her in the face, and Mala gave it back to him. I saw blood pouring from her hand. Mandl ran up to them as they struggled. They took Mala away, and she still shouted back, “Poles, don’t worry, it won’t be long before your ordeal is over”. Ruiters took her to block 4. We wondered why they were taking her to the hospital and how we could help her. Mandl followed them to block 4. We decided that one of us had to go to block 4, that’s the hospital. I proposed that I would go to the hospital via the canteen, which was at the back. Through the open door I saw Mandl and Ruiters beat and kick this Jew who had cut her veins. By jumping over the wires, I went back to the “Sauna” and told my friends what I’d seen. Arbeitsdienstführer Ruiters and Mandl returned after a while, and gave the order to take Mala in the cart used to carry bread to the kitchen. They carted her to the crematorium. What happened next, I don’t know. I only asked the Slovak prisoners who carted her and they told me that they had put her near the crematorium. Then we heard that she had been shot.
By whom, I do not know.
Chief judge: Are there any questions?
Prosecutor Szewczyk: The witness testified that Mandl and Brandl made a selection of people for the gas. On what basis does the witness claim that these people were taken to the gas?
The witness: Because then they were taken to block 25, the so-called block of death, and from there they were taken to the crematorium.
Prosecutor Szewczyk: We heard from the defendant Grabner that block 25 was a hospital.
The witness: I say that block 25 was only for people who went to the gas.
Prosecutor Szewczyk: Does the witness know how this block was equipped and how these prisoners were treated?
The witness: I didn’t see. The block of death was only accessible when there were no people in it. There were ordinary brick bunks. The prisoners there didn’t wear any clothes, they were naked. From there they were taken to a car.
Prosecutor Szewczyk: Did the car return for the next batch?
The witness: Cars often came back for more batches.
Prosecutor Szewczyk: But was this block evacuated in one day or two?
The witness: If they were all taken out, within one day.
Prosecutor Szewczyk: Where?
The witness: To the crematorium.
Prosecutor Szewczyk: Then there was the so-called Blocksperre [block curfew].
The witness: Yes, but the kitchen had special privileges as we used to go with the tureens to the blocks.
Prosecutor Brandys: The witness testified that during the general roll call 4,000 women were selected and sent to block 25. Were all these 4,000 sent to the gas? What that the same time when the defendant Mandl issued the order to cook 4,000 fewer dinners for the next day?
The witness: This was the first time in 1943.
Prosecutor Brandys: At that time, did the defendant Mandl order you to cook these 4,000 fewer lunches for the next day?
The witness: Yes. 4,000 fewer lunches and coffees.
Prosecutor Brandys: Who decided on the severity of a punishment?
The witness: Mandl or Rapportführer Taube, or Drechsel.
Prosecutor Brandys: All the punishments?
The witness: In the camp it was mainly Mandl or Drechsel who decided on the punishments.
Prosecutor Brandys: How did she decide on the punishments? Right after the interrogation, or later?
The witness: As for my case, I was questioned by Drechsel. She interrogated me and threatened ...
Prosecutor Brandys: When did she announce the punishment, immediately after the interrogation?
The witness: Yes.
Prosecutor Brandys: Orally?
The witness: Yes.
Prosecutor Brandys: Were there any incidents when there was an immediate decision that a woman should be flogged?
The witness: Yes.
Prosecutor Brandys: Did this also happen immediately or some time after the “crime”?
The witness: When Mandl issued the verdict, it took one or two days.
Prosecutor Brandys: Did Mandl also issue the decision to flog someone immediately after the interrogation?
The witness: Yes.
Prosecutor: And then a day or two after, the flogging would take place?
The witness: Yes. I have to add that when the defendant Brandl saw my photographs she said: “It is a pity that your children are not here because they would go to the gas”.
Defense attorney Rymar: The witness testified that Mandl conducted the selections not only at the general roll calls, but also on the ramp. When was that and does the witness know this from hearsay or her own observation?
The witness: I know from my own observation that in 1944, when the Hungarian transports came, Mandl took part in the selections.
Defense attorney Rymar: But was the witness there?
The witness: I saw it from the “Sauna” where I worked, and the “Sauna” was across from the ramp.
Defense attorney Rymar: Was there any case when only the defendants Mandl, Brandl and Taube were present during the selections?
The witness: That was during the selections in the camp. As far as the Hungarian transports are concerned, there was the whole retinue, including the defendant Mandl, whom I would recognize even in the dark.
Defense attorney Wolska-Walas: Did the witness see the defendant Brandl at the selections?
The witness: I saw the defendant Brandl in the Jewish blocks.
Defense attorney Wolska-Walas: Please tell me exactly what Brandl’s role was during the selections?
The witness: She and the defendant Mandl together chose who would go to the gas, and that just depended on her whim. If she didn’t like the look of someone, they would be chosen for the gas.
Defence attorney Wolska-Walas: In the women’s camp, who did the gas selection depend on?
The witness: Mandl and her helpers did it on their own, because – as I heard in the administrative office – there was no notification about the selection in the camp.
Chief judge: Do any of the defendants wish to make any statements in connection with the testimony of the witness?
Defendant Mandl: I would like permission to make a statement regarding the witness’s testimony. The witness states that I kicked the prisoners. I never did this and I also gave the overseers the order to never commit such crimes. I have already mentioned that there was no selection at this general roll call. In my time in block 25 there were 850 prisoners. In my time, 4,000 prisoners were never selected. The flogging didn’t come from me, but – as I have explained – from the Reichsführer-SS. There was a doctor present who examined the prisoner before this punishment. I never searched the hospital for prisoners to be selected with the doctor and I was never present when the doctor gave the inmates injections.
I would also like to say that the defendant Brandl was never present at the selections.
Furthermore, I would like to make a declaration regarding the escaped prisoner, the Slovakian Jewish woman Mala, who was an interpreter in the camp, that she escaped with a Polish prisoner dressed in an overseer’s uniform. After a few weeks she was caught on the Slovakian border and brought back to Auschwitz to the bunker. One day when I was getting ready for work, I received a phone call from the Political Department to warn the other Jews in the camp in the presence of Mala not to do anything so foolish, and if they have had any requests, to report to the Political Department or to me. I learned in the Political Department that Mala had been sentenced to death. Why? I do not know. Mala stood near the prisoners whom I had recommended to take to this roll call, and there stood Arbeitsdienstführer Ruiters. He called me and said that Mala wanted to slash her veins. I promptly transferred her to the hospital for medical help. Ruiters received an order from the Political Department to transfer her to the crematorium for execution.
The witness states that she could see block 25, where the selections were held. This is not possible because block 25 was connected by two walls with block 26 and there was no view from the other blocks.
I want to mention that I could not impose punishments, but they came from the commandant. It is not feasible for a flogging to be carried out immediately after the crime had been determined, or rather two days apart. I know that the official forms for flogging came from the Reichsführer a month or two after the crime had been committed by the prisoner, and the punishments were conducted in the presence of a doctor.
The Hungarian transport arrived in the summer of 1944. I never searched any of these transports for SB [Sonderbehandlung, lit. special treatment]. That would be all.
Chief judge: Does the witness maintain her testimony?
The witness: Yes.
Chief judge: The witness may stand down.