Twelfth day of the hearing, 6 December 1947
Presiding Judge: I would ask the next witness, Ignacy Ratajczak, to approach.
I hereby instruct the witness, pursuant to the provisions of Article 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, that you are 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 attorneys: We likewise.
Witness Ignacy Ratajczak, 44 years old, a waiter by occupation, religion – Roman Catholic, relationship to the accused – none.
Presiding Judge: The court asks the witness to indicate those of the accused who are known to him, and also to inform of facts observed in the camp – concerning bullying, beatings. Whom of the accused does the witness recognize?
Witness: Aumeier, Liebehenschel, Grabner, Schumacher, Medefind.
Presiding Judge: Let us start with Medefind.
Witness: Medefind was the head of the warehouses in Birkenau, whereafter he was assigned to our block in Auschwitz, but he did not stay with us for long, only half a year.
I worked under him at the warehouse. If people failed to perform work properly, he would beat them and shower them with abuse. He would kick anyone who failed to remove his cap when he saw him.
Now as regards Aumeier. He was the head of the whole camp. I was assigned to Rollwagen [roller weigher] no. 1, and I was therefore able to observe all of the Jewish transports. When we brought in a transport, Aumeier would always be there, but Grabner not necessarily.
When the trains drove up he would order us to turn our backs to them, however we heard the screams and blows, and saw Aumeier beating and shooting people. One of the trains was shot up by the SS men headed by Aumeier.
During the heat waves of 1943 or 1944, Aumeier forbade the prisoners from wearing caps. He would beat people in the streets of the camp – I witnessed this myself. One time he selected 15 residents of Kraków and tested ropes on their necks, in order to determine whether they were strong enough and would not break. I was standing approximately 20 meters from him and saw how he wagged his finger at some Jew.
Liebehenschel came next. It was rumored that a new – and better – commandant would arrive. We were glad. True, conditions improved somewhat. But the crematoria continued to belch smoke.
Now, as regards Schumacher. The old ramp was taken down, and the new one was made accessible to cars. One night they unloaded Jews from five trains. They were sorted by Schumacher, and some were sent one way and the rest another, that is to the crematorium. He would beat anyone who was late.
At this point I would like to end my testimony.
Presiding Judge: Are there any questions to the witness?
Defense attorney Kossek: The witness testified that when Liebehenschel took over, things changed for the better, however the crematoria continued to belch smoke. Where were these crematoria?
Witness: In the first camp.
Defense attorney Kossek: Was the witness aware of the fact that Liebehenschel ordered the crematorium to be closed?
Witness: Yes.
Defense attorney Kossek: And thus the comment that the crematoria “continued to belch smoke” refers to Birkenau.
Witness: Yes, to Birkenau.
Defense attorney Kossek: What was the prisoners’ attitude to Liebehenschel? Did they like him or not?
Witness: They liked him.
Defense attorney Kossek: And what was the attitude of the SS men towards him?
Witness: The SS men shunned Liebehenschel.
Defense attorney Kossek: Why did they shun him? Was it because, perhaps, he was too lenient to the prisoners?
Witness: This I do not know. But it is possible that this was the reason why they shunned him. In any case, I know that he was the commandant of the camp for a short time, at most half a year.
Defense attorney Kossek: Can the witness cite an instance that would prove that Liebehenschel behaved leniently?
Witness: Once I was standing in the prisoners’ warehouse and saw Liebehenschel passing through the gate. One of the prisoners had been stood as punishment between the wire fencing. Walking by, he called over an SS man and asked him why the man was standing. They talked for a while and Liebehenschel ordered the prisoner to be released from punishment, and sent him to the warehouse, where he received bread.
Defense attorney Ostrowski: It I heard correctly, it was the accused Schumacher who – according to testimony given by the witness – took part in selections of Jews. From where did the witness learn this?
Witness: I worked in the warehouse, and the accused Schumacher was one of its managers. We drove up with him to each transport that arrived at the ramp.
Defense attorney Ostrowski: Did the witness also go there?
Witness: Yes, I went there for food.
Defense attorney Ostrowski: What I would like to know is whether Schumacher went there to receive food, or in order to sort the Jews?
Witness: We took the food, they did the sorting.
Presiding Judge: Are there any further questions to the witness?
Prosecutors: No.
Defense attorneys: No.
Presiding Judge: Therefore the witness may step down.