Twelfth day of the hearing, 6 December 1947
Chief judge: the next witness, Bernard Czardybon.
The witness Bernard Czardybon, aged 46, white-collar worker, religious affiliation – Roman Catholic, relationship to the accused – none.
Chief judge: I remind the witness of the obligation to tell the truth. False testimony is punishable by imprisonment of up to 5 years. Are there any requests as to how the hearing should be conducted?
Prosecutors: No.
Defense: No.
Chief judge: May the witness please say in particular what he knows with regard to the defendants. Which of them does he recognize?
The witness: I recognize Liebehenschel, Aumeier, Möckel, Josten, Lechner. I don’t know the others by name.
Aumeier I know as Lagerführer [head of the camp]. He was very aggressive towards the prisoners, he kicked and beat them and hurled abuse at them.
Möckel is known to me as the economic manager. He managed the distribution of food and clothing, and all the possessions that the prisoners brought with them such as valuables, clothes, etc. In 1943 he issued an order to prisoners not to wash their underwear but to disinfect it. The result was that the prisoners were walking around in dirty underwear, sometimes completely worn through, which of course led to various diseases. During this period, as administrator of the prisoners’ property, he issued an order in May 1942 that all the prisoners’ possessions should be transferred to the German Reich. What happened in practice until May was that the property of the prisoners who had died was sent back to their families. Since May, all shipments were suspended and all of this property was lost to the Reich. The same thing was done with the things that the Jewish prisoners brought in and this was done en masse. A few hundred wagons a month loaded with items belonging to the Jewish prisoners came out of so-called Canada, so that an average of ten freight wagons were loaded on a daily basis, which were then allocated to the NSV [NationalsozialistischeVolkswohlfahrt, National Socialist People’s Welfare], Wehrmacht, Wintershilfe [winter aid], etc.
The valuables were packed in boxes 1.5 m long and 1 m high. The boxes, which contained watches and jewelry, were set aside for the SS kommando. That’s more or less all I can say about him.
My first encounter with the defendant Grabner was after the escape of one of the prisoners, when Grabner, in retaliation, picked out ten prisoners to be shot. These ten prisoners were not shot, but in fact starved. Father Kolbe volunteered to take the place of one of the prisoners, but this prisoner was not released and he reportedly died.
My second encounter with Grabner was at a general roll call in the summer of 1941, when the defendant Grabner walked from block to block, watching all the prisoners and looking for two suspects. At that time, dozens of prisoners were taken to the political department, some of whom didn’t return to the camp.
On 6 January 1943, a number of kommandos were given standing punishment, about 300 people in total, who, judging by the statements of the SS men, were sentenced to death. In the evening after the roll call, the standing punishment came to an end, and the defendant Grabner once again made a selection. Of those people whom he chose, within 14 days about 50 were shot. Some were shot on the same day, others a few days later, and the rest after 14 days.
The first mass shooting took place on 13 June 1942, when 178 people were shot. The death announcements looked like this: the times of death were spread out between 12 and 15 June, and a variety of diseases of the heart, lungs, etc. were given to their families as the cause of death. The second mass shooting was in September, when 268 people were killed. At this shooting, Grabner was also present. During the arrival of Lublin transports, there were shootings almost three times a week, and at that time I saw Grabner entering block 11.
At the end of August 1942, about 1,200 people were gassed – patients with typhus, most of whom were already convalescent. Of those 1,200 only a hundred people were spared. The rest were loaded onto trucks and transported to the gas. Present at this selection were the subordinate of the defendant Grabner as well as Lagerführer Aumeier.
The defendant Grabner was consistently arrogant and brutal towards the prisoners. Whenever there were interrogations in the political office, the prisoners left terribly beaten, bruised and bloodied. Many ended up dying in hospital.
The defendant Josten I saw while marching to work; he also searched suspected prisoners and handed them over to the SS men for a beating or other such treatment.
At the time when the defendant Lebehenschel governed the camp, the direct arbitrary lashings were indeed abolished, although beating wasn’t completely abolished, and when the transports arrived, the gassing was carried out as before.
The defendant Lechner was a driver for the transport of materials. He showed great greed and sadism towards the prisoners. There were cases where the defendant Lechner, transporting clothes or underwear to other camps, sold the textiles on the way, and when complaints were made, the prisoners were punished for it. As I ascertained, at that time Lechner sold textiles to fund his drunken behavior. Besides, the majority of the defendants – sitting on the bench now, all of whose names I don’t remember – forced the prisoners to steal. The prisoners – depending on which kommando they were assigned to – had to give the SS men money or valuables, otherwise they were done for. One of the prisoners was executed on the order of Grabner. He was forced by the SS men to give them valuables, and during the inquest he betrayed their names and a few days later was shot.
Chief judge: Are there any questions regarding the witness’ statements?
Prosecutor Pęchalski: I mean to clarify Lechner’s case. The witness claims that he stole and later blamed it on the prisoners. Were the prisoners punished somehow for this? How did it look? He was transporting some items that had been taken away from the Jews, stole them and sold them on the way, and then the reports came in that these things had gone missing. Is that the case?
The witness: The reports were of such a kind that the prisoners hadn’t been careful enough when counting the clothes.
Attorney Pachche: Where did these reports go?
The witness: These reports didn’t go any further, because both Lechner and his boss were famous thieves who even had false records made in the books.
Prosecutor Pęchalski: In any case, did the prisoners suffer for it anyway?
The witness: Yes. I am aware of a case when Lechner beat two prisoners unconscious. One of them was Berner, known as “Max”, and the second one, I don’t remember his name.
Prosecutor Pęchalski: Can the witness say whether it was a serious matter or just some sort of nonsense?
The witness: Just something stupid, small inaccuracies in the delivery of materials.
Prosecutor Pęchalski: Was that the fault of the prisoners?
The witness: No, it wasn’t the prisoners’ fault at all.
Prosecutor Szewczyk: Does the witness recall how the issue of executions, shootings and gassing proceeded after the accused Liebehenschel took command?
The witness: I don’t remember exactly.
Prosecutor Szewczyk: I’m mainly concerned with the quantity and intensity of these matters. Was it less than before?
The witness: As far as shootings are concerned, they were less than before, although the transports for gassing continued.
Prosecutor Szewczyk: Did they differ significantly from the previous ones?
The witness: It depended on the round-ups that were taking place in the country.
Prosecutor Szewczyk: But they weren’t domestic transports.
The witness: There were also domestic transports.
Prosecutor Szewczyk: But the main contingent was from Hungary and then, in 1944 in the spring, the number of these transports increased, didn’t it?
The witness: Yes.
Prosecutor Szewczyk: When it comes to the selections for shooting, did they take place during this period?
The witness: There were selections, but the number was reduced.
Prosecutor Szewczyk: Was the witness interested in the extent of the influx into camp I of people destined for the crematorium?
The witness: It was impossible to be interested in this because I was working outside the camp.
Prosecutor Szewczyk: In which kommando did the witness work?
The witness: In the Effektenkammer [camp warehouses] and Bekleidungskammer [clothing warehouse].
Prosecutor Szewczyk: In terms of the Effektenkammer and Bekleidungskammer, what aspects was the defendant Möckel interested in, did he carry out inspections there, how many workers worked there?
The witness: The Effektenkammer was divided into three divisions, the second was a side division, and the third was Canada.
Prosecutor Szewczyk: Möckel was interested in Canada.
The witness: Möckel came to Canada very often, issuing orders to sort and transport materials. I remember in 1943 there was an influx of Polish citizens of Jewish descent. One of the transports came stripped of all valuables, and it was clear that the stones had been broken out of the jewelry. Then Möckel arrived in Canada, gathered the kommando and gave orders for them to be shot. It was only when the head of Canada intervened and it was shown that the stones had been removed that the defendant Möckel backed down.
Prosecutor Szewczyk: There was no execution then?
The witness: No, but a few people were shot. On 6 January 1943, 11 Poles from the Entwesungskammer were shot.
Prosecutor Szewczyk: On whose order?
The witness: Grabner’s.
Prosecutor Szewczyk: Does the witness know that Möckel personally transported these things to Berlin?
The witness: I found out from the SS men that these transportations were driven out by Möckel and Pohl.
Prosecutor Szewczyk: But Pohl was a general.
The witness: But there was also another Pohl, who was Möckel’s deputy.
Prosecutor Szewczyk: Did Gehring also travel with these things?
The witness: I don’t know.
Prosecutor Szewczyk: Does the witness know where the cyclone was kept and under whose management?
The witness: Under Möckel’s management.
Prosecutor Szewczyk: In which department of the camp administration?
The witness: I can’t specify exactly. In a warehouse.
Prosecutor Szewczyk: Did Möckel have control over this himself or was it his officials?
The witness: Directly and with his officials.
Prosecutor Szewczyk: Does the witness know how the proceedings took place?
The witness: I’m not sure about how it worked in practice. The SS men came in a Red Cross ambulance, took a certain number of prisoners, and loaded a certain amount of cyclone. By the amount of cyclone we could guess how many were gassed.
Prosecutor Szewczyk: What about the order from the cyclone factory?
The witness: I don’t know about that.
Defense attorney Kossek: Did the witness state that in the spring of 1944 there were gas transports?
The witness: Yes.
Defense attorney Kossek: Because the witness said he wasn’t interested in that because he was out all day working, did it not take place in June?
The witness: As I said, I wasn’t interested in the quantity.
Defense attorney Kossek: At that time did the ramp that led to Birkenau go straight to Birkenau? I mean, in 1944.
The witness: I don’t know, I only know what the prisoners told me.
Defense attorney Kossek: During Liebehenschel’s time, did the mood among the Poles improve or not?
The witness: The mood was better.
Defense attorney Rymar: Does the witness know that in May 1942 Möckel issued a decree regarding the prisoners’ property?
The witness: Yes.
Defense attorney Rymar: The witness said that Möckel issued the order to use cyclone. How did the witness know?
The witness: From those who transported it.
Defense attorney Rymar: Could the witness say who sent the order documents? Did the witness see such a document? We heard yesterday that Grabner signed them.
The witness: The ambulance went directly from Canada for the gas.
Defense attorney Rymar: Möckel, according to the indictment, was transferred to Auschwitz in 1943, but maybe this is mistaken?
The witness: It could be a mistake because I didn’t see him in 1942.
Defense attorney Rymar: So, what the witness said about Möckle, was that known to him from conversations with SS men and fellow inmates?
The witness: Yes.
Defense attorney Minasowicz: What was the function of the defendant Lechner in the camp?
The witness: He was a transport driver.
Defense attorney Minasowicz: Where was the witness working at that time?
The witness: I was working in his kommando, the Bekleidungskammer. I had the position of a so-called kapo, or boss.
Defense attorney Minasowicz: Do you often meet him?
The witness: Every day.
Defense attorney Minasowicz: During which time period?
The witness: For a year.
Defense attorney Minasowicz: Were you in the Bekleidungskammer the whole time?
The witness: The whole time. Lechner was punished and transferred.
Defense attorney Minasowicz: In which year did you work there?
The witness: All of 1944.
Defense attorney Minasowicz: Where were the items left that belonged to the prisoners who were sent to death?
The witness: They were left in Canada.
Defense attorney Minasowicz: But specifically, where did they throw these things, when they were on their way to death?
The witness: On the ramp or in front of the gas chambers.
Defense attorney Minasowicz: Who collected these things?
The witness: They were taken away by prisoners and transported to the sorting place.
Defense attorney Minasowicz: Did Lechner accompany such trucks?
The witness: He had nothing to do with it.
Defense attorney Minasowicz: When did Lechner come into contact with these items?
The witness: He only received these items from the main warehouse and transported them to individual nearby camps.
Defense attorney Minasowicz: Were these things transported away on the basis of a written record or list?
The witness: There was a formal order, on the basis of which the transportation was made and driven out.
Defense attorney Minasowicz: Did he leave the camp?
The witness: Yes, outside the camp.
Defense attorney Minasowicz: Where could he have sold those things along the way and to whom?
The witness: These were the SS men’s little tricks. Everyone tried to get more clothes for himself, for his crew. As for the prisoners’ private items, they went straight for sale.
Defense attorney Minasowicz: Did Lechner have anyone else working with him on these convoys?
The witness: At first he had some prisoners, but later he went alone, just with a chauffeur.
Defense attorney Minasowicz: So he must have been in collusion with the chauffeur?
The witness: He didn’t necessarily have to be in collusion with him because he could have gone to a different camp entirely and offloaded that stuff on the sly.
Defense attorney Minasowicz: Does the witness know this from hearsay?
The witness: Yes.
Defense attorney Minasowicz: Who lost out over this?
The witness: The prisoners lost out because they didn’t receive their clothes. But in general, no one lost out because they were stolen goods anyhow.
Defense attorney Minasowicz: Were there any reports?
The witness: Of course, there were reports to his boss.
Defense attorney Minasowicz: The witness said his boss was just the same.
The witness: His boss, called “Buhaj”, was just the same as Lechner.
Defense attorney Minasowicz: Did these reports get anyone into trouble?
The witness: Of course, because then Lechner beat the prisoners to a pulp.
Defense attorney Minasowicz: The witness stated only two incidences of beatings in his testimony.
The witness: Sometimes the prisoners were beaten because of his irascibility.
Defense attorney Minasowicz: Does the witness wish to supplement his testimony?
The witness: Yes, I wish to supplement my testimony.
Defense attorney Minasowicz: Did Lechner deal with the prisoners?
The witness: Lechner was the prisoners’ boss and supervisor.
Defense attorney Minasowicz: In what sense was this and did he always have the same prisoners?
The witness: In the sense that he had his own kommando, so that means that they were always the same prisoners.
Chief judge: The witness testified with regard to the defendant Lechner that he beat and kicked the prisoners. Was the witness present at such an incident and see it?
The witness: Yes, I was present and I saw it.
Chief judge: Maybe the witness can present such an incident?
The witness: I remember one incident when shoes were being sorted out, when a prisoner had selected the wrong pair and Lechner beat him to a pulp.
Chief judge: How?
The witness: He punched and kicked.
Chief judge: Was this just one incident?
The witness: There were three or four such incidents.
Chief judge: Are there any questions for the witness?
Defendant Grabner: In the context of such serious accusations, I want to put one question to the witness. I want to ask him how he could tell that I was the one who ordered the shooting?
The witness: In the way that when these people were taken away, after they were interrogated in the political department they didn’t return, so they were shot.
Defendant Grabner: The witness knows that there was a camp commandant and that we only had to conduct the interrogation but we could not issue such orders.
The witness: As far as the 6 January incident is concerned, the order for the shooting – as I heard from the SS men who blamed the defendant – came from Grabner.
Defendant Grabner: Such statements by SS men could never have been submitted, because I was never authorized to issue such orders. This can be confirmed by all the defendants, as well as by other SS men. Besides, I could never conduct a roll call, make a selection, or search for hostages.
The witness: I assert that after the first escape, Grabner personally searched for the prisoners who would then be shot.