The First Thirty Prisoner Functionaries of Auschwitz

Transcription of the podcast

A special group of prisoners in the Auschwitz camp were prisoner functionaries, responsible, among other things, for maintaining discipline among prisoners, keeping order in the blocks, and supervising the work being carried out. Dr Wojciech Płosa, Head of the Auschwitz Museum Archive, talks about the first thirty functionary prisoners – Germans brought to Auschwitz on 20 May 1940 and assigned numbers from 1 to 30.

On June 14, 1940, the first Polish political prisoners were brought to Auschwitz. Waiting for them there were already thirty German prisoners, transferred just days earlier from the Sachsenhausen concentration camp. Where did this idea come from? Who selected them? And what were the criteria for choosing these exact individuals?

This was the idea of Rudolf Höss, the founder and first commandant of Auschwitz. He specifically sent his report officer, Gerhard Palitzsch, to Sachsenhausen concentration camp, where Höss himself had once served. Palitzsch was instructed to select 30 prisoners from Sachsenhausen, bring them to Auschwitz, and have them serve as prisoner functionaries in the newly forming camp. This was, in fact, how it was most commonly done. The SS sought prisoners who already had experience—men who had spent years in the camps and therefore understood exactly how the system functioned, and so they were transferred from Sachsenhausen to Auschwitz. The selection criteria were, you might say, twofold. First, because Auschwitz was only just beginning to take shape, the SS needed prisoners who could effectively direct others in specific tasks, whether in construction or other duties. At the time, the authorities essentially had at their disposal only the former Austrian army barracks—later used by the Polish Army—so the camp had to be organized here virtually from scratch. Therefore, it was crucial that these newly arrived prisoner functionaries were capable of properly supervising the other inmates and ensuring that they carried out the work of organizing, building, and expanding the camp. The second, and undoubtedly equally important, factor concerned the personal characteristics these prisoner functionaries were expected to possess. We must remember that the authorities were looking for individuals who would blindly and effectively carry out tasks—obeying the orders and commands of the SS without being guided by compassion or concern for the prisoners under their control. It should also be emphasized that these thirty selected criminal prisoners—the so-called Berufsverbrecher as they were referred to in Nazi terminology—were instructed that in Auschwitz they would encounter Polish criminals, supposedly the worst stratum or group within Polish society. This was, of course, untrue. However, it served as a form of motivation and constituted a malicious piece of propaganda. At the same time, it was an attempt by the camp administration to create a deep division between the newly arrived prisoner functionaries and the inmates they would eventually supervise.

Who were these people—these first thirty prisoners in Auschwitz? Do we know anything about their lives before the war? Why did they end up in the Sachsenhausen concentration camp in the first place?

They were primarily repeat offenders—individuals with a long list of various crimes to their name. Not all of them had necessarily been convicted solely of assault or robbery, although there were certainly men like that among them. They also included fraudsters, thieves, and burglars, as well as those convicted of pimping or procuring. Having repeatedly committed these various offenses over time, they reached a point where, after yet another conviction, the courts would transfer them from the German prison system to a concentration camp. Classified as professional criminals, they were sent to one of the camps already in operation, either Dachau or Sachsenhausen. In other words, they were people who essentially had no place within a society shaped by the Nazi vision. Because they repeatedly violated the law and showed little hope of rehabilitation, the authorities believed that ordinary incarceration would fail to reform them. Therefore, they were sentenced to a concentration camp. Such detention could be indefinite—sometimes described as lasting until the end of the war, which was, of course, a highly vague prospect in mid-1940. While there were instances in which some were released under specific conditions, generally speaking, their criminal past made them entirely unfit for life in an open society.

On May 20, 1940, they were brought to Auschwitz. Can we say more about what their role in the camp was supposed to be?

Yes, they were to become prisoner functionaries—meaning they would take over the duties of the highest-ranking inmates within the camp hierarchy. From this group, the SS at Auschwitz selected the camp elder, two of his deputies, and the leaders or Kapos of the individual labor details. As we have already mentioned, it was of great importance that the SS in Auschwitz knew perfectly well that cooperation with these newly arrived prisoners from Sachsenhausen would proceed smoothly. These were prisoners who knew the realities of concentration camps inside out. They had no difficulty carrying out the orders and commands given to them by the SS. Naturally, there were no communication barriers between these functionaries and the guards. This was a vital factor, as we are dealing here with German inmates. Communicating in their native language was completely effortless for them. Beyond that, they were meant to serve as intermediaries between the SS and the ordinary prisoners. As we know very well, although the SS garrison was constantly expanding, the guards were not with the inmates twenty-four hours a day. That responsibility fell precisely to the prisoner functionaries. That is why the SS needed experienced individuals for this role—men who, as functionaries, would perform their duties properly and satisfactorily. In other words, when necessary, they would be brutal and ruthless toward those under their authority, ensuring that the work required of the prisoners, along with other duties, was carried out in strict accordance with orders. These prisoner functionaries constituted a unique group, one that was crucial from the SS perspective for the proper functioning of the camp. Consequently, they could also count on a certain range of benefits, placing them in a privileged position compared to ordinary prisoners. That usually meant better food, higher quality camp clothing, and, within the harsh realities of a concentration camp, at least a minimum degree of privacy. That is to say, they could live in separate rooms rather than in the common quarters, where they would otherwise have been forced to remain constantly surrounded by other prisoners. Of course, such advantages always came at a price. In exchange for these privileges, they had to fulfill their imposed duties absolutely flawlessly. The SS expected them to manage their responsibilities toward the subordinate inmates without any shortcomings whatsoever.

They were supposed to be brutal and ruthless toward prisoners, but were they actually like that? Do we know what former inmates said about this first group of thirty functionaries? How were they remembered by the camp commandant himself, Rudolf Höss?

This is also a very interesting question. We must remember that a great many detailed descriptions and sharp characterizations of these first thirty prisoners have survived. They can be found not only in the postwar testimonies and memoirs of former prisoners, especially those from the first transports, who naturally had more frequent contact these men, but also in other sources. In the 1960s, Dr. Stanisław Kłodziński conducted research on “KZ syndrome,” that is, the way in which imprisonment in concentration camps affected the mental and physical condition of survivors. He distributed thematic questionnaires to former prisoners, asking about various issues that were important from a research perspective. Among other things, he sent a dedicated set of questions to a large group of survivors concerning what he termed “criminal prisoners.” The responses, now preserved in our archives, constitute an invaluable source regarding how the functionaries from the first thirty behaved, how they conducted themselves, and how they treated both other prisoners and each other. A further important aspect concerns their relations with the SS and the ways in which they helped one another. On this topic, we possess a truly enormous amount of information. As we might expect, most former prisoners remembered these functionaries as cruel individuals—men capable of killing or of tormenting others in very inventive ways. Yet some inmates spent long periods in labor details supervised by specific functionaries and came to know them, you might say, a bit better. They encountered them in somewhat different circumstances. As a result, some remarks about certain members of this first thirty—who were otherwise regarded as exceptionally brutal—can occasionally be rather surprising. At times, they were actually capable of showing comradeship or a degree of kindness. A characteristic example is Bruno Brodniewicz—the first Lagerältester, or camp elder, designated as prisoner No. 1. Numerous accounts describe him as an exceptionally brutal man, who introduced a reign of terror into the camp. For instance, he forced other inmates to remove their caps in his presence. In reality, no one was not required to act this way toward a functionary. A prisoner was obliged to uncover his head and report to an SS man, but not to another inmate. Yet Brodniewicz enforced precisely that. At the same time, accounts of survived showing that he was sometimes aware the toll his punishments took. For instance, if he complained to the SS about a group of prisoners working too slowly—resulting in them being forced to stand through a punitive roll call without food—he might unexpectedly act differently later on. When they returned to their block that evening, Brodniewicz would suddenly appear with extra soup and pieces of bread, attempting to compensate them in some way. It was not a regular occurrence, which is precisely why such behavior stayed in the memories of the survivors. In general, however, many prisoners understood perfectly well how the functionaries from the first thirty behaved. They knew exactly who to avoid, who to steer clear of, and they did their best to follow these unwritten rules. As for Höss himself, who had years of experience as an SS man serving in concentration camps, he generally divided prisoner functionaries into three groups. The first consisted of extreme sadists who vented all their urges, bad moods, frustrations, and complexes on those under their authority. They would seize every opportunity to turn the inmates into victims of their depraved behavior. This abuse wasn’t just physical—like beatings or torture—it was also psychological, involving mockery, humiliation, and vulgar insults. The second category, in Höss’s view, included men who performed their duties with sheer servility —driven by what he described as a detached, indifferent dullness. They adhered strictly to regulations, showing no emotion whatsoever, and certainly no kindness toward those under their command. The third group, he noted, might at first glance appear good-natured to their subordinates. However, they completely lacked moral principles, and, the moment it suited them, they would not hesitate to punish the inmates or treat them exceptionally badly. In any case, ordinary prisoners who came into contact with these first thirty functionaries generally understood they were dealing with people who would stop at nothing to force compliance with orders. Of course, some liked to show off in front of the SS, or they shouted at or beat prisoners only when guards were present. For the most part, however, this initial group remained in the memories of their subordinates as men who insisted on strict adherence to regulations, enforcing them at every turn. They carried out commands ruthlessly, with only rare departures from the rule. Generally speaking, they saw no alternative but the uncompromising execution of orders. And if those under their control failed to comply, they knew they had to expect punishment. There is another crucial factor to consider: the camp was expanding. As more and more prisoners were being brought in, the demand for functionaries grew exponentially. It is equally important to remember that if a prisoner functionary failed to perform his duties satisfactorily, he could be stripped of his position and reduced to the status of an ordinary prisoner. This was a fate these men sought to avoid. If they had been brutal and persecuted those under their authority, then once they ceased to be functionaries and found themselves among the general population, no privilege protected them any longer, and no SS man would defend them. Consequently, they often faced punishment—sometimes even in the form of vigilante justice carried out by the very inmates they had mistreated.

You have already mentioned Bruno Brodniewicz, prisoner No. 1 in Auschwitz. Could you give us some more examples of functionaries from this first group of thirty?

There are many such stories we could share here. But first, perhaps one preliminary remark should be added. In principle, we have more or less detailed knowledge about twenty-nine men from this group. To this day, however, historians have been unable to establish the identity of the prisoner No. 9, and we know almost nothing about him. Bruno Brodniewicz was certainly one of the figures who left an exceptionally strong mark on the minds of the other inmates. It should be noted, though, that he held the position of camp elder only until a memorable event in the history of Auschwitz, which took place on December 29, 1942. On that day, Otto Küsel escaped from the camp. Registered as prisoner No. 2, Küsel served as the Arbeitsdienst—the person responsible for assigning the inmates to work details. Interestingly, every prisoner who encountered or knew that man spoke about him in the highest terms. They described him as someone who did everything possible to help others. Above all, he would carefully ask the inmates about their professions. He gave advice, especially to those who were not craftsmen or manual workers, but rather belonged to the intelligentsia. Such individuals were in a particularly difficult situation because, in the camp, those who could endure hard labor or possessed a specific trade—such as electricians or carpenters—were valued most highly. Through assigning men to various Kommandos, Otto Küsel had the opportunity to help them. For example, those who were physically weak or lacked practical skills could be sent to details where they could stay under a roof, peeling potatoes, sorting clothing in warehouses, or doing similar work. Eventually, Otto Küsel, together with three other prisoners—Jan Baraś, Mieczysław Januszewski, and Bolesław Kuczbara—decided to escape from the camp. It was a meticulously planned operation. The prisoners hid inside wardrobes loaded onto a horse-drawn cart driven by Küsel himself, whose presence naturally aroused no suspicion among the guards. Seeing a prisoner functionary they knew well, the SS men allowed him to pass without a thorough inspection. Küsel then traveled through Broszkowice to Libiąż, where they were met by Andrzej Harat, a member of the resistance group operating in the vicinity of the camp. When the SS launched a manhunt for the escapees, they eventually found the striped uniforms discarded by the prisoners. Among Otto Küsel’s things, they discovered a letter in which he expressed profuse gratitude to Brodniewicz for helping with the escape. This, of course, was entirely untrue. Brodniewicz had absolutely no idea that Küsel and the others were even planning to break out. Nevertheless, one can imagine how the camp Gestapo reacted to such a document. Brodniewicz was immediately interrogated and thrown into the basement cells of Block 11. Effectively removed from the position of camp elder in Auschwitz I, he was transferred to an equivalent post in Auschwitz II-Birkenau, where he later served in the so-called Gypsy Family Camp. However, his standing was never again as powerful as it had been in the early days of the camp. Brodniewicz subsequently became camp elder in the Neu-Dachs subcamp in Jaworzno. There, another inmate intrigue led to his removal. Prisoners planted civilian clothing and foreign currency in his quarters and then informed the SS that Brodniewicz was preparing to escape. This, too, was entirely untrue. As a result, he was transferred from Neu-Dachs to Eintrachthütte in Świętochłowice, before being eventually moved to the Bismarckhütte in Chorzów. Following the evacuation of Auschwitz in January 1945, he was sent to Mittelbau-Dora and from there to Bergen-Belsen, where he lived to see liberation. Immediately after the war, rumors circulated claiming that Brodniewicz had been killed in an act of vigilante justice. There were even alleged eyewitnesses to the event. However, these accounts proved false. In reality, he died in West Germany in the 1960s. Otto Küsel, meanwhile, had learned some Polish during his time behind the barbed wire. Together with Jan Baraś, he made his way to Warsaw. He wanted to become involved in resistance activities, but the Polish underground was hesitant to welcome him, mainly because they simply did not trust a German. His command of the language was also not sharp enough for him to move about freely. Eventually, he was arrested in Warsaw in September 1943 and sent back to Auschwitz, where he was immediately recognized as the escaped prisoner functionary. He underwent harsh interrogation by the camp Gestapo, but it appears that he did not betray anyone. In February 1944, he was transferred to the Flossenbürg concentration camp, where he survived until liberation. There is a remarkable postwar epilogue to Küsel’s story. In 1946, Prime Minister Józef Cyrankiewicz—himself a former prisoner of Auschwitz and Mauthausen—proposed that because of Küsel’s immense merits and honorable conduct, he should be granted honorary Polish citizenship. However, the initiative never advanced beyond the discussion stage and was never implemented. Yet, in 1981, Otto Küsel did finally receive formal recognition—he was awarded the Gold Cross of Merit by the President of Poland in Exile, Edward Raczyński. Then there is Leo Wietschorek, prisoner No. 30, who served as Brodniewicz’s deputy and was therefore the second Lagerältester. He was a man renowned for exceptional brutality, with a long history of criminal offenses before the war. The inmates avoided him whenever possible; he was not only violent but also invented particularly cruel punishments and forms of torture. Eventually, however, his end came as well. Prisoners knew very well that he was fond of various gifts and luxuries. A particularly elegant sweater was smuggled out of the Kanada warehouses, and because the garment greatly appealed to him, he wore it proudly. What he did not know was that it was infested with lice carrying typhus. He contracted the disease. The camp authorities could not allow an inmate to be treated in an SS hospital, but they ordered the prisoner doctors in the camp infirmary to place Wietschorek in a separate room and do everything in their power to ensure his recovery. He survived typhus itself, but on July 3, 1942, he died from subsequent complications—most likely meningitis. Of course, many other stories, in greater or lesser detail, could be presented here. However, I think these examples are particularly interesting and also quite representative of this group of the first thirty functionaries in Auschwitz.

Were there any cases within this group of release from the camp, transfer to other sites, or perhaps conscription into the Wehrmacht and deployment to the front?

Yes, exactly. That was also a fairly characteristic feature, though it occurred gradually, you might say. In general, fourteen of these men were released from the camp. However, a distinction must be made here, because five of them were released only in 1944, on the strict condition that they immediately joined the Dirlewanger Brigade. This was the notorious unit that, among other things, took part in suppressing the Warsaw Uprising. In fact, Jansen—one of these prisoner functionaries—was killed during the fighting against the Polish insurgents. Thus, you might say that their release was conditional. They were not set free, but were transferred directly from the concentration camp into the ranks of a highly specific SS unit. Nine others, however, were released completely, receiving official confirmation of their discharge. Five of them subsequently worked for Auschwitz itself. For example, Erich Grönke became the manager of the camp tannery, where he had previously been assigned, while Arthur Balke was transferred to Chełmek to work at the Bata factory. Interestingly, besides Otto Küsel, two other inmates from this group of the first thirty also escaped from Auschwitz. One was Jonny Lechenich, whom the Germans never succeeded in tracking down before the end of the war. The other, Willi Meyer, was captured, although not until 1944, and, like Küsel, was brought back to Auschwitz.

You have already spoken about the postwar fate of some of these prisoner functionaries. We know that some of this group died in the camp. But do we know what happened after the war to those who survived?

Seven prisoners from this group of the first thirty died in Auschwitz, under various circumstances. But there was another notable case: Hans von Siegroth, prisoner No. 26. He was a one-armed Kapo remembered by the inmates as an exceptionally brutal individual. Initially, he maintained very good relations with the SS, particularly when it came to collecting foreign currencies and other valuables—in other words, he traded with them. Von Siegroth also died, though not in Auschwitz. In July 1941, a transport was sent from the camp to the Sonnenstein euthanasia facility. Before leaving, the victims were utterly deceived. The camp authorities announced that anyone too weak or ill to cope with the labor could transfer to a so-called convalescent camp. This was a bizarre, unheard-of term, yet some prisoners agreed to go. Others were simply added to the group— specifically those who were extremely exhausted or with visible physical deformities. Von Siegroth was included in this transport due to his missing arm. We do not know exactly how he died. Some accounts suggest that he was killed in an act of retribution during the journey, right there on the train. Other sources claim he arrived alive, only to be murdered with exhaust fumes at the euthanasia center in Pirna-Sonnenstein. As for the postwar punishment of this group of the first thirty, only four of them were actually brought before a court. The first was Arthur Balke, arrested by the Americans as early as 1947. He was tried before the US Military Tribunal in Frankfurt am Main on charges of abusing and mistreating prisoners. During the proceedings, however, he was acquitted and released. Remarkably, former prisoners testified in his favor. In 1968, during the Frankfurt Auschwitz trials, Bernhard Bonitz faced justice and was sentenced to life imprisonment. Erich Grönke, whom I mentioned earlier, was in fact prosecuted twice. First, in 1948, he received a three-year prison sentence. Later, during the Frankfurt trials, his conduct again became the subject of judicial scrutiny. He was charged and was supposed to stand trial, but his poor health prevented it. He died in 1968 while the proceedings were still ongoing. Another interesting case is that of Paul Schikowski, prisoner No. 27. As a German living in Upper Silesia, he reported for work at a factory in Gliwice on June 1, 1945, intending to begin his postwar life there. By chance, a former Auschwitz prisoner named Józef Dziura was employed at the same plant. Dziura immediately recognized him as a Kapo from the camp. As a result, Schikowski was put on trial. He was sent to a labor camp established on the grounds of the former Auschwitz subcamp in Świętochłowice, where he died two months later. The causes and exact circumstances of his death remain unknown. Ultimately, as we can see, very few of these men were ever held accountable—justice reached only a fraction of this group of prisoners.