Women at Auschwitz

Transcript of the podcast

The Auschwitz camp was established in June 1940 for male prisoners. The first groups of women were incarcerated by the Germans more than a year and a half later, at the end of March 1942. Dr Wanda Witek-Malicka and Teresa Wontor-Cichy of the Museum Research Center talk about the reasons of the creation of the women’s camp in Auschwitz and the circumstances surrounding it.

Why were women incarcerated in Auschwitz anyway?

After the defeat in September 1939, arrests of various kinds affected almost the entire Polish society, including women. Later, in 1940 and 1941, specific actions were taken against certain groups of Polish society, such as the “Intelligenzaktion” or the “Aktion – AB”, aimed at isolating and eliminating the most valuable individuals in society, including women who were educated and influential. Once arrested, they were placed in prisons for investigation. In the initial years of the war, most were relocated to camps in Germany, particularly Ravensbrück, which emerged as the largest and model camp for the imprisonment of women. It had been functioning as such since early ‘38, signifying that the initial women prisoners in this camp were German, and as time passed, other women were deported there. Looking at the overall prisoner composition within this camp, it is evident that the largest contingent comprises Polish women. As has been previously stated, the Auschwitz camp, established in 1940, was predominantly a men's camp in its early stages. Its expansion and development were intended to serve as a primary source of labour for the German economy. After the establishment of the camp, various areas emerged where the labour force was to be used. These included industries, such as mines, industrial plants, and heavy industry which were located at some distance from the camp, thus the establishment of the sub-camps. Additionally, various types of workshops and enterprises were established in the area. Another area that also required manpower was agriculture. This is where the plans and interests of the camp commandant Rudolf Höss, who described himself as a farmer, became apparent. It was the area of most interest to him. Therefore, hands were also required for labour. In 1942, two issues converged: prison overcrowding and the need for manpower in the developing camp. Given these circumstances, the decision was made to allocate the women to Auschwitz. However, due to the need for segregation, a portion of the buildings - 10 in total - were separated by a specially constructed wall, with a different entrance designated for the area. On the 26th of March 1942, the camp registered two transports: one in the morning, consisting of 999 female prisoners from Ravensbrück (although initially 1000, one escaped during the transport), and in the afternoon, a similar number of 999 Jewish women from Poprad were brought in. And that is how the women's camp began in the sense of placing and incarcerating female prisoners.

Who were the first female prisoners to arrive at Auschwitz in March of 1942?

The first group of prisoners to reach Auschwitz, having been transported from Ravensbrück, comprised mostly German female political prisoners and criminal prisoners, as well as female Bible scholars and "asocial" prisoners, with a significant number being German prostitutes, according to accounts from camp inmates. In the second transport, two groups of Slovakian Jewish women arrived two days apart. In fact, until the women's division ceased to exist at the main camp, Slovakian Jewish women were the predominant group among all other prisoner categories. From late April onwards, transports of Polish female political prisoners also started to arrive at Auschwitz. These initial transports consisted primarily of female prisoners who were actively engaged in underground activities. Among them are such names as Janina Tollik, Antonina Piątkowska and Monika Galica are remembered not only by their fellow inmates but also in the pages of history as those who participated in or organised underground and self-help activities in the later period of the camp's existence. Additionally, from June onwards, they also began to bring in French Jewish women, making them the second-largest group after the camp was relocated to Birkenau.

You talked about the transfer of female prisoners from Auschwitz I to Auschwitz II- Birkenau; it should be noted that a women's camp was situated within Auschwitz I. What did it look like structurally? How was it organised? Who was in charge – the commandant or the SS men? Was there a formal women's crew?

During the early days of the camp, the area designated for women was under the authority of the Ravensbrück commandant. However, this arrangement soon led to various issues and misunderstandings regarding the management of the camp. For Commandant Höss, this was a new experience since he had previously only worked in men's camps such as Dachau and Sachsenhausen. It was a new structure for him. As a result of the complicated separation, location, and communication, Commandant Höss was eventually given the responsibility of supervising the entire camp, which included the women's section. Before August 1942, establishing contact was relatively easy, as all the prisoners resided within the main camp of Auschwitz. However, the expansion of Birkenau was already in progress. Therefore, once it was acknowledged that certain structures could house female prisoners - though "housed" may be considered a more formal expression - female prisoners were assigned to those buildings, and consequently, 13,000 female prisoners were relocated to Birkenau, thus establishing Birkenau as the primary facility for housing women. There were also a few exceptions, but we will discuss them shortly. The Birkenau camp saw the convergence of prisoners from different nationalities in '42, owing to the ongoing mass deportation of Jews from various parts of Europe. This resulted in the incarceration of individuals who spoke different languages and were subjected to different situations in the camp. I mentioned that the Birkenau camp section marked with building symbols BIa and BIb, was the "Frauenlager”; however, women were not only housed there. Women were also placed in the Roma section marked BIIe. It was a family camp that accommodated men, women, and children, including girls. Women from the Terezin ghetto were also placed in the second family camp and the construction section BIII, so-called Mexico. Approximately 200 women were accommodated within the surroundings of Auschwitz, particularly in the “Stabsgebäude”. Furthermore, in April of '43, the following year, block 10 was somehow excluded from this structure, with no male occupants and instead housed women who were subjected to the sterilisation experiments conducted by Dr Clauberg and Schumann. In 1944, another group of women were placed in what was known as the "Lagererweiterung", or the extension of the camp. In the autumn of 1944, two blocks, 22 and 23, were also excluded from the male structure and assigned to women employed at the Union-Werke, testifying to the dynamics of the camp. Therefore, when we speak of a female-only camp in Birkenau, the "Frauenlager", we must always bear in mind that it was a large and heterogeneous camp, and therefore women were assigned to various sections.

The living conditions of male and female prisoners were very similar, but their experiences are slightly different. What made the women's experience different?

In fact, the prisoners' accounts are the only sources that provide any information regarding potential distinctions between the experiences of women and men. Firstly, it should be noted that women admitted to a concentration camp received no preferential treatment. They faced the same brutal treatment, abuse and torture as the male prisoners. The reception procedure, which is the moment of entering the camp reality and transitioning into a prisoner, appears to have been more difficult for women, according to the accounts. I believe this was mainly because everything in the camp was interconnected, and there was a constant sense of collective living. For instance, women were sent to the baths in groups where they had to undress. For them, this nudity, having to undress in the presence of SS men and other men, was much more difficult and humiliating. One particular aspect that appeared to be more traumatising for women was the head-shaving ritual. Camp documents show that women were not shaved from the very beginning. When we look at these camp photos of women from the first transports, we see that they have hair, so the procedure for shaving women was introduced a little later. In contrast, those women who have already undergone it recall it as absolutely terrifying and dehumanising. For them, that feeling of being disfigured and deprived of something significantly attributed to femininity was much more profound than for men. The men fared better. Another issue was prisoners' clothing. Female prisoners were assigned either striped uniforms or, initially, uniforms previously worn by Soviet prisoners of war. The clothing was filthy, shabby, and ill-fitting, providing little protection from the weather and further marred their appearance. It was another aspect that constituted a sort of torture for these women. When discussing the differences in women's experiences, it is evident that specific fragments in the women's narratives are relatively more uncommon in the men's narratives. These fragments pertain specifically to clothing and how female prisoners tried to alter their attire, Or perhaps just to make themselves feel better. In Ms Oyrzynska's account, for example, we find a passage which states that the female prisoners sewed special aprons for themselves. As well as being something very personal, they were also practical because one could sew a pocket in such an apron for keeping things. The same prisoner mentions the different ways of tying a headscarf on the head. The accounts also mention that female prisoners of various nationalities tied their headscarves differently. This clothing was a crucial element of camp life and played an essential role in the prisoners' sense of femininity. Moreover, the imposition of camp attire on women proved to be a significant hindrance for them. It is also important to note that the men of that time had, in their experience, often gone through various institutions, including the military, which had accustomed them to certain procedures. Sometimes it was a matter of working in an industrial plant, a shared bathhouse or just collective accommodation. Women of the time had no such experiences, so having to live with unfamiliar women in a dirty barrack, sleeping together with complete strangers in a shared bunk, and sharing personal belongings such as a bowl, a cup, a spoon, and even a camp blanket with them was a very distressing and challenging experience. These prevailing conditions characterised the camp: ever-present dirt and proliferation of disease-spreading vermin, which affected both men and women equally. Conversely, it is worth noting that upon analysing the testimonies of the men tasked with liquidating the women's ward at the main camp, it is evident that these men were astonished by the deliberate imposition of arduous conditions on the women. In theory, they inhabited the same blocks as men. In reality, these blocks were, to a greater extent, overcrowded. The women lived in extremely confined spaces, which further facilitated the proliferation of these camp pests - lice and bedbugs, which could be found everywhere. It was an extremely humiliating and difficult experience for the women. It is also important to note that the purpose of transferring women to the camp was to have them employed in agriculture and horticulture, among other sectors, so as to free the male workforce for employment in industrial facilities. In practice, women were sent to male-dominated, difficult, physically demanding, and dangerous jobs, contrary to the original intention. The women who stayed at the main camp were tasked, among other things, with demolishing buildings, moving construction materials, tidying up the site, building roads, and carrying stones. This physically demanding work lasted for several hours daily and was made more difficult due to insufficient food. Women were also employed in the aforementioned sectors of agriculture and horticulture, where they performed strenuous tasks like haying and digging drainage ditches. Speaking of work, it is worth noting that former prisoners emphasise the importance of a good job in the camp as crucial for survival. A prisoner who had been engaged in arduous physical labour in the outer commando, enduring the elements, including cold, rain, and various illnesses and injuries, had little hope of survival. There were more employment prospects in the so-called specialised trades, such as carpentry, electrical work, roofing, and building, which demanded higher levels of competence. In this case, the experience of women differs fundamentally from that of men, as women representatives of such professions were virtually non-existent or, at best, we are rarely aware of examples of women employed, for instance, in the "Bauleitung". On the other hand, since these units were indeed predominantly composed of men, their chances of survival were higher. Naturally, women also found employment in so-called good kommandos. However, in their case, a good kommando might have been, for example, the Canada warehouses, where they sorted clothes and property left behind by the victims of the mass extermination. Women were also employed in the camp offices, in various types of administrative and office work, and were employed in the SS laundry. They were also employed in the camp kitchen, although here they mention that the work was indeed extremely difficult because this kitchen had to serve huge numbers of prisoners, so the amount of food prepared was enormous. Big, heavy cauldrons of soup, and coffee, required physical strength to move them. In fact, we possess scarce documents or camp facts that unequivocally demonstrate the differing experiences of women. As I previously stated, besides the testimonies, tangible numerical evidence is scarce, whereas the intriguing aspect here lies in the issue of camp escapes. When analysing camp escapes and tracing the history, we find that women's escapes accounted for approximately 5% of the overall number of escapes. Which unequivocally shows that women's fate somewhat differed. Indeed, it is difficult to pinpoint the reasons for this. Here we can, to a larger degree, speculate or deduce this based on recollections, rather than indicate indisputable, definite reasons. This might be because women were less likely to be part of the resistance movement before their internment, resulting in their lack of military experience, training, and the skills and knowledge necessary for planning and executing an escape or staying informed about camp activities. Also, the fact that the men's camp was better organised in terms of prisoner conspiracy seems to be an important argument. In the women's camp, there were no structured organisations like Pilecki's or any other. However, involvement in the camp conspiracy and subsequent interaction with the civilian population and the outside world played a critical role in not only facilitating the escape but also in effectively adjusting and continuing life after leaving the camp, which is a support the women did not have. Perhaps the argument was also that the appearance of women who were emaciated and above all with a shaved head might have attracted more attention outside the camp. While a hairless man could conceal his identity under a cap without raising suspicion, a bald woman would immediately signal her potential status as an escapee from the camp, complicating her ability to hide, but again, these are merely a few examples of such presumptions. This topic remains open for further research. The reasons behind women's significantly lower likelihood of choosing to escape from the camp remain unknown to researchers.

How was the social composition of women prisoners structured? It is known that Jewish women prisoners from Slovakia were part of the early arrivals and were also deported from the Ravensbrück camp. What did it look like later on as more transports arrived? How did the social structure of women prisoners at Auschwitz evolve?

The women's camp was very diverse right from the outset. These are the two previously mentioned large transports from March. Later, transports of Polish female prisoners from the prisons began. In the following months, Jewish female prisoners from France were brought to the camp. Furthermore, it is worth noting that this first Jewish transport from Poprad is, in fact, the very first Jewish transport ever brought to the camp. These prisoners were not subjected to selection. As a matter of fact, regular selections were not implemented until July '42, yet when discussing the Holocaust, its beginning is synonymous with the establishment of the women's camp. In essence, the presence of this camp is defined by the multitude of women who were never officially registered upon deportation, as they were directly transferred to the gas chambers from these Jewish transports. But what did it look like in numbers? The knowledge available to us indicates that 131,000 female prisoners were registered at Auschwitz. Among the prisoners in this group, the largest number comprises 82,000 Jewish women, followed by 31,000 Polish women and 11,000 Roma women. In addition, there are around 7,000 female prisoners of various nationalities, with the majority being German and Austrian, specifically Reichsdeutsche. There are also Russian women, as well as smaller numbers of French, Yugoslavian, and Dutch women. The Jewish women brought to the camp encompassed nearly the entire spectrum of their respective societies in terms of age and education. Female prisoners sent to the camp underwent selection upon arrival after being declared fit for work by the camp doctor. Among them were educated women who held degrees, working as doctors and journalists, while a significant number were also devoted to their families, raising children, and managing their households. Regarding the teenage Jewish prisoners, the composition mainly comprised schoolgirls, resulting in a wide age distribution within this population. Another issue was that of language. They spoke the languages of their countries of origin. Today, we are referring to Yiddish, the language of the Jewish community, a distinctive language spoken by Jews mainly from Eastern Europe. Most of the deportees from France, the Netherlands and Belgium did not speak the language. Hence, the possibility for communication, for a certain level of support, presented considerable difficulty. The female prisoners here specifically mention the Greek women who arrived in the spring of '43. These women were distinguished by their beauty but faced challenges due to climatic differences, lack of language proficiency, support and inability to adjust rapidly to the camp conditions. As a result, the mortality rate among them was exceptionally high. Regarding Polish women, it has already been stated that the majority of them participated in clandestine operations, or were apprehended because of their profession as teachers, and subsequently dispatched to the camp. However, there were also transports during the winter of '42-'43 consisting of people displaced from the rural Zamość region. Nearly 700 women were placed in the camp, where, because of their displacement, the transportation of these families occurred without adequate information about the circumstances, thrusting them into an exceedingly overwhelming reality, which they struggled immensely to cope with. Thus, the high mortality rate is caused by illnesses, conditions and exhausting work. In the summer of '44, a large group of women with children, and mothers, were again sent to the camp. This time it was the civilian population of insurgent Warsaw. Once again, the description of this women's camp has undergone significant changes because of the substantial influx of female Polish prisoners registered within its confines. Roma female prisoners were placed in a separate camp. It was, as I mentioned, a family camp. The Roma were not separated nor subjected to selection; their personal belongings remained intact, and they were allowed to keep their clothes. Initially, prisoners were envious of this privilege, as mentioned in their accounts. However, it was later discovered that these clothes were not disinfected. Due to the scarcity of water and inadequate sanitation, it was impossible to keep it properly clean. They were tearing apart and getting destroyed, and as time passed, it became a depressing sight. Roma women in the camp took care of their children, who were often part of large families. Once again, these spreading diseases caused a high mortality rate among children and other prisoners in the isolated camp. It's worth noting that the Roma didn't have specific assignments and did their work somewhere within the camp. They were not allowed to move around within the camp or receive any aid, including food. This led to a dramatic situation for the Roma women and prisoners. German women were the first group to be brought in, and here, one can see a similarity in the way the men's camp was set up. Furthermore, the initial prisoners who arrived at Auschwitz, assigned numbers 1 to 30, were German inmates relocated from Sachsenhausen, and their explicit duty was to prepare the entire camp infrastructure. Many of them had spent numerous years in the camps and thus possessed a deep understanding of the duties of different functionary prisoners and the functioning of the camp, and were already quite adept in various forms of punishment, including physical abuse, which they routinely practised on prisoners. We also see that in regards to the women's camp, likewise - there were 999 female prisoners, a significant number of whom assumed these roles as functionary prisoners and were also notorious for their extremely harsh, brutal and sadistic tendencies. Another interesting fact is that when there was a need to expand the number of female functionary prisoners, Jewish prisoners from Slovakia were the next in line to take on these roles. This case is remarkably intriguing given that, for specific individuals, it offered a notable chance for rescue, serving as a means to protect their lives, their sisters, and potentially their other transported relatives. Alternatively, it perhaps also sheds light on the rampant depravity within the camp as these brutal behaviours increasingly became commonplace. In subsequent years, female prisoners from Germany were also relocated to the camp, albeit in smaller groups. The incarcerated Russian women in the camp included those affiliated with underground organisations and partisan groups known for their determination, courage, and strong support for each other. Additionally, there were large groups of female prisoners from the Vitebsk and Minsk areas, comprising not only Russians but also Belarusians. These women were arrested in retribution for their partisan activity, and for them, navigating the harsh conditions of the camp was considerably more difficult. One crucial aspect we must mention regarding the women's camp is the close supervision by the administration, specifically by the SS. The term "SS woman" is frequently encountered in the memoirs of female prisoners - an SS woman came, an SS woman said something, and so forth. Indeed, there existed a group of women within the women's camp who donned uniforms and performed particular tasks within the camp. It was in the early years of the camps in Germany that the recruitment of such individuals at Ravensbrück or Moringen started, albeit in a somewhat exceptional manner. Well, it was the main tenet of the employment contract, the central principle of the contract. These female camp supervisors, known as "Aufseherinnen" or "Aufseherin” in German terminology, were members of the SS, which was comprised exclusively of men. Therefore, these women had to be trained differently. The recruitment and training process took place at Ravensbrück, the largest women's camp, and then they were transferred to other camps. The first "Oberaufseherin", or chief supervisor, was Johanna Langefeld, who remained in Auschwitz until the autumn of '42. She was later transferred to Ravensbrück and replaced by Marie Mandel. Marie Mandel remained "Oberaufseherin" until the end of the camp's existence, until the evacuation. Speaking of distinction in the camp, we must also examine how the female prisoners were distinguished. The prisoners were distinguished by different triangles: red for political prisoners, the Jewish prisoners were initially assigned a Star of David, which consisted of two triangles - red and yellow; the marking was sometimes simplified, and green triangles were given to prisoners arrested for criminal reasons, and black triangles were assigned to prisoners described as antisocial. A small group, etched in the memories of female prisoners, consisted of those inmates adorned with the purple triangle - Bible Students and Jehovah's Witnesses - who found themselves incarcerated in the camp due to their religious convictions and were promptly marginalised within the prison system. More specifically, they were assigned to work either in the camp offices or the households of SS men, where they were responsible for housekeeping and caring for children. As a result of the continuous spread of epidemics in the women's camp, measures were taken to prevent the diseases from reaching their families, offices, and warehouses. This led to the relocation of the women prisoners outside the camp, where their primary focus was on work while still being treated as prisoners.

It is clear from what you have said that this community of women prisoners was hugely diverse in age and nationality and in relation to their education and life experiences. What, then, was the daily existence like in the prisoner barracks? In a nutshell, how did the prisoners collectively share their fate?

Indeed, there is a tendency to oversimplify the reality of the camp or the camp community through a dichotomous lens. This perspective encompasses the SS crew on one hand and female prisoners on the other. Furthermore, there is a tendency to regard this prisoner community as more or less homogeneous. Meanwhile, we must bear in mind that, indeed, when discussing multiculturalism, the Auschwitz prisoner community exemplifies extreme multiculturalism, encompassing representatives of various nationalities, diverse religious systems, and multiple languages. However, even within a single nationality, there is enormous diversity among women. They come from all social classes and strata, with varying levels of education and life experiences. Some work in different professions, while others do not work at all. They hail from different parts of their countries and states, with some residing in cities while others in the countryside. Some women represent the artistic world, while others have spent most of their lives working in the fields. For multiculturalism to exist, it requires space and favourable conditions. The camp's conditions did not facilitate such circumstances, thus contributing to the immense challenge of daily functioning, cooperation, and establishing basic interpersonal relationships. It is evident that prisoners frequently express in their memoirs, particularly female prisoners, that certain aspects of camp life were purposefully orchestrated by the authorities to destroy prisoner solidarity in the camp. It appears that the destruction of solidarity was a by product of the system, and it is unclear how much of it was intentional or the result of natural consequences. At a time when women had to be in constant physical proximity to each other, sleep together, mutually use communal bathing and restroom facilities, and share virtually everything under conditions of extreme deprivation of needs and under conditions where basic necessities could not even be met to a level that guaranteed survival. This is where the competition for survival was automatically activated. There is a fanciful adage that suggests suffering ennobles, but I disagree with its veracity. The suffering endured at Auschwitz, both in magnitude and scope, not only stripped away humanity but also invoked primal defence mechanisms and a self-centred drive for survival. The primary concern for an individual on the cusp of starvation is evading demise, acquiring nourishment, and easing their anguish. Thus, in this context, discussing the concept of prisoner solidarity regarding the notion that all Auschwitz prisoners were uniformly united in opposition to their circumstances, is not entirely accurate. These individuals were, in many instances, just trying to survive another day without being subjected to torture. In this camp system, which effectively fragments society into isolated individuals, there is also a specific spatial organisation - collective accommodation, constant proximity to others, and a strict schedule that leaves prisoners with no time for themselves or rest. The prisoner woke up, was shepherded to roll call, albeit the term "shepherded" is highly dehumanising in this context, was compelled to attend roll call, then proceeded to work; the sole exception being when they were already exceedingly fatigued and unwell, at which point they were taken to the camp hospital. The work persisted for several hours each day, occasionally extending beyond a dozen, and once the prisoners returned from this gruelling work, they were so depleted that their only concern was finding respite. However, more often than not, upon returning to the blocks, the block leader would invent additional activities, leaving little room for free time. Consequently, the only time prisoners could genuinely engage in social interactions and establish connections in a calm and peaceful environment was in the evening before curfew. When the female prisoners organised any form of cultural life, it predominantly consisted of basic activities, such as storytelling and recollections, which took place most often in the evenings. Furthermore, the camp system's power dynamics, as mentioned earlier, hindered the development of solidarity by transforming prisoners into oppressors. Frequently, in the accounts, we encounter the narrative of a dichotomous decision in the camp of either inflicting or receiving a beating. Undoubtedly, the annals of camp history showcase remarkable instances of such attitudes displayed by prisoners who, despite their designated camp roles, sought to utilise their positions to facilitate the lives of others and assist their fellow prisoners in some capacity. However, very often, these prisoners were deprived of these functions. Instead, they were expected to exhibit brutality, even if it wasn't explicitly required. This brutality was often imposed by the circumstances. For instance, when a female functionary had to maintain order during roll call and faced a group of women speaking different languages, she frequently resorted to brutal methods to enforce discipline. If she had neglected to act, she would have suffered the consequences of the prisoner's insubordination or lack of discipline. In this case, the camp system and its functioning were actually designed to undermine solidarity, suppress any form of support, and jeopardise prisoner relations. Naturally, this does not imply that such positive attitudes and acts of kindness did not occur. No. However, if they occurred, they transpired in defiance of the camp system and the unfolding events. I would highlight the significant distinction between the macro and micro zones. The macro-zone is the macro-community, or looking at the community as a whole. In this case, it seems highly unlikely to me that a collective sense of solidarity and community can be established. This is all the more relevant because the camp situations for female prisoners of different categories varied. We can indicate such traces in the documents or, indeed, in the camp documentation, that undeniably define for us that certain groups of prisoners did certainly encounter a more difficult fate in the camp, that their chances of survival were notably lower. When we analyse the number of female prisoners during the '42 epidemic, we notice a significant change in the number of Jewish prisoners. The number of Jewish prisoners often fluctuates, with noticeable increases and decreases. On some days, several hundred prisoners suddenly disappear from the camp, indicating that they have been selected for death. Meanwhile, the number of German prisoners remains relatively small and stable. Here, the demographic shift is rather closer to the natural one. Naturally, these female prisoners also became ill and died despite not being subjected to the selections. They were less likely to be subjected to such brutal treatment because they more often held positions. Another factor that clearly distinguishes the circumstances of female prisoners in various categories is that, unlike non-Jewish women prisoners whose selections for death ceased in '43, Jewish women prisoners were subjected to these selections until the very end of the camp's existence, resulting in significantly reduced chances of survival in case of illness. A significant factor was the denial of parcels to Jewish women prisoners. Prisoners' accounts highlight the turning point when parcels were allowed, as it became a matter of life and death. The camp's insufficient food made survival impossible, adding to the already difficult situation of Jewish female prisoners, who were again excluded from this privilege. Also, discrepancies were evident in the treatment of female prisoners, as already stated, with female prisoners holding varying positions and serving in different commands. These disparities, imposed from above and frequently extreme, also fostered internal antagonism and animosity. Of course, it is no surprise that solidarity developed within the so-called own-group rather than outside it. This is an entirely natural and obvious phenomenon that should hardly be surprising. Prisoners who arrived in one transport were more likely to show support for each other. Prisoners who worked in one commando were more likely to show support to their colleagues in that commando rather than to random male or female prisoners in the camp. These are all entirely inherent social and interpersonal processes, markedly magnified in the camp, just as all the negative phenomena were multiplied. Therefore, we also see some exceedingly extreme examples of this phenomenon. Therefore, while collective solidarity cannot be established on a macro-social level, it is evident that on a micro-social scale, among individuals and small groups, such solidarity, kindness, and support were prevalent. Here again, as prisoner accounts indicate, a prisoner or female prisoner deprived of the support of her fellow prisoners had no chance of surviving. In this situation, it is not about some highly complex means of support and rescue but occasional instinctual reactions, leading to the formation of such groups at the micro and individual level, crucial to a prisoner's chances of survival. These groups typically consisted of pairs or trios, or small clusters of prisoners, who were primarily formed based on principles of camaraderie, benevolence, and, most significantly, reciprocity and mutual exchange. In other words, when one prisoner received a package, they would share it with others, expecting that they would reciprocate the favour when the other prisoners in the group received a parcel. The crucial elements that led to the formation of these groups, and the involvement of female prisoners, were primarily based on kinship, particularly family ties. If a mother and daughter, sisters, or members of extended family were sent to the camp, there was inherent potential for such a group to endure, but this familial bond should also be comprehended in a broader sense as a shared ancestry, such as originating from one village and arriving together in one transport, thereby fostering a deep connection among the female prisoners, creating a profound sense of camaraderie within the camp. One other such essential element was similarity, however, conceived. Halina Birenbaum recalls befriending two girls in the camp who, being Jewish and of similar age, established an understanding and sympathetic bond. The similarity of views and life experiences were factors that, akin to everyday life, fostered connections and deepened these bonds and relationships. So, these small groups were crucial for every prisoner. As I previously mentioned, a prisoner devoid of any support, such as occasional conversation, had significantly diminished odds of survival.

The person who researched the history of women in Auschwitz was Ms Irena Strzelecka, who died a few years ago. Can we assert today that there are unexplored topics in the history of women at Auschwitz or certain aspects that may require some additional research?

Of course, this vast amount of material was initially collected through written and recorded accounts by the archivists, subsequently supplemented by Ms Strzelecka's extensive years of work. Additionally, the involvement of former female prisoners, particularly those who were published writers, is also noteworthy. Their works, memoirs, and diaries contribute an immense wealth of material, which is prominently showcased in the publications of the State Museum. This collection serves as the fundamental cornerstone of this history, specifically addressing crucial aspects concerning women and the women's camp. This cross-sectional timeline, specifically along a line in the axis of symmetry and encompassing various side elements that we see here, is an important piece of work. We must not forget that it was also written and published when women who had previously been imprisoned played a significant role in educational work, particularly in teaching. Several aspects could have been consulted with them, thus leading to interesting footnotes, with supplementary or explanatory notes regarding certain events. For instance, we possess a camp document that provides a report on a certain event and an account that elegantly showcases the diverse forms, terminologies, and comprehensive portrayal of the event. Therefore, it presents an exceptional opportunity for those engaged in this subject matter, particularly researchers. However, it is evident that we are confronted with new issues and challenges. When we discuss the camp structure, it raises questions about how female prisoners in their everyday lives dealt with issues such as intimacy and corporeality. And these are the kind of questions that visitors to the site also ask. When at Birkenau, they see the location of the sanitary and living barracks, as well as the methods employed by the prisoners to deal with certain obvious biological matters. There is a hindrance here due to the scarcity of comprehensive information on the subject. Why is that? Specifically, when the accounts were being documented, the primary emphasis was on precisely recounting the entirety of the camp experience. Inquiries were made regarding fundamental matters, while matters about intimacy were purposely disregarded unless the prisoner contextually disclosed such information. Conversely, through recent conversations with former prisoners on these topics, I am aware of their eagerness to revisit it, their desire to attempt to confront all of it, their memories, from such a perspective. Moreover, they comprehend the necessity to evaluate them, given that they were young females or girls at that time, especially from the standpoint of these various feminine and highly biological matters, as we would frequently express. And then there is the other issue: work. Why was that the case? Why was it assumed from the outset that women would be directed to fieldwork, to agricultural work? Why, then, the various transfers? The research topic on the social structure in Europe before the outbreak of the Second World War is highly intriguing and has already been explored. The first articles and scholarly papers on this subject are beginning to emerge. However, it is crucial to emphasise that Auschwitz, particularly Birkenau, serves as a lens through which we can analyse the concentration of various societal structures, including disparities in wealth and levels of education. Therefore, this is another highly significant research topic that is awaiting investigation.