In the German concentration camps including Auschwitz there was a group of co-called functionary prisoners, responsible for supervising other prisoners. There were mainly in charge of supervising work units, keeping orders in the blocks or barracks but also distributing food among the prisoners. Being a lageralteste, a block master or a kapo actually meant almost unlimited power over the prisoners. Sometimes the functionary prisoner became the master of life and death. Dr Piotr Setkiewicz, the head of the Auschwitz Museum Research Center talks about what characterized this group of prisoners.
In the prevailing perception, a functionary prisoner is often synonymous with a kapo, yet the hierarchy and organisation on functionary prisoners in concentration camps were considerably more complex. Could you provide insight into the attributes of functionary prisoners?
The definitions of functionary prisoners can differ significantly depending on the interpretation one adopts, as the literature and prisoners’ memoirs present sometimes different explanations. That is to say, functionary prisoners, and in this case, there are virtually no differences in survivors accounts included kapos, block leaders, and minor functionaries, known as vorarbeiters or assistants to the kapos and room leaders assistants to the block elders. While the definitions provided are somewhat limited in scope, it is worth noting that there are broader definitions that cover positions such as block scribe or kommando scribe, commonly referred to as a Schreiber, including minor functions such as torwache (the guard at the entrance to a specific block or barracks), or nachtwache, (the night guard). In some instances, prisoners assigned to privileged kommandos, including those who worked in various warehouse facilities, such as those located under roofs, are also referred to as functionaries. For research purposes, it is convenient to use a narrower definition focusing on functionaries who played a significant role in the camp and directly impacted prisoners’ lives.
Can we illustrate the structure of the functionary prisoners within the camp, starting from its establishment and encompassing the various work groups, as the division is most evident here?
Generally speaking, there were two divisions or structures that existed. In other words, the block leaders and functionary prisoners were responsible for the prisoners while they were in the camp. The block leader was responsible for maintaining order in the block and had personnel at their disposal who supervised the prisoners within their respective sleeping quarters. This structure actually applied to the prisoners’ lives in the camp, during the mornings before they marched off to work and in the evening after the work kommandos returned and roll-call was completed. It also applied to their days off, including whole Sundays or, later on, half of the time on Sundays, designated explicitly for the prisoners. However, even during these brief brakes, their freedom was limited. They were expected to rest, attend to their clothes, do repairs, write letters, and so on, all under the watchful eye of the block leader. During this time, the prisoners were also under the block leader’s jurisdiction. However, after the roll call concluded, the work groups were organised. When assigned to a specific work group, all prisoners were required to report to the kapo in charge, a figure of authority and control. The kapo would then assemble the group, organise the prisoners into a column of five, and take charge of them at the work site. Their primary responsibilities included ensuring that the prisoners met the required work capacity and, particularly later on, preventing any attempts to escape. A kapo had subordinates known as vorarbiters, who acted as sub-kapos. Furthermore, there existed a wide range of different names and functions. For instance, the oberkapo was the leader of a large kommando, sometimes comprising hundreds or over a thousand detainees. This oberkapo had several ordinary kapos under him. The larger group had a higher command structure, with kapos overseeing unterkapos and vorarbeiters in charge of the latter. This ensured a clear and well-defined hierarchy, highlighting the strict control within the camp. Finally, there was a so-called lagerkapo in the camp. This was the kapo for prisoners who did not have work assignments outside the camp. The kapo was in charge of staffing the kommandos, such as the kitchen kommando, cleaning the camp area, etc. Lastly, there was the camp elder, also known as the lageraltester. Within this structure, this function held the topmost position in the hierarchy. This prisoner supervised all the kapos and all the blocker leaders in the entire camp.
How does the situation translate within the functionary prisoners in these two spaces? Did the block and room leaders and block writers have jobs? Did it differ in any way? And what was the privilege of being a functionary prisoner in this case?
As a rule, the duties of these two functionary groups did not coincide. Block and room leaders were responsible for the prisoners while they were in the camp. In contrast, the kapos’ responsibility for the kommando ended when they crossed the camp gate after the prisoners had returned from work for roll call. Then, the kapos could go to their rooms. These were usually separate from the quarters of all other prisoners. In Auschwitz, for instance, some functionary kapos lived in block 25 for a specific duration, where their living conditions were better or significantly superior to those in the regular prisoner sleeping quarters. Once the prisoners had completed the morning roll call and left the camp, the block leaders could handle their administrative tasks and oversee the cleaning of the blocks. In fact, they didn’t have much to do. One of the block leaders’ key responsibilities was to distribute food to the prisoners while they were in the camp. This included providing coffee or tea in the morning and bread or various side dishes upon their return to the camp. Furthermore, they were also in charge of distributing soup on days off. Along with their other duties, the block leaders were tasked with maintaining order during the food distribution to ensure prisoners didn’t queue up twice and take food that wasn’t meant for them. Without a doubt, being a kapo or block leader in a concentration camp or any other functionary prisoner role had its advantages, and significant ones at that. Looking at the pictures of functionary prisoners, one will notice that they are usually well-dressed, wearing noticeable dark or dark blue jackets, which was particularly crucial during winter. In general, they appear to be better nourished. This is an euphemistic way to describe it. However, looking at the furnishings of the blocks, one can see that the rooms occupied by the functionary prisoners, particularly those assigned to the block leaders, were equipped, one might say, luxuriously considering the prevailing circumstances in Auschwitz. This was particularly evident at Birkenau in the women’s camp, where different objects could be found in the room of a female block functionary prisoner. As an illustration, the provided beds were not bunk beds but single beds. These beds were stocked with items organised by individuals with connections, such as female prisoners employed in the so-called Canada. There were some woollen blankets, duvets, bedding, items utterly unobtainable for ordinary prisoners. As I mentioned, It was beneficial to be a functionary prisoner, and the most important advantage of holding such a position was access to food. The block leaders were able to distribute the allocated food, such as bread, in a manner that ensured they always had more significant portions remaining for them. Furthermore, as an illustration, it occurred that they purposely delayed reporting prisoner deaths from their blocks, thereby acquiring additional rations for the unit’s status, which they then appropriated for their benefit. Therefore, silhouettes of block leaders who had gained flesh are frequently depicted in the descriptions, indicating their considerable corpulence given the camp conditions. Undoubtedly, one of the most prominent representations of a functionary prisoner was kapo Krankemann. He is repeatedly portrayed in various illustrations or sketches of prisoners within the camp or following liberation as a short man with a significantly robust physique.
The history of Auschwitz dates back to the 14th of June 1940 with the deportation of the first group of Poles. However, before this event, the SS had already transferred a contingent of 30 German criminals to the developing Auschwitz camp, who would subsequently assume the role of the camp’s inaugural functionary prisoners. Was this the policy of the SS that the functionary prisoners were Germans?
Yes. By examining the beginnings of all camp sections, including the main camp, Birkenau, the camp at Monowice, and the sub-camps, one can observe that groups of functionary prisoners were initially sent there to prepare for the arrival of regular prisoners. To illustrate, let’s consider Auschwitz, where the first group of prisoners from Sachsenhausen, comprised of German criminals, arrived on 20th May 1940. This was more than three weeks before the arrival of the first transport of political prisoners at the camp. A similar situation occurred in various locations, such as Birkenau, or the women’s camp, and earlier in Auschwitz. In these instances, the initial transport consisted primarily of male or female criminal and antisocial prisoners. The same pattern was noticed at the camp in Monowice, among others. As a rule, the initial prisoners were of German nationality, as it was intended for them to occupy crucial roles within the camp and enjoy privileged positions. This ensured that the SS could rely on them in case of any issues regarding prisoner discipline. As a result, these positions were typically occupied by Germans first, followed by criminal or antisocial prisoners. The SS men were convinced that these individuals would unconditionally obey orders and show no reluctance in using force against their subordinates. Eventually, the group also including a few German political prisoners. In the accounts of the survivors, there is a wide range of opinions regarding their attitude. In other words, certain individuals rapidly assimilated the habits they had observed from their colleagues with black or green triangles, and they had no qualms about engaging in violence against prisoners. However, the camp prisoners also recollected some of the German political prisoners as relatively decent individuals. During the years 1940 and 1941, the number of German prisoners in Auschwitz was enough to staff all the key functionary positions. With time, lesser roles, such as room leaders, were gradually assigned to other prisoners, particularly during the initial phases of Polish prisoners. The primary reason for this was the shortage of Germans. This situation persisted until the camp ceased to exist. In other words, if a German prisoner arrived in Auschwitz, they were more likely to be assigned a role in the hierarchy of functionary prisoners than, say, a Pole or, even later on, a Jew. Also, between 1940 and 1941, the first few Polish prisoners began to be assigned specific responsibilities, such as ensuring order in the sleeping quarters. The selection for these roles was typically based on the impression that a prisoner made, particularly if they behaved in a military-like manner. Those who left a positive impression were recognised by the block leaders or kapos as suitable for maintaining order in the kommando or sleeping quarters. A notable example is Witold Pilecki, who quickly became a functionary prisoner, a room master, upon his arrival at the camp. The block leader noticed his disciplined conduct during the roll call and how he reported when summoned. The room leader were expected to mistreat and beat the prisoners, and those who refused were promptly removed from their position. This is precisely what happened to Witold Pilecki, who was dismissed from his role and reassigned punitively to the construction kommando.
Was the decision to allocate functions an internal decision of the functionary prisoners, or did an SS man always have to approve such a decisions?
Formally speaking, the appointment of a particular prison’s hierarchy of functionaries was decided by the Schutzhaftlagerführer, i.e. the deputy camp commandant. It seemed that way in theory; however, the prisoners chosen for lower functionary prisoner positions were usually those favoured by the kapo or block leader. The SS man, in this case, the blockführer or the kommandoführer, as far as the kapos were concerned, had to approve this decision somehow. However, they often left much freedom in these appointments to the functionary prisoners occupying higher positions in the hierarchy. As a result, these appointments varied highly and primarily focused on promoting individuals who had excelled in their respective positions, such as room leaders. This led to them later having the chance to hold the position of either deputy or block leader. The situation was similar in the working kommandos. The kapos had different criteria for choosing their assistants, but typically, they would select individuals from the same village or region. If a kapo or block leader found his colleagues, for example, from school, among the newly arrived prisoners in the camp, this was also a good argument for promoting such a prisoner in the hierarchy.
The initial situation, therefore, is that we generally have German functionary prisoners. Interestingly, there are special transports to make up for the shortage of German criminal prisoners who should occupy these top functions. The camp is expanding, so Polish prisoners are sometimes admitted to these lower positions. However, this situation at Auschwitz changed significantly in 1942 due to the dynamic development of the camp structure: the construction of the Birkenau camp and the creation of the third part of the camp in Monowitz. The increase in the number of prisoners meant that the SS had to change their policy towards functionary prisoners.
Yes, at that time, there were already a noticeable shortage of German prisoners, particularly German criminals, to occupy all the positions in the camp. Consequently, Poles and, mainly, in the women’s camp, Jews started to serve as functionaries more and more often. The camp authorities considered it abnormal and unnatural to have non-Germans serving as functionaries, especially the kapos. They believed that German criminals were the most appropriate for exerting pressure on the prisoners and increasing their productivity. This is evident in the internal camp communications, where attempts were made to appeal to higher authorities in Berlin for the assignment of German prisoners, preferably those with criminal backgrounds. The letters contain statements highlighting the necessity of recruiting energetic individuals to enhance labour productivity. This was done to ensure that if a company, such as IG Farben in Auschwitz, requested new prisoners, they would also require these prisoners to work with satisfactory productivity. The solution to the prisoners’ low productivity problem was to introduce German criminals as kapos into the camp. Thus, occasional sweeps were conducted in German concentration camps. They received letters asking if any prisoner in Sachsenhausen or Mauthausen could be relocated to Auschwitz. There were multiple instances of such transportation. The transport with the largest group of prisoners came from Mauthausen. There were over 600 prisoners, all presumed to have criminal backgrounds. However, it was discovered that Mauthausen didn’t have a significant number of criminals. As a result, not only prisoners from this particular category were transported there, but also a small group of non-Germans, notably from Yugoslavia. The so-called mass or assembled transports served as the primary means of supplying the Auschwitz camp with German criminal prisoners. Specifically, these wagons were coupled to the composition of the trains. They extensively travelled throughout Germany, gathering detainees from various prisons in diverse locations. These trips occasionally took an exceedingly long duration, but as a result, a substantial number of German criminals were gathered in these transports. However, it’s important to note that they constituted only a small portion of the inmates transported in these large-scale transfers. Nonetheless, when examining the statistics, it appears that it was specifically the criminal prisoners who were transported to Auschwitz using this route. It became clear from 1942 that the existing measures were no longer enough to accommodate the growing prisoner population in the camp. Records from 1943 indicate that the number of German block and deputy block leaders in Auschwitz I was the same as the number of Polish prisoners in similar roles. Back then, having a good grasp of German was crucial, so Polish prisoners from Silesia were likelier to be assigned these role. It was not feasible to oversee prisoners’ work because the functionary prisoners could not communicate with their German-speaking superiors. From 1943 onwards, there was a noticeable increase in the number of Jewish functionary prisoners; however, when analysing the camp statistics, it becomes apparent that Jews had the slightest chance of being appointed to any position within the camp. When considering the proportion of prisoners from different nationalities, Germans had the highest likelihood of occupying higher positions in this hierarchy. Poles ranked second, while Jews were only chosen as a last resort when no other suitable candidate was available. What’s interesting is that there was no specific way in which this was formally written down or documented. In other words, no directives in the camp dictated this procedure. The fact that this happened, in addition to the statistics I mentioned, is also evidenced by the only order issued by the camp commandant Arthur Liebehenschel, Höss’s successor. He stated at one point that “after inspecting the camp, I noticed that German women prisoners were working on heavy construction work, while Jewish women were sitting in the camp offices, under the roof and in the warmth”. Commandant Liebehenschel found this situation wrong and felt that something had to be done to prevent it from happening again. Therefore, the over-representation of Germans among the functionary prisoners was not the result of a top-down order but rather a result of the belief held by every SS man that German prisoners should be kept in better conditions. In contrast, Jews should be kept in the worst conditions and have little or no access to camp functions.
Can we claim that nearly every German prisoner had some assigned duty within the camp?
The number of German prisoners in this area, particularly those who were criminals, was so small that even prisoners who were not intellectually capable or struggled with understanding the camp’s block bureaucracy were given some form of responsibility. When we talk about other prisoners, the prisoners from the group, known as the “low numbers,” meaning those who in 1943 or 1944 were already the camp veterans, definitely had more favourable prospects in the eyes of the other prisoners. As a result, they were already well-acquainted with all the official and unofficial rules that governed the camp. In light of the above, they were more likely to receive different kinds of roles. Special qualifications were sometimes taken into account when staffing the functionaries at the hospital camp in Birkenau. The lagerältester, the superior of all the functionaries in the camp hospital, was a Polish man named Dr. Zentkeller. Interestingly, the majority of the block doctor’s positions were filled by Jewish doctors, and they had a significant influence on the camp’s activities. It’s worth noting that Dr. Zentkeller, despite any post-war criticisms, relied on the professional skills of these Jewish doctors when entrusting them with these important functions. Conversely, when examining the roles of the so-called flegers or orderlies, the situation seems to have reverted to its usual state. With just a brief training, a prisoner could quickly become an orderly with the primary responsibility of applying ointments and bandaging wounds. Thus, most of the camp’s orderlies were Polish, but also included Russians and Jews, serving in less significant roles. Nevertheless, this over-representation of Poles at this intermediate or lower level among the functionaries in the hospital camp was relatively evident.
Do we have any knowledge about the structure of the functionary prisoners in the separate parts of Auschwitz? Specifically speaking, during a brief period, there were Soviet prisoners of war held in isolation in Auschwitz I, while a separate camp for Roma prisoners, known as the family camp, was established in Birkenau. Were the functionaries assigned to these areas recruited externally by the SS, or were they also selected from the prisoner population?
The fundamental principle was to establish that the individuals assigned to isolated sections of the camp were prisoners who didn’t belong to any specific nationality. Within the confines of the Soviet prisoners of war camp, individuals serving as functionaries were selected from the ordinary prisoners in striped uniforms rather than those wearing uniforms specifically designated for Soviet prisoners of war. These functionaries were endowed with complete authority over the latter group. Similarly, prisoners were assigned lower-ranking roles within the camp, exemplified by Polish inmates serving as nurses in the hospital block. Regarding the Roma camp, the situation was somewhat similar but not entirely, as certain responsibilities were also delegated to Roma individuals who, due to their achievements, including some who were soldiers in the Wehrmacht, were either relocated from other units or detained while on leave and sent to Birkenau. Hence, there were instances where certain crucial responsibilities were assumed by individuals within the Roma camp in the Zigeunerlager, although the prevailing principle aimed to assign these responsibilities to prisoners who did not identify with this group. Rudolf Höss wrote in his memoirs that to maintain order in the camp; he believed it was necessary to have conflicts between national groups among the prisoners. He boasted about his slyness in situations where there were many Jews in a particular group of prisoners. In such instances, he would designate Poles or other prisoners as functionaries to use these national disputes. In contrast, when there were Poles present in a particular work unit or block, it was expected for Jews to be appointed as functionaries. I have my doubts about the truth of this statement, yet for example Jewish prisoners were part of kommandos like the shoemakers’ kommando in Auschwitz I. In this work unit, Poles ended up in kapo positions. In the Monowitz camp, there was a sector with Polish re-educational prisoners, where, surprisingly, all three block attendants were Jewish. Here, we can observe traces of SS men making efforts to resolve these national conflicts, although often with limited success. The survivors didn’t have a particularly negative memory of these three lageraltesters in this re-educational prisoner camp. However, the assertion that the SS leadership’s clever actions were necessary to maintain order in the camp was clearly false. The SS had a significant advantage over the prisoners as they could intervene in almost any situation, possessing weapons and machine guns. Once again, this didn’t carry much significance. In various sub-camps, particularly those established in 1944, where Jewish individuals were sent as regular prisoners, the key prisoner functionaries were typically Germans, accompanied by a small group of their associates. Additionally, an intermediate layer of functionaries, such as those assigned to the kitchen or warehouse duties, were predominantly Poles. Conversely, the majority of regular prisoners, who were tasked with daily work in specific factories, were predominantly Jews. However, in sub-camps like Blachownia – Blechhammer, where the prisoner population was predominantly Jewish, the functionaries also consisted of Jewish individuals.
Is it justifiable to claim that German functionary prisoners treated prisoners more harshly as a result of the SS deliberate strategy to assign German criminals to these roles, whereas Polish or Jewish functionary prisoners displayed more leniency due to their unique situation?
It is evident that recruiting functionaries, particularly the most important roles, such as kapos and block leaders, involved selecting German criminal prisoners for these positions. It was expected that these functionaries would not be bound by moral principles and would use physical force to compel the prisoners to work more efficiently. It was assumed that among criminal prisoners, it would be easier to find individuals who would not hesitate to hit, flog or kill prisoners. According to the regulations, the Kommandoführer is typically responsible for keeping up the pace of work, but it was obvious that to accomplish such a task, the SS man in charge of the prisoners, who were often exhausted and barely able to walk, should take it upon himself to force or rush the prisoners to work. However, battering prisoners would eventually prove to be a fatiguing activity. In such a situation, the SS officer summoned the kapo and instructed him to “take action to ensure the prisoners worked faster.” The kapo would employ his stick to beat, batter, and kill the prisoners mercilessly, all in an effort to increase their work output. Meanwhile, the SS man or Kommandoführer would observe the gruesome actions with contentment. Following these experiences, every German prisoner clearly understood their responsibilities and what actions were necessary to uphold order among the prisoners or increase their productivity. There were instances where this instruction was handed down from higher authorities. The SS men demonstrated what they expected from the kapos every day. However, it’s important to note that within this group, including the German functionary prisoners, there were individuals who chose not to comply with these expectations from the SS men. We have notable examples, including Otto Küssel, who had the critical responsibility of assigning prisoners to specific work kommandos, a role of immense importance in the camp that often decided whether they lived or died. Nearly every Polish witness remembered him as a kind and helpful individual. There were also other German criminal prisoners who treated their subordinates with relative decency. However, it was customary for every prisoner, regardless of nationality, to instinctively avoid encountering a German functionary wearing an armband. Furthermore, the individuals I previously mentioned were considered exceptions to the norm. Judging whether Polish functionary prisoners behaved better than their German counterparts, particularly criminals, is challenging due to the inconsistency of prisoners’ accounts. In other words, a prisoner could be treated by a functionary in various ways, ranging from better to worse. It varied depending on the situation and the mood of the functionary prisoner. Furthermore, some Polish functionary prisoners were not highly regarded by other inmates, who viewed them as German criminals. Lastly, we have the Jewish prisoners. Once again, there are incredibly diverse opinions regarding their conduct in these accounts. Primo Levi, who worked in a specific commando in the Monowitz camp, vividly describes an interesting incident in his book. One day, a non-Jewish prisoner, presumably a Pole, was assigned to this commando. He noticed that this Pole only took roll calls, counted the prisoners, and then went to sleep in some shelter. He didn’t concern himself greatly with the kommando group since, according to Levi, “he wasn’t Jewish, so he didn’t have to fear losing his position.” Nevertheless, these prisoners demonstrated diverse behaviours in different circumstances, making it extremely challenging to identify any consistent patterns. Finding a way to measure and compare the behaviour of different functionary prisoners from various national groups as better or worse is exceedingly difficult. I am uncertain if such a measure exists. However, on numerous occasions, when directors of German companies employing prisoners sought improved productivity, the idea of introducing energetic German kapos was frequently suggested.
Looking at the memoirs of survivors, it’s clear that being a prisoner in a concentration camp was a complex and challenging experience. Some prisoners may not willingly admit to being functionary prisoners due to the stereotypes and conditions in the camps. However, there were cases where being a functionary prisoner saved lives and helped others. This ranged from involvement in resistance activities to assisting fellow prisoners, showing a spectrum of different behaviours. On certain occasions, SS officers observe, but on others, they do not. Each situation is unique, making it challenging to make a definitive assessment.
One example of this is when an outsider observes the arduous work of a kommando being overseen by a kapo, who may come across as brutal towards the prisoners. The prisoners in this kommando themselves noticed that the kapo was all talk and no action, running around and shouting to make a show of things. His sole intention was to satisfy the SS officer who closely monitored the work of the kommando, thus altering the perception significantly. The witness testimonies also include incidents involving certain kommandos who were not assigned to heavy labour. I am referring to the kommandos employed in different camp offices where qualifications played a significant role. In this context, a potentially more positive perspective emerges, as prisoners’ behaviour from other national groups, including the functionaries, reflects a greater resemblance to free interactions. To support this claim, we can look at the introduction of premierscheins, also called bonus vouchers, given to prisoners aged forty-three to increase the productivity of the most effective ones. In these work units, which comprised specialists, engineers from the construction office, and prisoners responsible for camp file maintenance, the allocation of bonus vouchers was usually done at equal rates for all. As some prisoners claim, “even in their kommando, there was practically no kapo.” A colleague there was formally the kapo, but he was utterly unconcerned about his duties because it was unnecessary. You couldn’t get the prisoners in the kommando working in the office to fill in their files faster, could you? So, the supervision provided was overly general. This demonstrates that the prisoners, under normal or relatively normal circumstances, exhibited collegial behaviour towards each other, right? However, in cases where the kommando needed to meet a particular standard, the vast majority of them at Auschwitz were engaged in this type of work. In the view of the SS men, it was imperative to impose a steadily increasing work rhythm. By the way, it wasn’t only in the interests of the SS because, frankly speaking, the kommandoführers could have been indifferent. Are the incarcerated individuals working more or less effectively? Is the actual result of their work satisfactory? They were merely content with this general impression of the busyness of the workplace. On the contrary, the German civilian overseers, specifically the foremen in charge of the factory staff, frequently instigated the activities that propelled the functionary prisoners into action. They were the ones who observed situations where, for instance, they felt that the pace of digging a drainage ditch or constructing a road was too slow. Accordingly, they would approach the kommandoführer and report that the work on the new ditch was not progressing as expected, even though it was already midday. This would result in the kommandoführer instructing the kapo, who in turn would increase the severity of the beatings on the prisoners. Despite this, it appears that the SS did not place great importance on the outcomes of the prisoners’ work, particularly in the initial stages of the camp’s establishment. It would have been simple for them to enhance work efficiency without resorting to brutal beatings on the prisoners. In other words, when a train carrying bricks arrived at the railway siding near the camp, the SS would command the prisoners to quickly pick up five bricks and rush to the warehouse at Bauhoff. Which was, of course, from the point of view of labour efficiency, illogical. The desired result could have been easily attained by using a “rolwaga,” which is essentially a cart capable of carrying bricks or sacks of cement. It was well within the building management’s capability to arrange a tool, even the simplest one, for this task. However, at that time, they showed no care for the prisoners’ loss of strength, frequent stumbling, falling, being subjected to violence, or even being killed by kapos. The main goal was to force them to work more productively and to intimidate and torment them. Some German supervisors in private companies even observed and reported that the prisoners on our building site were being severely flogged and beaten by the kapos to the point where it had no effect. Additionally, the extent of the beating is so severe that the prisoners’ abuse does not yield any improvement in productivity.
Were the functionary prisoners not punished at all for their conduct? In simpler terms, were functionary prisoners permitted to kill without any consequence, or did the SS have a means of regulating the level of terror within the camp? Occasionally, there were situations where functionary prisoners were expected to be more brutal and deadly. However, there were also times when the decision was made to decrease punishment, minimise physical harm, etc. How much authority did functionaries have in the camp?
The lack of formalisation meant that the extent of the functionary’s authority was never clearly defined, neither in the camp regulations nor in any of the numerous orders or circulars issued by commandant Höss or his successors. Furthermore, all activities were conducted in accordance with the practices developed in other concentration camps, particularly Dachau. Additionally, the guidelines and procedures of Auschwitz closely mirrored those of the Dachau camp. However, functionaries were hardly mentioned in these guidelines. It was stated that some functionaries were expected to be at the camp, including a block leader and kommando kapo. However, their detailed responsibilities were left unspecified as a result of a certain practice and something I mentioned earlier. That is the SS men and, subsequently, the kapos were well-informed about their duties and the manner in which they were required to conduct themselves. With everyone behaving in this manner, even those who were new to Auschwitz swiftly realised that it was the appropriate thing to do. Naturally, this resulted in a rapid loss of strength on the part of the prisoners. Several prisoners were fatally beaten or endured such severe beatings that they were sent to the camp hospital after their day’s work, where they quickly died. This was not a concern until around 1943 or the end of 1942, to be precise. The SS documents clearly indicate that commandant Höss believed that no matter how high the death rate in the camp, it was not a concern because there would be more prisoners arriving in subsequent transports. According to some prisoners from that time, the kommandoführers supposedly informed the kapos about the specific number of prisoners they were expected to kill before the end of the workday. No evidence or confirmation supports this statement. In my view, it is highly unlikely that this could have occurred to such a significant extent. The high death rate and continuous abuse, violence, and killing of prisoners occurred due to specific behavioural patterns adopted by the kapos. They held a simple belief that this was how things were supposed to be, right? There was no alternative method to engage the prisoners in labour. Generally, incarcerated individuals do not prioritise increasing their productivity. If they worked faster, they would lose their strength more quickly, correct? They were not motivated to work more efficiently, so the kapos resorted to physical force to compel them since they couldn’t envision any alternative. The shift began in 1942, and more specifically in 1943, when… In any case, the recently appointed commandant Liebehenschel arrived from Berlin with a plethora of ideas on how to effectively operate a concentration camp. Given his position as a bureaucrat at the WVHA headquarters in Berlin, he had limited experience in this area. At the outset, he was forceful, not with the intention of decreasing the mortality rate, but more likely driven by regulations rather than a sense of humanitarianism. He held the sincere expectation that the discipline of prisoners necessitated the kapo reporting any instances of lower work performance to the kommandoführer. The kommandoführer should make a formal written report. Such a report should be reviewed by one, two, or three SS men and so on. Consequently, even after verifying the prisoner’s ability to endure flogging, he was still to be flogged. It is evident that these measures were irrelevant in the context of Auschwitz, as they couldn’t be implemented on the prisoners, and Liebehenschel soon abandoned this plan. Generally speaking, the policies in the camp were relaxed in 1944 in the sense that of course it was allowed to beat prisoners as the notion was that beatings were essential for the functioning of a concentration camp, but precautions were implemented to avoid any fatalities. Moreover, the companies that hire prisoners also initiated protests against circumstances in which a prisoner, after serving a certain period at a particular job, develops skills and gains valuable experience, suddenly vanishes because of the heavy beatings. One day, a new inmate takes his spot, utterly clueless about how to handle this type of task. This was the reason why, during the final year of the Auschwitz camp, the camp administration became more lenient, which also influenced the behaviour of the kapos. In any case, some of the kapos gradually realised that the war was a lost cause, prompting them to treat the prisoners in a manner that astounded many. They started referring to them as “colleagues,” a departure from their previous behaviour, and sometimes even took the initiative to explain to their subordinates that their past actions may have been inappropriate, but they were determined to improve their behaviour. Surprisingly, in 1944, there were instances where prisoners who had previously held positions of power underwent a drastic and unexpected transformation. However, it is essential to note that throughout the existence of the camp or concentration camp system, the functionaries, particularly the kapos or block leaders steal work along the SS men. It happened that part of the task of supervising the prisoners during the first evacuation of Auschwitz in January 1945 during the so-called death marches was assumed by functionary prisoners, but somehow, the number of functionary escapees, especially those in higher positions, was relatively small.
In 1944, another situation unfolded. Some German and functionary prisoners departed the camp not due to the evacuation but rather because of the circumstances at the front.
Yes, because then one could get a release from the camp. Individuals of German nationality who met the requirements for military service and those of Polish descent from mixed marriages were permitted to submit applications for inclusion on the Volksliste. This category also encompassed Polish political prisoners who were incarcerated in Auschwitz, specifically those originating from Silesia between 1940 and 1941. For an extended period, they were classified as Polish individuals in the camp records until, unexpectedly, in 1944, the abbreviation “RD” emerged alongside their names and identification numbers in the camp documentation, signifying Reichsdeutsche or Volksdeutsche. They ultimately decided to accept the Volksliste during this period. It can be assumed that the action was a deliberate attempt to ensure their survival. Without a doubt, the prisoners in Auschwitz fully expected that in the event of a disturbance or the arrival of Allied troops, the SS would be the ones to carry out the murders of all the prisoners, as they were witnesses to the crimes. As a result, certain inmates became convinced that by signing the document, they could safeguard themselves from experiencing such a destiny. However, it was typical for such an offender to be released from the camp and promptly sent for training in a military unit that was part of the Wehrmacht. Therefore, for instance, among specific Polish individuals, these annotations pertain to a change in citizenship, including even those Poles who can be reliably identified as not being supportive of the SS or Germans in general. Furthermore, another group of prisoners who served as functionaries were also released from the camp during this period. These individuals with criminal records were meant to be detained but were eventually reassigned to a special regiment, specifically the Sonderregiment Dirlewanger. This brigade played a significant role in pacification of regions where partisans were active. Additionally, soldiers from this unit were deployed to quell the Warsaw Uprising. Wherever the Dirlewangers showed up, people perceived them as extremely vicious and ruthless killers. The German functionary prisoners of Auschwitz also experienced this fate to some extent. Their unfortunate fate can be attributed, in part, to the post-war arrogance that pervaded the German camps. When a camp was liberated and either the SS had already vacated or Allied soldiers arrived, a sense of self-righteousness would arise, leading the prisoners to seek revenge by murdering the functionary prisoners.
And were there any attempts to bring functionary prisoners to justice after the war?
These attempts proved to be more arduous in comparison to the challenges associated with prosecuting SS men. Witnesses with personal knowledge of the functionary stepped forward, offering differing assessments of their actions and character. Let’s take the example of Dr. Zentkeller, the lageraltester at the Birkenau camp hospital. Some prisoners remembered him as extremely strict, even brutal, and even considered him a traitor to the Polish nation. These prisoners were brought before the Polish justice authorities and provided testimony against him. When Dr. Zentkeller was arrested and put on trial, other prisoners came forward, claiming that while he may have been harsh and even brutal at times, it was justified by the circumstances. They claimed he was a good Pole who saved the lives of many Polish prisoners and so on. As a result, upon observing serious contradictions in witness testimony, the court tended to discontinues such cases. In this context, the attempts to bring functionary prisoners to trial were often unsuccessful, except in cases where kapos or block supervisors were involved, and their guilt was undeniable. However, the number of such trials was relatively small. After the war, when reading accounts of survivors, it’s only at a certain point that one notices the prisoner held a functionary position. What is intriguing is that after the war, these witnesses, despite having appropriately behaved in the camp, as confirmed by other prisoners or survivors, opted to remain silent about their involvement in any camp activities for the sake of their safety.
