Belsen Trial

Bergen-Belsen is perhaps best remembered for events after the war— in the nearby town of Belsen, 45 SS officers, and kapos from both the Bergen-Belsen and Auschwitz camps were tried. Of the 45 individuals tried— a remarkably small number given the size of both camps— only eleven were executed, again a seemingly small percentage, given the actions taken at both Belsen and Auschwitz, one that consisted of only the most senior SS officers. None of the prisoner functionaries were sentenced to death. In order to better understand the Belsen Trial and the legacy of Bergen-Belsen itself, it is critical to examine how specifically the unique circumstances surrounding the camp and its structure manifested itself in the trial testimonies. (Herzberg)

            One of the most complete viewpoints of life in Bergen-Belsen comes from Harold Osmund Le Druillenec. Perhaps because as a British national English was his first language, or maybe because the questions asked of him were more pointed, Le Druillenec’s testimony stands out as uniquely detailed and insightful. Le Druillenec paints an image of both the critically important and wholly unsubstantial work that prisoners were assigned. He describes the Appell— a roll call of sorts— a way of brutally occupying prisoners time when nothing more pressing was needed.

“The Appell, which used to last from about half-past three - till about eight or nine o’clock in the morning, was in itself a terrible strain. You are supposed to stand in ranks of five, at attention, I presume to make the ranks easy to count, and you are counted and then counted again ad infinitum for some If you moved you received the usual blow on the head, the weapon used being a stick some four or five feet long and 1 1/2 inches thick; it was usually a very hard blow.” (Le Druillenec)

He mentions that the Blockältesters were mandated to organize the Appell, but they were also the ones doling out beatings for those who fell out of formation. With regard to physical punishment, the Lagerältester was mostly uninvolved— thus there is a unique inverse relationship between the physical punishment the guards were responsible for and the amount of power they held at the camp. Those kapos who were the closest to regular prisoners were responsible for the majority of the beatings. Conversely, an SS officer like Kramer was almost entirely removed from contact with the average prisoner.

            Later, as the front approached, Le Druillenec and other prisoners were required to purge the camp of evidence pertaining to its own existence— some prisoners were put to work destroying files, Le Druillenec was forced to clear the bodies of those who had died.

“We knew it was coming, we could hear the guns, and I think the whole idea was to clear the camp of as many dead as possible before they arrived. I would like you to picture what this endless chain of dead going to the pits must have looked like for about five days from sunrise to sunset. How many were buried I have no idea. It must have been vast numbers - certainly five figures.” (Le Druillenec)

This is a vastly different assignment from the Appell— akin to what sonderkommando/sonderaktion groups were doing along the advancing Eastern front. Again, the price for noncompliance was brutality from the kapos. “There were quite a few [shootings] in the last few days when I was in Belsen, when the Hungarian guards took over;. Most of the guards who were in charge of the huts were not SS at all, but under the orders of the SS.” (Le Druillenec) Again, Le Druillenec notes the disconnect between SS orders and those who carried such orders out. He characterizes the blockälteste’s as “particularly vile… [they] in time become brutish and such a thing as human kindness is unknown in such a place.” (Le Druillenec) What’s more, the SS made, according to Harold, no attempt to control the methods of the blockältestes.

            Although Harold was certainly not the only one to testify against the brutality of both the camp and the blockältestes, both the physical separation between the camps and the SS accommodations, and his lack of significant exposure to any SS officers leaves him able only to implicate the lowest level of kapo in the atrocities committed at Bergen-Belsen.

            In addition to Harold Osmond Le Druillenec, Stanislawa Starostra was also called to testify— she was the lagerälteste of the grosses frauenlagen (Large Women’s Camp) and a former Blockälteste of a women’s barracks at Auschwitz. Starostra’s testimony helps to illustrate the increased distance between kapos and prisoners as one was promoted within the Aufseherinnen system. Interstingly enough, Starostra was a member of the Polish Underground Movement before she was captured and interred at Auschwitz. She claims that as a former member of the resistance, she actively sought promotion.

“I have done everything that was in my power to help them. I tried to induce the German authorities to change their practice of sending people who had just come out of hospital on to parades, and to leave them in their blocks. I tried to get a special food allowance for people who were employed on very strenuous work, such as those on Leichenkommandos, working with the bodies, and I helped prisoners to change their jobs if their actual work was too hard. All the orders from the German authorities to my prisoners had to come through me, and I tried to relax the severity of these orders.” (Starostra)

Although the justification behind her desire for a promotion is dubious, Starostra illustrates that although she was expected to follow her superiors orders, Lagerältestes had not insignificant influence over camp matters. That the relationship between the SS and the kapos was not non-negotiable. Regardless, she soon thereafter admits to a fundamental lack of agency with regard to significantly changing the lifestyle of the prisoners. With regard to improving camp conditions, she responded, “No, there was really nothing available there and [the kapos] could not do anything to improve the camp.” (Starostra) She implies, but ultimately leaves unsaid that the only ones who could improve the camp were SS officers.

            Josef Kramer was ultimately sentenced to death for his role as the camp commander of Bergen-Belsen, although even he distanced himself from the actions taken by the kapos of the camp. He explicitly stated that he did not authorize the use of beatings as a punishment, as well as mentioning that when a beating was brought to his attention, it was reported. “When I got these people who were beaten I made a report to the Lagerführer with the names of those who had given beatings.” (Kramer) In addition, Kramer attempted to use the camp’s once-status as a recuperation camp as justification for the high death count and inhuman conditions of the prisoners by the war’s end.

“It was not only a question for the camp for Jews; it was a question of sick prisoners, and when in January Lolling came to inspect my camp I told him that if this camp should become a camp for sick prisoners, I should need more doctors, more medical supplies, more beds, blankets and so on. In my report from the 1st of March I pointed out that I needed help because otherwise the people under those existing conditions would inevitably die.” (Kramer)

Regardless of the testimony of Le Druillenec and others, the intentionally disjointed system for camp leadership as well as the constant fluctuation of the camp’s overall purpose allowed for perpetrators such as Kramer and a Starostra to craft a narrative that partially absolved themselves of blame.