deeply religious nazi girl guards

Female Guards in Nazi Concentration Camps: story, pictures and information - Fold3.com:

'via Blog this'

Juana Borman (or Bormann)  was born at Birkenfelde in East Prussia on September the 10th 1893. She was apparently deeply religious and had given up missionary work to join the SS.  

She went to work at Lichtenburg, the first women’s concentration camp, as a civilian employee on the 1st of March 1938 and initially worked in the kitchens.  She and the rest of the staff and inmates were transferred to Ravensbrück concentration camp when it opened in May 1939.  Here she was as an Aufseherin (overseer).  In March 1942 she moved on toAuschwitz concentration camp in Poland and then in October of that year was transferred to Auschwitz-Birkenau.  

In 1944, she went to the satellite camp at Hindenburg, before returning to Ravensbrück in January 1945.  In March of that year she was sent to Bergen-Belsen, where she served under its commandant Josef Kramer.  Like most of the defendants to stand trial for war crimes at Belsen she was arrested at the camp on the day it was liberated.  The staff were remanded to the prison at Celle to await trial.

The Belsen Trial as it was called was conducted by the British Military Tribunal at No. 30 Lindentrasse, Lüneburg, in Germany from September 17th to November 17th, 1945 under court President Major-General H.M.P. Berney-Ficklin, sitting with five other officers.

The prosecution was in the hands of a team of four military lawyers. All the prisoners were tried together and sat in the large dock, each wearing a number on their chest. Juana wore the number 6 card. Like all the defendants she had the benefit of counsel, in her case, Major A S Munro and pleaded not guilty to the charge of committing a war crime.  She was to hear allegations from former inmates that she beat prisoners, set her dogs on them and selected them for the gas chambers.

Jewish born Anni Jonas, from Breslau, accused Juana of pointing out prisoners to Dr. Mengele who looked too weak for work.  They were then sent to the gas chamber.  

Another Jewish woman, Dora Szafran, had been an inmate at Auschwitz since June 1943 and had witnessed Juana at selections for gassing with Dr. Klein.  She also related to the court how she had seen Juana set her dog, which she thought was a German Shepherd, on a woman in a work detail who had a swollen leg and could not keep up on the march back from Auschwitz.  The woman was badly savaged and was taken away on a stretcher.  It is not known whether she survived.  Dora stated to the court that Juana seemed proud of what she had done.

Polish born Hanka Rozenwayg had been in Belsen for some 18 months before liberation also told the court that Juana had set her dog on prisoners and recounted an occasion when Juana had beaten her and several other women for lighting a fire in her hut without permission.  She told the court that all the women inmates were afraid of Juana.

Another Pole, Peter Makar, related how he recognized Juana as the woman who had been in charge of the pigsties at Belsen and how he had twice witnessed her beating women in March 1945 who she had caught stealing vegetables.

Dora Silberberg accused Juana of beating her and a friend when she tried to stop her friend who was ill being forced to go to work.  Juana had allegedly punched her in the face hard enough to knock out tow of Dora’s teeth.  Juana then set the dog on Dora’s friend and it knocked her down and dragged her round by the leg.  Dora’s friend died later form her injuries.

Alexandra Siwidowa accused Juana of beating prisoners for wearing their better clothes and also stripping them and making them perform strenuous physical exercises. When they began to flag, he told the court that she beat them all over the body with a rubber or wooden stick. Juana denied this outright.

Major Munro called Juana to give evidence in her defence.  She told the court that she was a single woman and related her history of work in the concentration camps.  Major Munro specifically asked her about her involvement in the selection process for gassing to which she replied “No, I never have been present at these selections, I had to be present at morning roll-call and night roll-call, but at nothing else”.

She admitted that she did have a dog at Belsen, which she claimed were her own pet rather than a camp guard dog, but denied that she had ever set it on prisoners, telling the court that this would have been against the camp rules and would have led to severe punishment for her.  She also mentioned that another Aufseherin named Kuck, of whom there is no surviving record, resembled her and also had a dog.  Juana dismissed the statements of two witnesses regarding her use of a wolfhound dog, telling the court that she had never owned a wolfhound. 

She dismissed the statements of some witnesses as untrue on the basis that she was not in the place they stated at the time of the alleged offence.  One, Helena Kopper, had told the court that Juana was the most hated guard in the camp and that she was in charge of the clothing store.  She alleged that Juana had again set her dog on a young woman at the store who died later.  Juana denied ever having been in charge of the clothing store and was not at Birkenau at the time.

She denied that she went out outside the camps on work Kommandos and agreed that she oversaw prisoners working at the piggery in Belsen. 

She accepted that she slapped prisoners who were cheeky or disobedient but denied beating them with sticks etc.  She mentioned that the first time she had ever seen a rubber truncheon it was in the hands of an British military policemen guarding her in the prison at Celle.

She could offer no explanation to Major Munro for the witness allegations against her.  He also asked her if she had tried to leave the S.S.  Juana told him that she had applied in writing to her Oberaufseherin in 1943 but that her application had been turned down.

She was cross-examined by Colonel Backhouse who asked her if she was very much worse than all the other Aufseherinnen in her treatment of the internees? She replied that she did not know and only wanted to keep order.

He questioned her further on her attendance at selections and she told him that “ I did not have time to attend them, and I did not like the idea of attending them”.  She denied having even seen a selection or ever having seen the crematorium.  Colonel Backhouse also pressed Juana further on the dog issue.  She insisted that the dog was a pet and her own property and that it had never been trained to attack prisoners.  

He pointed out to her the testimony of another of the accused, Herta Ehlert, who said in her statement: “From my own knowledge of Juana Borman and from working with her I believe that the stories about her brutality to prisoners are true, although I have not myself witnessed it. I have often seen the dog which she had and heard she used to let it loose on prisoners. Although I have not seen it I can well believe it to be true.” Juana insisted that this was a lie.

Colonel Backhouse asked her about the pigs at Belsen, which she was in charge of when the camp was liberated. She told him that there were 52 pigs at the time and that were fed on a swill of potatoes and turnips.  He pointed out to her that whilst the pigs were being fed reasonably well the prisoners were starving.  She replied that she fed the pigs the food she was given for them.

The Judge Advocate questioned Juana about Aufseherin Kuck, (who was also alleged to have a dog) and one gets the impression that he did not really believe that this woman existed.

Juana was found not guilty on count one but guilty of count two of the indictment against her.

This was that : “At Auschwitz, Poland, between 1st October 1942 and 30th April 1945, when members of the staff at Auschwitz Concentration Camp responsible for the well-being of the persons interned there, in violation of the law and usages of war, were together concerned as parties to the ill-treatment of certain of such persons, causing the deaths of Rachella Silberstein (a Polish national), Allied nationals, and other Allied nationals whose names are unknown, and physical suffering to other persons interned there, Allied nationals, and particularly to Eva Gryka and Hanka Rosenwayg (both Polish nationals) and other Allied nationals whose names are unknown.”

Prior to her sentencing a mitigation speech was made on her behalf by Major Munro.  He painted a picture of a sad and lonely middle aged woman and invited the court “to take into account what the conditions in concentration camps could do to weak human nature”.

This mitigation was not successful and on the afternoon of November 16th the verdicts were delivered, the President of the court passed the death sentence on Juana, Elizabeth Volkenrath and Irma Grese as follows : "No. 6 Bormann, 7 Volkenrath, 9 Grese. The sentence of this court is that you suffer death by being hanged."

The sentence was translated into German as "Tode durch den strang," literally death by the rope. She reportedly left the court as if in a dream but later chose not to appeal her sentence. She was returned to Lüneburg prison and when the cases and sentences had been reviewed she was transferred to Hameln jail on Sunday the 9th of December to await execution with the other condemned.

The hangings were set for Friday, December the 13th, 1945 and were to be carried out at half hour intervals starting at 9.34 a.m. with Irma Grese, who at 21, was the youngest of the condemned prisoners, followed by Elisabeth Volkenrath at 10.03 a.m. and Juana at 10.38 a.m.

Albert Pierrepoint described Juana during her last hours when he saw her on the afternoon prior to her execution.  Each prisoner had to be weighed to allow him to calculate the correct drop.

He wrote in his autobiography how she limped down the corridor looking old and haggard. He said she was forty two years old (actually fifty three), only a little over five feet high and 101 lbs in weight. She was trembling as she was put on the scales. In German she said “I have my feelings”.

The drop was calculated at 5 feet 8 inches in view of her frail condition.