Question about the narrative that shower enclosures were utilized to distribute hazardous gas to exterminate Jews.

[UselessEaters]

The question starting off this thread concerns shower enclosures, extermination, and Jews. Jews. But why is it always about Jews? What about other people? Did they have shower enclosures?

[UselessEaters]

And if Jews had shower enclosures, and no one else did, would that be evidence of Jewish privilege, and evidence of discrimination against the non-Jew?

[Hektor]

At least, that’s how I interpreted it. The official narrative makes up this kind of story with Dachau.

It's not always clear what their narrative is, since it keeps changing. The claims about Dachau changed several times. Once they def. had a homicidal gas chamber that was used, then it was never used and afterwards they just left the allegations in the room. I think for a long while they didn't push the gassing idea, but that prisoners were killed in Dachau 'due to intentionally bad treatment' (hard labor, overworking, abuses, starvation, etc.). The gassing part was dismissed for a while by 'official historiography' in the 1960s... while it reappeared in the 1980s. My guess is that some people took note of Revisionist arguments and then confronted 'the museum' there. The staff being embarrassed would then revert to the 'professional historians', which came up with a harmonized story. The contradictions remain, but they can tell the people something that stops the doubts and questioning. It got something from religion the priests can not explain sufficiently, so the story keeps on changing, but is combined with sweeping statements.

The "This is a gas chamber, but it was never used" was sort of a compromise and formula Dachau museum used for long in their communications. I guess there where two factions among them. One that wanted to push the gas chamber narrative and one that did realize that it was false and that there were actually attempts to make people believe a false narrative. Also, there was proof that the narrative was false and this was a threat to the whole myth, if it came to be known.

[hermod]

At least, that’s how I interpreted it. The official narrative makes up this kind of story with Dachau.

It's not always clear what their narrative is, since it keeps changing. The claims about Dachau changed several times. Once they def. had a homicidal gas chamber that was used, then it was never used and afterwards they just left the allegations in the room. I think for a long while they didn't push the gassing idea, but that prisoners were killed in Dachau 'due to intentionally bad treatment' (hard labor, overworking, abuses, starvation, etc.). The gassing part was dismissed for a while by 'official historiography' in the 1960s... while it reappeared in the 1980s. My guess is that some people took note of Revisionist arguments and then confronted 'the museum' there. The staff being embarrassed would then revert to the 'professional historians', which came up with a harmonized story. The contradictions remain, but they can tell the people something that stops the doubts and questioning. It got something from religion the priests can not explain sufficiently, so the story keeps on changing, but is combined with sweeping statements.

The "This is a gas chamber, but it was never used" was sort of a compromise and formula Dachau museum used for long in their communications. I guess there where two factions among them. One that wanted to push the gas chamber narrative and one that did realize that it was false and that there were actually attempts to make people believe a false narrative. Also, there was proof that the narrative was false and this was a threat to the whole myth, if it came to be known.

Martin Broszat's notorious letter, conceding that there was no homicidal gas chamber at Dachau, was published after (*) a former German General (Gen. Martin Unrein) on a tour of the Dachau camp had commented "This was just a shower!" when visiting the alleged homicidal gas chamber. Patent 'damage control' concession if I'm asked.

https://postimg.cc/LJ7Q69KW

https://postimg.cc/v4XFdPk5

https://postimg.cc/PLbNm0pt

https://postimg.cc/bG0HsCqn

https://postimg.cc/0M9y3C49

https://postimg.cc/06prYjXM

A major concession...


https://postimg.cc/PNtW6YPM


https://postimg.cc/B8TmN3dz

https://postimg.cc/hhvrx02K

https://postimg.cc/nCqjV31D

* (even if Dr. Broszat's letter was published a few days before General Unrein's comment on Dachau was reported in the Jewish press)

[DissentingOpinions]

The question starting off this thread concerns shower enclosures, extermination, and Jews. Jews. But why is it always about Jews? What about other people? Did they have shower enclosures?

There were legitimate showers across the entire NS camp system, not just for Jews. The gas chamber stories arose from some survivors of Birkenau conflating the shower buildings with the delousing chambers, as the Hungarian Jews would come to enter that camp in fear of gas coming in through the pipes, but they were relieved to find out that it was just water after all. My guess is that the inmates who were selected by Mengele while interned were sent to these real showers & then the hospital ward, before being transited elsewhere.

[Hektor]

The question starting off this thread concerns shower enclosures, extermination, and Jews. Jews. But why is it always about Jews? What about other people? Did they have shower enclosures?

There were legitimate showers across the entire NS camp system, not just for Jews. The gas chamber stories arose from some survivors of Birkenau conflating the shower buildings with the delousing chambers, as the Hungarian Jews would come to enter that camp in fear of gas coming in through the pipes, but they were relieved to find out that it was just water after all. My guess is that the inmates who were selected by Mengele while interned were sent to these real showers & then the hospital ward, before being transited elsewhere.

That's the impression I also got. I just don't call them "survivors", The term implies that they were only lucky not to be gassed. The Holocaust narrative thrives on deceptive language. The reasoning therein is fallacious, but people are prone to commit fallacies, simply because they have the appearance of logic and are convenient, when they want to jump to conclusions.

In Birkenau the showering facilities were in the same building as the (delousing) gas chambers. The blueprints actually demonstrate exactly that:
https://www.welt.de/english-news/articl ... rmany.html


This is known, but the narrative is perpetuated. It is the deceived deceiving the gullible.

In a setting like a detention center, which the concentration camps were, it can be expected that rumors will make the rounds. And those prisoners that were longer there, would have told stories to scare the Newbies. So that stories about homicidal gas chambers would arise shouldn't be surprising at all. At to that rumors spread by the Allies via radio and potentially leaflets and you get a cauldron.

People dying in the health disaster in 1945 will have added to suspicion and that's what Allied atrocity propaganda did exploit on dragging it into mass media and post-war show trials. Once it is an 'established fact' it enters other trials and the accused must be careful not to contradict the narrative otherwise this will be used against them (they will be accused of lying).

[UselessEaters]

The question starting off this thread concerns shower enclosures, extermination, and Jews. Jews. But why is it always about Jews? What about other people? Did they have shower enclosures?

There were legitimate showers across the entire NS camp system, not just for Jews. The gas chamber stories arose from some survivors of Birkenau conflating the shower buildings with the delousing chambers, as the Hungarian Jews would come to enter that camp in fear of gas coming in through the pipes, but they were relieved to find out that it was just water after all. My guess is that the inmates who were selected by Mengele while interned were sent to these real showers & then the hospital ward, before being transited elsewhere.

Thank you @DissentingOpinions for the information that it wasn't just the Jew that got a free shower.

Concerning the gas chamber stories you mention, that's the thing about stories, what we all learn as a child in a well-run household, stories can be entertaining.

So for the hungry Hungary Jew, imagine the joy on its face, the relief, when water came out.

On your final point, the Mengele selection -- who, let us not forget, didn't discriminate in favor of the Jew but was an equal opportunity selector -- in the hospital ward those selected must have been privileged within the overall secure distribution facility, benefiting from all those extra rations, even hot meals, maybe even a blanket, plus all the expert medical attention. Some of this elite, not that they were ungrateful to the Reich, but paying it its greatest compliment -- some of this elite must have protested when they were told their time was up, that they were going to be transported to an unknown destination. But, as we ourselves know only too well, all good things come to an end.

[UselessEaters]

The question starting off this thread concerns shower enclosures, extermination, and Jews. Jews. But why is it always about Jews? What about other people? Did they have shower enclosures?

There were legitimate showers across the entire NS camp system, not just for Jews. The gas chamber stories arose from some survivors of Birkenau conflating the shower buildings with the delousing chambers, as the Hungarian Jews would come to enter that camp in fear of gas coming in through the pipes, but they were relieved to find out that it was just water after all. My guess is that the inmates who were selected by Mengele while interned were sent to these real showers & then the hospital ward, before being transited elsewhere.

That's the impression I also got. I just don't call them "survivors", The term implies that they were only lucky not to be gassed. The Holocaust narrative thrives on deceptive language. The reasoning therein is fallacious, but people are prone to commit fallacies, simply because they have the appearance of logic and are convenient, when they want to jump to conclusions.

In Birkenau the showering facilities were in the same building as the (delousing) gas chambers. The blueprints actually demonstrate exactly that:
https://www.welt.de/english-news/articl ... rmany.html


This is known, but the narrative is perpetuated. It is the deceived deceiving the gullible.

In a setting like a detention center, which the concentration camps were, it can be expected that rumors will make the rounds. And those prisoners that were longer there, would have told stories to scare the Newbies. So that stories about homicidal gas chambers would arise shouldn't be surprising at all. At to that rumors spread by the Allies via radio and potentially leaflets and you get a cauldron.

People dying in the health disaster in 1945 will have added to suspicion and that's what Allied atrocity propaganda did exploit on dragging it into mass media and post-war show trials. Once it is an 'established fact' it enters other trials and the accused must be careful not to contradict the narrative otherwise this will be used against them (they will be accused of lying).

Thanks for your considered response, @Hektor. As you say about the term 'survivors', what is it to survive a shower? It's the sort of thing you say to a small child complaining about the water being a little cold. Such talk is demeaning, insulting, when directed at the Jew and the anti-socials -- and it's self-debasing when the Jew and the anti-socials use it as a badge of honor. What color star or triangle do they want? No. Surviving a shower doesn't merit a credential, a certificate.

As you note, the Birkenau secure work/distribution facility was designed on rational grounds, with separate chambers for showering and delousing. No doubt some of the new guests needed delousing, infested as they were with lice and other vermin, but there would have been procedures to have treated them humanely, with the care deservedly earned by the NS state. The lessons learned from Dachau, and elsewhere, not least from Aktion T4, wouldn't have been wasted.

Yes, "the gullible" are, regrettably, always with us -- as are the Jew and the anti-socials.

You mention the rumors, the stories. We mustn't forget the human dimension in all this. How does this play out? In any new social setting, the incumbents always have an advantage over the newbies. It's a time of great stress, of great anxiety -- in our daily lives we all know how stressful moving is, but doing it in a time of war, all that upheaval, all that uncertainty, especially about loved ones left behind? So given that there's a human need for some light relief, for joking, it's no surprise that the newbies were on the receiving end. Hence the stories they were told.

(It also helps explain possible excesses by the secure facility officers, trying to do their onerous job, during war, stressed out, wondering whether family would survive the latest civilian bombing raid by the Allies, making it through to the next day. So it's no surprise that the occasional practical joke -- like a mock execution -- may have wormed its way into one of those war stories told to all and sundry by those who thought they had survived something.)

So we also have the matter of what happens to the stories, their reception, to use the academic jargon. Great strides have been made in the scientific understanding of false memory syndrome, especially regarding vulnerable, weak individuals when they're highly stressed. So it comes as no surprise that alleged eye-witnesses came out with stories -- perhaps sincerely held stories, but stories nevertheless, stories, not facts.

It means that perhaps we need to be generous with these individuals, be compassionate, and not condemn them with heavy blame. They were vulnerable, weak, often with a genetic make-up that disposed them to work against the NS state. This meant that much of their existence, their deeds, was involuntary: they couldn't help but do as they did -- and their actions were against the NS state, the protector of the Volk, so ultimately their actions were against the Volk. They constituted a permanent threat, a cauldron of danger. This meant that any proper action by the NS state against them was purely defensive in nature. The Volk had to be protected.

And the fate of the Jew and the anti-socials? Given their disposition, causing their involuntary behavior, it meant that the secure work/distribution facility system functioned as a corrective, and in this protected environment, through honest labor, they were given the opportunity to try to make amends for what they were, to at last be able to give something back, to provide something useful for the NS state and the Volk. For them, the game was finally up. It was a relief. A deliverance. A blessing. At last they had found something in their calling that could be salvaged, made useful.

So the conventional narrative needs to be flipped on its head: if there is to be pity, pathos, regret, melancholy, even tears, then it has to be expressed as due recognition to all those who were working in the secure facility system. Those men and women doing that onerous, stressful work. Work, day after day, work that only received recognition from their superior officers. That's what duty is all about. It doesn't need thanks.

As for the stories, they're just stories.