The young girl at the end of the movie...... - The Grey Zone (2001) Discussion

[–] bogwart-1 16 years ago

Add 'spoilers, numbnuts.

reply

[–] jimel98 16 years ago

Very interesting question. I will not call you numbnuts as to do so would simply add credence to the individual who already did, crude nincompoop that he/she is.

Anyway, I just re-watched it myself.....

(SPOILER!!!), there, happy bogwart? Seems that the title of the thread, “The young girl at the END OF THE MOVIE....” would suffice. I guess not for everyone.

Ok, so, you raise a very good question. I did notice that sort of "Ok, so now what?" look in the guards' faces. I'm not sure if it was looking for a reaction from her or just wondering what they should do next. They've killed so many at this point in the war that one little girl shouldn't mean much to them, but how many little girls have they actually killed face to face? The Soderkommandos do all the face-to-face stuff, could be they just were temporarily in shock looking at this little girl. I keep emphasizing 'little girl' because no doubt some of these guys are fathers and for that moment might see their own daughters in her face.

But, of course, it's all speculation and they are in fact just actors, but I cannot stress enough what an interesting question you pose.

reply

[–] tomlangdon-1 16 years ago

This situation reminds me of a similar one that I remember reading about a while back. A girl survived the gas chambers in the same way as the girl in the film, and was encountered by a SS man rather than Sonderkommando.

So shocked that someone could survive the gas, and presumably perturbed that the mechanised killing process had become so personal and immediate, the SS man hesitated and considered what to do. The SS man did eventually kill the girl, but the moment of hesitation and consideration is in itself telling. What had been such an obvious thing - the gassing of inferiors - had suddenly become a different and difficult proposition when face-to-face with such an extraordinary situation.

It's hard, and most probably counter-productive, to speculate as to what would be going through those people's heads as there's such a multitude of explanations.

Ultimately, however, as the result of my reading on the subject, I do find the scene quite improbable. The above description of a moment's hesitation before executing anyone who survived the gas seems more likely. The idea of a girl who had witnessed the gas chambers and survived (although reconsidering execution, even for a second seems to indicate some begrudging respect for the achievement) being allowed to stand alongside a group of SS men unharmed during a mass execution is hard to fathom.

reply

[–] PhilipChandler 16 years ago

I regularly get into fierce debates with a member of my family who hates Germany to this day, and who hates Germans, notwithstanding the fact that almost all of the Germans who implemented the Holocaust and who supported the Holocaust are dead. This family member's father lost an eye in World War I, and this family member insists that the German people of today would re-enact the Holocaust without hesitation were Germany to be given the opportunity to do so. I don't believe that -- furthermore, I don't believe that it is productive or useful to foment hatred, even in the face of evil so monstrous as that which was perpetrated by the German nation during World War II.

This family member insists that evil is "in the German DNA" and that Germany will do everything in its power to dominate the world again. What is so ironic is that it is precisely this sort of generalization that animated attempts to eliminate all Jews from Germany and German-occupied nations. Thus, commenting about evil being "in the German DNA" is, in my opinion, in the same moral quadrant as anti-Semitism, or homophobia, or any other form of bigotry in which a group is attacked based on assumed characteristics.

I do not believe that evil is inherited by any one group of people to a greater extent than is the case with respect to other groups of people, or that children should be forced to pay for the crimes of their parents. I do not believe that it is appropriate to cheer the firebombing of Dresden, notwithstanding the fact that Germany started the war against the UK and attacked major UK cities (including Coventry, London, Bristol, etc.). Yet this relative cheers whenever he hears about the firebombing of Dresden. Not long ago, the narrator of a documentary pointed out that American airmen were guilty of atrocious behavior when (the day after the razing of Dresden) they strafed those civilians who survuved the firebombing of Dresden and who sought shelter in public parks and other flat areas that had not caught fire. This relative went ballistic, claiming that there was no problem with the behavior of these airmen...

I fear for any person who harbors such bitterness in his or her heart, because no person can harbor such hatred without it warping and damaging other aspects of that person's life...

Does anybody have any advice or comments?

Thanks,

PHILIP

reply

[–] couzijn 15 years ago

I think it helps traumatized people if they find a way to determine and denominate the origin of their trauma, so they can more easily distance themselves from this origin, spatially as well as psychologically.

In this case, if you are a victim, it surely helps to be able to determine and denominate the perpetrator. If that is not one person and not a sharply defined group of people, it comes in handy to condemn a whole, diffuse group. That is called demonization.

Hatred and bigotry gives people more control over their fears and trauma's.

Such demonization does not only happen to 'the Germans'. Also 'the Poles' have been systematically targeted as 'perpetrators' among Jewish groups, and undeservedly so. The Polish military fought with the other Allies to liberate Europe from the nazi's, there was a huge resistance among the Polish population, and many Polish individuals helped Jews during the war or hid them in their homes, at great personal risk for their whole family. Yet the small percentage of Poles who actively supported nazi's to persecute Jews, the traitors or 'blue police', have incurred the permanent hatred of some who consider 'the Poles' as co-perpetrators. Even though before the war, and many centuries up to then, Poles and Jews got along *relatively* well, compared to other European countries where Jews were unwelcome. There is a reason why the largest part of European Jewry had settled in Poland, and why Jewish culture flourished in Poland in the 1920's and 1930's.

The post-war vilification and demonization of 'the Poles' in certain Jewish circles is undeserved and irrational. Yet it is understandable by the same psychological mechanism that explains present-day hatred toward 'the Germans' and their DNA.

Michel Couzijn

reply

[–] couzijn 15 years ago

Talking about 'distancing yourself spatially and psychologically' from perpetrators and other villains, and wondering why 'they' did it and if we are still capable of committing such heinous crimes, I find it enlightening to realize that:

- the holocaust happened *very* recently: in the time span between the emergence of the Homo Sapiens and present day, it happened just 0,0002 part of that time span ago; thus the human race in 2009 is exactly the same as the human race in 1939;

- perpetrators, victims, heroes and bystanders all lived in the same 1% of the earth's surface. They are all Kaukasian people, for a large part a historical mixture of germanic, slavonic and to a lesser degree semitic people, so their DNA will not show huge differences.

My conclusion is that, given the circumstances and the psychological mindset, we Europeans are generally capable of fulfilling all roles: either victim or perpetrator, either hero or bystander, in 2009 just as well as in 1939.

It is anyone's guess what the Jews in Poland would have done, if Hitler would have hated the Slavs and the nazi's had first targeted the Polish people as targets for destruction.

The latter idea is not too far-fetched if you realize that the nazi's killed 3 million Polish Jews and almost an equal number of Polish gentiles. Which makes it all the more strange to consider 'the Poles' as co-perpetrators. As said, demonization of a whole people is irrational, yet a common habit of Man - of which we should constantly remind ourselves.

Michel Couzijn

reply

[–] mr_interlocutor 15 years ago

Yes, there was a thousand years of Jewish life in Poland, but there was great anti-Semitism on the part of the Poles throughout that time. Yes, the Poles fought against the Nazis, but Poles also played an instrumental role in the destruction of the Jews. Post-war vilificaton of "the Poles" was entirely well earned by a good portion of the Polish population. Just see scenes in Claude Lanzmann's Shoah, when he interviews Polish townspeople 40 years after the Holocaust who still remember with satisfaction and even sometimes glee the deportation and murder of Jews. See also this recent article in "Der Spiegel" on "Hitler's European Holocaust Helpers"

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,625824,00.html

And as for "post-war" vilification, it was earned even post-war. Just see this article on the Kielce pogrom:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kielce_pogrom

Verbum sap.

reply

[–] canuas 15 years ago

Quote:
So shocked that someone could survive the gas, and presumably perturbed that the mechanised killing process had become so personal and immediate, the SS man hesitated and considered what to do. The SS man did eventually kill the girl, but the moment of hesitation and consideration is in itself telling. What had been such an obvious thing - the gassing of inferiors - had suddenly become a different and difficult proposition when face-to-face with such an extraordinary situation.

The killing proces was never completely impersonal. There was always a contact with the persons to be killed. The mechanised element of the process is overemphasized.

reply

[–] lufts 15 years ago

See my earlier reply. Unfortunately you are incorrect. Anti semitism in Poland, was, and is, virulent. The fact that Poland was invaded by the Nazis and so the Poles ended up fighting Hitler does not change that.

They were willing collaborators in the deportation and murder of the Jews.

Are you aware that most of the camps were in Poland? If there was such active resistance, why did the Poles NEVER attempt to destroy the camps or even interrupt their activities.

Remember, Auschwitz is simply the Americanization of the name of the Polish town
Oswiezcm, where the camp was located.

Worse, if you read Polish press to this day, there is still virulent anti semitism despite there being effectively no Jews left there.

reply

[–] lufts 15 years ago

You should read a book called "Hitler's Willing Executioners".

This is not simply a German issue, but rather most of Europe and in particular Eastern Europe.

Anti semitism is still open and accepted and virulent in today's Poland (even with effectively no Jews left there!!), Czechoslavakia, etc.

You don't erase 2000 years of history. And this "Holocaust" was simply the latest example. It has occurred regularly at about 100 years intervals.

Just at the end of the war, Stalin did the same thing, or tried to, in the USSR.

reply

[–] mmw_rocket 15 years ago

Western Europe is very anti semitic as well. No country was like "no, you can't kill our Jews".

reply

[–] willianswalker 14 years ago

The holocaust was probably started as a reply to the filthy conditions of the Treaty of Versailles. They(the State) used Jews as a scapegoat. Now having said that, there is much propaganda that maligns everything German during that time. My Father was a Waffen SS man from Hungary(before you go and yell warCrim! please be aware that it was Himmler's orders that stated that every ethnic German from Hungary being of age and fitness must go into the Waffen SS. As a result, these men were not considered part of a criminal enterprise). Now getting back to my point, my Dad(who has passed)threw a loaf of bread into the Krakow Jewish Ghetto. He received a warning shot in front of him and was told that if he ever did that again he'd be executed. He fought the Soviets on the Eastern Front. Not all Germans/Waffen SS men were criminals.
The truth lies(???) at your fingertips. The Waffen SS kicked butt. I was told that one day as they were merrily marching along, a man broke ranks, ran into a field and pulled out an onion. He was taken to the front of the column and shot in the back of the head. OK. You get the picture a little bit. Honour before everything else. No looting, stealing etc. One fellow I worked with told me (his uncle told him) that they would execute all Waffen SS upon capture because the Waffen SS bayoneted babies. I don't think so.

reply

[–] PhilipChandler 14 years ago

What, exactly, is your point? That the Waffer SS were actually good old boys, underneath the frog-marching and the smoke belching from the crematoria?

I am indeed sorry that your father was a member of the Waffen SS, and I accept the fact that young men throughout Germany were conscripted. But other young men left the country when they saw which way it was going. I am also one of the few people who believe that the Treaty of Versailles was far, far too punitive -- in my opinion (and I have caught hell just for saying this from members of my family who fought in World War II and who consider anything German to be evil), the Treaty of Versailles was an object lesson in how NOT to treat a vanquished foe. I believe that the terms of this Treaty were so humiliating and so degrading that they inspired deep and bitter resentment. Throw in a scapegoat or two (Jews, gay men, Jehova's Witnesses, gypsies) and add a raving fanatic to this mix and you have the recipe for utter disaster -- the recipe for the development of an angry and embittered people who will eventually stoop to such depraved behaviour as to cause many to question whether human beings are inherently evil.

It is a grave error to believe that such behaviour is unique to Germans (a point I stress with members of my own family, who believe that there is something about the German race that makes them innately more aggressive and ruthless than members of other races or nationalities). Some members of my own family insist that the Holocaust could never happen here -- I believe that these people have failed to learn the only lesson of value that emerged from the Holocaust, which is that human beings are capable of perpetrating atrocities ANYWHERE, under the "right" conditions (humiliation, followed by economic collapse, followed by scapegoating, followed by the rise of a highly charismatic leader who blames those scapegoats using increasinly inflammatory rhetoric and who promises the people that he can lead them back to their former state of glory). Some people simply never learn -- they want to believe that the Holocaust could never happen here, and they actually do believe that the Holocaust could never happen here.

My loathing of Pat Buchanan and Pat Robertson was based on precisely these fears following their respective performances at the Republican National Convention of 1992. I saw a huge crowd of almost all white men and women literally shrieking and bellowing -- their target was gay men and lesbians, who these two men (and hence the entire crowd) blamed for every problem in the world. Suppose the US were to go to war and suffer a humiliating and grotesque defeat at the hands of a power like China. Suppose further that we were forced to sign a similar treaty following such a defeat. Suppose this was followed by complete economic collapse, with soaring unemployment, widespread unrest, poverty, and famine. Suppose that a man like Pat Buchanan were to use his rhetorical and oratory skills to whip up fear and hatred of gay persons, and to blame gay persons worldwide for the military defeat and subsequent humiliation, using sychologists, sociologists, and people like Dr. Laura to spread their messages of hatred and cruelty. Is it really impossible that the American people would swallow the bait and become engineers of another act of state-sanctioned, industrial-scale butchery?

I don't think so.

PHILIP CHANDLER

reply

[–] PhilipChandler 14 years ago

What, exactly, is your point? That the Waffer SS were actually good old boys, underneath the frog-marching and the smoke belching from the crematoria?

I am indeed sorry that your father was a member of the Waffen SS, and I accept the fact that young men throughout Germany were conscripted. But other young men left the country when they saw which way it was going. I am also one of the few people who believe that the Treaty of Versailles was far, far too punitive -- in my opinion (and I have caught hell just for saying this from members of my family who fought in World War II and who consider anything German to be evil), the Treaty of Versailles was an object lesson in how NOT to treat a vanquished foe. I believe that the terms of this Treaty were so humiliating and so degrading that they inspired deep and bitter resentment. Throw in a scapegoat or two (Jews, gay men, Jehova's Witnesses, gypsies) and add a raving fanatic to this mix and you have the recipe for utter disaster -- the recipe for the development of an angry and embittered people who will eventually stoop to such depraved behaviour as to cause many to question whether human beings are inherently evil.

It is a grave error to believe that such behaviour is unique to Germans (a point I stress with members of my own family, who believe that there is something about the German race that makes them innately more aggressive and ruthless than members of other races or nationalities). Some members of my own family insist that the Holocaust could never happen here -- I believe that these people have failed to learn the only lesson of value that emerged from the Holocaust, which is that human beings are capable of perpetrating atrocities ANYWHERE, under the "right" conditions (humiliation, followed by economic collapse, followed by scapegoating, followed by the rise of a highly charismatic leader who blames those scapegoats using increasinly inflammatory rhetoric and who promises the people that he can lead them back to their former state of glory). Some people simply never learn -- they want to believe that the Holocaust could never happen here, and they actually do believe that the Holocaust could never happen here.

My loathing of Pat Buchanan and Pat Robertson was based on precisely these fears following their respective performances at the Republican National Convention of 1992. I saw a huge crowd of almost all white men and women literally shrieking and bellowing -- their target was gay men and lesbians, who these two men (and hence the entire crowd) blamed for every problem in the world. Suppose the US were to go to war and suffer a humiliating and grotesque defeat at the hands of a power like China. Suppose further that we were forced to sign a similar treaty following such a defeat. Suppose this was followed by complete economic collapse, with soaring unemployment, widespread unrest, poverty, and famine. Suppose that a man like Pat Buchanan were to use his rhetorical and oratory skills to whip up fear and hatred of gay persons, and to blame gay persons worldwide for the military defeat and subsequent humiliation, using sychologists, sociologists, and people like Dr. Laura to spread their messages of hatred and cruelty. Is it really impossible that the American people would swallow the bait and become engineers of another act of state-sanctioned, industrial-scale butchery?

I don't think so.

PHILIP CHANDLER

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jonnyharding 14 years ago

This scene is actually factually incorrect. The girl in question did not actually die in this manner. The film is based on the Memoirs of the Doctor Miklos Nyiszli, as seen in the film, and in these memoirs the girl is killed at an earlier stage before the uprising.

Quote from the memoirs,

"Half an hour later the young girl was led, or rather carried, into the furnace room hallway, and there Mussfeld sent another in his place to do the job. A bullet in the back of the neck..."

The girl was actually killed half an hour after being discovered and was not even killed by Mussfeld, as seen in the film. A similar conversation occurred between Nyiszli and Mussfeld on the course of action to be taken but it was decided by Mussfeld straight away that there was no way of getting around her survival and that she had to die.

This does however raise the interesting point of why Nelson decided to change this and have the girl killed at the end of the film like this. My opinion is that she was used to represent hope within the death camp and for the prisoners after she was found. But this was to be a false hope ending with her death and in fact a realistic representation of hope within the death camp system.

Any other thoughts on why Nelson would do this?

reply

[–] johnny-514 14 years ago

I guess I don't understand why the good dr. and any surviving members of the Sonderkommando were not tried and executed as war criminals also. What "just following orders" to add a few less harsh months to their lives as they sold out others?

reply

[–] NoRevisionism 14 years ago

So the Sonderkommando in your opinion were part of the genocidal plan ?

reply

[–] renarden83 13 years ago

Because the Sonderkommando were working as prisoners under the threat of death, if they didn't cooperate they too would leave by the chimney. That's a very important difference. They were victims of the system whereas the Nazis weren't.

One thing I don't understand with the whole girl scene is why only Muhsfeldt seems to be the only one to notice her trying to escape and summarily executes her. I find it hard to believe that a whole group of SS-men would only stand there and look while a little girl was trying to run away from the crematorium grounds from which NOBODY was permitted to leave without authorization.

reply

[–] at7000 10 years ago

OTOH, if Muhsfeldt was indeed the top dog of that camp, I can't see any other lower-ranking Nazi making a move to do something, without his consent/approval.

Such was the sick and twisted levels of "Nazi Disciple" and command structure. The other Nazis just stood by paralyzed, until Muhsfeldt made his move.

reply

[–] renarden83 10 years ago

That's an interesting point. Muhsfeldt wasn't top dog of the whole camp as such, he was only the supervising officer of Crematoria II and III. But still, given the rigid secrecy surrounding the operations, you'd at least think that the guards would have standing orders to at least try and stop anyone unauthorized entering or leaving.

reply

[–] mycroftson 10 years ago

Ok, but just checking that you know that this scene was the screenwriter or directors vision, in reality Muhsfeldt ordered her execution after she had been revived.

reply

[–] renarden83 10 years ago

Yes, exactly, I forgot to mention. I've read Miklos Nyiszli's book (everyone should, it's a fascinating read) that the movie is based upon. Well actually, the movie is based upon a play based upon the book, so artistic liberties are bound to happen.

reply

[–] davidwalters-224-875269 9 years ago

I'm glad the error about the girl has been mentioned - that she did not live long after she survived the gassing. Another book I have read is 'Three Years in the Gas Chamber', by Filip Muller. Fascinating. He worked in the Sonderkommando.....somehow he managed to 'avoid selection' several times. I don't get this, as this unit was supposedly wiped out every 3 months or so, to ensure no-ones spoke about it. How did he escape this?

reply

[–] mycroftson 9 years ago

That is because the 3 month rule was invented for this story.

What happened was: there was a 'permanent' crew for each crematoria, but when there was a new action, like a larger deportation eg. from Greece, then they would take on extra workers, after those trains were processed, then the numbers would be reduced again. As Mueller says in the book you read, they would look for the prisoners with the lowest numbers to kill first and Mueller became good at avoiding being one of the first, therefore managed to be one of those kept on to keep the crematoria running, and as he said, it was not because he was smarter, taller, shorter, stronger or anything other than luckier.

At its peak the sk numbered 800 and after the uprising they liquidated all those from crematoria II and IV (where the uprisings started) and if memory serves Mueller worked in IV at the time, but hid up a chimney and joined III when things calmed down.

reply

[–] davidwalters-224-875269 9 years ago

I am so glad I got a reply to this as it's been bugging me for years. I am currently watching Shoah which has lots of Muller talking which is great. And he is STILL alive.

If you could clarify it a bit more.....I have read many accounts about the 3 month rule, not just for this film. It seemed standard to wipe out the SK every 12 weeks. Now, the Germans were VERY efficient and somehow had everyone listed, numbered etc etc. Incredible. So I find it hard to see how ANYone could have avoided the SK role-call anymore than when Vrba escaped into the pile of wood. I mean how did it happen?? You say they looked for the prisoners with the lowest numbers....what do you mean - I cant see how the German efficiency would have allowed this to be so random....more like 'These NAMED (numbered) 40 SK WILL be killed TOTALLY and be replaced'

Thanks for more!

reply

[–] movieman-232 9 years ago

I just watched Auschwitz: Inside the Nazi State and I seem to recall this in it about the SK being exterminated after a while of their forced labor. I could be wrong about this, but I recall some kind of mentioning...or I was remembering this movie and got the facts messed around in my head...?

reply

[–] mycroftson 9 years ago

Ok, i will attempt to clarify more - though i am not sure what question i am answering, so this could just be an essay on the sk in Auschwitz (which was also the subject of my undergrad dissertation).

The Holocaust and the gassings at Auchwitz were not part of one grand scheme. In fact it has been said that the whole event was a collection of independent Holocausts.The murders at Auschwitz were, on the whole pre-planned. Plans were put into place months in advance, trains were ordered and victims delivered to a timetable. Of these victims, sets were taken to work in the crematoria to cope with the extra workload. This is why there is so many testimonies of people having to deal with the corpses of people who they once knew.

Once the 'action' had ended, then the surplus of workers were killed. There had to be some workers all of the time, as there was always a degree of work. Now, bandying around prejudicial terms like 'German efficiency' takes away the human aspect of the process of selecting who was to die. This selection process was not so random, the 'stokers' as the sk were called were closed off and were a secretive group, also the guards had to have a harder stomach (some did request transfers from this duty). The longer serving sk learned how to increase their chances of survival: obviously the guards wanted to keep the best workers, but also there was a thing called 'Auschwitz fashion'; the sk were allowed to wear civilian clothing (with a yellow stripe down the back) and some would tailor their clothes to seem more like the SS uniforms. There was a complicity between the sk and the guards, in that however odious their task, they were in it together.

And remember you can hear the same story in many places, but they may have taken their information from the same place. Dr Nyiszli was a great source for many things, but he had a tendency to fill in the gaps, this information should not be given as much credence as that which he saw with his own eyes.

reply

[–] davidwalters-224-875269 9 years ago

Thanks very much for this. Not QUITE clear...!

You say once the 'action' ended, some workers were killed. BUT there was ALWAYS action/killing going on so it never ended until it all stopped totally? I know extras were taken on during times like when the Hungarians arrived, and bodies had to be burned in pits. I can understand that when that ended, the extra workers were got rid of, but only those EXTRA workers (SK).

My problem is that my understanding is that a set number of SK were used for any one chamber/crematorium. I understood then that after 12 weeks the whole lot were wiped out SO THAT no witnesses survived. This has logic. Allowing some of ANY group of SK to survive after that 12 week period makes no sense at all. That is why I cannot understand why Muller survived after even ONE 12 week period; some experience would be needed but that could soon be learned by the next batch of SK, then the list (which they MUST have kept?) would ensure all were killed TO allow NO witnesses.

Maybe a few of the very last group of SK survived being left behind or on the death march, but I'm surprised they were not shot before the march began, and before the Germans left any survivors at Auschwitz, but I can see that in the panic at THAT stage, some may have survived....but for 3 years???

reply

[–] mycroftson 9 years ago

It has been a while, but as far as i recall Mueller worked in three crematoria (at different times).

The Germans did seek out the sk when the death marches started, as far as i recall 87 managed to hide amongst the masses and join the death marches.

Not entirely sure what you mean by that last paragraph, it seems that you are suggesting that people are claiming to be surviving sk members, even though they were not. If this is the case, please let me know so that i can stop wasting my time.

reply

[–] davidwalters-224-875269 9 years ago

No please don't stop - you are not wasting your time. I am very interested in the whole topic and regularly get tearful about what happened, even though I have no connection with anyone involved. I wish I could go back and kill those responsible, trust me, I get so angry.

I just need clarification because I am not sure I have understood correctly. All I am saying is that I BELIEVE that ANY member of a particular SK group, which surely must have existed as a list, WERE routinely exterminated every 12 weeks TO ensure no telling. I don't understand how you could escape that role-call? Escaping in the chaos during the last few days/death march, I can understand, but it's up till that point I am uncertain.
Trust me, I am SO not a denier.

reply

[–] mycroftson 9 years ago

i am actually getting increasingly curious about where you get this 12 week thing from, i have told you that it does not exist. If we can trace any definitive place that you got it from, then perhaps we can find the source (which i am confident will lead us straight back to this account).

There kind of were roll calls, but not in the sense that the rest of the camp had them; ie. they did not stand on parade. The sk were split into squads, called kommandos, there were hundreds of kommandos/squads in Auschwitz. The 'stokers' were special (sonder) squads. They were named after the prisoner in charge of the squad eg. Fisch-kommando and it was up to them and the guards to know what people in their unit were doing. For example one member would always be on barrack duty and would stay behind to clean/tidy. You have to remember that these squads were segregated and had limited exposure to anyone else, there was no one ticking names off on a clip-board.

But the SK and stokers from other camps were routinely murdered, this is true, usually they were sent to another camp to be killed though.

reply

[–] davidwalters-224-875269 9 years ago

Thanks very much. I got it from various programmes I have seen and this extract from Wikipedia:

Because of their intimate knowledge of the process of Nazi mass murder, the Sonderkommando were considered Geheimnisträger — bearers of secrets — and as such, they were kept in isolation from other camp inmates, except for those about to enter the gas chambers.[10] Since the Germans did not want Sonderkommandos' knowledge to reach the outside world, they followed a policy of regularly gassing almost all the Sonderkommando and replacing them with new arrivals at intervals of approximately 3 months and up to a year or more in some cases (special skills might merit longer life).[11] The first task of the new Sonderkommandos would be to dispose of their predecessors' corpses. Therefore since the inception of the Sonderkommando through to the liquidation of the camp there existed approximately 14 generations of Sonderkommando.

reply