What does the image convey about “toxic subjects” (their character, dynamics, etc.)? (How) Does this image open up the concept of “toxicity”?

Paul frames this image as a "toxic subject for Germany's cultural memory," and he uses this image to argue against the simple distinction between Germaness and Nazism. He supports this refusal by arguing that the image depicts "a monument for Nazi barbarity as [much as it depicts] a monument for German technological expertise." Is this meant to suggest that there are "survivals" or perhaps a "specter" of Nazism that still haunts the contemporary, embedded in the infrastructures that rely upon technologies developed under the Nazi regime? Is there something particularly fascist about these technologies, these infrastructures?

I am similarly intrigued and confused by Paul's notion of an "inconvenient memorial" and I would like for this to be expounded a bit more. What exactly is it that is inconvenient? Is there some inevitable truth that has been ignored but that this image exposes? If so, what might that truth be and why should we be compelled to accept it as inevitable? I am also curious to know what Paul means when he says that "culture and barbarity are closely intertwined and cannot be separated." Is it that culture is inherently barbaric? Or that all cultures have both human/inhuman dimensions or characteristics? What are the implications here?

Investigating sociocultural impacts of the technological and infrastructural legacy of Nazism is a fascinating topic and obviously ripe for theorizing toxicity, and I commend Paul to taking on such "heavy" subjects. However I am left uncertain as to what exactly I am supposed to conclude from this image and from this discussion. All that being said, I look forward to Paul's continuing work on these topics.