Soap...

Discussions on the Holocaust and 20th Century War Crimes. Note that Holocaust denial is not allowed. Hosted by David Thompson.
Jim
Member
Posts: 8
Joined: 13 May 2002, 19:25
Location: Totnes, Devon, UK

Soap...

#1

Post by Jim » 13 May 2002, 20:14

Hello! I noticed from reading some of the other posts that there seems to be some dispute of the question of 'soap'- that is, whether human remains were used in the making of soap. I've heard the stories myself, but I'm guessing that there are two arguable sides to the question- not that I'm coming down on either side, but I'm interested to hear people's views. Thanks!

Jim.

User avatar
Roberto
Member
Posts: 4505
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 16:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

Re: Soap...

#2

Post by Roberto » 13 May 2002, 20:58

Jim wrote:Hello! I noticed from reading some of the other posts that there seems to be some dispute of the question of 'soap'- that is, whether human remains were used in the making of soap. I've heard the stories myself, but I'm guessing that there are two arguable sides to the question- not that I'm coming down on either side, but I'm interested to hear people's views. Thanks!

Jim.
The facts:
After cremation the ashes were used for fertilizer, and in some instances attempts were made to utilise the fat from the bodies of the victims in the commercial manufacture of soap.
From the judgment of the International Military Tribunal at the Nuremberg Trial of German Major War Criminals

Source of quote:

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/p ... ersecution

Emphasis is mine.

As the above quote shows, manufacture of soap from human fat never went beyond a few attempts on a small experimental scale. The production of soap from human fat on an industrial scale, about which there were rumors during the war, never took place.


Jim
Member
Posts: 8
Joined: 13 May 2002, 19:25
Location: Totnes, Devon, UK

#3

Post by Jim » 13 May 2002, 21:27

Thanks Roberto. Very interesting, if harrowing. reading. I wasn't sure the 'human soap' factories were realistic- not that I was deciding before knowing the facts, but it didn't seem a practical idea.

User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 22:17
Location: Arizona
Contact:

HUMAN SOAP

#4

Post by Scott Smith » 14 May 2002, 08:18

So Roberto's answer is no but yes. In other words, bunk.

The stories used in the Nuremberg trials were so widely propagated, most notably by Simon Wiesenthal, that they are difficult to back away from now. Of course none of this evidence exists for chemical analysis today; it is entirely hearsay documented from dubious sources.
:roll:

Image
Last edited by Scott Smith on 14 May 2002, 08:34, edited 1 time in total.

Dan Feltmate
Member
Posts: 194
Joined: 18 Mar 2002, 20:53
Contact:

.

#5

Post by Dan Feltmate » 14 May 2002, 08:22

You can make soap from Human fat?


explain.

This could be useful knowledge.

User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 22:17
Location: Arizona
Contact:

Human Soap

#6

Post by Scott Smith » 14 May 2002, 08:58

Dan Feltmate wrote:You can make soap from Human fat?

explain.

This could be useful knowledge.
:lol: :lol:

Actually, Dan, you can make soap from any fat. All you do is boil it with lye and pour it into bricks to cool. Of course the quality of the fat makes a big difference in hardness and so on. You can add some sodium carbonate (washing soda) or borax to make it work better in hard water. You can also add perfumes or coloring or various exotic oils depending on what you're going for. We used-to make this to sell in the Boy Scouts and it was good soap. When grated into a powder and used with some washing soda it makes a good laundry detergent but it is sometimes hard to wring out of the clothes. It doesn't make the best shampoo either.

A very cheap industrial soap was made by the Germans during the war and stamped RiF. But it was said to be RjF for Pure Jewish Soap (Rein judisches Fett), instead of the acronym for Reichstelle für industrielle Fettversorgung (Reichstation for Industrial Fat-provisioning).

The Human Soap story was British atrocity propaganda from World War One but dusted off to use against the Nazis. In every bar of soap, according to the legend, was a potential Einstein or Freud or Marx. And such stories were likely encouraged by the Germans to help keep their forced-laborers in line.
8O

Image

Here's some more info from David Irving's site:
http://www.fpp.co.uk/Auschwitz/docs/soaptale.html

User avatar
Roberto
Member
Posts: 4505
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 16:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

#7

Post by Roberto » 14 May 2002, 12:14

So Roberto's answer is no but yes. In other words, bunk.
Bunk is what the Reverend writes. He can’t face up to the fact that all the IMT concluded on was attempts to manufacture human soap on a very small experimental scale and that the myth of human soap manufacture on an industrial scale is not supported by the findings of either criminal justice or historical research. With nothing to whine about, the Reverend desperately tries to make something out of the little there is. Very instructive.
The stories used in the Nuremberg trials were so widely propagated, most notably by Simon Wiesenthal, that they are difficult to back away from now. Of course none of this evidence exists for chemical analysis today; it is entirely hearsay documented from dubious sources.
The evidence to experimental attempts to manufacture soap from human fat seems to have been conclusive enough:
"No human soap"? This is true, but misleading. Though there is some evidence that soap was made from corpses on a very limited experimental scale, the rumored "mass production" was never done, and no soap made from human corpses is known to exist. However, there is sworn testimony, never refuted, from British POWs and a German army official, stating that soap experiments were performed, and the recipe for the soap was captured by the Allies. To state flatly that the Nazis did not make soap from human beings is incorrect.
Source of quote:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/qar/qar01.html

Emphases are mine.

Documentary and eyewitness evidence, in other words. Not exactly what I would call “hearsay”.
The Human Soap story was British atrocity propaganda from World War One but dusted off to use against the Nazis.
Was it, Reverend? Let’s see a British propaganda publication where this was mentioned.
In every bar of soap, according to the legend, was a potential Einstein or Freud or Marx.
Any World War II source you can show us that mentioned the rumor of large scale soap manufacture from human fat, Reverend?
And such stories were likely encouraged by the Germans to help keep their forced-laborers in line.
Hardly so, given that what the Nazis really did to forced laborers and, on a much larger scale, to Jews, gypsies, Soviet prisoners of war and other undesirables – execution by shooting, hanging or gassing, starvation, overwork, torture, etc. – was a lot more intimidating than some macabre folklore.

User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 22:17
Location: Arizona
Contact:

SPAM a' Jam

#8

Post by Scott Smith » 14 May 2002, 12:27

Nonsense is what the Spamkönig writes. The IMT concluded a lot of things, death by steaming, death by Death Rays, death by pedal-powered brain-bashing machines. Anything coming from that source should be suspect at best. Even in the movie Schindler's List they thought they were going to be gassed but hot water came out of the "fake" showerheads. I suggest you do more of your own research if you are so interested. But if it didn't happen on Nizkor it didn't happen, right?
:aliengray

User avatar
Roberto
Member
Posts: 4505
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 16:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

Re: SPAM a' Jam

#9

Post by Roberto » 14 May 2002, 12:45

Scott Smith wrote:Nonsense is what the Spamkönig writes. The IMT concluded a lot of things, death by steaming, death by Death Rays, death by pedal-powered brain-bashing machines.
Why, now he's dishing up the bullshit real thick. Show us the passages of the IMT's judgment from which it becomes apparent that the IMT concluded on the killing methods described (and not just that accounts thereof were at some time presented or introduced as evidence during the trial).
Anything coming from that source should be suspect at best.
That's how the Reverend would like it to be, for sure. Unfortunately for him and like-minded Keepers of the Faith, the IMT's findings of fact have been mostly confirmed by posterior criminal investigation and historical research, which in many cases revealed an even more gruesome picture of events than became apparent from the IMT's judgment.
Even in the movie Schindler's List they thought they were going to be gassed but hot water came out of the "fake" showerheads.
No, Mr. Baloney. The movie showed the actual showering rooms, which also existed at Auschwitz beside the rooms called "Leichenkeller", i.e. "mortuaries" in the respective construction documents and inventories, which contained features as incompatible with a mortuary as showerheads and a gas tight door.
I suggest you do more of your own research if you are so interested.
I'm doing that all the time, Reverend. How about reading something other than O'Keefe's toilet paper and whatever they serve on the IHR and Codoh websites, over there?
But if it didn't happen on Nizkor it didn't happen, right?
The Nizkor database, although excellent, is only one of the sources on and off the web that I refer to, as the Reverend well knows.

Keep the Faith fellow revisionists. The Nazis and the SS were the good guys--but the anti-Nazis and the anti-revisionists dare not admit it for fear of losing their fabulous, ill gotten gains from the war.
“Hoaxbuster” Friedrich Paul Berg on the Codoh discussion forum.
http://www.codoh.org/dcforum/DCForumID9/143.html#10

Gottfriedjosef
Banned
Posts: 14
Joined: 17 Apr 2002, 21:32

#10

Post by Gottfriedjosef » 14 May 2002, 16:21

After cremation the ashes were used for fertilizer, and in some instances attempts were made to utilise the fat from the bodies of the victims in the commercial manufacture of soap.

From the judgment of the International Military Tribunal at the Nuremberg Trial of German Major War Criminals

DOCUMENTS USED IN "EVIDENCE"
AT THE NUREMBERG "TRIAL" :

Document 386-PS, the 'Hossbach Protokoll', Hitler's supposed speech of 5 November 1938, is a certified photocopy of a microfilm copy of a re-typed 'certified true copy' prepared by an American, of a re-typed 'certified true copy' prepared by a German, of unauthenticated handwritten notes by Hossbach, of a speech by Hitler, written from memory 5 days later. This is not the worst document, but one of the best, because we know who made one of the copies. The text of 386-PS has been 'edited' (XLII 228-230).

Thus 'trial by document' works as follows: A, an unknown person, listens to alleged 'oral statements' made by B, and takes notes or prepares a document on the basis of those alleged oral statements. The document is then introduced into evidence, not against A, who made the copy, but against B, C, D, E and a host of other people, although there is nothing to connect them with the document or the alleged statements. It is casually stated as fact that 'B said', or that 'C did', or that 'D and E knew'. This is contrary to the rules of evidence of all civilised countries. Nor are the documents identified by witnesses.

US Supreme Court Chief Justice Harlan Fiske Stone remarked: “[Chief US prosecutor] Jackson is away conducting his high-grade lynching party in Nuremberg. I don’t mind what he does to the Nazis, but I hate to see the pretense that he is running a court and proceeding according to common law. This is a little too sanctimonious a fraud to meet my old-fashioned ideas.”
In Congress, US Representative Lawrence H. Smith of Wisconsin declared:
"The Nuremberg trials are so repugnant to the Anglo-Saxon principles of justice that we must forever be ashamed of that page in our history ... The Nuremberg farce represents a revenge policy at its worst."
Congressman, John Rankin of Mississippi, stated:
"As a representative of the American people I desire to say that what is taking place in Nuremberg, Germany, is a disgrace to the United States... A racial minority, two and a half years after the war closed, are in Nuremberg not only hanging German soldiers but trying German businessmen in the name of the United States."
US Senator Robert A. Taft, widely regarded as the "conscience of the Republican party. At considerable risk to his political career, he denounced the Nuremberg enterprise in an October 1946 speech.
"The trial of the vanquished by the victors cannot be impartial no matter how it is hedged about with the forms of justice...About this whole judgment there is the spirit of vengeance, and vengeance is seldom justice. The hanging of the eleven men convicted will be a blot on the American record which we will long regret. In these trials we have accepted the Russian idea of the purpose of trials -- government policy and not justice -- with little relation to Anglo-Saxon heritage. By clothing policy in the forms of legal procedure, we many discredit the whole idea of justice in Europe for years to come."
Milton R. Konvitz, a Jewish specialist of law and public administration who taught at New York University, warned at the time that the Nuremberg Tribunal "
defies many of the most basic assumptions of the judicial process." He went on: "Our policy with respect to the Nazis is consistent with neither international law nor our own State Department's policy... The Nuremberg trial constitutes a real threat to the basic conceptions of justice which it has taken mankind thousands of years to establish."
US Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas wrote:
"I thought at the time and still think that the Nuremberg trials were unprincipled. Law was created ex post facto to suit the passion and clamor of the time."
US Rear Admiral H. Lamont Pugh, former Navy Surgeon General and Commanding Officer of the National Naval Medical Center, wrote:
"I thought the trials in general bordered upon international lunacy. I thought it particularly unfortunate, inappropriate, ill-conceived and dupably injudicious that the United States should have been cast in the leading role as prosecutors and implementators of the trials of German participants or principals."
Chief US prosecutor Robert Jackson privately acknowledged in a letter to President Truman that the Allies
"have done or are doing some of the very things we are prosecuting the Germans for. The French are so violating the Geneva Convention in the treatment of [German] prisoners of war that our command is taking back prisoners sent to them [for forced labor in France]. We are prosecuting plunder and our Allies are practicing it. We say aggressive war is a crime and one of our allies asserts sovereignty over the Baltic States based on no title except conquest."
see

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v12/v12p167_Webera.html

for more.

User avatar
Roberto
Member
Posts: 4505
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 16:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

#11

Post by Roberto » 14 May 2002, 16:36

Thus 'trial by document' works as follows: A, an unknown person, listens to alleged 'oral statements' made by B, and takes notes or prepares a document on the basis of those alleged oral statements. The document is then introduced into evidence, not against A, who made the copy, but against B, C, D, E and a host of other people, although there is nothing to connect them with the document or the alleged statements. It is casually stated as fact that 'B said', or that 'C did', or that 'D and E knew'. This is contrary to the rules of evidence of all civilised countries. Nor are the documents identified by witnesses.
Whoever wrote the above nonsense is requested to explain how this alleged scheme is supposed to have worked in regard to, say, the following document:
Brief des Rüstungsinspektors Ukraine, Generalleutnant Hans Leykauf

O.U., den 2. Dezember 1941
Geheim

An den
Chef des Wehrwirtschafts- und Rüstungsamtes
im O.K.W.
Herrn General der Inf. Thomas
Berlin W
Kurfürstenstenstr. 63-67

Zur persönlichen Unterrichtung des Herrn Chef Wi Rü Amt übergebe ich einen Gesamtbericht über die derzeitige Lage im Reichskommissariat Ukraine, in welchem ich die bisher aufgetretenen Schwierigkeiten und Spannungen sowie die zu ernsten Besorgnissen Anlaß gebenden Fragen mit vollster Offenheit und unmißverständlicher Deutlichkeit niedergelegt sind.
Ich habe bewußt davon Abstand genommen, einen solchen Brief auf dem Dienstwege vorzulegen oder ihn anderen interessierten Stellen zur Kenntnis zu bringen, da ich mir keinen Erfolg davon verspreche, vielmehr befürchte, daß die Schwierigkeiten und Spannungen sowie die unterschiedlichen Auffassungen bei der besonderen Art der Verhältnisse sich nur vergrößern würden.
Nur an maßgebender Stelle kann, wenn sie klar sieht, im Rahmen des möglichen eine Abstellung herbeigeführt werden.
Der Bericht ist von OKV Rat Prof. Seraphim abgefaßt und trägt nicht einen amtlichen, sondern durchaus persönlichen Charakter.
Ich schließe mich in allen Punkten den gemachten Ausführungen an.[…]
Die Ordnung der Judenfrage in der Ukraine war schon deshalb ein schwieriges Problem, weil die Juden in den Städten einen Großteil der Bevölkerung ausmachten. Es handelt sich also – ebenso wie im G.G. – um ein bevölkerungspolitisches Massenproblem. Viele Städte wiesen einen Judenteil von über 50 % auf. Vor den deutschen Truppen geflohen waren nur die reichen Juden. Das Gros der Judenheit verblieb der deutschen Verwaltung. Für diese komplizierte sich die Frage dadurch, daß diese Juden fast das gesamte Handwerk, sogar einen Teil der Arbeiterschaft der Klein- und Mittel-Industrien erfüllten, abgesehen vom Handel, der z.T. infolge der direkten oder indirekten Kriegseinwirkung überflüssig geworden war. Die Beseitigung mußte mithin tiefgreifende wirtschaftliche, ja direkt wehrwirtschaftliche Rückwirkungen (Fertigung für den Truppenbedarf) haben.
Die Haltung der jüdischen Bevölkerung war von vornherein ängstlich - willig. Sie suchten alles zu vermeiden, um der deutschen Verwaltung zu mißfallen. Daß sie die deutsche Verwaltung und Armee im inneren haßten, ist selbstverständlich und kann nicht Wunder nehmen. Es ist aber nicht beweisbar, daß die Juden geschlossen oder auch nur in größerem Umfang an Sabotageakten u.a. beteiligt waren. Sicher hat es unter ihnen – genauso wie unter den Ukrainern – einige Terroristen oder Saboteure gegeben. Daß die Juden aber als solche irgendeine Gefahr für die deutsche Wehrmacht darstellten, kann nicht behauptet werden. Mit der Arbeitsleistung der Juden, die selbstverständlich durch kein anderes Gefühl als die Angst angetrieben wurden, ist Truppe und deutsche Verwaltung zufrieden gewesen. Die jüdische Bevölkerung ist im unmittelbaren Anschluß an die Kampfhandlungen zunächst unbehelligt geblieben. Erst Wochen, z.T. Monate später wurde eine planmäßige Erschießung der Juden durch eigens dazu abgestellte Formationen der Ordnungspolizei durchgeführt. Diese Aktion ging im wesentlichen von Osten nach Westen. Sie erfolgte durchaus öffentlich unter Hinzuziehung ukrainischer Miliz, vielfach leider auch unter freiwilliger Beteiligung von Wehrmachtsangehörigen. Die Art der Durchführung der Aktionen, die sich auf Männer und Greise, Frauen und Kinder jeden Alters erstreckte, war grauenhaft. Die Aktion ist in der Massenhaftigkeit der Hinrichtungen so gigantisch wie bisher keine in der Sowjetunion vorgenommene gleichartige Maßnahme. Insgesamt dürften bisher etwa 150 000 bis 200 000 Juden in dem zum Reichskommissariat gehörigen Teil der Ukraine exekutiert [worden sein], bisher wurde auf diese wirtschaftlichen Belange keine Rücksicht genommen.
Insgesamt kann gesagt werden, daß die in der Ukraine durchgeführte Art der Lösung der Judenfrage, offenbar von prinzipiell - weltanschaulichen Gedankengängen getragen, nachstehende Folgen gehabt hat:
a) Beseitigung eines Teils z.T. überflüssiger Esser in den Städten
b) Beseitigung eines Bevölkerungsteils, der uns zweifellos haßte
c) Beseitigung dringend notwendiger Handwerker, die auch für Wehrmachtsbelange vielfach unentbehrlich waren
d) Außenpolitisch - propagandistische Folgen, die auf der Hand liegen
e) Nachteilige Wirkungen auf die jedenfalls mittelbar mit den Exekutionen in Berührung kommende Truppe
f) Verrohende Wirkung auf die die Exekutionen durchführenden Formationen (Ordnungspolizei).
Eine Abschöpfung landwirtschaftlicher Überschüsse aus der Ukraine für Ernährungszwecke des Reiches ist mithin nur denkbar, wenn der ukrainische Binnenverkehr auf ein Minimum gedrückt wird. Es wird versucht das zu erreichen
1. durch Ausmerzung überflüssiger Esser (Juden, Bevölkerung der ukrainischen Großstädte, die, wie Kiew, überhaupt keine Lebensmittelzuteilung erhalten);
2. durch äußerste Reduktion der den Ukrainern der übrigen Städte zur Verfügung gestellten Rationen;
3. durch Verminderung des Verzehrs der bäuerlichen Bevölkerung.
Man muß sich darüber klar sein, daß in der Ukraine letzten Endes nur die Ukrainer durch Arbeit Wirtschaftswerte erzeugen können. Wenn wir die Juden totschießen, die Kriegsgefangenen umkommen lassen, die Großstadtbevölkerung zum erheblichen Teile dem Hungertode ausliefern, im kommenden Jahre auch einen Teil der Landbevölkerung durch Hunger verlieren werden, bleibt die Frage unbeantwortet: Wer denn hier eigentlich Wirtschaftswerte produzieren soll. Daß bei dem Engpaß Mensch im Deutschen Reich weder jetzt noch in absehbarer Zukunft Deutsche in erforderlicher Zahl zur Verfügung stehen können, ist unzweifelhaft. Wenn der Ukrainer aber arbeiten soll, muß er physisch erhalten werden, nicht aus einem Sentiment, sondern aus sehr nüchternen wirtschaftlichen Erwägungen. Dazu gehört aber in erster Linie auch die Schaffung eines geordneten Verhältnisses zwischen Geld, Warenpreisen und Arbeitslohn.
Zusammenfassung:
Bevölkerung: Die Haltung der ukrainischen Bevölkerung ist trotz der in den letzten Monaten erfolgten Verschlechterung ihrer materiellen Lage noch gutwillig. Bei einer mit Sicherheit vorauszusehenden weiteren Verschlechterung ihrer Ernährungslage ist mit einem Stimmungsumschwung zu rechnen.
Die Volksdeutschen der Ukraine bilden kein Element, auf das sich Verwaltung und Wirtschaft des Landes stützen können.
Ein erheblicher Teil der Juden, die in den Städten des Reichskommissariats teilweise mehr als die Hälfte der Bevölkerung ausmachten, sind hingerichtet worden. Damit ist der größte Teil der Handwerker ausgefallen und dadurch auch Belange der Wehrmacht (Truppenbedarf, Unterkünfte) berührt.
Unterkunft, Verpflegung, Bekleidung und Gesundheitszustand der Kriegsgefangenen ist schlecht, die Sterblichkeit sehr groß. Mit dem Abgang vieler Zehn- ja Hunderttausende in diesem Winter ist zu rechnen. Darunter befinden sich Kräfte, die für die Wirtschaft der Ukraine erfolgreich hätten nutzbar gemacht werden können, auch Facharbeiter und Handwerker.
Source: Ernst Klee / Willi Dreßen, “Gott mit uns“. Der deutsche Vernichtungskrieg im Osten 1939-1945, 1989 S. Fischer Verlag GmbH Frankfurt am Main, pages 198 to 201.
Reference: Nuremberg Document 3257-PS, IMT, Volume XXXII.

My translation:
Letter of the Armament Inspector Ukraine, Generalleutnant Hans Leykauf

O.U., 2 December 1941

Secret

To the
Chief of the Industrial Armament Department
at the Wehrmacht Supreme Command
Mr. General of Infantry Thomas
Berlin W
Kurfürstenstenstr. 63-67

For the personal information of the Chief of the Industrial Armament Department I am forwarding a total account of the present situation in the Reichskommissariat Ukraine in which the difficulties and tensions encountered so far, and the problems which give rise to serious anxiety are stated with unmistakable clarity.
Intentionally I have desisted from submitting such a report through official channels or to make it known to other departments interested in it because I do not expect any results that way, but to the contrary am apprehensive that the difficulties and tensions and also the divergent opinions might only be increased due to the peculiarity of the situation.
Only the decisive entity can, if it sees the situation clearly, provide for an improvement insofar as possible.
The report was prepared by OKV Rat Prof. Seraphim and has not an official, but an altogether personal character.
I fully subscribe the expositions made.[…]
Regulation of the Jewish question in the Ukraine was a difficult problem because the Jews constituted a large part of the urban population. We therefore have to deal -just as in the General Government- with a mass problem of policy concerning the population. Many cities had a percentage of Jews exceeding fifty percent. Only the rich Jews had fled from the German troops. The majority of Jews remained under German administration. The latter found the problem more complicated through the fact that these Jews represented almost the entire trade and even a part of the manpower in small and medium industries besides the business which had in part become superfluous as a direct or indirect result of the war. The elimination therefore necessarily had far-reaching economic consequences and even direct consequences for the armament industry (production for supplying the troops).
The attitude of the Jewish population was anxious -obliging from the beginning. They tried to avoid everything that might displease the German administration. That they hated the German administration and army inwardly goes without saying and cannot be surprising. However, there is no proof that Jewry as a whole or even to a greater part was implicated in acts of sabotage. Surely there were some terrorists or saboteurs among them just as among the Ukrainians. But it cannot be said that the Jews as such represented a danger to the German armed forces. The output produced by Jews who, of course, were prompted by nothing but the feeling of fear, was satisfactory to the troops and the German administration. The Jewish population remained temporarily unmolested shortly after the fighting. Only weeks, sometimes months later, specially detached formations of the order police executed a planned shooting of Jews. The action as a rule proceeded from east to west. It was done entirely in public with the use of the Ukrainian militia, and unfortunately in many instances also with members of the armed forces taking part voluntarily. The way these actions, which included men and old men, women, and children of all ages, were carried out was horrible. The great masses executed make this action more gigantic than any similar measure taken so far in the Soviet Union. So far about 150,000 to 200,000 Jews may have been executed in the part of the Ukraine belonging to the Reichskommissariat; no consideration was given to the interests of economy.

Summarizing, it can be said that the kind of solution of the Jewish problem applied in the Ukraine, which obviously was based on the ideological theories as a matter of principle, had the following results :
( a) Elimination of a part of partly superfluous eaters in the cities.
( b) Elimination of a part of the population which hated us undoubtedly.
( c) Elimination of badly needed tradesmen who were in many instances indispensable even in the interests of the armed forces.
( d) Consequences as to foreign policy-propaganda which are obvious.
( e) Bad effects on the troops which in any case get indirect contact with the executions.
( f) Brutalizing effect on the formations which carry out the execution-order police.
The export of agricultural surpluses from the Ukraine for the purpose of feeding the Reich is only possible if the internal trade in the Ukraine is reduced to a minimum. This can be attained by the following measures:
1. Elimination of unwanted consumers (Jews; the populations of the large Ukrainian towns, which, like Kiev, receive no food allocation whatsoever).
2. Reduction as far as possible of food rations allocated to the Ukrainians in other towns.
3. Reduction of food consumption by the peasant population.
It must be realized that in the Ukraine eventually only the Ukrainians can produce economic values by labor. If we shoot the Jews, let the prisoners of war perish, condemn considerable parts of the urban population to death by starvation and also lose a part of the rural population by hunger during the next year, the question remains unanswered: Who, then, is supposed to produce economic values here?
As to the scarce resource man, it is beyond doubt that neither now nor in a foreseeable time there will be enough Germans available in the German Reich. If the Ukrainian is to be made to work, we must look after his physical existence, not for sentimental motives, but out of very sober economic considerations. This also and in the first place requires, however, the creation of an orderly relation between money, prices of goods and wages.
Summary:
Population: The attitude of the Ukrainian population, despite the deterioration of their material situation in the last months, is still one of good will. In case of a surely foreseeable further deterioration of the food situation the mood can be expected to turn around.
The ethnic Germans of the Ukraine are not an element on which the administration and economy of the country can rely.
A considerable part of the Jews, who in the cities of the Reichsommissariat made up more than half of the population, have been executed. Thus the greater part of the tradesmen has been lost, whereby interests of the Wehrmacht (troops’ supply needs, lodging) have also been affected.
Living conditions, food, clothing conditions, and the health of the prisoners of war are bad; mortality is very high. We may reckon on the fact that during this winter people will perish at the rate of tens and even hundreds of thousands.
This includes forces that could have successfully been made useful for the economy of the Ukraine, including skilled workers and tradesmen .


As to the ubiquitous quotes of statements by opponents of the Nuremberg trial, they seem to come from lesser legal minds or fuss-making polemicists. Here’s the assessment of the trial by our fellow poster Walter Kaschner, a retired US lawyer with experience in European continental legal systems, from his post # 240 (9/18/01 2:34:44 am) on the thread

Any information on the Nurenberg trials?
http://pub3.ezboard.com/fskalmanforumfr ... 21&stop=40

of the old forum:
1. Should there have been any trials at all? IMHO this can only be answered in the affirmative. The atrocities committed by Hitler’s regime and his minions had to be published to the German people and to the world at large, so that thinking people could wonder and ponder (and perhaps take heed) at how incredibly fragile is the thin veneer of civilization which protects human kind from reversion to barbarism. The perpetrators had to be punished – basic concepts of justice simply would not permit them to go scott (sic) free. But the punishment could not be permitted to be meted out indiscriminately by the same sort of barbarism that accompanied the acts of which the Nazi regime was accused. Turning the accused over to the various countries in which the atrocities had been committed: Russia, Poland, Yugoslavia, Greece, Czechoslovakia, France, Britain etc.etc. would probably have accorded them the same treatment that Mussolini and Clara Petacci received at the hands of the Italian communist partisans.
And I think it is extremely important to recognize the passions existing in the mid-1940s toward the treatment to be handed out to Germany when (eventually) defeated. At Teheran, Stalin toasted the idea of simply shooting 50,000 Nazis. The British were initially of the view that the senior Nazis and generals should be summarily shot, without trial. An influential group in the US, headed by Henry Morgenthau, the Secretary of Treasury, wanted the senior German officials shot without trial, the entire SS membership exiled to some foreign island and the whole of Germany pastoralized.. At the Quebec Conference in August 1943, Roosevelt and Churchill agreed that Germany’s industrial capacities should be crushed, that it should be turned into a country primarily agricultural and pastoral, that the major war criminals were to be summarily shot, and it was proposed to get together with Stalin to draw up a list of names. The vigorous efforts of Henry Stimpson ( the US Secretary of War ), General Marshall and Justice Frankfurter led Roosevelt to change his mind, the Morgenthau plan was abandoned and under American pressure Churchill and Stalin agreed at the Moscow Conference that war criminals were to be tried and punished.

2.Were the charges appropriate? I have never questioned the legitimacy of Counts Three and Four of the Indictment, i.e. War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity. They have been criticized as ex post facto in nature, but that doctrine is designed to protect against being charged with an act which one could not know at the time of commission was criminal. No one living in a civilized nation in the mid-20th century could have been unaware that the conduct identified under those charges was criminal under the laws of every civilized nation, including Germany , at least until the Hitler regime.
As to Count 2, Crimes Against Peace (planning or waging a war of aggression), I am somewhat more troubled, for two reasons. First, because in theory it can be very difficult to determine whether a war is aggressive or defensive, and second, there was no clear precedent or predicate for making a war of aggression a criminal offense. As to the first problem, however, although the determination might well be difficult in another case, clearly it was not Poland, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark, Yugoslavia, Greece or Russia that invaded Germany. As to the 2d, there had been a long condemnation (at least since St. Augustine) of unjust wars, carried through thinkers like de Vitoria, Suarez, Grotius, Pufendorf and Vatel, and the war commenced by Germany IMHO squarely falls within that category. And while the 15 member Commission on Responsibilities of the Authors of the War established by the Paris Peace Conference in 1919, although finding that the Central Powers had launched a war of aggression, determined that this did not consist of a crime under international law, it went on to state that it should be made a penal offense in the future. Moreover, the 1928 Kellogg-Briand Treaty, to which Germany was a party, in effect outlawed war itself. As a lawyer trained in the common-law tradition, which finds its source of law in developing customs and practices, and not only in written statutes, I lean strongly toward the view that Count 2 was legitimate, particularly in light of Hitler’s long legacy of broken treaties and promises.
Count 1, Conspiracy to Commit Crimes Against Peace, gives me a great deal of trouble. The notion of conspiracy is, as I understand it, primarily an American legal concept and alien to most continental criminal jurisprudential thinking. I think it is a dangerous notion, and although undoubtedly useful in certain situations I can not see the grounds for its application in the context of international war crimes trials. But I don’t recall that anyone at Nuremberg was convicted solely on Count 1, and indeed only one solely on Counts 1 and 2 (Hess).

3. Was the procedure basically fair? I believe it was, although it was certainly not in strict accordance with criminal procedures in US courts. Compromises had to be made with the Russians and the French, who were accustomed to continental civil law procedures rather than the common law of the US and Great Britain. But in some ways (e.g. specificity of charges in the individual indictments) the continental procedures adopted were more favorable to the defense than the US procedures.
Certainly the trials were flawed, but equally certainly not fatally. I have never in my years of practice participated in a trial that I did not believe was flawed in some way or another. The gods of incompetence, confusion and simple mistake – yes and even bias and duplicity – rule in the courtroom as well as in all other realms of human endeavor. But on the whole, I think the trials were as fair, or even fairer, than could reasonably have been expected under the circumstances. One must keep in mind that Germany, and Europe as a whole, was still in chaos. And certainly the trials were infinitely fairer than the defendants would have had under the procedures applied under their legal system. Remember Roland Freisler's court?

4. Were the verdicts just? I do not think Streicher (however despicable) should have been sentenced to death; I think Doenitz should have been let off with time served; I think Hess should have been held unfit for trial and committed to a mental institution. But I have disagreed with other verdicts and sentences in other cases, which doesn’t necessarily mean they were unfair. The administration of justice is not a perfect science in any jurisdiction that I'm aware of. All in all, I can't find too much to complain about.
I also transcribe part of his post # 243 (9/22/01 1:20:20 am) on the same thread, wherein he responded to objections that renowned lawyers had severely criticized the trials as follows:
1. As you point out, Senator Taft and Justice Douglas were opposed to the Nuremberg trials. If I were arguing your side of the case, however, I would not rely on them too heavily. Taft (although I think him a man of unquestionable integrity) was a politician, not a lawyer or jurist. And Justice Douglas will, I think, in the cold light of history be judged as one of the weaker legal minds that have graced the Supreme Court over the centuries, although certainly one of the leading protagonists of liberal political correctness. (Don’t forget that the Chief US prosecutor, Robert H. Jackson, was a former Solicitor General and then Attorney General of the United States, an Associate Justice of the US Supreme Court and IMHO a far more able jurist that Justice Douglas.)

From my point of view much weightier testimony for your point of view comes from the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, Harlan F. Stone, who although not a self propagandist like Douglas, had one of the soundest judicial minds we have seen on that bench. Stone was greatly disturbed by the aggressive war charge, and wrote “That just retribution ought to reach most of the accused is plain enough, but I find great difficulty in finding a firm basis in law for punishing the heads of a state or high government officials for making aggressive war, and I wonder how some of those who preside at the trials would justify some of the acts of their own government if they were placed in the status of the accused.” See Alpheus Thomas Mason, “Harlan Fiske Stone: Pillar of the Law”, (Viking Press, 1956) p.716 fn. The same concern was held by US District Court Judge Charles Wyzanski, Jr. who, although he ripped the hide off of me as a young lawyer in an oral argument decades ago, was IMHO one of the best legal minds on the Federal bench. Also Pitman B. Potter, Secretary of the American Association of International Law. And also Judge Rahabinode Pal, High Court of Calcutta and member of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East. See Davidson, “The Trial of the Gremans” (McMillan, 1956) p. 587, fn.

That certain distinguished jurists had serious doubts, particularly about Counts One and Two, cannot be gainsaid. I have had those myself, although I’m certainly no jurist at all, but after some 50 years I lean far more to the legitimacy of Count Two than I used to, and am comforted by the fact that none of the accused was convicted on Count One alone. But the vast majority of members of the bench and bar, both in the US and as I understand it in the UK, did not oppose the trials. And to expect a unanimity of view, especially among lawyers, about an issue such as this, is as unrealistic as expecting a unanimity of view among the French as to whether Bordeaux or Burgundy produces the better wine.

And of course the fact is that in December 1946 the United Nations General Assembly UNANIMOUSLY affirmed the principles of the IMT Charter as well as its judgment.

2. As to your notion that the Tribunal’s procedures were flawed because it was not bound by formal rules of evidence and could take judicial notice of governmental documents, I can only say that however highly we in the US regard our own rules of evidence that regard is not generally shared on the Continent (at least in France, which I know quite a bit about, and in Germany, which I think I know something of) and they seem to get along pretty well without them. Don’t forget that half the members of the Court were continental lawyers, and as far as I know none of the defense lawyers were familiar with our highly technical evidentiary rules. Moreover, even in the US, in cases where a judge, rather than a jury is the trier of fact, our evidentiary rules are often ignored and the judge allowed to give the evidence whatever weight he deems it’s worthy of. And in our own practice judicial notice is customarily taken of governmental documents if prepared in the ordinary course of business, or if purporting to reflect official acts or decisions.

3. Justice Wennerstrum was not THE Presiding Judge at the NMT, he was only one of 13 Presiding Judges, all of whom had substantial experience on the bench in the US. As far as I am aware, none of the others shared his sentiments.

4. As far as I am aware, Telford Taylor’s belief in the legitimacy of the Nuremberg Trials, and specifically Count Two (Aggressive War) never faltered as you suggested. The point of his book “Nuremberg and Vietnam: An American Tragedy” was not to criticize the principles of Nuremberg, but to the contrary, to criticize the US for not adhering to them in Vietnam.
I am sure Mr. Kaschner will be glad to expand on his above quoted writing if you kindly ask him to.

Gottfriedjosef
Banned
Posts: 14
Joined: 17 Apr 2002, 21:32

#12

Post by Gottfriedjosef » 14 May 2002, 16:49

lesser legal minds or fuss-making polemicis
United States Supreme Court Justice.
United States Supreme Court Chief Justice.
Elected representatives of the United States Government.
High ranking officers in the United States Military.

"lesser", oh yeah, of course....but then again, every goy (beast) is 'lesser' to the chosen -- after all their God told them so.

By some pathological process of psychological projection, our Jewish "democracies" have now become the exact mirror image of the (largely imaginary) "Nazi" society which they pretend to hate so much. If a "Nazi" society is a society obsessed by race; in which every conceivable decision of public, national, and cultural life is dictated by some crackpot racial theory; in which genocide is routinely practised, with millions of innocent victims, in an atmosphere of general public indifference; in which grotesquely cruel and unethical medical experiments are routinely practised by quack doctors in the service of some commercial interest; in which the bodies of murdered persons are salvaged, re-sold and utilized for commercial purposes; in which might is right, and human life has no value; in which brutal and cruel wars of aggression are launched on the apparent whim of the moment, without declaration of war; in which government routinely spies upon its citizens; in which dissent is routinely crushed, books burnt, and ordinary people persecuted and imprisoned for the expression of personal opinions; in which the news media are tightly controlled and routinely censured, becoming a mere vehicle of ideological propaganda; in which the school system is perverted into a mere instrument of propaganda; in which the cultural achievements and religious traditions of thousands of years are routinely perverted, destroyed, and ridiculed; in which the infliction of suffering is a form of entertainment; in which government is by a self-appointed minority of psychotics, perverts, and criminals; then our Jewish-dominated "democracies" are the most "Nazi" societies in the history of the world.

User avatar
Roberto
Member
Posts: 4505
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 16:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

#13

Post by Roberto » 14 May 2002, 17:29

Document 386-PS, the 'Hossbach Protokoll', Hitler's supposed speech of 5 November 1938, is a certified photocopy of a microfilm copy of a re-typed 'certified true copy' prepared by an American, of a re-typed 'certified true copy' prepared by a German, of unauthenticated handwritten notes by Hossbach, of a speech by Hitler, written from memory 5 days later. This is not the worst document, but one of the best, because we know who made one of the copies. The text of 386-PS has been 'edited' (XLII 228-230).
Is that so?

Whoever wrote the above bunk obviously didn’t have too close a look at the Nuremberg documentation. If he had, he might have stumbled upon documents such as 091-PS, Rosenberg’s letter to Keitel of 28.2.1942, containing a passage that translates as follows:
It is understood, of course, that there are difficulties encountered in the feeding of such a large number of prisoners of war. Anyhow, with a certain amount of understanding for goals aimed at by German politics, dying and deterioration could have been avoided in the extent described. For instance, according to information on hand, the native population within the Soviet Union are absolutely willing to put food at the disposal of the prisoners of war. Several understanding camp commanders have successfully chosen this course. However in the majority of the cases, the camp commanders have forbidden the civilian population to put food at the disposal of the prisoners, and they have rather let them starve to death. Even on the march to the camps, the civilian population was not allowed to give the prisoners of war food. In many cases, when prisoners of war could no longer keep up on the march because of hunger and exhaustion, they were shot before the eyes of the horrified civilian population, and the corpses were left. In numerous camps, no shelter for the prisoners of war was provided at all. They lay under the open sky during rain or snow. Even tools were not made available to dig holes or caves. A systematic delousing of the prisoners of war in the camps and of the camps themselves has apparently been missed. Utterances such as these have been heard: "The more of these prisoners die, the better it is for us.
Source of quote:
http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/genocide/pow2.htm
Gottfriedjosef wrote:
lesser legal minds or fuss-making polemicis

United States Supreme Court Justice.
United States Supreme Court Chief Justice.
Elected representatives of the United States Government.
High ranking officers in the United States Military.
Once upon a time there was even a US presidential candidate who seems to have been quite a howler. Have a look:

Pat Buchanan and the Holocaust
by Jamie McCarthy
http://www.holocaust-history.org/~jamie/buchanan/
"lesser", oh yeah, of course....but then again, every goy (beast) is 'lesser' to the chosen -- after all their God told them so.
I've got news for the Aryan Savior of Western Civilization:

Neither Mr. Kaschner nor I belong to the Chosen People.

I actually think that Jews have been overemphasized as victims of the National Socialist regime, which was responsible for the violent deaths outside the scope of combat actions of far more non-Jews than Jews.
See my estimates on the thread

Why the Jews and the gas chambers?
http://thirdreichforum.com/phpBB2/viewt ... e9984ab1d0

All the more bored I am by the fact that folks whose brains seem to contain nothing other than obsession with those bad, bad "Talmudists" keep me talking about the genocide of the Jews on this forum, as though the Nazis had murdered no one else.

Here’s an interesting article that, though it contains some inaccuracies and exaggerated figures, makes some pertinent observations in regard to the context of Holocaust Denial. I bet the Savior will fervently agree with what Ward Churchill writes:

Assaults on Truth and Memory: Holocaust Denial in Context
by Ward Churchill

http://www.lbbs.org/Zmag/articles/cot96church.htm

And here’s another quote that is sure to warm the Savior’s heart, this time from a predominantly Jewish (yeach!) web site:
The Nuremberg trials were more controversial when they happened then they are today. It was a new idea and new procedures had to be established. Some were uncomfortable with the idea of trying men for starting the war when there had never been a trial like this before. Others have been bothered by the death sentence given to Julius Streicher and the light sentence given to Albert Speer. Today there are very few legal scholars who accept the technical arguments about whether the trial should have been held. Even those reputable scholars who disagree base their objections on their legal philosophy. All agree that the Tribunal took its job seriously and gave the defendants a fair trial.
Source of quote:

http://www.holocaust-history.org/short- ... berg.shtml

Gottfriedjosef
Banned
Posts: 14
Joined: 17 Apr 2002, 21:32

Sites - read and think for yourself.

#14

Post by Gottfriedjosef » 14 May 2002, 18:48

Either or whichever fits, though both could.

1.) Unlike you, I have a life and therefore no intention of spending the 24/7 here that you do. Everybody but the still-brainwashed knows exactly what you are, and I, for one, have no interest whatsoever in wading through the oceans of verbal diarrhea you produce
axiom of Bernays’ propaganda: When covering something up, don’t use plain English; stall for time; distract.
The Doors Of Perception: Why Americans Will Believe Almost Anything By Tim O'Shea http://www.thedoctorwithin.com

2.) Unlike you, I’m not a paid spy sent by one of the many Jew thought police agencies, cutting and pasting offal to bore, numb and impress the credulous with their important and neutral sounding titles – Nikshit, for instance.
Bernays learned early on that the most effective way to create credibility was by “independent third-party” endorsement. He set up “more institutes and foundations than Rockefeller and Carnegie combined.” Quietly financed by the industries whose products were being evaluated these “independent” research agencies would churn out “scientific” studies and press materials that could create any image that their handlers wanted.
And
3.) Personally, you have always and continue to nauseate and offend me, having none of the qualities constituent with decency or membership in a civilized society - honor, integrity, and honesty. However, you more than compensate in the ways historically consistent with yours, being arrogant, pushy, duplicitous, and sickeningly/calculatingly sentimental. That’s not even counting being probably the most endlessly boring person I’ve ever encountered.

I come here to POST – so that those interested, but not interested enough (YET) to buck the contemptible tactics of you and yours
Axioms of Bernays’ propaganda: Dehumanize the attacked party by labeling and name calling.
can quietly go, read and THINK FOR THEMSELVES without the necessity of Roberto - chosen expert and thought cop - telling them how to ‘interpret’ what they read.
Here is a paragraph from Berhays Propaganda:
“Those who manipulate the unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. We are governed, our minds molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. In almost every act of our lives whether in the sphere of politics or business in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. Is it they who pull the wires that control the public mind.”

In contrast here is THOMAS JEFERSON’S view on the subject:
“I know of no safe depository of the ultimate power of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise that control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not take it from them but to inform their discretion.”
I got your “poor” Jewess wrong??? Well, isn’t that nice for you – if you think I more than glance at your offal, you are even more pitiful than I had previously imagined. I respond to you ONLY for the opportunity to post sites/articles for those with an open mind, for those who feel the profound emptiness, and spiritual, and moral bankruptcy that inevitably has resulted from the Jew Empire you so perfectly represent - of deceit, money and power.

On Nuremberg - read it for yourselves and interpret it for youselves without a running commentary by the thought police:
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v12/v12p167_Webera.html

Pat Buchanan? Is he the guy who blew up the King David Hotel and killed all those Brits?...oh no, that was just an Israeli prime minister, now wasn't it? Of course contemporary American politicians are, at the best, jerks and at the worst traitors - what else could they be - having been bought body and soul.

You want lesser minds - how about filth minds:
Literal translations of the Talmud's greatest hits...be sure to have a barf bag handy:
http://abbc2.com/talmud/talmudi.htm

Here is another, no doubt lesser mind - Martin Luther:
http://abbc2.com/luther/index.htm

What the Fach - how about 500 - 800 of those lesser minds...poor fools, to not be born into this world of 24/7 Jew propaganda and so, have such very different views of the chosen.
http://abbc2.com/quotes/index.htm

To close, as another no doubt ‘lesser’ mind put it, and in putting it not only described yours, but you, personally, as well:
"The Jews could be put down very plausibly as the most unpleasant race ever heard of. As commonly encountered they lack any of the qualities that mark the civilized man: courage, dignity, incorruptibility, ease, confidence. They have vanity without pride, voluptuousness without taste, and learning without wisdom. Their fortitude, such as it is, is wasted upon puerile objects, and their charity is mainly a form of display." (Treatise on the Gods)
H. L. Mencken

User avatar
Roberto
Member
Posts: 4505
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 16:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

#15

Post by Roberto » 14 May 2002, 19:05

Thanks a lot, Mr. Mencken. A classic of hollow bigot howling that would have me :lol: if I did not feel so sorry for you, hopelessly trapped as you obviously are behind these bars (which of course exist only in your own mind):

Image

Locked

Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”