You have just provided ”trbooks” [”(I'm researching for a book)”] information on Auschwitz SS personnel, and now you provide this thread with some excerpts on the Soap issue.
(Roberto has done the same later on - Wed Oct 30, 2002 1:48 pm – from some Holocaust History sites.)
This thread concerns Hearsay Evidence and its use in juridical proceedings and Real History (the Capital variety).
It is a continuation of the closed thread Mengele dumps kids into fire (continuation), that reached 9 sides.
Here is a quote from side 9:
We looked at the evidence for this case-study in Believer mythology and it was little more than hearsay--the evidence that "existed" anyway--one affidavit from Mazur supplied by the Soviets and a picture of "Human Soap" presented by the Soviets as exhibit USSR-393, not subjected to any testing whatever!
As far as I remember, there were three affidavits provided independently of each other, two of them made before British and not Soviet criminal justice authorities. All three coincided in the essential details, and none of them was "hearsay", because every witness spoke from personal experience.
The prodigious memorial capacity of Roberto is probably right, as it usually is.
But he has earlier stated his judgement of the Soap issue : it is a “piss in the ocean”, in a “realm of madness”. He can’t find any interest even to remember it very “far”, it seems.
Mr Mills is less “pissed” at the Soap issue than Roberto, but has on the other hand recommended it to a wanker’s tissue in the bathroom, where it belongs – or something like that.
It seems to have little historical interest, in other words. Folklore for the rabble-readers.
But folklore is also history. Hearsay is history-hearing and –saying. The world of myth and primal history is not easily debunched. It has its advocates.
When I read your excerpts I have a view of the world of Frankenstein – beheaded corpses arriving from hideous quarters ( dungeons of torture and hills of gallows!!) in coffins by cars with red crosses on them, in the midst of nightly thunder and lightning.
But an anatomical institute has a sort of legitimacy outside the realm of madness, too? The going-on’s are not necessarily madness and necrophily?
Can the English speaking prisoners of war at such a place during a war, seeing the world of Frankenstein before their eyes daily, provide “independent” testimony?
Did they remember the Greuel folklore concerning the German Huns during WW1?
Were they educated physicians, in agreement with the scientific legitimacy of the proceedings at such a place? Were they conversant with the “why” of an “anatomical institute”?
Mr Bunch wrote:
A laboratory assistant gave detailed testimony about the making of human soap.
Two British POWs corroborated the activities.
Did they partake in the soap experimentations personally? Follow the way from corpse to soap? See every link in the “procedures”?
"Owing to the preservative mixture in which they were stored, this tissue came away from the bones very easily. The tissue was then put into a boiler about the size of a small kitchen table.... After boiling the liquid it was put into white trays about twice the size of a sheet of foolscap and about 3 centimeters deep."-These were the basins which I have already shown the Tribunal-"Approximately 3 to 4 trayfuls per day were obtained from the machine."
“This witness”..(Witton?)..” himself did not witness the application of the soap…”
But he knew it was soap?
Did ANY witness witness the “application of the soap”?
The witness describing the following machine for the manufacture of soap – i.e., not the same as the above?(see emphasis) – did apparently see the application…
"A machine for the manufacture of soap was completed some time in March or April 1944. The British prisoners of war had constructed the building in which it was housed in June 1942. The machine itself was installed by a civilian firm from Danzig by the name of AJRD. It consisted, as far as I remember, of an electrically heated tank in which bones of the corpses were mixed with some acid and melted down.”
[(My emphasis.)It is easy to forget such a "machine", isn’t it? In a world of madness!]
"I cannot estimate the quantity produced, but I saw it used by Danzigers in cleaning tables in the dissecting rooms. They all told me it was excellent soap for this purpose."
The proof of the Soap is in the cleaning. He believed what he saw. Did the “Danzigers” see what he saw? And believed what he saw? The same Soap? Cleaning tables?
[You are reminded of the three polish/ukrainian girls working at the SS-mess at Treblinka – going home to their families on holidays!! (Sereny: Into that darkness”, s. 166) Just cooking, right?]
“The British prisoners of war” mentioned as building constructors, were they the same that provided the affidavits?
Finally, since both men worked in the Danzig Institute, their statements are not "hearsay."
(From Roberto's posting, above).
So they must have known everything from personal experience?
The date given for the “completion” of the machine(March and April 1944) is a bit puzzling. Did the engineers of a civilian firm in German Danzig occupy themselves with such “experiments”, with Soviet troops well into Poland?
Tables must be cleaned? Soap produced?
Must we postulate a “world of madness”? Or was the “machine” meant for other “manufactures”?
Is this “machine” extant?
Now I will perhaps be adviced to go to Dantzig and look for myself (by those showing this forum at its best) if I’m all that interested.
That gets us to a more interesting question -- why would affidavits from liberated British POWs have the same credibility problems as the Katyn affidavits taken from Soviet functionaries and indefinitely detained German captives in Stalinist Russia facing potential war crimes charges?
Why DID they have the same credibility problems as the Katyn affidavits? Were soap making experiments considered a “piss in the ocean” already then? The charge was laid to Mazur, but not brought to trial?
As has already been pointed out several times above, the IMT did not "uphold" or "confirm" the soap allegations that these revisionists are talking about. Nor does it really matter whether or not the Nazis actually made human soap -- it does not affect, in any way whatsoever, the facts of the Holocaust.
Why does it not matter? Why does it not “affect, in any way whatsoever, the facts of the Holocaust”?
Why must a "realm of madness" be postulated? Why is folklore so valuable, when we have the "facts"?