Hair into garments

[Charles Bunch]

The Germans frequently say "disinfection" when they really mean disinfestation. And certainly you do have to disinfest hair or clothing, including bedding for delousing; everybody born before DDT knew that.

No one has presented any evidence that harvested hair was "disinfested" with Zyklon B.

Strange how easy it is for you to accept as fact that for which you have no evidence when it just happens to offer an alternative explanation to the fact that human hair found at Auschwitz contained traces of HCN, while you spend you life denying evidence for the planned genocide of Europe's Jews.

Or the converse explanation, which is again, a good example of always seeing things through the Holo-Speculum darkly. Occam's Razor, Chuck: the simplest answer is probably the best one. The bundles of hair were disinfested. And certainly the warehouse storing it would be too.

Except that disinfecting hair with Zyklon B is not a simpler explanation than that hair was disinfected with ammonium chloride.

Furthermore, explanations without supporting evidence are trumped by those with supporting evidence.

Still thowing around terms with wild abandon, I see.

[David Thompson]

Scott -- In reference to the 1942 "human hair" letter, you said it was "doubtful": "Because 1) it is a USSR document about the Germans presented at a political trial, and 2) the original is a barely legible carbon copy, and 3) it has umlauts but uses the double ss instead of the German ß letter. It has all the earmarks of a crude forgery submitted with glee by the good folks at Nuremberg. The Soviets said-so so it must be true."

(1) The letter does not describe a criminal act, or even implicate anyone in a criminal act;

(2) Witnesses have described the haircuts at the concentration camps;

(3) Allied troops found mounds of hair when the camps were liberated.

On the scale of shocking Third Reich revelations, this doesn't even rank in the top 500. Since the letter doesn't incriminate anyone in anything, applies to live prisoners, and we know from other sources that the hair was cut and stored, why would anyone go to the trouble of forging a letter like that?

[Scott Smith]

Scott -- In reference to the 1942 "human hair" letter, you said it was "doubtful": "Because 1) it is a USSR document about the Germans presented at a political trial, and 2) the original is a barely legible carbon copy, and 3) it has umlauts but uses the double ss instead of the German ß letter. It has all the earmarks of a crude forgery submitted with glee by the good folks at Nuremberg. The Soviets said-so so it must be true."

(1) The letter does not describe a criminal act, or even implicate anyone in a criminal act;

(2) Witnesses have described the haircuts at the concentration camps;

(3) Allied troops found mounds of hair when the camps were liberated.

Since the letter doesn't incriminate anyone in anything, applies to live prisoners, and we know from other sources that the hair was cut and stored, why would anyone go to the trouble of forging a letter like that? On the scale of shocking Third Reich revelations, this doesn't even rank in the top 500.

No not a warcrime but it still makes good Greuelpropaganda, the type that gets printed in American newspapers and magazines. And if it had no relevance, then why submit it at a political trial? Obviously they were trying to make bags of hair found into a smoking-gun for something else.

[Scott Smith]

Except that disinfecting hair with Zyklon B is not a simpler explanation than that hair was disinfected with ammonium chloride.

Furthermore, explanations without supporting evidence are trumped by those with supporting evidence.

Still thowing around terms with wild abandon, I see.

We know that Zyklon-B was routinely used in the camp for disinfestation--any evidence for ammonium chloride used at the camp?

Explanations without supporting evidence are trumped by those with supporting evidence. Exactly.

Still thowing around terms with wild abandon, I see.

Do you see your own reflection (darkly, I presume) in the Holo-Speculum, Chuck?

[David Thompson]

Scott -- About the "human hair" letter, when I pointed out that there wasn't much point in forging something like that since it didn't even describe a crime, you said: "No not a warcrime but it still makes good Greuelpropaganda, the type that gets printed in American newspapers and magazines."

When there are photographs of huge mounds of hair piled in some room with shining highlights from the camera flashbulbs, who would care about or even look at the barely legible carbon copy of the letter? And any "Greuelpropaganda" effect would come from people thinking all that hair came from dead folks. The contents of the letter, which makes it clear that everybody got a haircut, seriously diminishes the "Greuelpropaganda" effect of the photos. I'd be very much surprised if the letter was ever "printed in American newspapers and magazines" of general circulation. The letter seems less doubtful to me than the claim that it was forged.

[Charles Bunch]

What kind of clothing was made from the hair? Civilian clothes? Army uniforms? Or both?

I have heard that special clothings fulfilled of hair were largely used as thermal-insulating clothings by U-Boot crews: there must be a reference to this fact reported also in Nuremberg trial. Sincerely I am not sure that this fact can be considered a warcrime.

That would be document USSR-511. I don't have an exact source in the Seuss books at the moment and nothing came up on the Yale-Avalon search engine. If true, and it seems dubious, I don't see why it would be a warcrime unless the victims were killed for their hair.

Why would anyone consider dubious what the Nazis clearly indicated in the written communications?

Because 1) it is a USSR document about the Germans presented at a political trial, and 2) the original is a barely legible carbon copy, and 3) it has umlauts but uses the double ss instead of the German ß letter. It has all the earmarks of a crude forgery submitted with glee by the good folks at Nuremberg. The Soviets said-so so it must be true.

It is not a Russian document, it is a Nazi document. Who presented it is irrelevant.

Of course it's a carbon copy! The letter went to numerous camps. The document in question is numbered copy number 13. Today one would merely print the number of copies needed and presumably Mr. Smith would consider them all originals. Just so with this document. Multiple copies of an original were made with carbon paper.

The remaining claims, as with the powerful "it's a carbon copy" argument, are cribbed from Carlos "Witless" Porter, a notorious denier whose list of declared Nuremberg forgeries seems endless.

I invite our readers, especially German readers, to check out the document and assess Porter's critiques. It is also unclear whether the carbon copy is as illegible as Porter claims, or whether it serves Porter's purposes to scan the document so poorly that he's able to claim that some of his observations on the document cannot be seen on the web!!

http://www.cwporter.com/gussr511.htm

Basically, you have a facsimile

We have one of the multiple typed originals.

or translation

It is the document, not a translation.

from a tertiary source at best,

Smith is struggling to come up with what sounds like arguments.

and of dubious origins

Mr. Smith has no knowledge of the origins of the document.

and reliability to boot (or should I say "to booties").

No reason to question the reliability has been offered.

[Charles Bunch]

Except that disinfecting hair with Zyklon B is not a simpler explanation than that hair was disinfected with ammonium chloride.

Furthermore, explanations without supporting evidence are trumped by those with supporting evidence.

Still thowing around terms with wild abandon, I see.

We know that Zyklon-B was routinely used in the camp for disinfestation--any evidence for ammonium chloride used at the camp?

We do not know that Zyklon B was used on harvested hair.

I've already posted evidence for the use of ammonium chloride on harvested hair.

Face it Smith, evidence doesn't mean anything to you. The only thing that matters is your mindless denial.

[David Thompson]

I think the only "Greuelpropaganda" we have here is Carlos Whitlock Porter's implausible attempt to discredit a not especially significant exhibit in the IMT evidence.

[Scott Smith]

Except that disinfecting hair with Zyklon B is not a simpler explanation than that hair was disinfected with ammonium chloride.

Furthermore, explanations without supporting evidence are trumped by those with supporting evidence.

Still thowing around terms with wild abandon, I see.

We know that Zyklon-B was routinely used in the camp for disinfestation--any evidence for ammonium chloride used at the camp?

We do not know that Zyklon B was used on harvested hair.

We do not know that it was not.

I've already posted evidence for the use of ammonium chloride on harvested hair.

No, you just posted more stuff from your same dubious eyewitness, Filip Mueller, which does not rule out fumigation in any case.

Face it Smith, evidence doesn't mean anything to you. The only thing that matters is your mindless denial.

No Chuckoo, your it's canonical evidence that means nothing to me. Certainly I do not have Faith in IMT scriptures.

[Scott Smith]

Scott -- About the "human hair" letter, when I pointed out that there wasn't much point in forging something like that since it didn't even describe a crime, you said: "No not a warcrime but it still makes good Greuelpropaganda, the type that gets printed in American newspapers and magazines."

When there are photographs of huge mounds of hair piled in some room with shining highlights from the camera flashbulbs, who would care about or even look at the barely legible carbon copy of the letter? And any "Greuelpropaganda" effect would come from people thinking all that hair came from dead folks. The contents of the letter, which makes it clear that everybody got a haircut, seriously diminishes the "Greuelpropaganda" effect of the photos.

No, the reverse is the case because it lends the story credibility, verisimilitude; otherwise it's just hair clippings from the barbershop. But no, those Nazis needed to kill Jews for their hair to make diabolical Unterseeboot booties.

Furthermore, it is Greuelpropaganda Lite because nothing has to be proved about the hair being from murdered Jews (let alone killed for their hair) since some of it was just ordinary barber clippings. See? It's the same with the Human Soap story since the Nazis only "experimented" with Human Soap manufacture.

I'd be very much surprised if the letter was ever "printed in American newspapers and magazines" of general circulation.

No, the letter wouldn't be printed, silly. Just the fact that a "letter" or "exhibit" was accepted into "evidence" at the Nuremberg trials is all the knowledge that is necessary to flesh out the hooplah. The less mundane detail the better. Keep it lurid. If the Nuremberg trials thought so then it must be true, thinks Joe Sixpack while waiting in line at the supermarket and hovering over the tabloids.

The letter seems less doubtful to me than the claim that it was forged.

I never said it was forged. That is Porter's claim. I said it was of dubious authenticity. It has not been proved to be genuine. That is a different kettle of fish.

To use another example, the mere fact that "Nuremberg admitted into evidence" USSR-393, the supposed jar of "experimental" Human Soap, gives laconic Greuelpropagandists license to this day to legitimately "mention" it. After all, it is "technically true," they would say. And Nuremberg said so.

You just gotta Believe. You can't Deny.

[David Thompson]

Scott -- This is one of those issues where we disagree. The pictures of mounds of human hair are worth a thousand of those letters. Furthermore, the letter completely deflates the impression made by the pictures. For that reason, there's no obvious reason for anyone to forge the letter. Furthermore, there's no shortage of other independent confirmation that the Nazis took and accumulated human hair from people in concentration camps, even without the "human hair" letter. Consequently, I think Porter's claim that the letter is a forgery is absurd.

[Hans]

Because 1) it is a USSR document about the Germans presented at a political trial, and 2) the original is a barely legible carbon copy, and 3) it has umlauts but uses the double ss instead of the German ß letter.

And why would this indicate a forgery? The fact that the German who typed the document in August 1942 used "dass" instead of "daß" is an interesting characteristic feature of him, but why forgery? As you say, it was written with Umlaute (ä, ü, ö) and I add with SS-Runen. It has a "Geheim!" (secret) rubber stamp, two signatures, a rubber stamp "Waffen-SS Kommandantur K.L. Sachsenhausen" at the bottom. There is no evidence whatsoever indicating a forgery, in my opinion.

[Hans]

Scott,

in the central construction office in Auschwitz, there was a person with the abbreviation Lm typing for instance for the civil engineers Jährling and Teichmann and the SS man Swoboda, who had the characteristic feature to begin a document with "Auschwitz, am (date)" instead of "Auschwitz, den (date)" or even justwith the date and to use "dass" instead of "daß".

[Hans]

This is a document of January 5, 1943 by Auschwitz commandant Rudolf Höss which also uses "dass" instead of "daß".

[Hans]

No, you just posted more stuff from your same dubious eyewitness, Filip Mueller,

What is dubious with Filip Müller?

By the way, I myself use "dass" instead of "daß". Is Carlos Porter suggesting I'm a forgery?!