Scott Smith wrote: Charles Bunch wrote: Scott Smith wrote: gabriel pagliarani wrote:
RACPISA wrote: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!!
Basically, you have a facsimile
We have one of the multiple typed originals.
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.