I'm not at all interested in soap in the Hague, because its absence doesn't prove or disprove anything. You have taken the all too typical approach adopted by deniers and fellow travelers. You've made assertions which you haven't supported even when asked, and you've asked for evidence which, when presented, you've ignored, and you've offered new arguments which only distract, but don't prove or disprove anything.
You stated in an earlier post, regarding Spanner's testimony:
But given this was testimony given under some threat of deportation to Poland
As per the rules of the board, I've asked you to provide evidence for the claim, which you haven't done yet (and, in fact, we've since seen that Spanner wasn't wanted in Poland).
Furthermore, you asked, in the same post:
So aside from the member of the Polish resistance who Spanner used to threaten with handing over to the Gestapo and conceivably could have a grudge - did any other member of the Faculty give evidence about manufacture of human derived cleaning products
I provided the information from Witton and Neeley, which you haven't addressed.
As for you latest post, again, you ignore the evidence that exist, and propose some contradictory red herrings, arguing
1. That this is
a deliberate propaganda hoax
2.
None of the affidavits that I have seen describe anything like a normal soap making process nor does Dr Neander's accidental by-product suggestion suffice as an explanation
Let's leave aside the obvious--of course this wasn't a "normal" soap making process, because Spanner wasn't making "normal soap." This is a bit like arguing that there were no gassings in Auschwitz because the descriptions of them don't correspond to the normal protocol for gassings in American prisons. But let's look at your larger argument
According to you, this is simultaneously a deliberate effort to make up a story to demonize the Nazis, but, at the same time, the story they created actually doesn't do that? Meaning, this was supposed to be an effort by the Soviets to depict the Germans as monsters who made corpses into soap, but then, the story which you claim they contrived, which Spanner was coerced into admitting to, simply involved one individual, who primarily used corpses of executed German prisoners and sanitarium patients who may have simply died from natural causes, in order to produce a soapy by-product which was used primarily for preparing anatomical models, and some of which was used for cleaning up in the institute (oh, and
some of it
might have been sold elsewhere on the black market. Oh, and then, having created this brilliant propaganda coup,
they don't actually charge the figure involved with any crime.
so to reiterate, everybody employed in the Institute who testified spoke of the soap-making process, ranging from Spanner himself (who, at this point, had no reason to admit to making soap out of corpses--there was no evidence of coercion, and it's hardly an admission that reflects well on him) to the British POWS, who certainly were at no risk from the NKVD. In response to that testimony, you offer various contradictory, and essentially meaningless speculations. Evidence has been presented in the form of the testimony from Spanner, Wiltton, Neeley and others. If you can disprove that, please do so--the absence of a bar of soap at the Hague doesn't prove or disprove anything. As for your comments regarding the production of soap itself, this is a fairly anonymous forum. If you have the chemistry credentials to challenge Neander's assertions in some peer-reviewed journal, that would be great. At this point, though, he's made those assertions in such a medium, and, seeing as how how the soap wasn't "normal soap" but rather a sort industrial semi-soap, nothing you've said (even if true), is particularly problemeatic.
