Soap

[Marcus]

Scott,

I told you to stop with the name-calling, did I not?

/Marcus

[Scott Smith]

Scott,

I told you to stop with the name-calling, did I not?

/Marcus

Oops, after one slip I have cheerfully replaced the affectionate "Guardian of Truth" with a simple "Roberto." I shall be more careful next time.

[Marcus]

Scott,

Thank you.

/Marcus

[Roberto]

This is a preliminary list of the various proofs for the still widely held belief that Germans made people into soap.

I'd say the "widely held belief that Germans made people into soap" is a folkloristic myth that has nothing to do with the evidence, for all the evidence proves is that there were some experimental attempts to make soap from human fat at Stutthof concentration camp.

Using the same high standards of Nuremberg evidence, the alleged witnesses say they were forced to use this soap for themselves.

Unsubstantiated wishful thinking, unless Smith can provide evidence that the witnesses made statements against better knowledge due to coercion of for some other reason.

the articles I gave above, which the Roberto has refused to to address, give additional examples of Soal Libel.

Well, the only ones I care about are those that criminal justice and/or historiography concerned themselves with.

Folkloristic myths interest me as little as whatever "Revisionists" have got to say.

If the Nazis made experimental Human Soap then they made Human Soap. Period.

Well, then evidence shows they did so on at least one occasion.

In the context of what else they did, I would call that a piss in the ocean.

[Scott Smith]

Using the same high standards of Nuremberg evidence, the alleged witnesses say they were forced to use this soap for themselves.

Unsubstantiated wishful thinking, unless Smith can provide evidence that the witnesses made statements against better knowledge due to coercion of for some other reason.

So the witnesses are reliable when they said that they made soap but not that they used it?

If the Nazis made experimental Human Soap then they made Human Soap. Period.

Well, then evidence shows they did so on at least one occasion.

What evidence? We don't have their affidavits or know how they were obtained. Smirnov just says they are there in the Documents volume. But that doesn't seem to have been published with the Blue books.

[Roberto]

Using the same high standards of Nuremberg evidence, the alleged witnesses say they were forced to use this soap for themselves.

Unsubstantiated wishful thinking, unless Smith can provide evidence that the witnesses made statements against better knowledge due to coercion of for some other reason.

So the witnesses are reliable when they said that they made soap but not that they used it?

What is that supposed to mean?

Mazur stated the following:

I boiled the soap out of the bodies of women and men. The process of boiling alone took several days -- from 3 to 7. During two manufacturing processes, in which I directly participated, more than 25 kilograms of soap were produced. The amount of human fat necessary for these two processes was 70 to 80 kilograms collected from some 40 bodies. The finished soap then went to Professor Spanner, who kept it personally. The work for the production of soap from human bodies has, as far as I know, also interested Hitler's Government. The Anatomic Institute was visited by the Minister of Education, Rust; the Reichsgesundheitsfuhrer, Doctor Conti; the Gauleiter of Danzig, Albert Forster; as well as professors from other medical institutes. I used this human soap for my personal needs, for toilet and for laundering. For myself I took 4 kilograms of this soap.

Source of quote:

http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/camps/ftp ... of/soap.01

Emphasis is mine.

If the Nazis made experimental Human Soap then they made Human Soap. Period.

Well, then evidence shows they did so on at least one occasion.

What evidence? We don't have their affidavits

If so, this wouldn’t mean they didn’t exist, would it?

Smith obviously knows more about them than I do:

Anyway, this skeptic sees little more that can be done without looking at those affidavits in question: USSR-197 (Mazur), USSR-272 (Neely), and USSR-264 (Witton), not to mention a look at the Evil Professor Spanner and his fate.

http://www.thirdreichforum.com/phpBB2/p ... f4a73e761f

And the IMT obviously based the often-quoted sentence in its judgement thereon.

or know how they were obtained.

I'd say it's for the "skeptics" to prove they were obtained by unlawful means, if that is their contention.

Smirnov just says they are there in the Documents volume. But that doesn't seem to have been published with the Blue books.

If so, this wouldn't mean it doesn't exist, would it?

The situation we have here is the following:

i) The IMT reached a conclusion on the basis of what, if not invalidated by substantial fallacies, is sufficient evidence by acknowledged standards of criminal justice.

ii) Smith is contending that said evidence is fallacious and/or was incorrectly assessed.

iii) It is therefore up to Smith to substantiate his contentions.

In other words, I’m looking forward to Smith’s demonstration that Mazur, Neely and Witton were out of their minds or told a big fat lie.

What I would at least like to see is something like my demonstration that Nussbaum's assertion of being the "little ghetto boy" is somewhat dubious.

Let's see what Smith can come up with.

[Scott Smith]

I'd say it's for the "skeptics" to prove they were obtained by unlawful means, if that is their contention.

Hmmm, on another thread you wanted the text of the testimony of the witnesses and perpetrators who spoke of diesel murder-vans at Krasnodar/Kharkov. Unfortunately, although the testimony was given in open court in that case, not transcripts but only snippets were published (at least in English).

Here we have affidavits with IMT document numbers, but they too seem not to have been published. We don't know what circumstances this hearsay was arrived at, whether the witnesses were cross-examined, what they said in toto, how, and to whom. For all we know Smirnov just pulled them out of his briefcase.

Chuck is a Believer in Soap Libel. I'd say he should look for the documents in question. And then we can start by looking at the text itself.

[Roberto]

I'd say it's for the "skeptics" to prove they were obtained by unlawful means, if that is their contention.

Hmmm, on another thread you wanted the text of the testimony of the witnesses and perpetrators who spoke of diesel murder-vans at Krasnodar/Kharkov. Unfortunately, although the testimony was given in open court in that case, not transcripts but only snippets were published (at least in English).

Which means that Smith can't tell us anything about what is wrong with the testimonies in question let alone demonstrate that they were obtained by unlawful means.

Bad for him.

Here we have affidavits with IMT document numbers, but they too seem not to have been published.

Which means ...

See above.

We don't know what circumstances this hearsay was arrived at, whether the witnesses were cross-examined, what they said in toto, how, and to whom. For all we know Smirnov just pulled them out of his briefcase.

You don't get the picture, Smith.

The burden of proof that the evidence was not obtained in a proper fashion is on you.

What "we" don't know is what you will have to find out, if you want to make your point.

Chuck is a Believer in Soap Libel. I'd say he should look for the documents in question. And then we can start by looking at the text itself.

No, my dear Sir.

We have a judgement here based on procedures that on the whole can be considered fair and defendant-friendly, with a professional assessment of the evidence. The defense was entitled to cross-examine witnesses and to challenge the authenticity of written documents such as sworn affidavits.

Which means that it is up to whoever contends there were fallacies in the evidence or the assessment thereof to substantiate such claims.

So don't try to run away from what is your encumbrance, my friend.

Show us why Mazur's statements are as doubtful as, say, your friend Nussbaum's assertion of being a person on a famous photograph.

[Charles Bunch]

I'd say it's for the "skeptics" to prove they were obtained by unlawful means, if that is their contention.

Here we have affidavits with IMT document numbers, but they too seem not to have been published. We don't know what circumstances this hearsay was arrived at,

The evidence is not hearsay.

whether the witnesses were cross-examined,

Irrelevant.

We're talking about history, not a trial. Historians have the advantage of being able to assess, and if necessary re-assess, evidence over many years. Nothing has turned up to cast any doubt on the documents in question, which are evidence supporting the experimentation with soap making at the Danzig Institute.

Chuck is a Believer in Soap Libel.

Chuck believes he has shown your contention, and Dan's, that there is no evidence for the making of soap to be nonsense.

Three eyewitness testimonies and a recipe for soap, corroborative of each other, are a strong indicator of the likely truth of the charge. Hand waving, and the standard deliberate confusion between courts/legal procedures and history offer further examples of the techniques of denial, but not much else.

[Scott Smith]

I'd say it's for the "skeptics" to prove they were obtained by unlawful means, if that is their contention.

I didn't say they were unlawful. I said they were dubious and unbelievable, unless it is more miraculous that the Nazis did NOT make Human Soap.

Hmmm, on another thread you wanted the text of the testimony of the witnesses and perpetrators who spoke of diesel murder-vans at Krasnodar/Kharkov. Unfortunately, although the testimony was given in open court in that case, not transcripts but only snippets were published (at least in English).

Which means that Smith can't tell us anything about what is wrong with the testimonies in question let alone demonstrate that they were obtained by unlawful means.

I cannot read a closed book! And I'm not finding any evidence to support Smirnov's claims.

We don't know what circumstances this hearsay was arrived at, whether the witnesses were cross-examined, what they said in toto, how, and to whom. For all we know Smirnov just pulled them out of his briefcase.

You don't get the picture, Smith.

The burden of proof that the evidence was not obtained in a proper fashion is on you.

What "we" don't know is what you will have to find out, if you want to make your point.

No, you have no evidence. You have not made your case! All you can do is rely on the authority of the IMT, which doesn't count for shit for a critical historian because a critical historian must look at evidence not authority. It is their claim, not mine.

Show us why Mazur's statements are as doubtful as, say, your friend Nussbaum's assertion of being a person on a famous photograph.

I did. The testimony is unavailable unless somebody can find the volume referred to. Until then, it might as well be fantasy. It is nothing more than Comrade-Colonel Smirnov's assertion, and he also said--the same day as the Soap Libel--that victims were *electrocuted* at Treblinka. Perhaps it is your burden to disprove that claim, if you disagree.

[Smert-Fashistam]

I had been in russian museum of war in Brest Castle in what was formerly western USSR and now I believe is Latvia when I was young, and dispays there shown actual soap made of humans as well as handbags for women made out of human skin and that was not counterfiet

[Scott Smith]

I had been in russian museum of war in Brest Castle in what was formerly western USSR and now I believe is Latvia when I was young, and dispays there shown actual soap made of humans as well as handbags for women made out of human skin and that was not counterfiet

How do you know it was not counterfeit?

[Roberto]

I'd say it's for the "skeptics" to prove they were obtained by unlawful means, if that is their contention.

I didn't say they were unlawful. I said they were dubious and unbelievable, unless it is more miraculous that the Nazis did NOT make Human Soap.

Very feeble.

Witnesses did not necessarily lie because you consider their accounts hard to believe, let alone because they don't fit into your ideological bubble.

Shit happens, you know.

Strange things are bound to happen in the minds of people operating a system of exploitation and mass murder where even the victims' dead bodies are taken advantage off (gold teeth, hair, ashes etc.).

I don't see why, in such a realm of madness, one or the other madman should not have tried something like manufacturing soap from human fat.
Nothing that I would consider spectacular.

I cannot read a closed book!

If the book is closed, shut up until it is opened.

And I'm not finding any evidence to support Smirnov's claims.

It's not "Smirnov's claims", but the depositions of Mazur, Neely and Witton.

Find them if you can and show us what you think is wrong with them

Or drop the issue.

No, you have no evidence. you have not made your case.

Cheese, my dear boy.

I have the IMT's judgement, which unless otherwise demonstrated I'm entitled to assume was based on solid evidence.

All you can do is rely on the authority of the IMT which doesn't count for shit for a historian because a historian must look at evidence not authority.

Correction: Where it reads

"doesn't count for shit for a historian"

it should read

"doesn't count for a shit historian" (= a "Revisionist")"

For real historians the findings of criminal justice count a lot. They are not "authority", but the result of a professional assessment of evidence.

Show us why Mazur's statements are as doubtful as, say, your friend Nussbaum's assertion of being a person on a famous photograph.

I did.

No, you did not.

The testimony is unavailable unless somebody can find the volume referred to.

If excerpts thereof can be found online, it can't be that unavailable.

Besides, the availability of it is your problem.

Until then, it might as well be fantasy.

"Might as well" is crap, unless Smith can demonstrate that the IMT relied on "fantasy".

It is nothing more than Comrade-Colonel Smirnov's assertion,

He submitted written affidavits, didn't he?

Did anyone at the trial challenge the authenticity or the contents thereof?

The defendants had defense attorneys entitled to do so, for all I know.

and he also said--the same day of the Soap Libel--that the victims were *electrocuted* at Treblinka. Perhaps it is your burden to disprove that claim, if you disagree..

I would have no trouble doing that on hand of more accurate posterior assessments like the 1946 report by the Central Commission for the Investigation of German Crimes in Poland, which with access to insider testimonials overruled the previous assessments of outside observers who
could but guess, on the basis of rumors and far-away observation, how people were being done to death at Treblinka.

If Smith can find evidence similarly showing the statements of Mazur, Neely and Witton to be dead wrong, I'll be satisfied.

[Dan]

I had been in russian museum of war in Brest Castle in what was formerly western USSR and now I believe is Latvia when I was young, and dispays there shown actual soap made of humans as well as handbags for women made out of human skin and that was not counterfiet

Hi Smert. Could you please contact the museum to see if the soap is still there? With your command of the language it should be easy for you.

I think you will find that the soap is no longer there. All the tests done so far have show the soap to be fake. The Nizkor site claims that there is soap on display, but I think that is old information that hasn't been corrected yet. At least the Nizkor site doesn't tell where the soap is.

Regards.

[Roberto]

The Nizkor site claims that there is soap on display, but I think that is old information that hasn't been corrected yet. At least the Nizkor site doesn't tell where the soap is.

Where do they claim that?

"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

Emphasis is mine.