Soap

[Dan]

This is a preliminary list of the various proofs for the still widely held belief that Germans made people into soap. Please add to this list anything that I have left out.

a) A common lab recipe for soap at a German technical institute USSR Document 196

b) An affidavit by a laboratory assistant named Mazur, where the above recipe is greatly changed, USSR Document 197

c) A cake of soap presented by the Soviets at Nuremburg, USSR Document 393

d) Affidavits by two British POWs Neely and Witton, USSR Documents number 272 and 264 respectively

e) Cakes of soap refered to at the Nizkor site, which are not identified.

f) Anacdotal evidence of soap making at Stuttof.

After we get a fuller list, perhaps we can debate the data individually.

It seems that we can now eleminate "e", and are left with a, b, c, d and f.

I sympathize with Charles on his theory of "convergence of evidence". Van Pelt was the one to introduce me to the concept at the Irving trial, and Charles' recent analogy of the murder weapon, history of the suspect, finger prints of the suspect was very good. But in the case of "e" I think it fair to entirely eleminate the claim made on the Nizkor site.

[Dan]

About USSR Document 196, it is a common recipe for making soap used as a teaching method at technical schools and colleges all over the world. Here is one example of soap making in a chemistry curriculum

http://www.enc.org/resources/records/fu ... 33,00.shtm

One of thousands easily found by typing in key words such as soap making and chemistry and teaching etc..

While Charles Bunch feels this is strong evidence, this is due to his background evidently being in the Humanities, rather than technical. His reasoning is "Why was there a recipe for soap at the Danzig Anatomical Institute, if not for making human soap?" Simply reflects his lack of personal experience, as well as his noble motive of fighting those who would down-play the attrocities of totalitarian governments. I myself have made soap in school on more that one occasion using a similar recipe, and I suspect many of the others reading this have also.

As pointed out elsewhere, USSR Document 196 bears no resemblence to USSR Document 197, which is indeed a method for making soap out of human beings, evidently related to the Soviets by a lab assistant.

This is not to say that the Soviets were perjuring themselves as in the case of Katyn et. al. Perhaps the Soviet officials were simply well-meaning individuals who truly did not understand how chemistry is taught.

Therefore, if there are no objections, I propose we strike "a" from the list, which would leave us with b, c, d and f.

[Scott Smith]

While Charles Bunch feels this is strong evidence, this is due to his background evidently being in the Humanities, rather than technical.

That's why "non-Elite" educations like yours and mine do confer certain advantages.

[Charles Bunch]

About USSR Document 196, it is a common recipe for making soap used as a teaching method at technical schools and colleges all over the world. Here is one example of soap making in a chemistry curriculum

http://www.enc.org/resources/records/fu ... 33,00.shtm

Your claim that a simple soap recipe is to be found at advanced medical institutes is ridiculous. Your url discusses a science textbook for 4-12 graders.

One of thousands easily found by typing in key words such as soap making and chemistry and teaching etc..

Which says nothing about why there was such a recipe at an Anatomical Insitute.

While Charles Bunch feels this is strong evidence, this is due to his background evidently being in the Humanities, rather than technical. His reasoning is "Why was there a recipe for soap at the Danzig Anatomical Institute, if not for making human soap?"

And your background in agriculture obviously didn't train you to think very clearly. There is nothing technical about the discussion. My conclusion about the existence of a soap recipe at the Institute was that it seems the manufacture of soap was of interest. I suspect a farmer would understand the logic of that readily.

Simply reflects his lack of personal experience, as well as his noble motive of fighting those who would down-play the attrocities of totalitarian governments. I myself have made soap in school on more that one occasion using a similar recipe, and I suspect many of the others reading this have also.

But you never attended a medical institute. The idea that people spend their time repeating high school soap making experiments is ludicrous.

As pointed out elsewhere, USSR Document 196 bears no resemblence to USSR Document 197, which is indeed a method for making soap out of human beings, evidently related to the Soviets by a lab assistant.

British took the testimony, so the tired old Soviet gambit isn't suitable here. The fact that the actual method settled upon might have differed from the recipe doesn't indicate what you wish it would.

(Expected Soviet gambit snipped, while noting that Dan thinks that medical institutes teach students how to make soap!!)

Therefore, if there are no objections, I propose we strike "a" from the list, which would leave us with b, c, d and f.

And this is how a denier deals with evidence!!

You've given no reason why a soap recipe which has no business in an anatomical institue, and which is supported by testimonial evidence identifying it as the recipe given to the staff, should not be considered as evidence.

Good thing you didn't attempt law!

[Dan]

British took the testimony, so the tired old Soviet gambit isn't suitable here. The fact that the actual method settled upon might have differed from the recipe doesn't indicate what you wish it would.

(Expected Soviet gambit snipped, while noting that Dan thinks that medical institutes teach students how to make soap!!)

This is useful information. If the British took the testimony, we must take it in an entirely different light. I wonder if it was taken by the same people who took the testimony of Rudolf Hoess.

Of course it deals with USSR Document 197. In due course we must look at the document in it's entirety, as well as details such as the identification of the people who took the testimony.

You've given no reason why a soap recipe which has no business in an anatomical institue, and which is supported by testimonial evidence identifying it as the recipe given to the staff, should not be considered as evidence.

This is like saying a periodic chart has no business in an nuclear research facility.


Perhaps we should have the whole of USSR Document 196 with as many details as possible, including the circumstances surounding the presentation of the recipe to the staff. I was unaware of the general recipe having been given to the staff, I thought that the specific recipe contained in USSR Document 197 was said to have been given to the staff. I thought that the recipe of 196 was found at the institute by the Soviets, and was presented on official letterhead.

Are you not confusing the two documents?

[Charles Bunch]

British took the testimony, so the tired old Soviet gambit isn't suitable here. The fact that the actual method settled upon might have differed from the recipe doesn't indicate what you wish it would.

(Expected Soviet gambit snipped, while noting that Dan thinks that medical institutes teach students how to make soap!!)

This is useful information. If the British took the testimony, we must take it in an entirely different light. I wonder if it was taken by the same people who took the testimony of Rudolf Hoess.

Why?

Of course it deals with USSR Document 197. In due course we must look at the document in it's entirety, as well as details such as the identification of the people who took the testimony.

Why?

What other historical event have you bothered to check the identification of those who took testimony?

You've given no reason why a soap recipe which has no business in an anatomical institue, and which is supported by testimonial evidence identifying it as the recipe given to the staff, should not be considered as evidence.

This is like saying a periodic chart has no business in an nuclear research facility.

No it isn't.

Likening a recipe for soap with a standard reference tool for science is stupid.

Perhaps we should have the whole of USSR Document 196 with as many details as possible, including the circumstances surounding the presentation of the recipe to the staff. I was unaware of the general recipe having been given to the staff, I thought that the specific recipe contained in USSR Document 197 was said to have been given to the staff. I thought that the recipe of 196 was found at the institute by the Soviets, and was presented on official letterhead.

Are you not confusing the two documents?

I don't have the foggiest idea what you just said.

No one has challenged the documents but you. You've been able to offer no reason why they should be challenged.

[Dan]

Hi Charles. You write

You've given no reason why a soap recipe which has no business in an anatomical institue, and which is supported by testimonial evidence identifying it as the recipe given to the staff, should not be considered as evidence.

I believe you are confusing document 196, which is under debate at this time and document 197

The recipe in 196 was found tacked onto a piece of wood.

A recipe for soap in German, dated February 1944, was found tacked to a piece of plywood at the Danzig Anatomical Institute in Poland. The recipe calls for fat, but does not refer to human fat, the museum says.

Raul Hilberg, the dean of Holocaust historians (left), has cited the testimony of the postwar mayor of Danzig, who said 350 bodies were found at the plant, along with a caldron containing the remains of boiled human flesh. But Hilberg failed to verify the authenticity of the testimony, the museum statement says.

The testimony of two British POWs who labored at the same plant "is contradictory and inconclusive," the museum says.

What historians say they lack are bills of lading, evidence of a manufacturing plant or receipts of purchase or exchange -- documentation the Nazis carefully maintained for other noxious enterprises.


http://www.fpp.co.uk/Auschwitz/stories/soaptale3.html

If we could confine the discussion to document 196 I would be grateful

Thanks

[Charles Bunch]

Hi Charles. You write

You've given no reason why a soap recipe which has no business in an anatomical institue, and which is supported by testimonial evidence identifying it as the recipe given to the staff, should not be considered as evidence.

I believe you are confusing document 196, which is under debate at this time and document 197

The recipe in 196 was found tacked onto a piece of wood.

A recipe for soap in German, dated February 1944, was found tacked to a piece of plywood at the Danzig Anatomical Institute in Poland. The recipe calls for fat, but does not refer to human fat, the museum says.

Raul Hilberg, the dean of Holocaust historians (left), has cited the testimony of the postwar mayor of Danzig, who said 350 bodies were found at the plant, along with a caldron containing the remains of boiled human flesh. But Hilberg failed to verify the authenticity of the testimony, the museum statement says.

The testimony of two British POWs who labored at the same plant "is contradictory and inconclusive," the museum says.

What historians say they lack are bills of lading, evidence of a manufacturing plant or receipts of purchase or exchange -- documentation the Nazis carefully maintained for other noxious enterprises.


http://www.fpp.co.uk/Auschwitz/stories/soaptale3.html

If we could confine the discussion to document 196 I would be grateful

Thanks

There is only one soap recipe document.

The rest is testimonial evidence.

[Dan]

Off topic

Charles wrote

What other historical event have you bothered to check the identification of those who took testimony?

I have spent much time on the authorship of the Septuagint, and would be grateful for any insights that you have. Much rides upon the authenticity of the Isaiah translation.

[Charles Bunch]

Off topic

Charles wrote

What other historical event have you bothered to check the identification of those who took testimony?

I have spent much time on the authorship of the Septuagint, and would be grateful for any insights that you have. Much rides upon the authenticity of the Isaiah translation.

And what is the testimonial issue, and who took the testimony?[/quote]

[Dan]

Charles wrote

There is only one soap recipe document

Yes, Charles, we all know that by now, it is USSR Document 196. And you believe it constitues credible evidence in regards to the manufacture of soap made from humans.

Could you address why the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museam agrees with me that it does not constitute credible evidence of making soap from humans?

[Charles Bunch]

Charles wrote

There is only one soap recipe document

Yes, Charles, we all know that by now, it is USSR Document 196. And you believe it constitues credible evidence in regards to the manufacture of soap made from humans.

This is the second time you have mistated my position. Is it purposeful, or do you have a problem reading?

The recipe is evidence that there was an interest in making soap. Other evidence deals with the ingredients.

Could you address why the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museam agrees with me that it does not constitute credible evidence of making soap from humans.

It constitutes credible evidence of soap making. The totality of evidence deals with the use of cadavers. What is so difficult about this subject that you continue to confuse yourself over the details?

[Dan]

I see I must meditate a few hours on the concept of "convergence of evidence", at least upon how it is understood by Charles Bunch. In the mean time, those who are following this thread may be interested in what Jewish scholars have to say about the subject. Forgive my link to a site which may be objectionable to some. (Parts of the site are objectionable to me also, but there are copies of several newspaper articles which are sourced.)

Regards to those following this thread.

http://www.zundelsite.org/english/antiprop/jewish_soap/

[Charles Bunch]

I see I must meditate a few hours on the concept of "convergence of evidence", at least upon how it is understood by Charles Bunch.

However long it takes, it would behoove you to try to understand not only that, but what I write so that you don't mistate it.

In the mean time, those who are following this thread may be interested in what Jewish scholars have to say about the subject. Forgive my link to a site which may be objectionable to some. (Parts of the site are objectionable to me also, but there are copies of several newspaper articles which are sourced.)


http://www.zundelsite.org/english/antiprop/jewish_soap/

And Dan takes us to propaganda city, and takes us back to the confusion between the soap rumors from Jewish fat at Auschwitz and other locations, and the evidence for soap experimentation at Danzig. None of the articles there are about Danzig, particularly the reference to the Holocaust Museum, which Dan has distorted to make some inane claim about the soap recipe.

Readers of this thread will note how much time has been spent trying to discuss these two issues as the seperate issues they are, issues which deniers have purposely tried to conflate for years now. After pretending to be a pursuer of the truth of the matter for a short time, Dan has reverted to the mindless mixing up of episodes and the evidence for each.

[Nicklas Fredriksson]

I must say that it's indeed interesting that whenever a statement (re an object, a document or a testimony) is made about a crime comitted by an agency of the Third Reich some people immediately demand a physical copy of the same whereas the burden of proof reasonably would be on "the other side" (since sentences by internationally accepted courts have already been passed).

Odd isn't it?

Kind rgds
Nick