Human soap made from the fat of jews

[Nessie]

To summarise:

Every single Nazi and Jew witness who worked at a Krema: It was used to gas people with Zyklon B
Polish: We have tested what we can access and there are traces of Zyklon B. We have recovered documents from the Construction Office and they record the construction of gas chambers for a special operation involving Jewish people, that needed them to undress, mass cremation ovens and barracks to store all of their property.
German prosecutors: There is evidence to prove mass gassings at A-B and all the staff admit it happened. Motive and opportunity are established, they are all guilty.

That is stronger than the evidence to prove limited making of soap that contained an ingredient from corpses.

Omitting that the soap has been produced and the gas chambers never have might be convenient for you, but is pathetic to us!

A handy dandy reminder:

You cannot evidence, let alone prove what happened inside the AR camps, Chelmno and the A-B Kremas, if it was not gassings.

[Nessie]

HC believes in the Nuremberg soap. But they argue that this was done only on a very limited basis (at this anatomical institute).

Yes - but they take the soft (human soap) approach as you mentioned, and that the soap was jewish is merely a strawman, or low-quality hysterics by uninformed third parties. I'm demonstrating, via Shawcross the British Lead Prosecutor at Nuremberg, that human = jew (or at least, jew = a subset of human) in this context, and thus was being made at the most serious level, not hysterical third parties.

So HC can stress all they want that this was not presented as such - but it was.



As per Nuremberg IMT day 188:



There is no other goodfaith interpretation here other than Shawcross is accusing the 3R of producing soap from jews, using Soviet evidence. That means at least 2 of the Allied parties are privy to this. For HC to backtrack on this, and BA to obfuscate it (and Nessie to misunderstand it) is dishonest.

What you have posted undermines the claim about Jewish soap! The IMT claim is not sufficiently evidenced and it was wrong.

[HansHill]

What you have posted undermines the claim about Jewish soap! The IMT claim is not sufficiently evidenced and it was wrong.

Emphasis mine.

We know.

[Nessie]

What you have posted undermines the claim about Jewish soap! The IMT claim is not sufficiently evidenced and it was wrong.

Emphasis mine.

We know.

We are in agreement about soap. There is evidence of small scale production, but not necessarily from Jewish corpses, so claims about mass production from Jewish corpses are wrong.

It is a shame you cannot learn more about evidencing from that agreement.

[TlsMS93]

“There is evidence of small scale production”

Deborah Lipstadt on this subject said that the Nazis did not make any soap containing fat, whether human or not.

[Nessie]

“There is evidence of small scale production”

Deborah Lipstadt on this subject said that the Nazis did not make any soap containing fat, whether human or not.

There is a disagreement about human soap. Such disagreements are evidence that a hoax on the scale alleged by revisionists is impossible.

[TlsMS93]

There is a disagreement about human soap. Such disagreements are evidence that a hoax on the scale alleged by revisionists is impossible.

On the contrary, these rumors supported by Jewish organizations and even Allied governments make me wonder what other things the Germans were wrongly accused of.

[Nessie]

There is a disagreement about human soap. Such disagreements are evidence that a hoax on the scale alleged by revisionists is impossible.

On the contrary, these rumors supported by Jewish organizations and even Allied governments make me wonder what other things the Germans were wrongly accused of.

If only there was a reliable, proven method to determine if a rumour was true or not....

[HansHill]

Tism is correct, and thanks Nessie for the agreement. So to summarise what we have agreed upon:

- Numerous claims existing pre-Nuremberg about jews being turned into soap (Example provided, Rabbi Stephen Wise)
- Numerous claims existing post-Nuremberg about jews being turned into soap (Example provided Fred Schiefler)
- Numerous accusations presented at Nuremberg about the production of human soap
- Accusations supported by primary eye-witness testimony (Mazur) and the physical presentation of the alleged soap by the Soviets
- Specific verbalisation by the prosecution at Nuremberg that "human" is to be interpreted as "jew" in this context
- Therefore the Allies are demonstrated as capitalising on wartime hysteria, distorting eyewitness testimony and manipulating evidence to fabricate claims against the Germans - which is concerning to revisionists.

[Nessie]

Tism is correct, and thanks Nessie for the agreement. So to summarise what we have agreed upon:

- Numerous claims existing pre-Nuremberg about jews being turned into soap (Example provided, Rabbi Stephen Wise)
- Numerous claims existing post-Nuremberg about jews being turned into soap (Example provided Fred Schiefler)
- Numerous accusations presented at Nuremberg about the production of human soap
- Accusations supported by primary eye-witness testimony (Mazur) and the physical presentation of the alleged soap by the Soviets
- Specific verbalisation by the prosecution at Nuremberg that "human" is to be interpreted as "jew" in this context
- Therefore the Allies are demonstrated as capitalising on wartime hysteria, distorting eyewitness testimony and manipulating evidence to fabricate claims against the Germans - which is concerning to revisionists.

Wartime atrocity stories are to be expected. What is concerning is the number of people who are unable to work out what is atrocity and what is correct. There needs to be more education, so that people learn more about how to evidence and check evidence, to prevent them for falling for hoaxes, such as the Holocaust denial hoax.

[TlsMS93]

If only there was a reliable, proven method to determine if a rumour was true or not....

And who said there isn't? Statements must be supported by forensic evidence. Witnesses are only relevant when most of what they say can be verified. It's not enough for most people to say that something was happening in a building; when you enter it, each person says something different.

It's very easy to say that there was a gas chamber, but when you delve deeper into the facts, there's a well of insurmountable contradictions. In other words, those who claim that there was a gas chamber got theirs from rumors of atrocities that spies and fugitives from the camp spread in the Allied press, but since they didn't know the details, each person gave their own version.

The confessions of defendants are irrelevant because they were not spontaneous, as seen in the Moscow trials, where they confessed to things that were impossible to verify. We know that these trials were in Stalin's interest. The others simply wanted to shoot them for crimes that were common knowledge.

[Nessie]

If only there was a reliable, proven method to determine if a rumour was true or not....

And who said there isn't?

Revisionists reject the normal method.

Statements must be supported by forensic evidence. Witnesses are only relevant when most of what they say can be verified.

When you make statements like that, you at least show some understanding of how to determine if a rumour is true.

It's not enough for most people to say that something was happening in a building; when you enter it, each person says something different.

There is a high degree of consistency between the witnesses who worked at the AR camps, Chelmno and A-B Kremas.

It's very easy to say that there was a gas chamber, but when you delve deeper into the facts, there's a well of insurmountable contradictions. In other words, those who claim that there was a gas chamber got theirs from rumors of atrocities that spies and fugitives from the camp spread in the Allied press, but since they didn't know the details, each person gave their own version.

There are very few contradictions between those who worked at the gas chambers and saw with their own eyes what happened. They vary in details, which is to be expected, but not the overall process. Revisionists exaggerate and misrepresent the variances, as they fail to take into account all the studies and experiments that have conducted into witness memory and recall.

The confessions of defendants are irrelevant because they were not spontaneous, as seen in the Moscow trials, where they confessed to things that were impossible to verify. We know that these trials were in Stalin's interest. The others simply wanted to shoot them for crimes that were common knowledge.

What Moscow trials? The majority of death camp staff trials took place in Germany, West, East and unified. The Soviets only showed any interest in the Ukrainian staff.