• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged General Holocaust denial discussion thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dogzilla said:
I consider it quite amusing that Team holocaust is unable to identify even the most obvious prevaricators without our help and only when the lies are so incredibly obvious that even a retarded toddler would doubt them will they acknowledge that their feisty little hero with a remarkable will to survive is full of diamonds. Of course, they will do nothing to stop these liars from continuing to peddling their wares.
Click to expand...

Thanks for proving my point.

Edit: Before I forget it again. Can anyone recommend a good book on the Ahnenerbe? Wirth seems to have been an interesting but obnoxious fellow.
 
Last edited:
Clayton Moore said:
Nick Terry should do it to show his integrity as a Holocaust scholar.
Click to expand...

You should do it to prove the vast conspiracy to hide any contradictions in the Holocaust narrative. This like so many before it is a golden opportunity to actually do something useful.

Again you duck the chance to make a difference. Why is that?
 
Moss said:
Thanks for proving my point.

Edit: Before I forget it again. Can anyone recommend a good book on the Ahnenerbe? Wirth seems to have been an interesting but obnoxious fellow.
Click to expand...
Serviceable is Heather Pringle, The Master Plan: Himmler's Scholars and the Holocaust. I thought Longerich's material was good, but it did whet the appetite, eh? Nick probably knows of something better even than Pringle . . .

Edit: The quotation I posted earlier on "racial souls" following the extermination of the Jews, Bruno Beger's note to Himmler, I got from either from Pringle's book or from Benno Muller-Hill, Murderous science: elimination by scientific selection of Jews, Gypsies, and others in Germany, 1933-1945, which is no better than ok on its topic. The episode is covered IIRC in both books.
 
Last edited:
LemmyCaution said:
No, that is not the case, nor did MG1962 even imply that Joachim made that argument. MG1962 spoke for himself. Here is what Joachim himself has to say on the matter:
You really need to be more careful in your reading and with the accusations you toss around.
Click to expand...

However Lemmy (And I am happily corrected if wrong) weren't there some samples of 'human soap' presented during the Nuremberg trials?
 
Dogzilla said:
I consider it quite amusing that Team holocaust is unable to identify even the most obvious prevaricators without our help and only when the lies are so incredibly obvious that even a retarded toddler would doubt them will they acknowledge that their feisty little hero with a remarkable will to survive is full of diamonds.
Click to expand...

It may come as a shock to you, but there is little reason why Zisblatt would have come to many people's attention. Most people haven't seen the film she was in; I haven't, and still haven't. So that's strike one.

Strike two is the fact that the memoir was self-published and isn't even on sale in the UK (search amazon.co.uk if you don't believe me; the only results are the movie and some bilious self-help manual from America which apparently mentions her).

Strike three is the fact that most people don't stalk Holocaust survivors or look up what they are doing, and won't notice what they are doing on the other side of the world, since that is reported at best in local newspapers.

Strike four is the fact that most people don't pay any attention to what Holocaust deniers are saying. Not even the few people who pay some attention to deniers necessarily read every single site.

As a result, I didn't hear about Zisblatt until a denier brought up her story on RODOH in January 2009. The denier was working off a judicial-inc.biz page, and judicial-inc.biz is at the extreme end of denier looniness. It's not a place I normally bother with. Interestingly, the first person to respond to the OP then was Joachim Neander, who said the following:

The link to I.Z.'s homepage apparently doesn't work. I would have liked to learn more about her from herself (and to check it with other sources).

At any rate, what Mrs. Cohen wrote in the Miami Herald about Mrs. Zisblatt's Auschwitz diamond experience doesn't seem very probable, taking into account what we've learned about the toilet facilities, the total lack of private life, and the serious shortage of water at Auschwitz-Birkenau from innumerable other survivors and from physical evidence - the toilet block of the women's camp still does exist and is open to visitors. And it is still more improbable that Mrs. Zisblatt was able to retrieve her diamonds (what size, btw?) during a 2 months' death march.

A lot of people who went through a traumatizing experience tell strange and embellished stories to impress those who were not there. Did you ever listen to stories told by war veterans? And if you felt that they grossly exaggerated, invented things, etc. - did it make you believe that the war about which they told did not take place at all?
Click to expand...

Thus the very first reaction to a summary of the story from a website citing a newspaper article was, '********'.

The thread unfolded as usual, with various chimps screeching, and Joachim reiterating his disbelief. I commented only on a particularly inane attempt to claim that a denier had been censored, and then the OP came up with the following gem:

I've arrived at the revelation that anti-Semitism is a literary genre as well as a psychosis.
Click to expand...

an insight so marvellous that I treasure its inadvertent honesty.

The thread didn't get very far - four pages - because there was nothing much to say after Joachim nailed it in the second post. The rest was just empty blether from one of the more obnoxious twerps I have encountered on the internet, 'Peter Gast' aka 'shyster'.

The chimp coterie on RODOH later excelled itself with a thread so vile that it has gone down in folk legend, entitled 'Of Jews and Scatology' - this was one of the relatively few times that RODOH chimps opted to peddle the Zisblatt gambit. Indeed, Zisblatt has been mentioned on this thread almost as often as she has come up in three years at RODOH (and 1 in 8 of those hits were from people fooling around trying to create the most nested replies allowed by the forum software).

A year after the first mention of Zisblatt on RODOH, Joachim Neander published his detailed criticism of her memoir. For that entire time I don't think a single person believed the story.

Of course, they will do nothing to stop these liars from continuing to peddling their wares.
Click to expand...

"These liars"? A Freudian slip there, Dogzilla? Surely you were talking about only one fantasist, Irene Zisblatt, and yet now this one person has multiplied?

I'm curious, though. Your new definition of civic virtue appears to be what someone does to prevent a fantasist from selling books. In which case: what are you doing about it? I'd love to know what you'd do which wouldn't seem like the behaviour of a crank or a crazed stalker.
 
MG1962 said:
You should do it to prove the vast conspiracy to hide any contradictions in the Holocaust narrative. This like so many before it is a golden opportunity to actually do something useful.

Again you duck the chance to make a difference. Why is that?
Click to expand...

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore View Post
Nick Terry should do it to show his integrity as a Holocaust scholar.
Click to expand...

Team Holocaust enabled the LIAR Zisblatt to poison the minds of children and adults with Holocaust lies by not informing on her.

It is up to Team Holocaust to retract those lies and explain why each lie told by Zisblatt was indeed a lie.

A Holocaust scholar should be able to perform this task much better than a PhibPac Vet and former Systems Programmer.
 
Dogzilla said:
I didn't know Alperovitz's thesis is that there's evidence that the United States may have tinkered with atomic energy on a limited scale or perhaps dropped a few tiny experimental nuclear weapons on Japan but the rumor about massive destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki with atomic bombs were thoroughly investigated after the war and found to be without merit. I guess I misunderstood.

Are you getting analogy advice from AntPogo?
Click to expand...

There's no analogy of the kind you are suggesting.

Joachim Neander wrote an article about the Danzig Anatomy Institute, something which was known since 1946 at Nuremberg. Your stupid post implied that it was strange for someone to revisit a subject which is already 'known'. In fact, as is blindlingly obvious, it's hardly strange to revisit known events and explore them using new sources and bearing in mind how they have been represented in the intervening years.

Alperovitz wasn't concerned with proving or disproving the detonation of nuclear weapons, he was concerned with exploring the diplomatic and strategic context of US-Soviet relations and how this affected the decision to drop the A-bomb. That gave him the title of his book, Atomic Diplomacy. Since Alperovitz's book, perceptions of the dropping of the A-bomb have changed; the meanings placed on it and the arguments over it have shifted several times. One school, exemplified by Alperovitz, implies that the real purpose of dropping the A-bomb was to impress Stalin; another queries whether it was necessary to drop the bomb to defeat Japan; still more people think that it was necessary and doing so saved hundreds of thousands of lives.

Similarly, the Danzig Anatomy Institute episode hasn't changed in its essence. Joachim Neander established that byproducts from corpses were used as cleaning materials in the DAI, confirming that 'human soap' was indeed made. But his interpretation shows that this was not a deliberate act with any wider implications. It certainly wasn't an act of "Nazi policy".

The rest of his work deals with the resonance of the incident, and how it was conflated with wartime rumours of 'Jewish soap' to become a persistent legend. The very fact that this legend still circulates 30 years after Lipstadt's remarks quoted in the press, and decades after other reiterations and statements, is worthy of academic study and research. So your incredulity is actually about as idiotic as asking why did Michael Hogan publish a book in 1996 entitled 'Hiroshima in History and Memory', because surely everyone knows the atom bomb was dropped. Yeah, they do, but the meanings imposed on that fact vary wildly. That's the point of looking at things like collective memory, which has been a topic of academic research for about 90 years now...
 
MG1962 said:
However Lemmy (And I am happily corrected if wrong) weren't there some samples of 'human soap' presented during the Nuremberg trials?
Click to expand...
Yes, indeed, soap was included in the proceedings at Nuremberg. I can't recall if samples were presented - there was lurid testimony from Mazur, of Spanner's Danzig lab, claiming that Spanner was directing that soap be manufactured from human fat. A recipe for soap was presented as an exhibit - my recollection is that the recipe does not mention human fat. My understanding is also that later analysis (by USHMM I think) showed no human fat in samples of the purported soap.

The point I was making in replying to Dogzilla was that Neander's views on the soap at Danzig aren't the "conventional" ones and aren't necessarily yours. I haven't studied "Jewish soap" in depth, so I will post three summary statements from Neander, who has:
Rumors that the Germans were boiling their Jewish victims to soap began to circulate in occupied Poland already at the turn of 1940, spread until the summer of 1942 across whole German controlled Europe and, in the autumn of 1942, to Africa, Asia, Australia, and America. Presented as a “fact,” it became a stock phrase in Soviet propaganda. On liberation, however, at none of the places mentioned in the rumors as sites of soap-making even the slightest trace was found, and not a single German document among the millions of pages captured by the Allies and the Red Army pointed to such a production or, at least, to preparations for it.

It was, therefore, a godsend for the Soviets when, at the turn of May 1945, “human soap” was discovered on the premises of the Danzig Anatomic Institute. The Soviet NKVD and its Polish counterpart, UBP (Bureau of Public Security), were firmly convinced that they, finally, held in their hands the “proof” that “Nazi human soap” had not been a wartime rumor, but dire reality. The importance of this “discovery” for Soviet propaganda as well as for the fledgling Polish government may be seen from the fact that the Danzig Anatomic Institute was chosen as the first “case” to be investigated by the Main Commission—not Auschwitz, and not Majdanek—and that “human soap” from Danzig was presented by the Soviet prosecution at Nuremberg as a prime example of German crimes against humanity.

Among the members of the Main Commission there was not a single individual with at least a basic knowledge of soap-making or the things done in an anatomic research laboratory. This held also for the investigation committees that followed, up to the Institute of National Remembrance, the Main Commission’s successor, which took up the matter again in the beginning of the 2000s. With very few exceptions from the last years,[5] the whole discussion about the Danzig soap has revolved around statements given and papers written by individuals with no expertise in the field of the issue about which they expressed their views. Shallcross and her book are in good company.

Scholars: No “Holocaust Soap” Made at Spanner’s Laboratory


On the badly devastated premises of the Medical Academy—the liberators had flung books, papers, bones, skulls, and teaching material around and into the courtyard and converted part of the building into a horse stable—the members of the Commission, for the first time in their lives, were confronted with the interior of an anatomic institute, a horrifying sight also for students of medicine even under regular, peacetime conditions, causing some of them, shocked, to abandon medicine and to choose another subject. Small wonder that Commission member Nałkowska, a sensitive personality, was in a state of heightened agitation, which colored her perception and certainly influenced her writing.

Rumors had circulated within the Medical Academy since the spring of 1944 to the effect that in the “maceratorium,” a small building in the courtyard, shrouded in mystery, soap was made from human body parts. These rumors, indeed, were not baseless. The building (which still exists and is used as a storeroom for housekeeping) was Spanner’s research laboratory, where he and his closest collaborators made organ and skeleton preparations by “maceration,” i.e. treating specially prepared body parts with a watery solution of sodium hydroxide in an autoclave at about 110 degrees (45 centigrade) for a certain period of time, on the average three to five days. It is quite normal that such a laboratory is off limits to unauthorized persons, a fact that by no means points to a secret, “criminal” activity, as imputed by the Main Commission.

The sodium hydroxide dissolves all organic tissue, except bones, cartilage, and those parts of an inner organ that were previously fixed with a corrosion-proof synthetic resin. In this process, the fat contents of the body parts yield soap, which at the end of the maceration process and after cooling down floats to the surface, together with the non-saponificated corpse fat. After some refining (and, probably, re-boiling with NaOH), this “maceration grease”—under normal circumstances destroyed together with other preparation waste—was used in the last months of the war for cleaning purposes within the institute as ersatz for real soap that was difficult or not at all to get. Small amounts of “refined human soap” were also used for the conservation of skeleton preparations, as a substitute for chemicals no more available. There is no reason to call the research laboratory a “soap factory,” or even to impute that its main purpose was making soap from corpses. Who would call a steelworks where the Thomas process is used, a “fertilizer factory,” although a by-product containing phosphorous can be used as fertilizer?

The members of the Main Commission took at face value the strange stories told by a witness from hearsay, a braggart, and by a former laboratory assistant, characterized by U.S. journalists, who interviewed him some time later, as “half-wit” or “half crazy.” Ignorant of its real function, they saw in the maceratorium a “soap factory,” at least an experimental one. They had neither the time nor the qualification for a thorough investigation, nor were they interested in it. The Main Commission was a political body; its task was documenting German war crimes. At the Danzig Anatomic Institute its members saw what they wanted to see, and they heard from the witnesses what they wanted to hear.Their view became the standard narrative. Provided with the hallmark of authenticity at Nuremberg, it was uncritically accepted by the mainstream and so “made history.”
Click to expand...

Also:
At Spanner's institute, organ preparations were made from dead bodies which he received from the authorities, in the period of time in question from the prisons of Danzig, Elbing, and Königsberg, and some from an insane asylum SE of Danzig. None from a concentration camp, no Jews. Spanner used a method of preparation with NaOH that, at that time, was quite new. NaOH reacts with the fat contained in the body parts yielding soap. Under normal conditions, this is thrown away together with other waste originating in this process of preparation. In the last months of the war, it was gathered and, after some refining and conditioning, used within the institute for cleaning floors and section tables. Somehow tasteless, but no crime. So stated by the British who, in 1946/47, investigated in this matter and dropped the accusations against Spanner.

The Poles and Russians, strongly convinced that the Germans in wartime had boiled soap from the bodies of their victims, interpreted Spanner's laboratory as a "soap factory," led by an anti-German bias and misled by incompetence. They found a former lab assistant, described by the American journalists to whom he was presented in July 1945, as "half-witted" or "half-crazy," who in prison confessed that he had boiled soap from human body fat. To support this, a "recipe" was needed and eventually "found." . . .

The crucial difference is, however, if you accept the simple truth that in the preparation process used by Spanner, soap originates as a by-product, or if you impute to Spanner that soap-making was one of his primary objectives in his institute (apart from teaching students of medicine), that he, as is still today upheld by Polish and Jewish institutions, ran a "soap factory," be it only on an experimental scale.
Click to expand...


And for background and context:
To make a long, long story short (and to avoid derailing the thread), only a few words:

(1) Threatening people with "making soap from them" is by far not a German/Nazi invention. There is the many hundred years old "Pishtaco" myth in the Andean countries of South America, the over hundred years old "Velho do saco" myth in Brazil, and I found also examples of threatening children in the Ukraine in the 1920s with "soap-making."

(2) In 1917, the British launched the "Corpse Factory" atrocity myth. It said that the Germans boiled down soldier dead, collected on the battlefields, to lubricants, soap, fertilizer, and hog food. I have proofs that this propaganda story was also widely spread in Romania and Poland. Its official debunking in London as a hoax in December 1925 made no headlines outside the UK, the U.S. and Germany.

(3) First occurrences of "Human soap" stories in WW II are documented among the Jews of Bedzin and Warsaw in 1940, already before closed ghettos were established there, and among inmates of the French-run (!) internment camp of St. Cyprien. Jewish citizens resp. prisoners made "soap jokes" about themselves, sort of "gallows humor."

(4) Germans, non-Jewish Poles and Ukrainians took up the "soap jokes," turned the tables and used "soap" to mock about Jews or to threaten them, from the autumn of 1941, when the mass killing of Jews began. Soldiers on leave brought "soap" stories home, together with news about the mass atrocities perpetrated in the East. As of the summer of 1942, the rumors also spread in Germany and Austria. Alleged proof were the letters "RIF" stamped on each cake of soap, which was read as "Reines Juden-Fett."

(5) In occupied Poland everybody believed in the "Jews to soap" story, even Mr Frank, the Governor General.

(6) Professional historians, from the beginning, were very skeptical and, as rule, rejected the "soap" accusations. No orders, no blueprints, no billings, no shipping documents for "human soap" have ever been found, and among the thousands of SS men who ran the camps, not a single person "confessed" to have made soap from humans, not even "under coercion" in Stalinist trials. The only SS document referring to soap-making from dead Jews is a letter from Himmler to Gestapo Chief Müller categorically forbidding any "misuse" of the corpses. (For our Rev friends: Do you see the fundamental difference to "homicidal gas chambers"?)
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Nick Terry said:
It may come as a shock to you, but there is little reason why Zisblatt would have come to many people's attention. Most people haven't seen the film she was in; I haven't, and still haven't. So that's strike one.

Strike two is the fact that the memoir was self-published and isn't even on sale in the UK (search amazon.co.uk if you don't believe me; the only results are the movie and some bilious self-help manual from America which apparently mentions her).

Strike three is the fact that most people don't stalk Holocaust survivors or look up what they are doing, and won't notice what they are doing on the other side of the world, since that is reported at best in local newspapers.

Strike four is the fact that most people don't pay any attention to what Holocaust deniers are saying. Not even the few people who pay some attention to deniers necessarily read every single site.

As a result, I didn't hear about Zisblatt until a denier brought up her story on RODOH in January 2009. The denier was working off a judicial-inc.biz page, and judicial-inc.biz is at the extreme end of denier looniness. It's not a place I normally bother with. Interestingly, the first person to respond to the OP then was Joachim Neander, who said the following:



Thus the very first reaction to a summary of the story from a website citing a newspaper article was, '********'.

The thread unfolded as usual, with various chimps screeching, and Joachim reiterating his disbelief. I commented only on a particularly inane attempt to claim that a denier had been censored, and then the OP came up with the following gem:



an insight so marvellous that I treasure its inadvertent honesty.

The thread didn't get very far - four pages - because there was nothing much to say after Joachim nailed it in the second post. The rest was just empty blether from one of the more obnoxious twerps I have encountered on the internet, 'Peter Gast' aka 'shyster'.

The chimp coterie on RODOH later excelled itself with a thread so vile that it has gone down in folk legend, entitled 'Of Jews and Scatology' - this was one of the relatively few times that RODOH chimps opted to peddle the Zisblatt gambit. Indeed, Zisblatt has been mentioned on this thread almost as often as she has come up in three years at RODOH (and 1 in 8 of those hits were from people fooling around trying to create the most nested replies allowed by the forum software).

A year after the first mention of Zisblatt on RODOH, Joachim Neander published his detailed criticism of her memoir. For that entire time I don't think a single person believed the story.



"These liars"? A Freudian slip there, Dogzilla? Surely you were talking about only one fantasist, Irene Zisblatt, and yet now this one person has multiplied?

I'm curious, though. Your new definition of civic virtue appears to be what someone does to prevent a fantasist from selling books. In which case: what are you doing about it? I'd love to know what you'd do which wouldn't seem like the behaviour of a crank or a crazed stalker.
Click to expand...

Everyone that fancies him or herself a Holocaust scholar/historian who made/makes no effort to discredit Zisblatt and remove her from the Holocaust speaking tour aids and abets the liar Zisblatt is certainly a liar. Making "These liars" completely correct.
 
Robrob said:
Well yeas but given there are only three CT loons posting here, you are very quickly going to end up with a lopsided conversation.
Click to expand...

in all honesty it makes for much more pleasant reading if certain posters are only visible in other people's replies. This doesn't apply universally, I should add, but yeah, the fact that there aren't too many deniers I am actually going to bother to read from here on out is probably a sign that unless they get reinforcements sometime soon, the thread is edging closer and closer to a christophera-like idiocy singularity.
 
It would be an interesting test of the strength of revisionism to see whether any of the resident deniers have the contacts, social skills or ability to bring in another revisionist.

Most deniers are lone wolves, and don't play well with others, which is why we've seen some amusing intra-denier spats on CODOH forum recently - Yeager vs Hunt, plus Kingfisher criticising Hannover for his hypocrisy in touting the nonexistent Krege report 12 years after it has failed to appear. Indeed, we were briefly joined by one guy who managed to get himself banned from CODOH for apparently offending the mighty Hannover, a sixtysomething gaping a-hole of truly apocalyptic stupidity.

I did recently try to invite over here a denier who like some sort of deranged dying wasp in winter had blundered onto Skeptics Society Forum, but he is apparently enjoying being a chew toy for various people there a bit too much to venture into the deeper waters of JREF. I figured we needed a new chew toy because the old ones have gotten more than a bit manky.
 
Nick Terry said:
As a result, I didn't hear about Zisblatt until a denier brought up her story on RODOH in January 2009. The denier was working off a judicial-inc.biz page, and judicial-inc.biz is at the extreme end of denier looniness. It's not a place I normally bother with. Interestingly, the first person to respond to the OP then was Joachim Neander, who said the following:



Thus the very first reaction to a summary of the story from a website citing a newspaper article was, '********'.

The thread unfolded as usual, with various chimps screeching, and Joachim reiterating his disbelief. I commented only on a particularly inane attempt to claim that a denier had been censored, and then the OP came up with the following gem:



an insight so marvellous that I treasure its inadvertent honesty.

The thread didn't get very far - four pages - because there was nothing much to say after Joachim nailed it in the second post. The rest was just empty blether from one of the more obnoxious twerps I have encountered on the internet, 'Peter Gast' aka 'shyster'.

The chimp coterie on RODOH later excelled itself with a thread so vile that it has gone down in folk legend, entitled 'Of Jews and Scatology' - this was one of the relatively few times that RODOH chimps opted to peddle the Zisblatt gambit. Indeed, Zisblatt has been mentioned on this thread almost as often as she has come up in three years at RODOH (and 1 in 8 of those hits were from people fooling around trying to create the most nested replies allowed by the forum software).

A year after the first mention of Zisblatt on RODOH, Joachim Neander published his detailed criticism of her memoir. For that entire time I don't think a single person believed the story.
Click to expand...
Nick and the other Holocaust scholars didn't know of Zisblatt of The Last Days (1998). The 1999 Academy winning documentary?

A Holocaust movie by Steven Spielberg of the Shoah Foundation.

Nick and the other Holocaust scholars didn't know of Zisblatt's book The Fifth Diamond.

Nick and the other Holocaust scholars didn't know of Zisblatt's extensive speaking activity?


http://holocaustcontroversies.blogsp...l-fact-or.html

Quote:
She never talked to anybody about her wartime experience until 1994, when she attended a screening of Schindler's List. Since that time, she has been traveling across the U.S., sharing her experience with high school and college students, always receiving broad coverage in the local media. According to The Press of Atlantic City NJ from April 28, 2009, she "is booked twice a day between two and five times a week," and until the end of 2009 she "will have shared her story of surviving the Holocaust with about as many people as Jewish lives were claimed during World War II," i.e. "six million" listeners and viewers.[7] In addition, since 1994 she has been a regular participant in the March of the Living in Poland. In October 1995, she was interviewed for Steven Spielberg's Survivors of the Shoah Visual History Foundation.[8] She was one of the five Holocaust survivors that were chosen to tell their story in the award-winning documentary movie The Last Days,[9] released in 1998. Finally, in 2008 her memoir The Fifth Diamond appeared in print.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom