Human soap & Human skin lampshades debunked

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9842
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Human soap & Human skin lampshades debunked

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 6 years ago (Tue Aug 12, 2003 8:07 pm)

Here's a nice article which includes an admission by judeo-supremacist Deborah Lipstadt that the soap story is a lie and more info. on the human skin fraud.

http://www.codoh.com/newrevoices/nwidm ... dsoap.html
Soap and Lampshades: The Lies Persist
by Richard A. Widmann

In his recently published book, Why People Believe Weird Things, Skeptic editor Michael Shermer recounts an exchange from the Phil Donahue show. On that particular episode, CODOH director Bradley Smith stated, "It [is] a lie that Germans cooked Jews to make soap from them." Shermer, who is skeptical of many things, but generally a believer in the Holocaust story, replied, "No, not a lie. It's a mistake."
For some the tales of vicious Germans manufacturing Jews into bars of soap and lampshades are indeed a lie, for others, like Shermer, they are the products of innocent mistakes; for still others, the stories remain an unassailable truth. In fact, these propaganda lies have been dispelled many times, but continue to be repeated frequently in establishment sources. It is no wonder that many people still believe these horror stories.

General Lucius Clay, the military governor of the US zone of occupied Germany, explained the lampshade story, "Well, it turned out actually that it was goat flesh [sic --clearly the general meant skin]. But at the trial [of Ilse Koch] it was still human flesh." (Interview with Lucius Clay, 1976, Official Proceeding of the George C. Marshall Research Foundation Quoted in M. Weber, "Buchenwald: Legend and Reality," The Journal of Historical Review, Winter 1986-87 7(4), pp. 406-407.)

In regard to the human soap story, darling of the establishment media and virulent anti-revisionist Deborah Lipstadt noted in 1981 "The fact is that the Nazis never used the bodies of Jews, or for that matter anyone else, for the production of soap." ("Nazi Soap Rumor During World War II," Los Angeles Times, May 16, 1981, p II/2.) Michael Berenbaum, former director of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, now supervising Steven Spielberg's taxpayer-funded Holocaust remembrance project, admitted in 1994, "there is no evidence, despite widespread reports, that human fat was used for soap. The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum tested several bars of soap reported to be composed of human fat but no such fat was found." (Y. Gutman, M. Berenbaum, Anatomy of the Auschwitz Death Camp, Indiana University Press, Bloomington and Indianapolis, 1994, p.80.) One would clearly think that the case is closed, and that further repetition of these propaganda stories would constitute nothing more (and nothing less!) than arrant anti-German bigotry.

Still, the lies persist. On May 10, 1997 the New York Times ran an article entitled, "Holocaust Collection Is Educator for Young." The story concerns Milton Kohn, the owner of the world's "largest private collection of Holocaust memorabilia." Kohn wanders the world repeating anti-German hate stories to children. Part of his traveling collection includes an alleged "bar of soap rendered from human fat [which] was bought from a third party in Eastern Europe in 1968." Surely the New York Times, which prides itself on reporting "all the news that's fit to print," is aware that the soap story has been discredited.

The month of May also saw a revival of the hateful story of human lampshades. In a mailing from Time-Life Video designed to hawk their "World at War" series of videos, the advertisement reads: "More than 60 million people were shot, hanged, bombed, starved, gassed, frozen or drowned. Nazis turned humans into lampshades... Now you can see what hell is really like in the most definitive war footage you can find today!"
Obviously, anti-German hatred still sells. Those who profit from spreading these hateful lies should be called to account. It's up to those with a sense of justice and respect for the truth to let the offenders know that countenancing, let alone spreading, such lies can't and won't be tolerated.


and more:

excerpt:
...we could only conclude that it originated from some large animal...


full text:
Analysis from the Tanners Council Laboratory at the University of Cincinnati 1982.

http://www.fpp.co.uk/Auschwitz/document ... Koch1.html

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

DATE: September 28, 1973

REPLY TO ATTN. OF: NNDW National Archives and Records Service Washington

National Records Center Washington, DC 20409

SUBJECT:

Family Chronicles (Photo Albums) of Ilse Koch To: Director, General Archives Division &; NNG In the process of reviewing the records of the United States Army Judge Advocate General for the years 1939-1948 (RG 153, Entry 321-B), we have found the record of trial of Frau Ilse Koch who became infamous in World War II crime trials as the "Bitch of Buchenwald." One of the charges against Frau Koch was that of using the skin of concentration camp inmates, after suitable treatment and tanning, for various household decorative items.
Among these were lamp shades, hand gloves, and photo albums. We have found two photo albums which apparently figured in the prosecution's case against Frau Koch in FRG Box 1089 in this record group. Whether or not one of them is actually bound in human skin turned into a fine grade of suede leather may be open to conjecture, but the content of both albums are of considerable historical interest so far as they relate to the personal and family life of one of the most notorious of all of the concentration camp figures in the war crimes trials.

Album No. 1 deals with the Koch "Family Chronicle" up until 1937 -- prior to Colonel Koch becoming commandant of Buchenwald; Album No. 2 commences with the Buchenwald years in 1938. As a side note to history, Colonel Koch was even too inhuman for the Nazis. He was tried by a Nazi military court in 1944 for a number of irregularities (most of which were financial) concerning his management of Buchenwald and executed.

In view of the historical value of these two items, we recommend that they be transferred from their present file location in the WNRC and located in the NARS Audio Visual collection concerned with captured enemy records.

WILLIAM B. FRALEY
Chief WNRC Review Branch
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ORDER NUMBER DOCUMENT RESTORATION _______________
SERVICE ORDER REQUESTED BY NNSP/82-19 DATE May 12 1982
RGGP NUMBER RECORD GROUP NUMBER 153

TELEPHONE NUMBER
AGSmith 18 N X33055 ADDRESS (If other than Archives Building)

KIND OF SERVICE REQUIRED EXAMINATION NNSP REPAIR OF BOUND VOLUMES APPROVAL (Head of Unit): -- Acting Chief
FLATTEN ONLY NATP XX OTHER (See description of of materials)

TO BE FILLED IN BY NA TP Lv -- Test album cover for content composition Album-.RG 153 -- IK Ilse Koch/ album 2 Attn: Shahani
Call Betty Hill (on ext. above) if you have questions.

REPRODUCED AT THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES

University of Cincinnati Department of Basic Science in Tanning Research Tanners' Council Laboratory (#14)
Cincinnati Ohio 45221
Phone (513) 281-8501

August 19, 1982 Mr. Chandru J. Shahani, Chief Technology Assistance Staff National Archives and Records General Services Administration Washington, DC 20408

Dear Mr. Shahani: I attach our Report No. 9580 concerned with the small sample of book binding leather which you submitted with your letter of August 11. We regret that since the sample was sueded, ***we could only conclude that it originated from some large animal***, but that a specific species identification was impossible.

Sincerely yours, Robert M. Lollar
Technical Director| Tanners' Council of America
RML: j e c Enclosure


- Hannover
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

SergeyRomanov
Member
Member
Posts: 60
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2003 1:38 pm

Postby SergeyRomanov » 1 decade 6 years ago (Wed Aug 13, 2003 6:27 am)

First of all we should note that any "admissions" by Shermer or Lipstadt or anybody else do not count as evidence until these people prove their claims (that is, they should deal with the testimonies of Mazur, Neely and Witton). Otherwise it's just an appeal to an alleged authority, which rings hollow.

(I think all that they try to say is just that human soap was not mass-produced - and I would certainly agree with that.)

Appeal to Lucius D. Clay is pathetic. He was not an expert. And here's what real expert said:

COPY OF DOCUMENT 3423-PS

SEVENTH MEDICAL LABORATORY
APO 403, c/o PM, NEW YORK, N.Y.

Section of Pathology
25 May 1945
SUBJECT: Identification of Tattooed Skin Hides
TO: COMMANDING GENERAL, Third U.S. Army)
(ATTN: JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL)

1. There were submitted to this laboratory section for examination three tanned pieces of skin by Lt. Col. Givin from Buchenwald Camp with office record designation of Case 81 T.J.A.

2. The description follows:
GROSS: Specimen consists of three pieces of skin labeled A.B.C.

PIECE A: Measures 13x13cm., is transparent and shows a woman's head in the center and a sailor with an anchor near the margin.

PIECE B: Measures 14x13cm., is transparent and is a tattoo of several anchors resting on an indefinite black mass. To the right of this mass is a man's head.

PIECE C: Is truncated, measures 44cm. At the base. The upper portion is 30 cm. Long and the sides measure 46 cm. The skin is transparent and shows two nipples in the upper area. These are 16 cm. Apart. From the nipple level to the umbilicus is 23 « cm. A large bird, with a wingspread
measuring 28 cm., is present in the center of the skin, upper part. A black dragon, with fire coming from the mouth, measures 28 cm. in length and is present in the center of the skin. To the left of the dragon is a man in a coat of mail, with a sword being apparently stuck in the dragon. Man is approximately 22 cm. in length.

MICROSCOPIC: The tissue consists of bundles of collagen showing occasional epithelial and sweat gland remnants. Granular black pigment granules are seen between some of the bundles.

3. Based on the findings in paragraph 2, all three specimens are tattooed human skin.

For the Commanding Officer,
[signed] REUBEN CARES
Ruben Cares
Major M.C., Chief of pathology


And the letter that you quote:

I attach our Report No. 9580 concerned with the small sample of book binding leather which you submitted with your letter of August 11. We regret that since the sample was sueded, we could only conclude that it originated from some large animal, but that a specific species identification was impossible.


proves nothing. Not only it was a small sample from one book (perhaps that one was not bound in human skin), but humans are large animals too, so...

TMoran
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 513
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 7:00 pm

Postby TMoran » 1 decade 6 years ago (Wed Aug 13, 2003 6:50 am)

First of all we should note that any "admissions" by Shermer or Lipstadt or anybody else do not count as evidence until these people prove their claims (that is, they should deal with the testimonies of Mazur, Neely and Witton). Otherwise it's just an appeal to an alleged authority, which rings hollow.

(I think all that they say is just that human soap was not mass-produced - and I would certainly agree with that.)

Appeal to Lucius D. Clay is pathetic. He was not an expert. And here's what real expert said:


======================================================================

Now that's an interesting piece of convenient standards. You say Shermer and Lipstadt's "or anyone else" is not evidence and then you submit some letter from a REUBEN CARES sent to someone? And the follow-up from the recipient? And the specimens? Where are they now? In fact where were they then? Say, you don't suppose that the letter got around and was deemed a frame up and it got to Lucius D. Clay and he made the announcement, do you?

In the end run, if we have such big mouths as Shermer and Lipstadt denying the human skin lamp shade trick then they must consider the Ruben Cares letter a frame up?

We should note the letter is titled May 1945, which would make it appear during the time when other letters. testimonies and other 'evidence' were rift about mass exterminations in gas chambers at camps in Germany which are denied by all today.

The fact is, the letter itself is an ideal example of this early program of framing the Germans.

SergeyRomanov
Member
Member
Posts: 60
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2003 1:38 pm

Postby SergeyRomanov » 1 decade 6 years ago (Wed Aug 13, 2003 10:17 am)

Now that's an interesting piece of convenient standards. You say Shermer and Lipstadt's "or anyone else" is not evidence and then you submit some letter from a REUBEN CARES sent to someone?


Of course. He's an expert. They are not. And you conveniently left out the following part:

...until these people prove their claims (that is, they should deal with the testimonies of Mazur, Neely and Witton)


And the specimens?


I guess they're still held somewhere. Like these to albums of Ilse Koch ("In view of the historical value of these two items, we recommend that they be transferred from their present file location in the WNRC and located in the NARS Audio Visual collection concerned with captured enemy records"). And why do you ask?

In the end run, if we have such big mouths as Shermer and Lipstadt denying the human skin lamp shade trick then they must consider the Ruben Cares letter a frame up?


I challenge you to provide a quote from Shermer AND Lipstadt with such a denial. Do not dodge, please.

The fact is, the letter itself is an ideal example of this early program of framing the Germans.


I challenge you to prove your assertion. Do not dodge, please.

User avatar
Sailor
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 810
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 6:54 pm
Location: California

Postby Sailor » 1 decade 6 years ago (Wed Aug 13, 2003 10:57 am)

Buchenwald, Ilse Koch, Lampshades …

There exists a picture of a collection of medical specimen found at Buchenwald.


Image

I noticed that the lamp shade of the table lamp has no engravings (tattoos) at all.

The type of lampshade as it appears on this picture I remember quite well. They were quite popular at that time in Germany. Many had engravings with pictures of the old sailing type war ships, or eagles, other animals.

General Lucius Clay quoted in : Smith, Jean Edward, Lucius D. Clay, An
American Life, p. 301. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1990:

There was absolutely no evidence in the trial transcript, other than
she [Ilse Koch] was a rather loathsome creature, that would support
the death sentence. I suppose I received more abuse for that than for
anything else I did in Germany. Some reporter had called her the
"Bitch of Buchenwald," [and] had written that she had lampshades made
out of human skin in her house. And that was introduced in court,
where it was absolutely proven that the lampshades were made out of
goatskin.


With other words: it was proven in court and not by General Clay, that the lampshades were made of goatskin.

The tattoos on the pieces of skin appear quite dark, almost black, in high contrast against the background of the skin.

The tattoos which I have seen on people are blue, fading as they get older. Anyway, so the specimen are of human skin, as proven in those forensic tests. But these tests say nothing about the tattoos. Were they specially prepared chemically to make them appear more clearly?

I read somewhere that actually SS-judge Dr. Morgan found these pieces originally during the SS investigation of the camp commandant Koch and his wife Ilse.

The material was then rediscovered by the Seventh US Army, General Patton.

And what does a piece of human tattooed skin really prove? Medical doctors take all kinds of pieces off human bodies for research after surgical operations or even death. These pieces may have been preserved for who knows what purposes. Some of these medical people preserve whole human brains in a glass jar with some chemicals inside. Yuk.

:D
fge

SergeyRomanov
Member
Member
Posts: 60
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2003 1:38 pm

Postby SergeyRomanov » 1 decade 6 years ago (Wed Aug 13, 2003 11:18 am)

Sailor wrote:I noticed that the lamp shade of the table lamp has no engravings (tattoos) at all.


Was this particular lamp shade supposed to be made of human skin? How do you know it has no tattoos at all if you haven't seen the whole shade? Are you psychic or what?

General Lucius Clay quoted in : Smith, Jean Edward, Lucius D. Clay, An
American Life, p. 301. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1990:

There was absolutely no evidence in the trial transcript, other than
she [Ilse Koch] was a rather loathsome creature, that would support
the death sentence. I suppose I received more abuse for that than for
anything else I did in Germany. Some reporter had called her the
"Bitch of Buchenwald," [and] had written that she had lampshades made
out of human skin in her house. And that was introduced in court,
where it was absolutely proven that the lampshades were made out of
goatskin.


With other words: it was proven in court and not by General Clay, that the lampshades were made of goatskin.


Please, prove it. Quote the verdict or the transcripts. I'll quote from Jamie McCarthy's essay on the topic:

According to Mark Weber, the transcripts of those interviews reveal that General Clay reaffirmed his position of twenty-eight years earlier:

We tried Ilse Koch. ...She was sentenced to life imprisonment, and I commuted it to three years. And our press really didn't like that. She had been destroyed by the fact that an enterprising reporter who first went into her house had given her the beautiful name, the "Bitch of Buchenwald," and he had found some white lampshades in there which he wrote up as being made out of human flesh.

Well, it turned out actually that it was goat flesh. But at the trial it was still human flesh. It was almost impossible for her to have gotten a fair trial.


Similar words were said to Jean Edward Smith in the interview he took:

That was one of the reasons I revoked the death sentence of Ilse Koch. There was absolutely no evidence in the trial transcript, other than she was a rather loathsome creature, that would support the death sentence. I suppose I received more abuse for that than for anything else I did in Germany. Some reporter had callled her the "Bitch of Buchenwald," had written that she had lampshades made out of human skin in her house. And that was introduced in court, where it was absolutely proven that the lampshades were made out of goatskin.


It should be noted that Smith characterized Clay's memory as "extraordinary," saying he "could recall cables twenty-five years old, almost verbatim. No detail was too small to be filed away in his recollection."

But notice the discrepancies: in the Foundation interview, Clay stated that the lampshades were still considered human at the trial. In the Smith interview, he stated that the trial proved "absolutely" that they were not (Presumably he was not aware of the forensic evidence proving that the skin was human.).

Also, in the Foundation interview, he could not even recall how many years he had reduced her sentence to (four).

It is important to realize that the Frau Koch affair, though big news in the media, was of very little concern to General Clay. His responsibility was to manage the rebuilding of the entire U.S.-occupied German nation between 1945 and his retirement in May 1949. With tens of millions of people to look after, he can be excused for overlooking the details about one war criminal. In Decision in Germany, he makes a point of mentioning that Koch's trial was only one of the 1,672 Dachau trials which he oversaw as reviewing officer. Her irrelevance to his life can be seen in John Backer's biography, Winds of History: nowhere in this book's 300 pages is she even mentioned.

The actual transcripts of the trial are, of course, the only way to settle the question. Obtaining these transcripts is not an easy undertaking. Anyone who wishes to assist in this effort is invited to contact this author.

The important thing is not so much what Holocaust-deniers are saying about Ilse Koch and General Clay as what they are not saying. They went to the trouble of digging up an interview at an obscure research foundation from 1976, enlisting the assistance of a senior archivist at the National Archives to do so.

Yet they forgot to mention the important evidence, much more easily uncovered, which indicates that the statements made in this interview (and later in Smith's book) are incorrect or ill-informed.

They forgot to mention that the trial which Clay reviewed did not cover the full period during which Koch was at the camp.

They forgot to mention that Clay was incompletely informed by his assistants, and that he admitted as much in his 1950 book, saying: "I could take action only on that record."

They forgot to mention that a Senate investigatory committee saw, with their own eyes, the very same "three samples" of "tattooed human skin" that Clay says don't exist.

They forgot to mention the conclusion that the subcommittee reached: that "there is no doubt" that human skin was tanned at Buchenwald.

They forgot to mention that there is a forensic report which, based on microscopic analysis and the placement of nipples and navel, concludes that the skin is indeed human.

They forget to mention that the same German court that found her innocent of the charge of murdering anyone for tattooed skin, also declared it indisputable that human-skin artifacts were made.

And all that information is much more readily available than the transcripts of an obscure interview by an obscure organization conducted 28 years after the fact.

Since Holocaust-deniers have gone to so much trouble to find evidence which vaguely supports their thesis, and have not lifted a finger to reveal the evidence to the contrary, the logical conclusion is that they are dishonest.


And what does a piece of human tattooed skin really prove? Medical doctors take all kinds of pieces off human bodies for research after surgical operations or even death. These pieces may have been preserved for who knows what purposes. Some of these medical people preserve whole human brains in a glass jar with some chemicals inside. Yuk.


Yep, and then they just thought that it would be a good idea to bind a book with these "specimens", or make a nice lampshade. What jolly people these Nazis were!

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9842
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 6 years ago (Wed Aug 13, 2003 11:41 am)

Sergey quotes:
They forget to mention that the same German court that found her innocent of the charge of murdering anyone for tattooed skin, also declared it indisputable that human-skin artifacts were made.


So where are the court transcripts? Where is the scientific forensic report to support this alleged finding?

Sergey quotes:
They forgot to mention that a Senate investigatory committee saw, with their own eyes, the very same "three samples" of "tattooed human skin" that Clay says don't exist.

They forgot to mention the conclusion that the subcommittee reached: that "there is no doubt" that human skin was tanned at Buchenwald.

They forgot to mention that there is a forensic report which, based on microscopic analysis and the placement of nipples and navel, concludes that the skin is indeed human.

But yet Sergey can produce no alleged Senate subcommittee report.

Sergey nor anyone else has produced this alleged 'forensic report' for this laughable 'tanned skin'.

Sergey quotes:
Since Holocaust-deniers have gone to so much trouble to find evidence which vaguely supports their thesis, and have not lifted a finger to reveal the evidence to the contrary, the logical conclusion is that they are dishonest.


Sergey forgot to mention that there is no human skin lampshades to be seen. Does he have them? Nope? Does anyone? Nope. So who's being dishonest?

No evidence, no human skin lampshades.

- Hannover
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

SergeyRomanov
Member
Member
Posts: 60
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2003 1:38 pm

Postby SergeyRomanov » 1 decade 6 years ago (Wed Aug 13, 2003 12:49 pm)

So where are the court transcripts?


I don't have the transcripts, but NYT wrote at that time:

The court found no proof that anyone at Buchenwald had been murdered for his tattooed skin, but it expressed no doubt that skin lampshades had been made and that human heads had been shriveled and preserved at the camp.


Where is the scientific forensic report to support this alleged finding?


Already posted.

But yet Sergey can produce no alleged Senate subcommittee report.


I can certainly quote excerpts:

Tattooed skin was carefully cut from bodies of dead inmates, tanned and used for a variety of pseudo-scientific and decorative purposes.

...

As to the human-skin aspects of this case, there is no doubt that tattooed human skin was scraped, tanned, and dried by the pathological departments at Buchenwald. Numerous witnesses testified as to its existence, and three samples of it and a shrunken human head were placed in evidence. These same samples were made exhibits at the hearings before this subcommittee.

One defense witness (Wilhelm) testified that a lamp had been made of skin to his knowledge, and offered hearsay evidence to the fact that Ilse Koch had ordered and had been delivered a lampshade of this sort.

Prosecution witnesses (Titz and Froeboess) testified that they had seen the accused in possession of a skin lampshade, a skin-bound album, and a pair of gloves of human skin. Two defense witnesses (Wilhelm and Biermann) and one prosecution witness (Sitte) testified, from hearsay, that she had possession of articles made of human skin.

The chief witnesses [sic] for the accused was Ilse Koch herself, who specifically denied the charges brought against her and the testimony of the witnesses who had appeared against her.


Sergey forgot to mention that there is no human skin lampshades to be seen.


Whether they can be seen now is completely irrelevant.

So who's being dishonest?


Perhaps you?

No evidence, no human skin lampshades.


I agree. But since there is evidence, there were skin lampshades.

PS: http://www.fas.org/sgp/bulletin/sec67.html

More bizarre things are turning up as researchers begin to wade through declassified files. Lately, archivists have discovered human body parts maintained as "federal records" in government storage facilities, as reported in the Jewish newspaper Forward (4/4/97, p. 5) The National Archives in College Park, Maryland, has identified "a human skin lampshade, or part of one," from the Nazi concentration camp at Buchenwald. The National Museum of Health and Medicine holds three pieces of tattooed human skin, also from Buchenwald.

And in a locked cabinet in a locked room inside a secure building, the Museum is storing a bisected human head preserved with wax. Declassified Army records indicate that the head was taken from the Dachau concentration camp. Holocaust researchers expressed surprise and dismay at the new findings. "Remains of people, as a rule, should be buried," said one.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9842
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 6 years ago (Wed Aug 13, 2003 1:25 pm)

Where are the transcripts? Who cares what the NYT wrote? ... they are no authority and certainly they are not the court transcripts.

Wrong, you did not post a forensic report, please do or cease claiming it.

Where is the Senate subcommitte report? You claim these are "excerpts", but why should we believe you? Give us the real deal, give us an authentic sub-committee report, not someone elses text...which are not even claimed to be quotes from the report.

I see you admit that there is no 'lampshades' to be seen, most revealing.

You have failed to produce any points which are not easily refuted and seem more interested in avoiding specific requests for verifiable evidence, tacky and against guidelines.

- H.
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

SergeyRomanov
Member
Member
Posts: 60
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2003 1:38 pm

Postby SergeyRomanov » 1 decade 6 years ago (Wed Aug 13, 2003 2:08 pm)

Where are the transcripts?


It's irrelevant.

Who cares what the NYT wrote? ... they are no authority and certainly they are not the court transcripts.


Contemporary NYT article is certainly authoritative, although less than transcripts.

Wrong, you did not post a forensic report, please do or cease claiming it.


Of course I did. Or give your definition of "forensic report".

Where is the Senate subcommitte report? You claim these are "excerpts", but why should we believe you? Give us the real deal, give us an authentic sub-committee report, not someone elses text...which are not even claimed to be quotes from the report.


The source is NYT, Dec. 27, 1948, p. 12. That's more than enough for you.

I see you admit that there is no 'lampshades' to be seen, most revealing.


Please provide the quote of me in which I "admit" that there are no lampshades to be seen or admit that you lied. No dodging. Or you'll be banned by the Impartial Moderator :lol:

You have failed to produce any points which are not easily refuted and seem more interested in avoiding specific requests for verifiable evidence, tacky and against guidelines.


I proved that there were human skin lampshades and other novelties. You failed to disprove the evidence.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9842
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 6 years ago (Wed Aug 13, 2003 2:24 pm)

Sergey says:
Please provide the quote of me in which I "admit" that there are no lampshades to be seen or admit that you lied.


But from an earlier post he admits there are no lampshades to be seen
Whether they can be seen now is completely irrelevant.


I guess producing physical evidence in support of an allegation which is obviously physical by nature is "irrelevant".

If such items existed they'd be paraded about ad nauseum by the Believers. No such items exist, simple.

The Believers have met their enemy, it is themselves.

- H.
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

TMoran
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 513
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 7:00 pm

Postby TMoran » 1 decade 6 years ago (Wed Aug 13, 2003 7:03 pm)

Believer in tattoed human skin says:
Contemporary NYT article is certainly authoritative, although less than transcripts.

============================================

Do you know of any cases where a newspaper report was entered into evidence at a court trial?

You say the NEW YORK TIMES? Say, wouldn't that be the same NEW YORK TIMES that just had that scandal about the person who wrote numerous reports with false information?

Didn't the NEW YORK TIMES do full page articles on the alleged mobil labs in Iraq? Did they report the uranium out of Africa without challenging it? On and on we could go pointing out nonsense the NEW YORK TIMES has reported.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9842
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 6 years ago (Fri Aug 15, 2003 9:56 am)

for Sergey:

Shmuel Krakowski, Director of Archives of Israel's so called Yad Vashem Holocau$t Center who deseperately lies in regards to other nutball stories (gassings & 6,000,000 etc.), confirmed in a Chicago Tribune article titled, "A Holocaust Belief Cleared Up" that:
"historians have concluded that soap was not made from human fat."


Cheers, Hannover
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9842
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 6 years ago (Fri Aug 15, 2003 4:14 pm)

more for Sergey:

In 1990, Yehuda Bauer, director of Holocaust studies at Hebrew University, Tel Aviv, admitted:
"The Nazis never made soap from Jews…" (Jerusalem Post, Int. Ed., 5 May 1990, p. 6).


- Hannover
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

friedrich braun
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 619
Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2003 4:40 am

Postby friedrich braun » 1 decade 5 years ago (Sun Nov 30, 2003 5:28 pm)

The New York Times as authoritative? :lol:

Does the name Walter Duranty ring a bell?

The Great Famine-Genocide in Soviet Ukraine (Holodomor)
HISTORIAN: PULITZER TO TIMES'S DURANTY SHOULD BE RESCINDED
Expert Retained by Times Itself Concludes Prize Wasn't Deserved
By Eric Wolff, Special to the Sun
The New York Sun, New York, New York
October 22, 2003; Section: Front page; Page:1

The tarnish is thickening on the New York Times's most controversial Pulitzer Prize.

A report commissioned by the Times said the work of 1932 Pulitzer Prize-winner Walter Duranty had a "serious lack of balance," was "distorted," and was "a disservice to American readers of the New York Times and the peoples of the Russian and Soviet empires."

According to the writer of the report, a Columbia University history professor, Mark von Hagen, a committee of Times senior staff that included publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. read it and then forwarded it to the Pulitzer board, along with a recommendation from Mr. Sulzberger.

The nature of that recommendation is unknown.

Duranty's award is under review by a subcommittee of the Pulitzer board, as reported by The New York Sun in June.

The study, commissioned less than a month after the resignation of the executive editor, Howell Raines, over the Jayson Blair plagiarism and fraud scandal, marks a change in position at the Times.

In June, the paper issued a prepared statement that said,"The Times has not seen merit in trying to undo history."

A Times spokeswoman said she had no comment on the apparently new policy. The administrator of the Pulitzer board, Sigvard Gissler, would not comment, saying, "This is an internal matter."

In an interview with the Sun, Mr. von Hagen said, "I was really kind of disappointed having to read that stuff, and know that the New York Times would publish this guy for so long."

Mr. von Hagen's paper said Duranty's 1931 pieces were "very effective renditions of the Stalinist leadership's style of self-understanding of their murderous and progressive project."

He said Duranty's reporting was "neither unique among reporters" nor "particularly unusual, let alone profound." He noted Duranty's failure to use the diverse sources available to him, and the way Duranty "ignored the history of 20th century Russia."

Duranty reported that Soviet citizens celebrated their "freedom" from religion by increasing factory production on religious holidays.

"One waits in vain for some signal of ever so slight tongue-in-cheek," wrote Mr. von Hagen.

Duranty's work has been reviewed before, in 1990, prompted by Sally Taylor's biography, "Stalin's Apologist." The biography suggested that Duranty was not ideological Communist, but rather a greedy man who had made a comfortable life for himself in Moscow.

Mr. von Hagen believes Duranty's misdirection may have come from a vested interest in seeing the Soviet Union recognized by the United States. When Franklin Roosevelt was elected in 1933, he invited Duranty to dinner to discuss the matter.

At the banquet at the same, in which the U.S.S.R. was formally recognized, the biggest applause, according to Malcolm Muggeridge, was given to Duranty.

Though Duranty has achieved lasting posthumous fame for covering up the Ukrainian famine of 1932-33 in which as many as 10 million people died, the Pulitzer was awarded for his writing in 1931.

In an effort to divest Duranty of his prize, the Ukrainian Congress Committee of America organized a postcard campaign that ultimately led to the formation of the subcommittee for review.

A spokeswoman for the UCCA said she found the Times's actions "very encouraging" considering Duranty's "betrayal of the most fundamental aspects of journalism."

In November, they will be launching a campaign to get the Times to voluntarily return the prize, a sentiment that sits well with Mr. von Hagen.

"I wish they didn't give Duranty the prize in the first place," he said. "But I think it should be rescinded now, for the honor of the New York Times, if for nothing else."

http://www.artukraine.com/famineart/duranty35.htm


Return to “'Holocaust' Debate / Controversies / Comments / News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests