Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Is there any hard, objective evidence that soap or lampshades ( I've heard other variations, like furniture, what not) was ever made from the bodies of victims of the holocaust in WWII, or is this an urban legend? I mean evidence from a historian fairly respected in scholarly circles. I've read several books about the Germans of that time period, and World War II in general, but I've never read anything like this, even though it is a story I've heard repeated by word of mouth again and again. It sounds suspiciously like the seemingly natural human instinct to take something terrible and make it more sensational, perhaps because it is uncomfortable to picture ordinary people much like us committing mass murder.

I apologize if this topic seems offensive or just gross, as this is not my intent. I think answering questions like this with objective evidence is important, because it undermines the significance and truth of what really happened, and gives holocaust denial legitimacy. I guess the reasoning is that if one aspect is incorrect, then the whole thing must be falsehood. This doesn't follow in my mind, but you know people will think that way. If you feel that Dakka is an inappropriate place for such a discussion, I would answer that I feel the Dakka community, as a whole, tends to be a well read community of highly intelligent people with diverse interests and opinions, and that some of you might point me in the right direction with this.

I for one doubt the soap story for the simple, and uncomfortable to think about, reason that many of those people, at least toward the end, didn't have enough fat on their bodies to render, which is how soap is made from animal sources. I think we've all seen those pictures.

Grignard wrote: I guess the reasoning is that if one aspect is incorrect, then the whole thing must be falsehood.

This is absurd. Anyone who would make such a claim is unworthy of your attention.
Now, as for the lampshades and such. Anecdotal data abound (e.g. oral histories of now dead survivors who claimed to have seen such a thing), but there is no physical evidence, at least not yet. Historically, however, human skin has been used for bookbinding in many cases so there is nothing surprising about the use of human skin as trophies or perverted keepsakes.

olympia wrote:

Grignard wrote: I guess the reasoning is that if one aspect is incorrect, then the whole thing must be falsehood.

This is absurd. Anyone who would make such a claim is unworthy of your attention.
Now, as for the lampshades and such. Anecdotal data abound (e.g. oral histories of now dead survivors who claimed to have seen such a thing), but there is no physical evidence, at least not yet. Historically, however, human skin has been used for bookbinding in many cases so there is nothing surprising about the use of human skin as trophies or perverted keepsakes.

I would say that the skin thing sounds a lot more likely than the soap. The reasoning behind a lampshade could be a keepsake, whereas I don't see any point of making soap. Until we find physical evidence, I personally don't want to propagate those stories, but that is just me.

I've never heard about the soap. It sounds like a possible straw man, set up by Holocaust deniers to give them an easy target to knock down.

I've heard about the lampshades, but I don't remember the source.

There are heaps of evidence to confirm the Holocaust -- survivor accounts, eyewitness accounts, film and stills from camps, the camps themselves, camp medical records. There are piles of shoes and suitcases stolen from victims.

Anyone who claims all this evidence could be fabricated, presumably to "discredit" Hitler and the Nazis -- if they even needed it -- is frankly a loon.

Let's face it though, the only people who seem interested in denying the Holocaust are the people who hate Jews. Coincidence much?
The one main flaw with the whole Holocaust denial thing is simple. If Hitler didn't kill all those people, who did? Did aliens fly down whilst they were tanning, and abduct them from the amazing holiday resorts Hitler put them in?
Did they dig their way underground and become a race of mole people?
Whichever way you look at it, a couple of million people must have just vanished into thin air if Hitler didn't do it.
I just like the way their clothes were left behind in such neat piles in the holiday resorts(sarcasm), if Hitler didn't do it.

Ketara wrote:Let's face it though, the only people who seem interested in denying the Holocaust are the people who hate Jews. Coincidence much?
The one main flaw with the whole Holocaust denial thing is simple. If Hitler didn't kill all those people, who did? Did aliens fly down whilst they were tanning, and abduct them from the amazing holiday resorts Hitler put them in?
Did they dig their way underground and become a race of mole people?
Whichever way you look at it, a couple of million people must have just vanished into thin air if Hitler didn't do it.
I just like the way their clothes were left behind in such neat piles in the holiday resorts(sarcasm), if Hitler didn't do it.

I'm definitely not trying to look at this as holocaust denial. That is pretty well established amongst scholars. I was more interested in those specific things. I probably should not have mentioned denialism at all, as that opens up a whole can of worms that I did not intend to open up.

Ah. Fair enough. Then on topic, all I can say is that I have never heard of this folk tale, and as a Jew, I'd like to think that if there was any kind of credence behind, it would have been established fact over here as well.

History regularly gets warped, for example, the idea that Napoleon was short.

Ketara wrote:Ah. Fair enough. Then on topic, all I can say is that I have never heard of this folk tale, and as a Jew, I'd like to think that if there was any kind of credence behind, it would have been established fact over here as well.

History regularly gets warped, for example, the idea that Napoleon was short.

Yah, there is definitely a lot of "fakelore" floating around.

Hmm, my English teacher said that they made Lampshades out of Jewish skin, but that would just be wierd as I thought they burned most of them/kept them in rather horrid conitions that would most likely ruin any kind of value that could be found in the pelts.

Ratbarf wrote:Hmm, my English teacher said that they made Lampshades out of Jewish skin, but that would just be wierd as I thought they burned most of them/kept them in rather horrid conitions that would most likely ruin any kind of value that could be found in the pelts.

Yah, its kind of dark, but I guess there are holes in those stories big enough to drive a truck through. They did tend to burn the bodies or have mass burials in pits.

Everybody is always talking about all the atrocities that the Germans committed....

What about all the GOOD things that Hitler did...?

Deadshane1 wrote:Everybody is always talking about all the atrocities that the Germans committed....

What about all the GOOD things that Hitler did...?

Dude, don't even start, not even as a joke.

Especially not as a joke.

Seriously.

Don't.

Kid_Kyoto wrote:

Deadshane1 wrote:Everybody is always talking about all the atrocities that the Germans committed....

What about all the GOOD things that Hitler did...?

Dude, don't even start, not even as a joke.

Especially not as a joke.

Seriously.

Don't.

Actually....
1) He unified the German people and helped them regain their sense of pride
2) Stabilized the German economy and eliminated foreign debt
3) He instituted the standardized schedule
for the German train system and a standardized measurement for rail cars
4) Created the modern autobahn system
5) Encouraged the development of the Volkswagen
6) Instituted the Kindergarten system
7) Encouraged the development of jet aircraft, and rocket development.


...and he was a rabid Cinema fan...something he had in common with most dakkites.

Funny thing about the holocaust...noone really cared too much WHILE it was going on, but after the war was over it was this great evil thing that should've been stopped. Not trying to make a point FOR it...I just find that little factoid strange.

That's because winners write the history, and let's face it, massacres of Jews in Europe is hardly an uncommon thing in History. It's just the very efficent and systematic way in which he did it that shocked the world.

And I vote to end the discussion of the good things Hitler did here. Not because he never did any, but because they are irrelevant.

Jews Take Your Money Even From The Grave


By the way, that was meant as a joke and response the above picture post, and was found on Encyclopedia Dramatica.

http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Hitler

Well, if we arent going to discuss Hitler just because people get a little bit "touchy" about the subject (I doubt many of us here are personally 'scarred' by the occurances of the holocaust), in that case I suggest any discussions on "Dracula" and Vampires in general, should also be banned.

See, I'm 1/32nd part Bulgarian, and the atrocities that Vlad Tepes committed on my ancestors, chopping heads and burning of families within their homes is very painful to me.

Please dont discuss Dracula or Vampires...its offensive to some people.

I'm also 1/87th Egyption, so dont talk about mummies.

We evolved from monkeys, so dont talk about King Kong.

Whatever.

Back on topic, no I havn't heard about this, though I do know that there are other ingredients in soap, lye. Maybe that is how the rumor/myth started.

Soap is made by boiling up fat or oil with alkali.

Deadshane1, your analogies don't make any sense. Not mentioning mummification around egyptians is completely different from being stupidly insensitive about the holocaust.

Actually....
1) He unified the German people and helped them regain their sense of pride
2) Stabilized the German economy and eliminated foreign debt
3) He instituted the standardized schedule
for the German train system and a standardized measurement for rail cars
4) Created the modern autobahn system
5) Encouraged the development of the Volkswagen
6) Instituted the Kindergarten system
7) Encouraged the development of jet aircraft, and rocket development.

Most people know most of this. Who cares if he created the autobahn? You say it like he deserved more credit for it. Yes, Mao created complex underground pathways to prepare for nuclear war that are now underground malls, but he also ended up responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of his own people during the Great Leap Forward. Which do you think is more relevant in judging him as a historical figure?

I know (or at least I hope) you're not a hitler fan and I'm not trying to portray you as such. But your ramblings in this thread are just very poorly thought out.

And I vote to end the discussion of the good things Hitler did here. Not because he never did any, but because they are irrelevant.

I wholeheartedly agree (emphasis mine).

Deadshane1 wrote:Well, if we arent going to discuss Hitler just because people get a little bit "touchy" about the subject (I doubt many of us here are personally 'scarred' by the occurances of the holocaust), in that case I suggest any discussions on "Dracula" and Vampires in general, should also be banned.

See, I'm 1/32nd part Bulgarian, and the atrocities that Vlad Tepes committed on my ancestors, chopping heads and burning of families within their homes is very painful to me.

Please dont discuss Dracula or Vampires...its offensive to some people.

I'm also 1/87th Egyption, so dont talk about mummies.

We evolved from monkeys, so dont talk about King Kong.

Whatever.

You know, Deadshane actually has a point. Apparently people were aware that atrocities were happening, and that had nothing to do with the allies entering the war. Is it so strange to talk about why people by and large were quite ok with old Adolf? I mean, clearly there was some reason that people followed along. Sure, I realize in theory there was coercion, but what I've read suggests that by and large the government was either supported or tolerated by the people. In fact, oddly enough some of the only criticism of government policy was apparently in the SS newspaper, which was mostly banal complaining and bellyaching. Instead of just saying " Nazis, evil! Lets not talk about them except to say again and again how bad they were" wouldn't it be interesting and productive to know some answers, rather than sticking our head in the sand?

Before the start of the war there was no Holocaust policy. The labour camps that were set up probably looked like a different form of criminal punishment (for homosexuals, for example) and a creeping encroachment on human rights that developed over several years.

It should be remembered that France and the UK were not keen on another war, having been so battered in WW1. Britain had reduced its armed forces during the inter-war period and was in no position to issue credible threats against Germany. In the period 1933-39, German actions increased the unease of the western nations until Hitler's brinksmanship went a step too far.

What kind of questions and answers do you have in mind?

Kilkrazy wrote:Before the start of the war there was no Holocaust policy. The labour camps that were set up probably looked like a different form of criminal punishment (for homosexuals, for example) and a creeping encroachment on human rights that developed over several years.

It should be remembered that France and the UK were not keen on another war, having been so battered in WW1. Britain had reduced its armed forces during the inter-war period and was in no position to issue credible threats against Germany. In the period 1933-39, German actions increased the unease of the western nations until Hitler's brinksmanship went a step too far.

What kind of questions and answers do you have in mind?

Well, what exactly goes through someone's head when they're contemplating genocide, or at least allowing it to happen. I don't think the simple answer of "they're evil" is satisfactory. If the allies had not won the war, would we never know about it? If that is true, then is there something inherently wrong about genocide, or did we get lucky and get to write history? Can someone change the way people feel by having someone in authority say it is ok to kill? Do human beings inherently feel reluctance to do things like this and is it some kind of conditioning that allows someone to do it? Do people secretly want to do these things on some deep level? I don't know, questions like that.

I think something that 90% of people miss in the interpretations of the Nazi actions, is that the discrimination, anti-semitism, labour camps, radicalisation and repression going on in Nazi Germany, even during the period of relative friendship between the Western Allies and Germany, was not unknown to the Allies. The fact was that they were either too cowardly to seek a confrontation with Germany, or sympathised to an extent with its aims. However, to say that only Germany was outspoken in its anti-semitism is a load of gak, spoken only by those ignorant enough to gulp down what is fed to them by popular history.

Roosevelt's wife wrote in her diary (I'll get the source/date/exact time for you if requested, and when I find my source again) how she did not want to go to a certain uptown socialite's party because it was "full of those jews". It was commonly accepted that "jewishness" was spreading, seen as the cause for much of what we see as Leninism and the rise of Soviet Russia. Churchill was outspoken in his claims that his enemy had turned from Leninism and the dangers it possessed, into the threat of the international jewish conspiracy.

[PLACEHOLDER FOR LATER]

sA

People never do things just for the lulz of evil. They always have some rational goal in mind, however abhorrent we might find it.

I don't know man, Charles Manson seems pretty much for the lulz to me.

I think something that 90% of people miss in the interpretations of the Nazi actions, is that the discrimination, anti-semitism, labour camps, radicalisation and repression going on in Nazi Germany, even during the period of relative friendship between the Western Allies and Germany, was not unknown to the Allies. The fact was that they were either too cowardly to seek a confrontation with Germany, or sympathised to an extent with its aims. However, to say that only Germany was outspoken in its anti-semitism is a load of gak, spoken only by those ignorant enough to gulp down what is fed to them by popular history.

Roosevelt's wife wrote in her diary (I'll get the source/date/exact time for you if requested, and when I find my source again) how she did not want to go to a certain uptown socialite's party because it was "full of those jews". It was commonly accepted that "jewishness" was spreading, seen as the cause for much of what we see as Leninism and the rise of Soviet Russia. Churchill was outspoken in his claims that his enemy had turned from Leninism and the dangers it possessed, into the threat of the international jewish conspiracy.

True, during the occupation of Paris it wasn't an uncommon day that a letter was received by the German occupiers commending them for solving what the populace thought was the "Jewish Problem." The myth that everybody in France was in the resistance is such a load of bull. Many people co-operated with the germans openly and quite a few even supported them.

Can someone change the way people feel by having someone in authority say it is ok to kill? Do human beings inherently feel reluctance to do things like this and is it some kind of conditioning that allows someone to do it? Do people secretly want to do these things on some deep level?

Actually this has been asked before and somewhat answered py psychologists. Or at least they have found similar instances were perfectly normal people have bcome these monstrosities. Abu Grhaib is an excellent example. As is the " Obedience to Authority,
The experiment by Stanley Milgram " and the second part, " The Perils of Obedience by Stanley Milgram - 1974 absolute best would be the "Stanford Prison Experiment." It pretty much proves that anyone can do anything when told by someone else with perceived authority to do it.

And heres a small Documentary on the Stanford Prison Experiment.

I do not agree that a single experiment proves the theory, especially in a complicated a field as social science.

Nevertheless, the power of authority and peer pressure can get people to do things they would not do of their own accord.

The question of war was subject to much theological debate by the early Church, and the doctrine of the "just war" had to be invented to allow killing by Christians, since it is against the core message of Christianity.

Don't forget that the authorities on Jersey during the war were happy to hand over Jews to the German's. I remember watching an episode of a history series on Auschwitz that had Jersey residence looking down their noses at fellow countrymen who had Jewish nannies. Even after of the horror of the Holocaust, we still haven't moved on that much. I do feel ashamed alot of the time of being human when I see what we do to each other.

Kinda derailed here, hey guys?

Ed Gein used to make lampshades out of the skins of his victims.

He even made a whole skinsuit out of various young girls so he could wear it and pretend to be a girl.

He had a shoebox full of vulvas, too.

That Stanford prison experiment is FASCINATING.

sA