Sometimes orthodox Holocaust historians are forced to take a loss and admit that well known Holocaust meme is, in fact, a ‘mere rumor’.
When they make these admissions one may think that orthodox Holocaust historians are all about presenting the correct version of history. Don’t be fooled. There are plenty of changes to the Holocaust narrative that go unmentioned. I’ve yet to encounter any sort of apology or humility from the historians when they’ve wrongly slandered the German people. This behavior is indicative of a motivation to demonize rather than to set the record straight.
Anti-German propaganda about turning human fat into soap was not unique to WW2. It seems that the enemies of Germany like to recycle their atrocity propaganda.
Was this story of Jewish soap a ‘mere rumor’? Are rumors admissible in court? Once again we are presented with a case in which the International Military Tribunal in Nuremberg reveals it’s true colors for being a show trial. In his closing address to the Tribunal, chief British prosecutor Sir Hartley Shawcross had this to say:
If you would like to see a more extensive list of the Nuremberg trials and prominent people invoking the Jewish soap ‘rumor’ read this article by Mark Weber. To see an Allied propaganda video making the claim about making human soap click here.
Adversaries against the open discussion of the Holocaust claim that revisionists believe that they need to prove one thing wrong to disprove the entire Holocaust narrative. It’s not just one thing that has been proven wrong though. And referring back to Shawcross’ closing statement, why should we take his word of that mass murder happened when the his statement contains proven falsehoods? Of course major narrative changes give revisionists a reason to cast doubt on the Holocaust. Why shouldn’t it? No historical event is above investigation, especially an event that is so impactful and has so many problems with it’s core narrative.