Your email is not valid
Recipient's email is not valid
Submit Close

Your email has been sent.

Click here to send another

False Witness

A play examines the notion that Nazis made soap from Jewish flesh

Print Email
Joel Friedman as Holocaust survivor Milton Saltzman and Louisa Flaningam as Holocaust scholar Esther Feinman in a scene from The Soap Myth (Jason Weston)

In the YouTube trailer for a new play running at a small theater in New York, an unseen interviewer asks people in a park whether they’ve heard of “the soap myth.” Most of them look befuddled, but some eventually realize that the question refers to the belief that the Nazis made soap from human corpses. But the last interviewee, a yarmulke-wearing old man with a pinched, angry face, is different. He was in a concentration camp, he says, and a particularly sadistic trick the Nazis played involved a scheme in which Jews would be led to what they thought were gas chambers “and water would come out! We would splash about and celebrate. And then someone said the soap was impure. Some almost tried to tear the lather from the skin until it started to bleed. You understand that the Germans were laughing at us as we cleaned ourselves with the dead corpses of our fathers and mothers and sisters and brothers.”

It’s a hair-raising story, but the man on the bench isn’t a real Holocaust survivor, and the man behind the camera is Jeff Cohen, a playwright whose new show, The Soap Myth, opened last week. The play is based on the story of a survivor named Morris Spitzer. In his later years, Spitzer, who died in 2005, campaigned tirelessly to convince the academic establishment and the public at large that the Nazis did indeed make soap out of their Jewish victims—an idea now largely discredited by serious Holocaust scholars. But at the heart of his saga, and of Cohen’s play, is much more than the veracity of a particularly gruesome Holocaust story; what’s at stake here is the way we choose to see the past, a struggle between a dispassionate approach relying on facts and figures and another, much more subjective one that holds survivors’ testimonies to be unarguably true and ultimately sacred. As fewer and fewer survivors remain alive to tell their stories, this debate takes on a special urgency. How we choose to remember, scholars and survivors alike now realize, may very well determine what we choose to remember.

The Soap Myth tells the story of a young reporter for a progressive Jewish publication who’s assigned to write a story about Milton Saltzman, an elderly survivor on a one-man mission to get the “soap myth” reclassified as fact. Brandishing a photograph of soap bars being buried in a Jewish funeral after the war, he harangues everyone from leading Holocaust scholars to a thinly-veiled version of sexpert Rabbi Shmuley Boteach; by the time pink-cheeked journalist Annie Blumberg enters the scene, everyone else has lost patience, but Blumberg gives him a hearing. In the end, she is so moved by his dogged persistence that, in a lengthy final monologue, she renounces her own claim to journalistic fact-weighing. “Did the Nazis manufacture soap from the fat they removed from the corpses of murdered Jews?” she asks. “I don’t know. But I do know that we owe it to Milton and his brethren to believe them. Even in the face of a lack of evidence.”

In real life as in the play, the notion that Nazis made soap from humans was accepted by scholars for several decades after the Holocaust, based largely upon the testimony of three witnesses at the Nuremberg trials and photographs like Saltzman’s. It seems clear that the people who participated in funerals for bars of soap believed that they contained human material, but whether they were correct or whether the Nazis had concocted the soap stories as a way to further terrorize their captives is less so.

“I don’t see why anyone would doubt that the Nazis may have experimented with the soap thing, but they didn’t do it on a large scale, and it was far more widespread and persistent as a rumor than any facts that may have justified it,” said Melvin Konner, who discusses the Nazis’ use of human flesh in his recently released book The Jewish Body (Nextbook Press). Another scholar who has written extensively on matters concerning the Jewish body, Sander Gilman, wrote in an email to Tablet that the soap claims bring to the fore an enduring question about “the underlying intent of the Shoah and the Nazis”: were the Holocaust’s perpetrators “functionalists” determined to get the maximum economic gain from their victims (which, he notes, “provides a rationale for the ‘Nazi soap’ image”) or were their motives purely ideological? But for Gilman, the question of Nazi motivations is purely hypothetical in this case, since “the processing of human fat into soap during the war, as far as all documentation goes, never actually happened.”

Because of this skepticism, institutions like the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C., the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles, and Yad Vashem in Jerusalem do not include exhibits on soap, despite Spitzer’s best efforts. An article about Spitzer in Moment magazine, an independent Jewish glossy, quoted Aaron Breitbart, a researcher at the Wiesenthal Center, who said that “the leading scholars of the Holocaust are of the opinion that the Nazis did not make soap. It was a cruel rumor at the camps.” Indeed, according to historian Michael Berenbaum—whom Cohen disapprovingly quotes in his YouTube video—not since the early 1980s have historians accepted these rumors as true. DNA tests have proved inconclusive, some of the Nuremberg testimonies are believed to have been coerced, and the extensive paper trail the Nazis left about so many other atrocities is, in this instance, nowhere to be found. “No responsible historian I know has made the claim that soap was made of human flesh because they’ve seen the same evidence I have,” Berenbaum said.

The scholars may have reached a consensus—but that’s because the scholars, Cohen, the playwright, argued in an interview, have been cowed by Holocaust deniers who eagerly exploit ambiguities in the historical record. While historians used to consider survivor testimony—whether collected at the Nuremberg trials or coming from an isolated source like Spitzer—ample enough evidence to add a claim to the historical record, Cohen went on, they are now afraid to make controversial claims lest deniers use them to say that the Shoah itself never happened. Asked whether he thought it was possible that historians’ standards had simply grown more stringent over time, he said, “If evidentiary standards change such that they can’t find the evidence for ovens at Auschwitz, do we say the ovens didn’t exist?”

Cohen’s critique points to an underlying question for scholars and educators: how should survivor testimony be treated in relation to other kinds of evidence? One school of thought holds that survivor testimony can offer a truth beyond the second-hand accounts of historians. Claude Lanzmann, the maker of Shoah, for instance, argues that when we study the Holocaust, “no true knowledge pre-exists the process of transmission”—in other words, it is testimony itself that creates historical truth. But there has also been a backlash against this idea. Literature professors Andrew S. Gross and Michael J. Hoffman argue in a 2004 paper that the dominant mode of Holocaust historiography today privileges “memory over history, experience over event.” Vaunted works like Shoah and exhibits at U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, they write, elevate unedited survivor testimony over research-based scholarship in an attempt to make the Holocaust more accessible, but risk obscuring the facts in the process.

Taken to its extreme, Gross and Hoffman go on to argue, a refusal to question survivor testimony can engender willful departures from the truth like those perpetrated by Binjamin Wilkomirski, author of the fraudulent Holocaust memoir Fragments. Wilkomirski, a Swiss gentile with the given name Bruno Grosjean, fooled editors, critics, and readers into believing he was a Polish Jewish Holocaust survivor. When questioned about inconsistencies in his story, Grosjean said that trauma had rendered him unable to organize his past in a logical way, but to his supporters it almost didn’t matter; it was as though whatever Grosjean said was true simply by virtue of a survivor having said it. Similar discomfort around questioning testimony was engendered by more recent fabricated Holocaust memoirs like Misha Defonseca’s Surviving with Wolves and Herman Rosenblat’s Angel at the Fence.

The tension between eyewitness testimony and dispassionate research is at the heart of The Soap Myth. Cohen, whose previous work includes adaptations of Chekhov and a play about his father’s tennis buddies, said that he became interested in the topic after Spitzer approached him outside a Manhattan theater with the issue of Moment magazine that included the article about him. Though the article (which is not available online) was extremely sympathetic to Spitzer, it ultimately did little to help his crusade. Cohen never saw Spitzer again—in fact, he found out that Spitzer had died only by way of a death notice in a Bronx newspaper. But he remained fascinated by the story—the question, as he put it in an interview with Tablet, of “how one survives surviving,” as well as the politics of Holocaust scholarship—and eventually dramatized it.

Cohen’s conclusion, as expressed in an interview and implied in his play, puts him at the far end of the testimonial side of the spectrum. “Do [scholars] believe the evil side of the anti-Semitism or believe the victims who lived through it?” he asked. “Historians need to choose a side.” The play ends at a similar impasse, when Blumberg cannot convince Saltzman to record his memories for the Holocaust Memorial Museum archives. For Saltzman, as for the scholars, truth is an all-or-nothing proposition—he doesn’t want his testimony accepted as his truth, but as the truth. Blumberg comes to share his position in her final speech, dismissing scholarly objections to the soap myth as “sophistry.” Cohen’s and his characters’ refusal to compromise amounts to no less than an indictment of the standards that undergird the writing of history.

Print Email

Daily rate: $2
Monthly rate: $18
Yearly rate: $180

Tablet is committed to bringing you the best, smartest, most enlightening and entertaining reporting and writing on Jewish life, all free of charge. We take pride in our community of readers, and are thrilled that you choose to engage with us in a way that is both thoughtful and thought-provoking. But the Internet, for all of its wonders, poses challenges to civilized and constructive discussion, allowing vocal—and, often, anonymous—minorities to drag it down with invective (and worse). Starting today, then, we are asking people who'd like to post comments on the site to pay a nominal fee—less a paywall than a gesture of your own commitment to the cause of great conversation. All proceeds go to helping us bring you the ambitious journalism that brought you here in the first place.

Readers can still interact with us free of charge via Facebook, Twitter, and our other social media channels, or write to us at Each week, we’ll select the best letters and publish them in a new letters to the editor feature on the Scroll.

We hope this new largely symbolic measure will help us create a more pleasant and cultivated environment for all of our readers, and, as always, we thank you deeply for your support.

William Smart says:

Holocaust deniers (at least in the US) have about the influence of the Flat Earth Society. So, while one can appreciate the dynamic tensions that may make this an interesting play, I think it would have been better to let this story die.

It’s rather like the Palestinians accusing Israel of organ-harvesting in the 90’s. Some witnesses are convinced it happened, but there’s no evidence. Both stories just get in the way of real understanding.

Holocaust deniers are using each opportunity to undermune horrors of Holocaust in order to reach their final goal.
There are testimonies, and I sow personaly in 1989 on exibition in Belgrade soap tht was made of murdered prisoners in death camps.

@ danjan

you idiot, even the ADL has stooped spreading those lies about soap made of human fat.

carol morton jeory says:

Listen, you can go to a little museum called “Chamber of the Shoah” here in Jerusalem near Zion Gate and the Tomb of King David, the soap is there, they are cube-shaped and greyish. The museum is a bit primitive in comparison with the modern ones but it has things I didn’t see in Wash, dc.

Based on what I have read (and I will note, I have read secondary sources and done no original research myself) there appear to have been some small scale experiments at making soap from human fat, but it was never done on an industrialized scale– which is what the “soap myth” claims.

There were many small acts of barbarism and sadism inituated by individuals simply because the larger program of genocide made it easy to act upon these whim, though they were not part of the “Final Solution” as envisioned by the planners and organizers. It’s the difference between “what the Nazis did” and “what some Nazis did.”

Denise Zelikson says:

As the daughter of a Holocaust survivor I find this play offensive. My father was 12 years old when he became a victim of the Holocaust. He survived the Dvinsk ghetto and 6 camps. One of his jobs in the concentration camp was to cut off the breast of women, and the legs and arms of children to make soap. Just cause some deniers want to close their eyes to this and pretend it didnt happen doesn’t mean it wasnt real. Talk to survivors!! My father is still alive and gives testimony to the nazi atrocities and horrors so that people will bear witness and it shall never happen again. B”H

mordkhi says:

all are lies

John Berger, British, Marxist/humanist art critic, artist and novelist,was someone whose work that I read for the first time in a little village in Western Wisconsin in about 1981. I’ve known thousands of artists, some famous to art history and others mere students, for no other reason than I spent at least five years, perhaps more as an artists’ model when I was young. Possibly a fortuitous occurence because my father had been a professor of anatomy at the medical school from which he had himself graduated; whereas, I had been a student of dance.

Yet, never had I read such an astute explanation of how great art is determined by those who can afford to be the patrons. They condition our artistic taste or sensibility, our judgment, our very perception; this determines what is kept for posterity, what is valued, and what is thrown away.

Might I suggest that we ought to carefully examine History in this way as well.

Berger may have been having a particularly Zen moment when he hit on this clarity of vision; an enlightenment?

If we were to consider that the greatest thieves of art(collecting from private households like that of the Cassirer family in Paris who had also built those apartment blocks of houses with the inner neighborhood courtyard in Berlin), could also be thought of as Patrons, were Nazis patronizing the rest of us as lesser humans, perhaps we should analyze history quite carefully to examine the detritus that we have chosen to throw away.

One day in search of second hand books in New Jersey, I looked aghast to recognize a painting stripped of a frame and no attention paid to the condition of the canvas itself. I recognized it because I had once worked for Moses and Raphael Soyer, at their studio in the Carnegie Tower (across the street from Manhattan’s Carnegie Deli).

We have done something similar with recent History, at least in my lifetime; by keeping the convoluted framework of the Third Reich and throwing away the created which is the value.

I had more to say on this; but not without your permission. I have put it aside because I really cannot recall exactly how I learned why the soap was so talked about.

Dietz Ziechmann says:

I appreciate the efforts of Jeff Cohen and others to uphold the standards of historical truth and suspect that Ian Thal is correct in his general conclusions. But I think we should focus upon creating a holistic convergence across ethnic lines, rather than focus upon divisions and old grievances. What appalls me in that the bounds of ethnic divisions grew so wide in the 20th and early 21st centuries, with such horrendous consequences! We need more Stephen Sondheims in the world with their artistic genius and an ability to unite, rather than divide. B’shalom, l’shalom.

I’ve said that least 530514 times. The problem this like that is they are just too compilcated for the average bird, if you know what I mean


Your comment may be no longer than 2,000 characters, approximately 400 words. HTML tags are not permitted, nor are more than two URLs per comment. We reserve the right to delete inappropriate comments.

Thank You!

Thank you for subscribing to the Tablet Magazine Daily Digest.
Please tell us about you.

False Witness

A play examines the notion that Nazis made soap from Jewish flesh

More on Tablet:

Making Sex Education Smarter

By Marjorie Ingall — Teenagers need to learn about more than anatomy, as some Jewish educators already know