Wannsee Conference

The Wannsee Conference was a conference in the outer Berlin suburb of Wannsee on 20 January 1942. Allegedly, the purpose of the conference, which was chaired by Reinhard Heydrich, was to plan important parts of the Holohoax. The "Wannsee Protocol" is an alleged protocol of the conference, allegedly written by Adolf Eichmann.

Holohoax revisionists dispute this version of events and have criticized the interpretation and/or the authenticity of the "Wannsee protocol".

The "Wannsee Protocol"

File:Besprechung.jpg

"The Wannsee Protocol"

The "Wannsee Protocol" is an alleged protocol of the conference. It was "discovered" by the controversial jewish prosecutor Robert Kempner in 1947 and introduced as evidence at the Nuremberg trials.

See the article titled "Wannsee Protocol" or the "External links" section for the complete text of the "Wannsee Protocol".

Even if accepting the "Wannsee Protocol" as authentic, the contents are often misrepresented in politically correct descriptions. The text mentions deportation and forced labor but not gassings.

Politically correct view

The politically correct view is that the Wannsee Protocol uses "code words". See Meanings and translations of German words and Holohoax revisionism: Code words. If "decoding" these "code words", then the document is alleged to describe the killings of jews, being more explicit in one often quoted section.

The often quoted section is one related to road building:

In the course of the final solution the jews are slated to be deployed for labor in the East under appropriate supervision and in an adequate manner. In large working platoons, with the genders separated, the jews fit to work will be brought to these areas while constructing roads, whereby a large part will doubtlessly drop out due to natural decrease.

The possible final remnant, which doubtlessly represents the most resistant part, has to be treated accordingly, because upon release, this – being a natural elite – has to be considered as the nucleus of a new jewish reconstruction. (see the experience of history)."

Postwar statements by conference participants

David Irving has argued that the conference consisted of mid-level ministerial planners, working on the logistics of the deportation operation. Those surviving the war and who were interrogated regarding the conference, all (except Adolf Eichmann) stated that nobody talked about killing jews.

Eichmann agreed at his trial in Israel to have taken the Minutes of what has become known as the Wannsee Protocol. However, there is no other evidence for this and it is not mentioned in the Wannsee Protocol. There is no autograph. Furthermore, Eichmann's statements were contradictory, in one instance agreeing that the conference discussed "The various possibilites for killing", but in another instance stating that "there was no specific talk of killing methods".

Criticisms of the politically correct interpretation

Even if assuming that the document is authentic, it is argued to be misleading to describe it as a "protocol", since this is a term that should only be applied to minutes recorded during a particular session and that the responsible participants guarantee to be a true and accurate report by their signatures. Only such a protocol can be considered a more or less valid record of a proceeding. The "Wannsee Protocol" is even by politically correct sources described as notes made from memory some time after the conference. As such, it is argued that the document is of the type "aides mémoire" or "memoranda", and therefore being a form of document that has very limited value as evidence, even if authentic, since there is always a possibility of lapses of memory on the part of the writer.

The Wannsee Protocol stated that "The intention is not to evacuate jews over the age of 65 but to send them to an old people’s ghetto. Theresienstadt has been earmarked for this purpose." This has been argued to be incompatible with the Wannsee Protocol being a plan for a genocide.

See also Meanings and translations of German words and Holohoax revisionism: Code words on general criticisms of supposed "code words", such as they being unnecessary in already secret documents, such as the Wannsee Protocol. See also the section "The "Final Solution of the jewish Question"" in the linked article, on this phrase being used already in 1897 and 1899 by the very prominent jewish Zionist Theodor Herzl, who described Zionism as the "final solution of the jewish question".

Carlo Mattogno has argued that the expression "upon release" does not make sense in the context of a planned genocide. Therefore, it is argued, the document does not describe a planned genocide, and the expression "treated accordingly" should be interpreted as that the "remnant" should remain prisoners.

The phrase "upon release" has also been seen as indicating an intention of freeing (most) jews after the war.

A revisionist interpretation by the book The Myth of the Wannsee Conference includes that "The Wannsee meeting was a planning meeting on how Europe’s jews should be deported, via transit camps, to the East; with able-bodied jews being forced to build roads and other labor intensive tasks in those regions". Also some other revisionists have argued for such an interpretation. They have cited statements in the Wannsee Protocol such as "Another possible solution of the problem has now taken the place of emigration, i.e. the evacuation of the jews to the East" and "The evacuated jews will first be taken, group after group, to so-called transit ghettos, from where they will be transported further to the East". This is argued to refer to transit camps such as the Belzec, Sobibor, and Treblinka camps and the occupied Soviet Union ("the East").

Criticisms of authenticity

Many revisionist studies have concluded that the "Wannsee Protocol" and some accompanying documents, such as invitations, are fabrications or have been edited. This based on linguistic inconsistencies, internal inconsistencies, external inconsistencies, inconsistencies with the form of German documents from this period, inconsistencies between different versions of the "Wannsee Protocol", and so on.

Some of these criticisms have been replied to by anti-revisionists and in turn been replied to by revisionists.

The contents of a document may in some places in the document have been interpreted incorrectly, and may in other places have been fabricated/edited. This could occur if the editor/fabricator used an original document as a template and made relatively minor changes when creating the new false document, but with these changes creating an overall misleading impression also regarding the parts that were not edited/fabricated. The motivations for only making relatively minor changes include that it is often very difficult and risky to forge a convincing completely new document, while making relatively minor changes to an already existing document is much easier and quicker.

The article The Wannsee Conference Protocol: Anatomy of a Fabrication stated that "That a conference between high officials and Party leaders took place in January 1942 in the villa 'Am Großen Wannsee' is probably true, although the precise date is unknown. No other documentation of this conference exists other than the 'protocol' and its accompanying letter(s). There is no entry in a guest book, an appointment calendar, or any other kind of incidental evidence. The invitations specify thirteen invitees. According to the 'protocol', however, eighteen persons showed up. Whether the discussion pertained to the jewish question is not certain, but it is likely. What actually was discussed there is unknown.!"

The book Auschwitz: A Judge Looks at the Evidence stated that:

The "Wannsee Protocol" does not clearly outline an "extermination plan." Of course, the absence of any reference to such a plan in this document has not stopped the proponents of the extermination thesis from citing it for support. However, so many participants in the Wannsee Conference survived the fall of the Third Reich that at first the extermination mythologists could not risk making grossly false charges about the subject and outcome of the conference. Hence they limited themselves to more or less vague statements about "preparations" for an "extermination program." Otherwise, the document could not be reconciled with the testimony of the surviving participants in the conference, who unanimously disputed the charge that it was held to plan the "extermination of European jewry." The only discussion they could recall concerned the deportation of jews for a labor force in the occupied Eastern territories. In his book Eichmann und Komplizen, Kempner presents selected passages from transcripts of his interrogations of surviving participants in the conference, and, of course, maintains that they "resorted to denials" for "fear of being identified with the murder plan." Certainly, that is nothing more than an allegation, and he can "support" it only by going back to the "Wannsee Protocol." Just as telling as this begging of the question are the low and brutal methods of intimidation that Kempner — a former Prussian senior civil servant — employed in his interrogations of these and other Reich officials. Even the interrogation transcripts he quotes — which he has, no doubt, "doctored" — testify to those methods. Yet he failed to induce any of the surviving participants in the Wannsee Conference to serve as a key witness for the prosecution."

[...]

In conclusion, it can be said that the "Wannsee Protocol" — if one does not choose to view it as a total forgery — contains some passages which are at least substantially genuine, along with sentences that do not fit into context, and so must have been subsequently forged into the document. Likewise, several authentic passages may have been excised, for example, details of the Madagascar Plan. Leaving aside any possible manipulations, the document remains questionable simply because its origin is so obscure. In form it hardly corresponds to German official usage, and the original has yet to be submitted to impartial experts who could perhaps determine whether or not it is authentic. As such, the document is hardly adequate proof that a plan existed to exterminate all jews residing in German-controlled territory. Even in its present form, it does not constitute sufficient proof of that allegation. For in the entire document there is not a word about "exterminating," much less "gassing," the jews, and the portions of it cited to prove this claim are seen in a different light when one refrains from taking "Final Solution" as a synonym for "extermination."

The "discoverer" Robert Kempner and his staff have also been accused of various other violations of justice during the Nuremberg trials. (Kempner and his staff was also involved in the "discovery" of the first Posen speech.)

Indicative of the general situation during the Nuremberg trials, the book The Hoax of the Twentieth Century stated that "The version of the Wannsee Conference minutes that is printed in NMT volume 13, incidentally, has the phrase “if they are allowed to go free” deleted by the editors. This suggests that the editors may have interpreted the passage as a recommendation that the “remnant” should be “allowed to go free.”" See also the article on the Nuremberg trials regarding general criticisms of the trials such as admitted documentary frauds.

See also the "External links" section regarding detailed criticisms of authenticity.

Demographic aspects

The book jewish Emigration from the Third Reich stated on the number of jews who emigrated from National Socialist Germany that "There is only one figure that derives from an official German source that, however, is rejected by all establishment authors because it seems too high. Interestingly, this figure appears in a document that is otherwise highly regarded, thanks to its use in proving the German plan for “jewish extermination”: the “Wannsee Protocol.” All information in this document is judged credible and convincing, except for its emigration statistics. On page 4 of the Protocol the following figures are given: “from the assumption of power until the October 31, 1941, deadline, altogether around 537,000 jews emigrated.”"

The Wannsee Protocol stated the presence of 11 million jews in Europe, counting also jews in neutral countries and in Allied countries. This has been stated to be exaggerated, with, for example, the prewar World Almanac stating around 9 million jews in Europe.

Another issue is how many of these jews were under German control according to the Wannsee Protocol. It is rather unclear on this for jews in the Soviet Union. There are entries for both occupied Soviet "Eastern territories" (420,000 jews) and "USSR" (the Soviet Union) including "Ukraine" and "White Russia" (5,000,000 jews). Arguably the Wannsee Conference participants would have wanted demographic estimates regarding the number of jews in both the occupied and the non-occupied Soviet Union, which may imply that this is what these two entries refer to. However, if so, and if the 5 million estimate regarding "USSR" was correct, then this is problematic for various "mainstream" claims, such as there being only 2 million jews in the Soviet Union at the end of the war and 6 million jews being killed.

Even if the Wannsee Protocol is not a forgery or edited, there may be various problems with the stated demographic estimates. For example, see the article on the Korherr Report on various criticisms of stated demographic estimates. In particular, there may be problems with underestimating prewar jewish emigrations from and in Europe and with underestimating movements of jews in Poland and the Soviet Union eastwards to non-German controlled areas. See also Holohoax demographics.

Related documents

15 January 1942 radio message

Irving has quoted a radio message from 15 January 1942 that British codebreakers intercepted: "THE Führer has ordered that jewish compulsory labour gangs are to be sent with all speed into the area of Russian operations for the carrying out of important constructional undertakings. They go on January 18, 1942 in special transport into the building area allotted to the Silesian operations group, in the region of Dünaburg/Moscow. Medical examination and injection are necessary. The jews wear black working dress with green armbands. Employment - Reichsautobahn. Organisation Todt undertakes guard duties. Please see to it that the pool of compulsory labourers is not reduced." This supports that Hitler did intend some jews to build roads in the east, but the vaccinations (injections) and the order to not reduce the labor pool is arguably inconsistent with this being intended as a method for mass murder. Furthermore, road building as a method for mass murder is not a method consistent with the politically correct version of how the claimed mass murders took place. See also Holohoax demographics: Organisation Todt.

7 March 1942 entry in Goebbels's diary

On 7 March 1942, Goebbels's diary stated "I read a detailed report from the SD and police regarding a final solution of the jewish Question. Any final solution involves a tremendous number of new viewpoints. The jewish Question must be solved within a pan-European frame. There are 11 million jews still in Europe. They will have to be concentrated later, to begin with, in the East; possibly an island, such as Madagascar, can be assigned to them after the war. In any case there can be no peace in Europe until the last jews are shut off from (ausgeschaltet) the continent. That, of course, raises a large number of exceedingly delicate questions. What with those related to jews? In-laws of jews? Persons married to jews? Evidently we still have quite a lot to do and undoubtedly a multitude of personal tragedies will ensue within the framework of the solution of this problem. But that is unavoidable. The situation is now ripe for a final settlement of the jewish Question. Later generations will no longer have the will power or the instinctive alertness. That’s why we are doing a good work in proceeding radically and consistently. The task we are assuming today will be an advantage and a boon to our descendants."

This may refer to a report on the Wannsee Conference. The 11 million jews number, the plan to "concentrate" jews in "the East", and the questions regarding those related to jews may suggest that this report was the "Wannsee Protocol", which discussed questions such as marriages between jews and non-jews. However, the "Wannsee Protocol" stated nothing on the Madagascar Plan, either during or after the war, which may suggest that the text on this was edited out of a fabricated "Wannsee Protocol", with the forger using a real report as a template, as suggested by Auschwitz: A Judge Looks at the Evidence (see the section "Criticisms of authenticity").

21 August 1942 Luther Memorandum

On 21 August 1942, Germany's Undersecretary of State Martin Luther, in charge of Section D III, which dealt with foreign states in regard to the jewish question and racial policy, produced a summary ("the Luther Memorandum") of the jewish policy of National Socialism. In it he referred to the Wannsee Conference:

"The fact that the Fuehrer intends to evacuate all jews from Europe was communicated to us as early as August 1940 by Ambassador Abetz after an interview with the Fuehrer (compare D III 2298). Hence the basic instruction of the Reich Foreign Minister to promote the evacuation of the jews in closest cooperation with the agencies of the Reichsfuehrer-SS, is still in force and will therefore be observed [...] Gruppenfuehrer Heydrich informed the Reich Foreign Minister that the whole problem of the approximately 3.25 million jews in the areas under German control can no longer be solved by emigration; a territorial final solution would be necessary. In recognition of this Reichsmarschall Goering on 31 July 1941 commissioned Gruppenfuehrer Heydrich to make, in conjunction with the proper German agencies, all necessary preparations for a total solution of the jewish problem in the German sphere of influence in Europe. (Compare D III 709 Secret). On the basis of this instruction Gruppenfuehrer Heydrich arranged a session of all the interested German agencies for 20 January 1942 [the Wannsee Conference], at which the State Secretaries were present from the other ministries and I myself from the Foreign Office. In the conference Gruppenfuehrer Heydrich explained that Reichsmarschall Goering's assignment to him had been made on the Fuehrer's instructions and that the Fuehrer instead of emigration has now authorized the evacuation of the jews to the East as the solution [...] On the basis of the Fuehrer instruction mentioned under 4.), the evacuation of the jews from Germany was begun [...] The number of the jews deported in this way to the East did not suffice to cover the labor needs there. [...] The deportation to the Government General is a provisionary measure. The jews will be moved on further to the occupied Eastern territories as soon as the technical conditions for it are given."

The summary also stated that the Reich Foreign Minister in a conversation with the Bulgarian Foreign Minister on 26 November 1941 stated "that at the end of the war all jews would have to leave Europe. This was the unalterable decision of the Fuehrer and also the only way to master this problem, as only a global and comprehensive solution could be applied and individual measures would not help very much." The revisionist Paul Grubach has argued that "this Luther memo gives no indication that there was any change in policy during the time between the enunciation of Hitler's jewish policy to Bulgarian Foreign Minister Popoff in November 1941, and the creation of said memo in August 1942."

Hans Frank's diary and Josef Bühler's postwar testimony

Josef Bühler (often Buehler in English) attended the Wannsee Conference as the representative of Hans Frank, the administrator of the General Government. At the Nuremberg trials, Alfred Seidl (counsel for Hans Frank) and Buehler stated that:

"DR. SEIDL: The Prosecution submitted an extract from Frank's diary in evidence under Number USA-281 (Document Number 2233(d)-PS.) This is a discussion of jewish problems. In this connection Frank said, among other things: "My attitude towards the jews is based on the expectation that they will disappear; they must go away. I have started negotiations for deporting them to the East. This question will be discussed at a large meeting in Berlin in January, to which I shall send State Secretary Dr. Buehler. This conference is to take place at the Reich Security Main Office in the office of SS Obergruppenfuehrer Heydrich. In any case jewish emigration on a large scale will begin." I ask you now, did the Governor General send you to Berlin for that conference; and if so, what was the subject of the conference?

BUEHLER: Yes, I was sent to the conference and the subject of the conference was the jewish problem. [...] Because of the special problems of the Government General I had asked Heydrich for a personal interview and he received me. On that occasion, among many other things, I described in particular the catastrophic conditions which had resulted from the arbitrary bringing of jews into the Government General. He replied that for this very reason he had invited the Governor General to the conference. The Reichsfuehrer SS, so he said, had received an order from the Fuehrer to round up all the jews of Europe and to settle them in the Northeast of Europe, in Russia. I asked him whether this meant that the further arrival of jews in the Government General would cease, and whether the hundreds of thousands of jews who had been brought into the Government General without the permission of the Governor General would be moved out again. Heydrich promised me both these things. Heydrich said furthermore that the Fuehrer had given an order that Theresienstadt, a town in the Protectorate, would become a reservation in which old and sick jews, and weak jews who could not stand the strains of resettlement, were to be accommodated in the future. This information left me definitely convinced that the resettlement of the jews, if not for the sake of the jews, then for the sake of the reputation and prestige of the German people, would be carried out in a humane fashion. The removal of the jews from the Government General was subsequently carried out exclusively by the Police."

Other statements

Various documents and statements from various times before and after the conference are argued to contradict the politically correct version and all support that "the solution of the jewish Question" consisted of removing the jews from Europe. See World War II statements argued to support Holohoax revisionism.

External links

• The Wannsee Protocol
• The Wannsee Protocol

Revisionist views

• The Wannsee Conference Protocol: Anatomy of a Fabrication
• Reinhard Heydrich: Part IV
• Martin Luther's Memorandum of 21 August 1942 about diplomatic progress toward the Total Solution of Europe's jewish Problem
• The Wannsee Conference: Another Lie Crushed
• The "Wannsee Conference"
• Index to documents relating to Dr Robert Kempner

In books

• Auschwitz: A Judge Looks at the Evidence - Chapter Two: Contemporaneous Documents: Basic Documents from German Official Records: The "Wannsee Protocol"
• Auschwitz Lies—Legends, Lies, and Prejudices on the Holohoax - The chapter "Denying Evidence, The Phony “Holohoax” “Convergence of Evidence”", section 3.5. The Wannsee Protocol
• The Hoax of the Twentieth Century: The German Policy and the Wannsee Conference
• he Myth of the Six Million: The Mythical Conference of Jan. 20, 1942

Forum threads

• Wannsee Conference minutes debunked

References

es:Conferencia de Wannsee sv:Wannseekonferensen