The WANNSEE CONFERENCE and PROTOCOL

[borjastick]

I'm not contending that it DID mean killing at some point, of course, I'm contending that it ALWAYS meant killing. Final solution is a general term, kind of like destruction (vernichtung), it can mean killing or other things. That you think this is a check mate or even close to that shows how far gone you are.

Bombsaway

What utter nonsense. It meant they and the jews knew the relationship between Germany and jews was fractious and not working and there must be a way of sorting the problem once and for all. You are just retrospectively looking at words and trying to make them fit a scenario you would like to be true.

As I said a short while ago the jews themselves used the words along the lines of 'an end to the jewish problem' do you think they meant for themselves to be killed?

[bombsaway]

I'm not contending that it DID mean killing at some point, of course, I'm contending that it ALWAYS meant killing. Final solution is a general term, kind of like destruction (vernichtung), it can mean killing or other things. That you think this is a check mate or even close to that shows how far gone you are.

Bombsaway

What utter nonsense. It meant they and the jews knew the relationship between Germany and jews was fractious and not working and there must be a way of sorting the problem once and for all. You are just retrospectively looking at words and trying to make them fit a scenario you would like to be true.

As I said a short while ago the jews themselves used the words along the lines of 'an end to the jewish problem' do you think they meant for themselves to be killed?

Bro, do you understand that words and terms can have different meanings depending on context, circumstance? This is exactly the argument you make w terms like liquidation, which is far less ambiguous in its usage regarding humans.

[Wahrheitssucher]

Wahrheitssucher has just demonstrated very neatly that you are not only enforcing a very skewed and selective interpretation of this phrase, but in addition, that interpretation must at all times bend to whichever evidence best suits the Orthodox timeline.

We call that eating your cake and having it, too.

I guess it's fair to say that by the time of Korherr's report (Statistical Report on the "Final Solution,"), Himmler at least knew what that term meant, despite the document being intended as "camouflage" (Himmler's words).

Wow! You only “guess” that in March 1943 Himmler knew ‘final solution’ meant genocide of ALL Jews?!?!

Don’t you see, you are AGAIN demonstrating that you don’t know what the official, consensus view is regarding ‘the holocaust’.
Either that or you are just arguing for the sake of being contradictory and will therefore make up any old nonsense just to be able to contradict.

So please do clarify what your belief is, from which you are making this argument:
q1. in your opinion, who in March 1943 (when the Korherr report was submitted) KNEW that ‘final solution’ meant ‘genocide of ALL Jews’?
q2. please respond to Carlo Mattogno’s point about there having to have been THREE different orders from Hitler, to fit the official, consensus, holocaust narrative. So when, why and how were Hitler’s three alleged orders made?

Wahrheitssucher has just demonstrated very neatly that you are not only enforcing a very skewed and selective interpretation of this phrase, but in addition, that interpretation must at all times bend to whichever evidence best suits the Orthodox timeline.

So what was the final solution then? (in the year 1943, when that document was produced)

You shouldn’t have to be asking us, if you understood the revisionist perspective. It is OBVIOUS what myself and other revisionists are arguing. Did you really not understand how I just presented my own understanding by referring to the statements, in three different arenas, of Herman Göring, ending by using his reply to Jackson at Nuremburg??!!

If you have to ask, it shows you aren’t engaging intelligently/honestly and are only here to be some kind of obstructive ‘true-believer’.

[bombsaway]

Wahrheitssucher has just demonstrated very neatly that you are not only enforcing a very skewed and selective interpretation of this phrase, but in addition, that interpretation must at all times bend to whichever evidence best suits the Orthodox timeline.

We call that eating your cake and having it, too.

I guess it's fair to say that by the time of Korherr's report (Statistical Report on the "Final Solution,"), Himmler at least knew what that term meant, despite the document being intended as "camouflage" (Himmler's words).

Wow! You only “guess” that in March 1943 Himmler knew ‘final solution’ meant genocide of ALL Jews?!?!

Don’t you see, you are AGAIN demonstrating that you don’t know what the official, consensus view is regarding ‘the holocaust’.
Either that or you are just arguing for the sake of being contradictory and will therefore make up any old nonsense just to be able to contradict.

So please do clarify what your belief is, from which you are making this argument:
q1. in your opinion, who in March 1943 (when the Korherr report was submitted) KNEW that ‘final solution’ meant ‘genocide of ALL Jews’?
q2. please respond to Carlo Mattogno’s point about there having to have been THREE different orders from Hitler, to fit the official, consensus, holocaust narrative. So when, why and how were Hitler’s three alleged orders made?

q1- I don't know who exactly knew but probably most of the top brass and of course those directing the mass killing operations in USSR and Poland.

q2 - No idea what Mattogno's point is, looked through this thread, you didn't quote anything to me lol. We don't know the extent of Hitler's involvement. It's almost certain he would have approved an operation as large as Reinhardt. According to Greiser (doc 35) https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot ... erman.html

"I personally don't think that we have to consult the Führer again in this matter, all the more since he told me at the last interview concerning the Jews that I should act according to my own judgment."

He was pretty hands off and trusted his subordinates to do the "right thing".

You shouldn’t have to be asking us, if you understood the revisionist perspective. It is OBVIOUS what myself and other revisionists are arguing. Did you really not understand how I just presented my own understanding by referring to the statements, in three different arenas, of Herman Göring, ending by using his reply to Jackson at Nuremburg??!!

If you have to ask, it shows you aren’t engaging intelligently/honestly and are only here to be some kind of obstructive ‘true-believer’.

No I was asking for specifics. What was the final solution, as outlined in Korherr? Emigration or evacuation, but to where? Russia, Turkey, Madagascar, underground, the moon, what was the final solution?

[Hektor]

Wahrheitssucher has just demonstrated very neatly that you are not only enforcing a very skewed and selective interpretation of this phrase, but in addition, that interpretation must at all times bend to whichever evidence best suits the Orthodox timeline.

We call that eating your cake and having it, too.

I guess it's fair to say that by the time of Korherr's report (Statistical Report on the "Final Solution,"), Himmler at least knew what that term meant, despite the document being intended as "camouflage" (Himmler's words).

Wow! You only “guess” that in March 1943 Himmler knew ‘final solution’ meant genocide of ALL Jews?!?!

Don’t you see, you are AGAIN demonstrating that you don’t know what the official, consensus view is regarding ‘the holocaust’.
Either that or you are just arguing for the sake of being contradictory and will therefore make up any old nonsense just to be able to contradict.

So please do clarify what your belief is, from which you are making this argument:
q1. in your opinion, who in March 1943 (when the Korherr report was submitted) KNEW that ‘final solution’ meant ‘genocide of ALL Jews’?
q2. please respond to Carlo Mattogno’s point about there having to have been THREE different orders from Hitler, to fit the official, consensus, holocaust narrative. So when, why and how were Hitler’s three alleged orders made?
...

Usually they will assert that 'final solution' means 'genocide. Well, in this case they guess that Himmler 'knew' that.

Well, apparently Himmler had forgotten that meaning in 1945.
https://archive.org/details/norbert-mas ... er-english

[TlsMS93]

Usually they will assert that 'final solution' means 'genocide. Well, in this case they guess that Himmler 'knew' that.

Well, apparently Himmler had forgotten that meaning in 1945.
https://archive.org/details/norbert-mas ... er-english

Himmler, the first Holocaust denier.

[bombsaway]

Himmler was talking to Masur in a desperate attempt to make a separate peace with the West. He said he wanted to "bury the hatchet between us and the Jews" and released some Jews as a token of his goodwill. How might admitting to mass killing millions play into all this hmmmm?

[Hektor]

Himmler was talking to Masur in a desperate attempt to make a separate peace with the West. He said he wanted to "bury the hatchet between us and the Jews" and released some Jews as a token of his goodwill. How might admitting to mass killing millions play into all this hmmmm?

It would increase his leverage naturally. But I guess if Holocaust is dogma, this isn't even thinkable.

[Archie]

It's a straw man to say it's a majority view within orthodoxy that the extermination order was given in 1939 or June/July 1941. Himmler stated in a document in 1940 that physical extermination wasn't Germanic or some such. Things change. Final solution is terminology that is general in usage. You're nitpicking, monstrously.

The Nuremberg judgment found that the extermination program started in summer of 1941 and likewise the early Holocaust histories interpreted the Goering decree in summer of 1941 as referring to a mass extermination plan. It wasn't until the 1970s that they started changing the story to the ludicrous "functionalist" story where it all unfolded gradually, and even this was not universally accepted. The reason they started changing to the gradual, disorganized version is because the smarter ones like Browning realized that there were simply way too many documents that categorically refuted the traditional story. That such an absolutely radical revision was necessary is rather damning, imo.

[bombsaway]

It's a straw man to say it's a majority view within orthodoxy that the extermination order was given in 1939 or June/July 1941. Himmler stated in a document in 1940 that physical extermination wasn't Germanic or some such. Things change. Final solution is terminology that is general in usage. You're nitpicking, monstrously.

The Nuremberg judgment found that the extermination program started in summer of 1941 and likewise the early Holocaust histories interpreted the Goering decree in summer of 1941 as referring to a mass extermination plan. It wasn't until the 1970s that they started changing the story to the ludicrous "functionalist" story where it all unfolded gradually, and even this was not universally accepted. The reason they started changing to the gradual, disorganized version is because the smarter ones like Browning realized that there were simply way too many documents that categorically refuted the traditional story. That such an absolutely radical revision was necessary is rather damning, imo.

I guess these historians realized the whole thing was fake and tried their darndest to figure out a convincing story. Or all these people are gravely deluded. Or perhaps revisions happen in history all the time as documents and witness evidence reveal more and more about events.

[Archie]

It's a straw man to say it's a majority view within orthodoxy that the extermination order was given in 1939 or June/July 1941. Himmler stated in a document in 1940 that physical extermination wasn't Germanic or some such. Things change. Final solution is terminology that is general in usage. You're nitpicking, monstrously.

The Nuremberg judgment found that the extermination program started in summer of 1941 and likewise the early Holocaust histories interpreted the Goering decree in summer of 1941 as referring to a mass extermination plan. It wasn't until the 1970s that they started changing the story to the ludicrous "functionalist" story where it all unfolded gradually, and even this was not universally accepted. The reason they started changing to the gradual, disorganized version is because the smarter ones like Browning realized that there were simply way too many documents that categorically refuted the traditional story. That such an absolutely radical revision was necessary is rather damning, imo.

I guess these historians realized the whole thing was fake and tried their darndest to figure out a convincing story. Or all these people are gravely deluded. Or perhaps revisions happen in history all the time as documents and witness evidence reveal more and more about events.

Some of them started realizing that the story, as it had been told, was not tenable. And rather than draw the obvious conclusion, they doubled-down and came up with a new version that attempted to work around the difficulties. Such a trajectory is actually extremely common. It happens all the time with religious claims.

Here is an example of a normal revision in history. Around 1900, archaeologists discovered tablets in Crete dating from the Bronze Age with unknown writing (Linear A and Linear B). For quite a few decades, the general assumption was this was a pre-Hellenic Minoan civilization that spoke some language other than Greek (and there were reasons that seemed to support this idea). When Linear B was cracked in the 1950s, it was in fact shown to be a form of Greek. This was a major revision. And subsequently there have been countless lesser revisions to specific interpretations. Sometimes things seem to point one way but it ends up being wrong.

But with the Holocaust, we aren't trying to piece together what happened based on broken clay tablets in ancient scripts. This was a large scale thing in the middle of Europe in the 1940s, and the Allies had conquered Germany and captured all their internal documents. Questions like when Hitler ordered the extermination and when it started are pretty basic. The revisionist that have been made are nothing but lame attempts to save a story that isn't working.

[Archie]

Other contemporary documents also support this, such as notes of Hitler's 'Table talks' of the same time period, as well as Goebbels' specific diary entry regarding his reading of his copy of the Wannsee minutes. These can NOT be cancelled out or nullified by other documents with more vague or general talk of brutal or even murderous treatment of groups of Jews.
This is because the contention is that the Wannsee Conference and the term "final solution" used there and later, referred to a plan to "systematically" kill ALL Jews in Axis occupied Europe. It is NOT the contention that the Wannsee Conference and the term "final solution" was about killing some Jews when deemed necessary or convenient and deporting others.

Here is the Goebbels diary entry.

I read a detailed report from the SD and police regarding a final solution of the Jewish Question. This involves a tremendous number of new viewpoints. The Jewish Question must be solved within a pan-European frame. There are more than 11 million Jews in Europe. They will have to be concentrated first in the East; perhaps later after the war, an island can be assigned to them, such as Madagascar. In any case, there can be no peace in Europe until the last Jews are totally excluded from the European territory.

This raises a large number of very delicate questions. What happens to half-Jews? In-laws? Jewish spouses? Evidently we still have quite a lot to do, and in the context of solving this problem, undoubtedly a lot of personal tragedies will ensue. But that’s unavoidable. The situation is now ripe for a final solution of the Jewish Question. Later generations will no longer have the energy or the instinctive alertness. That’s why we are doing well to proceed radically and consistently. The task we are assuming today will be an advantage and blessing to our descendants. (7 Mar 1942)

A few comments

1) There can be no question at all that he is referring to some summary of Wannsee. The same 11M is found in the Wannsee minutes. And in the second paragraph, the discussion about the "delicate questions" also mirrors the discussion at Wannsee.

2) Goebbels uses the term "final solution" here and this was also used at Wannsee. Note also the date in March 1942.

3) He is evidently unaware that the Jews were going to be executed en masse as he thinks they going to sent to Madagascar "after the war."

4) The "code language" argument doesn't work here because holohoaxsters cite other passages of the diary as incriminating and which would have been worded differently if the goal had been to hide things.

5) It is not tenable to argue that Goebbels would not have known at this point. I have seen some people try to claim this (bombs did on the old forum and I think I recall Cockerill trying this as well). But not only does that defy all common sense, it also contradicts the mainstream scholars. Gerlach's theory for example (which seems to be the one favored among online anti-revisionists) is that Hitler ordered the a full extermination of the Jews in Dec 1941 right after declaring war against the USA. And the evidence for this that Hitler is quoted as reiterated his "prophecy" in a private speech right after the declaration of war. Goebbels refers to this in his diary. Point being, if you are going to use the diary to "prove" when Hitler ordered the final solution, you can also claim that Goebbels was in the dark.

And this Goebbels diary entry isn't an isolated example. Here for example, we have another late reference to the "final solution" where it very obviously does not mean what we have always been told it meant.

In the meantime the war against the Soviet Union has made it possible to use other territory for the final solution. The Fuehrer has accordingly decided that the Jews shall not be sent to Madagascar, but to the East. Madagascar therefore need no longer be considered for the final solution.
—Franz Rademacher, memo, 10 Feb 1942 (NG-5770)

[Nessie]

...

4) The "code language" argument doesn't work here because holohoaxsters cite other passages of the diary as incriminating and which would have been worded differently if the goal had been to hide things.

...

The code language argument does work. The language used by senior Nazis, about the Final Solution, does not match the evidenced chronology 1941-4, of Jews arrested by the Nazis, or their collaborators. Primarily, there is no evidence of mass resettlement and instead, there is evidence of mass killings and a huge drop in the Jewish population across Europe, particularly in Eastern Europe, where the mass resettlement supposedly took place.

Nazis at Wannsee may have not known specific details about killings, so to them, resettlement meant transportation east, to locations they did not go into any detail of. But the wording of the fate of Jews as labourers and the remnant being treated accordingly, is not indicative of a long life in new settlements. It was for others to do the dirty work, for which the Nazis had the active assistance of many from Eastern European countries.

When Latvians and Lithuanians turned on their Jewish neighbours, emboldened and enabled by the Einsatzgruppen, and conducted mass shootings and Estonia was declared at the Conference as Jew free, the Baltics is proven not to be a place of resettlement. The labour camps there, that lasted until 1944, were for the Jews the Conference openly stated would be worked till they died. The rest were treated accordingly and shot.

[bombsaway]

Some of them started realizing that the story, as it had been told, was not tenable. And rather than draw the obvious conclusion, they doubled-down and came up with a new version that attempted to work around the difficulties. Such a trajectory is actually extremely common. It happens all the time with religious claims.

When Hilberg started the history was actually barely there. SanityCheck can comment on this. The functionalist "story" came out of the first serious investigation about what happened.

But your point about delusions and "work arounds" is noted. Pot meet kettle.

[bombsaway]

It's also pretty rich that the "final solution" was apparently "resettling" the Jews in German occupied Russia, which was slated to become German territory. So in actuality it was a penultimate solution