The WANNSEE CONFERENCE and PROTOCOL

For more adversarial interactions
User avatar
Wahrheitssucher
Posts: 112
Joined: Mon May 19, 2025 2:51 pm

Re: The WANNSEE CONFERENCE and PROTOCOL

Post by Wahrheitssucher »

bombsaway wrote: Wed Jun 04, 2025 6:50 pm
Wahrheitssucher wrote: Wed Jun 04, 2025 7:51 am
bombsaway wrote: Tue Jun 03, 2025 7:22 pmI 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?!?! :roll:

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.
Really? That is a serious reply? Just to say: “Most of the top brass”? :o
Plus, that would include Himmler. And you’ve just written it’s only your “guess’ that he knew by March 1943.
This appears to be a deceitful ‘dodge’ answer. You weren’t asked what you “know exactly”, but asked for your informed “opinion”.
And yet you couldn’t name a single person!
So I think this reply conclusively reveals that you aren‘t here to discuss honestly, fairly and in good faith. Therefore may I ask what is your motive for regularly replying here at CODOH? (Send me a private message if you prefer. I promise not to reveal your explanation if you specify that.)
bombsaway wrote: Wed Jun 04, 2025 6:50 pm q2 - No idea what Mattogno's point is, looked through this thread, you didn't quote anything to me lol.
Why is that amusing?
Here is the post quoting Mattogno: viewtopic.php?p=10404#p10404 That you didn’t notice it nor read it in a post which you responded to, plus couldn’t even find it when informed of it, I think further demonstrates you are arguing against things you aren’t familiar with, don’t understand, nor are interested in becoming better acquainted with, Er… just like ConfusedJew regularly did. Bizarre true-believer behaviour.
User avatar
Archie
Site Admin
Posts: 807
Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2024 6:54 am

Re: The WANNSEE CONFERENCE and PROTOCOL

Post by Archie »

Nessie wrote: Thu Jun 05, 2025 6:51 am
Archie wrote: Thu Jun 05, 2025 5:47 am ...

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.
Code language is your explanation for this passage I quoted?
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)
User avatar
Archie
Site Admin
Posts: 807
Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2024 6:54 am

Re: The WANNSEE CONFERENCE and PROTOCOL

Post by Archie »

bombsaway wrote: Thu Jun 05, 2025 6:56 am
Archie wrote: Thu Jun 05, 2025 5:02 am

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.
The story was barely there? You mean they had years and years of trials and several thick histories had been written? Go read Dawidowicz's 1975 book. It is very intentionalist.

The fact is that if the Holocaust were true they would not have needed to radically alter the timeline as more and more contradictions became apparent.
User avatar
Wahrheitssucher
Posts: 112
Joined: Mon May 19, 2025 2:51 pm

Re: The WANNSEE CONFERENCE and PROTOCOL

Post by Wahrheitssucher »

Back to the Wannsee Conference and it being a meeting to discuss the conclusion of an alleged plan for genocide, codenamed ‘the final solution of the jewish question’.

Here is an old post from another chat-forum. It analyses the possibility that I just touched on of Göring (and the majority of attendees at Wannsee) having to either be:
a.) genuinely ignorant of a policy to kill all jews,
or
b.) convincing and consistent liars from the time of their arrests, throughout their trials and right up to their deaths.

Most ignorant believers in the ‘holocaust’ history believe that the NSDAP Third Reich ‘top brass’ all confessed to knowledge of a ‘final solution’ policy to mass-murder all jews.
But anyone who has read their statements, interrogation interviews, and trial testimonies, knows that ironically the EXACT OPPOSITE is the reality. That is, they ALL DENIED any knowledge of, or participation in, any such genocidal policy. All of them! All, without exception, denied it. (If anyone disagrees, please name them and reference their admission).
They only came to believe it after the Nuremberg show-trial and the coerced (and now largely refuted) ‘confession’ of Rudolf Höß.
So…

Question: Why do people who know that this commonly-held belief is false, persist in arguing for the self-contradictory story claiming ‘the final solution genocide was openly discussed — but using top-secret euphemisms — at Wannsee’?

Answer: Presumably because admission that Wannsee doesn’t actually fit the alleged mass-murder timeline, nor fits the contemporary statements contradicting it, nor the later credible and consistent statements of ignorance, would cause the whole narrative to unravel. This being because without Wannsee there is no evidence of any chain-of-command authorisation. And without that, no evidence of guilt at the top of the Third Reich heirarchy exists. And without that, it can not be credibly argued that the deaths of any jews in concentration camps was planned and ordered.
If Hermann Göring (!!!) said he didn't know about it (and moreover that he believed Hitler did not know), something just isn't adding up there.

I see three possibilities:
1) Göring did not know about it because the extermination program was accomplished with astonishing secrecy.
2) Göring actually did know about it and lied about not knowing.
3) Finally, we have the possibility that Göring did not know about it because the [core allegation of the] ‘holocaust’ [narrative] is fake.

Regarding #1:
Göring was a "top Nazi" by any definition and he was the one who tasked Heydrich with implementing a "final solution to the Jewish question." How then can we seriously entertain the notion that he wouldn't know?

Even with many of the lesser names, I would argue for many of them as well it is not realistic to think they wouldn't know. Hans Lammers I think is a good example. He had a high position with access to Hitler. He knew many sensitive things (the euthanasia program for instance). He was invited to conferences on the JQ. And so on.
DR. THOMA: I have only one more question. Did you know anything regarding the fact that Hitler had decided to solve the Jewish question by ‘the final solution’, that is, by the annihilation of the Jews?

LAMMERS: Yes, I know a great deal about that. The ‘final solution of the Jewish question’ became known to me for the first time, in 1942. That is when I heard that the Führer supposedly, through Göring, had given an order to the SS Obergruppenführer Heydrich to achieve a solution of the Jewish question. I did not know the exact contents of that order and consequently, since this did not come within my jurisdiction, at the beginning I took a negative attitude, but then as I wanted to know something I, of course, had to contact Himmler. I asked him what was really meant by the idea of ‘the final solution of the Jewish question’. Himmler replied that he had received the order from the Führer to bring about ‘the final solution of the Jewish problem’ — or rather Heydrich and his successor had that order — and that the main point of the order was that the Jews were to be evacuated from Germany. With that statement I was satisfied for the time and waited for further developments, since I assumed that I would now in some way — I really had no jurisdiction here — I would obtain some information from Heydrich or his successor, Kaltenbrunner.

Since nothing did come I wanted to inform myself about this, and back in 1942 I announced a report to the Führer, whereupon the Führer told me that it was true that he had given Himmler the order for evacuation but that he did not want any further discussion about this Jewish question during the war. In the meantime or shortly afterwards — this was already at the beginning of 1943 — the RSHA sent out invitations to attend a meeting on the subject, "Final Solution of the Jewish question." I had previously sent out an order to my officials that I was not defining my attitude to this matter, since I wanted to present it to the Führer. I merely ordered that, if invitations to a meeting were sent out, one of my officials should attend as a so-called "listening post."

QUESTION: But, Witness, please be quite brief. I am now putting this question to you: Did Himmler ever tell you that ‘the final solution of the Jewish problem’ would take place through the extermination of the Jews?

LAMMERS: That was never mentioned. He talked only about evacuation.

DR. THOMA: He talked only about evacuation?

LAMMERS: Yes, only about evacuation.

DR. THOMA: When did you hear that these 5 million Jews had been exterminated?

LAMMERS: I heard of that here a while ago.

DR. THOMA: In other words the matter was completely secret and only very few persons knew of it?

LAMMERS: I assume that Himmler arranged it so that no one learned anything about it and that he formed his Kommandos in such a way that nobody knew anything about them. Of course, there must be a large number of people who must have known something about it.

MAJOR JONES: Are you, as the head of the Reich Chancellery, the man who knew all the secrets of the Third Reich, saying to this Tribunal that you had no knowledge of the murder of millions and millions who were murdered under the Nazi regime?

LAMMERS: I mean to say that I knew nothing about it until the moment of the collapse, that is, the end of April 1945 or the beginning of May, when I heard such reports from foreign broadcasting stations. I did not believe them at the time, and only later on I found further material here, in the newspapers. If we are speaking now of the elimination of a harmful influence that is far from meaning annihilation. The Führer did not say a word about murder; no mention was ever made of such a plan.

QUESTION: On the question of the massacre of the Jewish people, you said in your evidence before the adjournment that you had saved 200,000 Jews yourself. Do you remember saying that to the Tribunal?

LAMMERS: Yes.

MAJOR JONES: You you meant you saved them from extermination, I take it?

LAMMERS: No. I merely saved them from evacuation and nothing else. I found out afterwards, of course — now — that in actual fact I really did save them from death. You have.. .

MAJOR JONES: You know you have testified — just a moment, you have testified to the Tribunal regarding a conference which took place early in 1943 where you were invited by the Reichssicherheitshauptamt to send a representative to the conference dealing with the Jewish problem. Do you remember saying that to the Tribunal?

LAMMERS: Yes, the matter was discussed. It was a conference of experts.

MAJOR JONES: That was the famous conference which Eichmann presided over, do you remember?

LAMMERS: That I do not know. I did not attend it myself; I merely sent a subordinate.
Testimony of Josef Bühler, State Secretary under Hans Frank, attendee of the Wannsee Conference
BÜHLER: The Reichsführer SS [Himmler] so he said, had received an order from the Führer 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 [Poland] 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 Führer 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.

DR. SEIDL: What concentration camps in the Government General did you know about during your activity as State Secretary?

BÜHLER: The publications in the press during the summer of 1944 called my attention to the Maidanek camp for the first time: I did not know that this camp, not far from Lublin, was a concentration camp.
With regard to the events inside the camp, no concrete information ever reached the outside. It surprised the Governor General just as much as it surprised me when the world press released the news about Maidanek.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

If we want to commit to this "extreme secrecy" thesis #1, we end up being forced to argue that there was virtually no formal organization or planning behind this extermination program. To the point where even someone attending a conference on "the final solution" could come away without realizing what was going on.

This pushes us toward thesis #2.
Thesis #2 concludes Göring, Lammers, Bühler et al were simply lying.
But I would argue against this conclusion for a few reasons!
1) In many cases, the documents back them up. If we look at the Göring decree to Heydrich or the Luther memo or the Wannsee Conference minutes, we do not find an explicit extermination policy; rather we see an intention of banishing the Jews from Europe.
2) Captain Gustave Gilbert, the Jewish psychologist at Nuremberg, confirms this with his behind-the-scenes accounts that it took a lot of effort to convince the defendants of there being a policy to exterminate the entire jewish population. According to Gilbert, Göring was totally dismissive of the claims and argued that killing so many people was "not technically possible." It was only gradually that Gilbert was able to get him to believe that Himmler may have been doing atrocities at Auschwitz and elsewhere behind Hitler's back. And Gilbert is explicit that the things that were most convincing to those in the dock were the concentration camp films and the confession of Höß.
ROSENBERG: "Of course, it's terrible — incomprehensible, the whole business. I would never have dreamed it would take such a turn. I don't know. Terrible! On a scale like that, Hitler must have given the orders, or Himmler did it with the Führer's approval."

SAUCKEL: "We are of different opinions as to whether Hitler knew about those things. I just don't know. But there is no doubt that Himmler did those things, and they cannot possibly be justified. I just can't get it through my head how those things were possible."

GÖRING (who was not very persuaded by the concentration camp film): "Those atrocity films! Anybody can make an atrocity film if they take corpses out of their graves and then show a tractor shoving them back in again."
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

So then what we have here is a Jew doing a psy-op on the defendants and using fraudulent evidence to convince them that millions of people were killed at the concentration camps. And this fits perfectly with what most of them said on the stand, that they are horrified by what Himmler did in the camps but had no idea about it until after the war.

~ Gibson
https://skepticforum.mu.nu/viewtopic.ph ... d2#p864923
b
bombsaway
Posts: 869
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2024 2:23 am

Re: The WANNSEE CONFERENCE and PROTOCOL

Post by bombsaway »

Wahrheitssucher wrote: Thu Jun 05, 2025 12:39 pm
bombsaway wrote: Wed Jun 04, 2025 6:50 pm
Wahrheitssucher wrote: Wed Jun 04, 2025 7:51 am
Wow! You only “guess” that in March 1943 Himmler knew ‘final solution’ meant genocide of ALL Jews?!?! :roll:

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.
Really? That is a serious reply? Just to say: “Most of the top brass”? :o
Plus, that would include Himmler. And you’ve just written it’s only your “guess’ that he knew by March 1943.
This appears to be a deceitful ‘dodge’ answer. You weren’t asked what you “know exactly”, but asked for your informed “opinion”.
And yet you couldn’t name a single person!
So I think this reply conclusively reveals that you aren‘t here to discuss honestly, fairly and in good faith. Therefore may I ask what is your motive for regularly replying here at CODOH? (Send me a private message if you prefer. I promise not to reveal your explanation if you specify that.)
bombsaway wrote: Wed Jun 04, 2025 6:50 pm q2 - No idea what Mattogno's point is, looked through this thread, you didn't quote anything to me lol.
Why is that amusing?
Here is the post quoting Mattogno: viewtopic.php?p=10404#p10404 That you didn’t notice it nor read it in a post which you responded to, plus couldn’t even find it when informed of it, I think further demonstrates you are arguing against things you aren’t familiar with, don’t understand, nor are interested in becoming better acquainted with, Er… just like ConfusedJew regularly did. Bizarre true-believer behaviour.
I searched that page. You wrote his name as Mottogno so I didn't see it. There are factual errors in his letter that need to be resolved. EG Chelmno and Belzec, are not "total" but partial extermination centers. Non-employable Jews were sent there, employable Jews were kept for labor, that's specified in documents.

Yeah it's speculative for me that Goerring would have known. Himmler and other top SS are evidenced directly to have had knowledge, there's this quote from Posen

"I am talking about the "Jewish evacuation": the extermination of the Jewish people. It is one of those things that is easily said. "The Jewish people is being exterminated", every Party member will tell you, "perfectly clear, it's part of our plans, we're eliminating the Jews, exterminating them, ha!, a small matter."
b
bombsaway
Posts: 869
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2024 2:23 am

Re: The WANNSEE CONFERENCE and PROTOCOL

Post by bombsaway »

Archie wrote: Thu Jun 05, 2025 1:21 pm
bombsaway wrote: Thu Jun 05, 2025 6:56 am
Archie wrote: Thu Jun 05, 2025 5:02 am

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.
The story was barely there? You mean they had years and years of trials and several thick histories had been written? Go read Dawidowicz's 1975 book. It is very intentionalist.

The fact is that if the Holocaust were true they would not have needed to radically alter the timeline as more and more contradictions became apparent.
Dawidowicz comes 15 years after Hilberg (considered the foundational text) so she was altering him no?
User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 1832
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2024 7:41 am

Re: The WANNSEE CONFERENCE and PROTOCOL

Post by Nessie »

Archie wrote: Thu Jun 05, 2025 1:14 pm
Nessie wrote: Thu Jun 05, 2025 6:51 am
Archie wrote: Thu Jun 05, 2025 5:47 am ...

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.
Code language is your explanation for this passage I quoted?
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)
There is nothing coded in the Goebbels quote. There is in the subject of this thread, the Wannsee Conference.
Post Reply