The WANNSEE CONFERENCE and PROTOCOL

[Wahrheitssucher]

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.

Really? That is a serious reply? Just to say: “Most of the top brass”?
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.)

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.

[Archie]

...

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)

[Archie]

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.

[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

[bombsaway]

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.

Really? That is a serious reply? Just to say: “Most of the top brass”?
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.)

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."

[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.

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?

[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.

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.

[Wahrheitssucher]

.
ASKING GROK Ai

Q1. Please name ALL the people present at the Wannsee Conference who survived WW2.
Q2. Please also name all those who were interrogated by the victors.

A1. People present at the Wannsee Conference who survived WW2
The Wannsee Conference, held on January 20, 1942, was attended by 15 senior Nazi officials (plus Adolf Eichmann as recording secretary, making 16 men in total).
Of these, NINE survived World War II, living beyond Germany's surrender on 8th May 1945.

These survivors are listed below with their roles at the conference:

Gerhard Klopfer (SS-Oberführer, Permanent Secretary, Nazi Party Chancellery)
Georg Leibbrandt (Undersecretary, Ministry for the Occupied Eastern Territories)
Erich Neumann (State Secretary, Office of the Plenipotentiary for the Four Year Plan)
Friedrich Wilhelm Kritzinger (Permanent Secretary, Reich Chancellery)
Martin Luther (Undersecretary, Foreign Office)
Wilhelm Stuckart (State Secretary, Interior Ministry)
Otto Hofmann (SS-Gruppenführer, Head of the SS Race and Settlement Main Office)
Josef Bühler (State Secretary, General Government)
Adolf Eichmann (SS-Obersturmbannführer, Head of Referat IV B4 of the Gestapo, RSHA)

The other 7 did not survive the war:
Reinhard Heydrich (assassinated in 1942),
Heinrich Müller (disappeared in 1945, presumed dead),
Karl Eberhard Schöngarth (captured in 1945 and executed by the Allies in 1946 for unrelated war crimes),
Rudolf Lange (killed in 1945),
Roland Freisler (killed in 1945 air raid),
Alfred Meyer (suicide in 1945).

A2: People who were present at the Wannsee Conference and were interrogated by the victors
Post-war, several survivors were interrogated (questioned under formal investigation or as witnesses/defendants in trials) by Allied powers (primarily U.S. and British prosecutors) or Israel during war crimes proceedings. This includes the International Military Tribunal (IMT/Nuremberg 1945–1946), the Subsequent Nuremberg Proceedings (1946–1949), and Eichmann's trial in 1961. The interrogated individuals are listed below with their roles and key interrogation/trial details:

Adolf Eichmann (SS-Obersturmbannführer, Head of Referat IV B4 of the Gestapo, RSHA):
Captured by Israeli agents in Argentina in 1960; interrogated extensively and tried in Jerusalem (1961) for war crimes and crimes against humanity related to the Holocaust, including his role at Wannsee; convicted and executed in 1962.

Josef Bühler (State Secretary, General Government):
Arrested by U.S. forces in 1945; interrogated during preparations for the IMT; tried in the Nuremberg Trials (IMT) and the Hostages Trial (Subsequent Nuremberg); convicted of war crimes and crimes against humanity; executed in 1948.

Martin Luther (Undersecretary, Foreign Office):
Arrested by U.S. forces in 1945; interrogated by American prosecutors (Robert Kempner) on the Wannsee Protocol and Foreign Office involvement in the Final Solution; tried in the Ministries Trial (Wilhelmstrasse Trial, Subsequent Nuremberg, Case 11); convicted of crimes against humanity; sentenced to 7 years but released early in 1950 due to health issues; died in 1947 while in custody.

Wilhelm Stuckart (State Secretary, Interior Ministry):
Arrested by Allies in 1945; interrogated multiple times by U.S. prosecutors on Nazi racial laws and Wannsee discussions; tried in the Ministries Trial; convicted of crimes against humanity but received a time-served sentence (around 4 years); released in 1949; died in a 1953 car accident.

Erich Neumann (State Secretary, Office of the Plenipotentiary for the Four Year Plan):
Arrested by Soviet forces in 1945 but transferred to U.S. custody; interrogated by American prosecutors on economic exploitation and Wannsee; tried in the Ministries Trial; acquitted due to insufficient evidence of direct criminal involvement; released in 1948; died in 1957.

Friedrich Wilhelm Kritzinger (Permanent Secretary, Reich Chancellery):
Arrested by British forces in 1945; interrogated by U.S. and British prosecutors (including detailed questioning on the conference by Robert Kempner); tried in the Ministries Trial; acquitted; released in 1947; died shortly after in 1947.

Otto Hofmann (SS-Gruppenführer, Head of the SS Race and Settlement Main Office):
Arrested by U.S. forces in 1945; interrogated on racial policies and sterilization programs linked to Wannsee; tried in the RuSHA Trial (Subsequent Nuremberg, Case 8); convicted of war crimes and crimes against humanity; sentenced to life but reduced to 25 years; released in 1954; died in 1982.

The remaining survivors (Klopfer and Leibbrandt) were investigated but not formally interrogated in major victor-led trials; they faced denazification proceedings in Germany but avoided Allied tribunals.

. . . . . . . . . . . .

Q. I understand that Stuckart and Kritzinger denied in their interrogations that any genocidal policy of mass-murder was discussed. Did anyone else make similar statements?

Grok’s answer:
Yes, in addition to Wilhelm Stuckart and Friedrich Wilhelm Kritzinger, other survivors of the Wannsee Conference who were interrogated by the Allies also made statements denying the discussion of a genocidal policy of mass murder at the conference. The Wannsee Conference (January 20, 1942) focused on the "Final Solution to the Jewish Question," which involved the systematic deportation of European Jews. These attendees later claimed the meeting was bureaucratic and did not discuss mass murder. Below are the relevant individuals who made similar statements during their interrogations or trials, based on available historical records:

Martin Luther:
In interrogations by U.S. prosecutors (notably Robert Kempner) during the Ministries Trial (1947–1949), Luther, representing the Foreign Office, claimed the conference dealt primarily with administrative and diplomatic aspects of Jewish deportation. He suggested the discussions were technical, focusing on coordinating deportations with occupied territories, and made no references to mass murder. Luther died in 1947, limiting further testimony.

Erich Neumann:
During interrogations for the Ministries Trial, Neumann, representing ‘the Four Year Plan’, stated the conference addressed economic and labour issues, such as the use of Jewish forced labour.
He claimed the meeting did not discuss extermination but rather deportation logistics and economic priorities. He was acquitted due to lack of direct evidence tying him to implementing mass murder.

Otto Hofmann:
In the RuSHA Trial (1947–1948), Hofmann, head of the SS Race and Settlement Main Office, described the Wannsee Conference as a high-level policy discussion where "evacuation" was the focus. He denied knowledge of extermination plans, claiming his role was limited to racial classification and resettlement policies. Like others, he framed the meeting as bureaucratic, and denied knowledge of genocide.

Context and Analysis:
Gerhard Klopfer and Georg Leibbrandt were not interrogated in major Allied trials, and no detailed statements from them about Wannsee are well-documented.
Josef Bühler was tried in Poland and focused on defending his role in the General Government. Wannsee specifics are not mentioned in the surviving records.

. . . . . . . . . . . .

Q. Can you quote or provide links of the trial transcripts and interrogations of Stuckart and Kritzinger?

Wilhelm Stuckart, State Secretary in the German Ministry of the Interior, was interrogated and testified during the Ministries Trial (also known as the Wilhelmstrasse Trial or Nuremberg Case XI), held from 1947 to 1949 before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals. His interrogations and testimony addressed his role in Nazi racial policies, including the Wannsee Conference, where he denied discussions of mass murder, claiming the focus was on legal and administrative matters like deportation and mixed marriages.

Full transcripts of the trial, including Stuckart's interrogations and testimony, are available in digitized collections from the Library of Congress and other archives. Direct quotes from his statements are often excerpted in historical analyses, but complete verbatim transcripts can be accessed via these resources:

Library of Congress Nuremberg Trial Transcripts (Digitized Collection):
The full proceedings of the Ministries Trial (Trial of the Major War Criminals and subsequent proceedings) are available in the "Nuremberg Trials Project".
Stuckart's key interrogations (e.g., from October 1947) and testimony (November 1947) are in Volume 12 of the trial transcripts (pages 108–120 for his direct examination on Wannsee). Access the collection here: https://www.loc.gov/collections/nuremberg-trials/. Search for "Stuckart" within the digitised volumes for specific excerpts.
A relevant excerpt from his interrogation (regarding Wannsee) is: "The conference dealt with the organisational questions of the evacuation of the Jews, but no decision was made about the fate of the Jews. It was a matter of coordinating the evacuation measures."

Avalon Project (Yale Law School):
Hosts selected transcripts from the Nuremberg trials. Stuckart's testimony on the Wannsee Conference is summarized and partially quoted in the Ministries Trial documents. See: https://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/wilhelm.asp (links to Case XI proceedings).
Quote from his testimony: "I have no recollection that the extermination of the Jews was mentioned at the conference. The term 'Final Solution' referred to evacuation to the East."

Harvard Law School Nuremberg Trials Project: Provides searchable PDFs of trial documents, including affidavits and interrogation protocols for Stuckart (Document NG-467). Download or view here: https://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/. Search for "Stuckart interrogation" to find his October 21, 1947, affidavit denying knowledge of genocidal intent at Wannsee.
Book Excerpt with Quotes: In Christopher Browning's The Final Solution and the German Foreign Office (1997), Stuckart's interrogation statements are quoted extensively from the original transcripts (e.g., p. 145: "The conference was concerned only with the emigration and evacuation of Jews, not their physical destruction").
Available via Google Books preview: https://books.google.com/books?id=example (search for "Stuckart Wannsee").

Friedrich Wilhelm Kritzinger
Permanent Secretary in the Reich Chancellery, was also tried in the Ministries Trial. His interrogations (conducted by U.S. prosecutors in 1947) included denials that the Wannsee Conference discussed extermination, portraying it as a coordination meeting for deportation. He was acquitted and released shortly before his death in 1947.
Transcripts are similarly available in the same archival collections:

Library of Congress Nuremberg Trial Transcripts:
Kritzinger's interrogations (e.g., August–September 1947) and testimony (October 1947) appear in Volume 11 of the Ministries Trial transcripts (pages 220–235). Access: https://www.loc.gov/collections/nuremberg-trials/.
Excerpt from his interrogation by Robert Kempner: "At the Wannsee Conference, Heydrich spoke of the evacuation of the Jews to the East for labour, but there was no mention of killing or extermination programs. It was presented as a resettlement issue."

Avalon Project (Yale Law School):
Partial transcripts and summaries of Kritzinger's testimony in Case XI. Relevant section: https://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/11-02.asp (cross-referenced to Ministries Trial).
Quote: "The purpose of the conference was to inform the participating agencies of the evacuation program, without details on the ultimate fate."

Harvard Law School Nuremberg Trials Project:
Includes Kritzinger's affidavits (Document NG-2581) and interrogation logs. Searchable here: https://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/.
His September 15, 1947, statement emphasises: "No measures for the destruction of Jews were discussed; it was all administrative."

Book Excerpt with Quotes:
In ‘Nuremberg — Infamy on Trial’ by Joseph E. Persico (1994), Kritzinger's denial is quoted from transcripts (p. 412:
"I left the conference believing it was about orderly deportation, not murder".
Preview: https://books.google.com/books?id=example2.

These resources provide the most direct access to primary sources.
Note that some transcripts are in English translations from the original German; full originals may require archival requests.

[Nessie]

That harms so-called revisionist claims about the widespread use of torture to extract confessions of mass murder. January 1942 was before the AR camps went operational.

[Nazgul]

That harms so-called revisionist claims about the widespread use of torture to extract confessions of mass murder. January 1942 was before the AR camps went operational.

The torture claim is mainly in regards to the commandant of AB.

[Nessie]

That harms so-called revisionist claims about the widespread use of torture to extract confessions of mass murder. January 1942 was before the AR camps went operational.

The torture claim is mainly in regards to the commandant of AB.

No, if you looked harder, you see it is claimed for all Nazis by many online.

[Wahrheitssucher]

.
Stuckart and Kritzinger denied that any genocidal policy of mass-murder was discussed.
Did anyone else make similar statements?

Grok’s answer:
Yes, in addition to Wilhelm Stuckart and Friedrich Wilhelm Kritzinger, other survivors of the Wannsee Conference… also made statements denying the discussion of a genocidal policy of mass murder at the conference.

The Wannsee Conference (January 20, 1942) focused on the "Final Solution to the Jewish Question," which involved the systematic deportation of European Jews.

These attendees later claimed the meeting was bureaucratic and did not discuss mass murder.

Below are the relevant individuals who made similar statements …based on available historical records:

Martin Luther:
…suggested the discussions were technical, focusing on coordinating deportations with occupied territories, and made no references to mass murder.

Erich Neumann:
…stated the conference addressed economic and labour issues, such as the use of Jewish forced labour.
He claimed the meeting did not discuss extermination but rather deportation logistics and economic priorities.

Otto Hofmann:
…described the Wannsee Conference as a high-level policy discussion where "evacuation" was the focus. He denied knowledge of extermination plans, claiming his role was limited to racial classification and resettlement policies. Like others, he framed the meeting as bureaucratic, and denied knowledge of genocide.

Wilhelm Stuckart
…he denied discussions of mass murder, claiming the focus was on legal and administrative matters like deportation and mixed marriages.
"The conference dealt with the organisational questions of the evacuation of the Jews, but no decision was made about the fate of the Jews. It was a matter of coordinating the evacuation measures."

"I have no recollection that the extermination of the Jews was mentioned at the conference. The term 'Final Solution' referred to evacuation to the East."

Search for "Stuckart interrogation" to find his October 21, 1947, affidavit denying knowledge of genocidal intent at Wannsee.
Book Excerpt with Quotes: In Christopher Browning's The Final Solution and the German Foreign Office (1997), Stuckart's interrogation statements are quoted extensively from the original transcripts (e.g., p. 145: "The conference was concerned only with the emigration and evacuation of Jews, not their physical destruction").

Friedrich Wilhelm Kritzinger
denied that the Wannsee Conference discussed extermination, portraying it as a coordination meeting for deportation. He was acquitted and released shortly before his death in 1947.

Library of Congress Nuremberg Trial Transcripts:
"At the Wannsee Conference, Heydrich spoke of the evacuation of the Jews to the East for labour, but there was no mention of killing or extermination programs. It was presented as a resettlement issue."

Quote: "The purpose of the conference was to inform the participating agencies of the evacuation program, without details on the ultimate fate."

"No measures for the destruction of Jews were discussed; it was all administrative."

"I left the conference believing it was about orderly deportation, not murder".

SUMMARY OF ABOVE:
Not a single, surviving attendees at the Wannsee conference admitted it discussed either:
i.) mass-murder,
ii.) extermination of ALL Jews.

None of them did!
All of them denied that!
Even Eichmann!
Even the female secretary!

Yet we have been bombarded with lies about that for 80 years!

For eight decades we have been told all the ‘Nazties’ admitted and confessed their guilt. Which is THE COMPLETE OPPOSITE of reality. The complete opposite of the truth.

Q1. Why would the promulgators and publicists of allegedly the most well-attested genocide need to LIE to us so totally and so brazenly?

Q2. And what reaction does this ‘evidence’ of a grand deception receive from an idiotic, die-hard true-believer? A. An idiotic denial that this proves no Germans were ever tortured.

CoNCLUSIoN:
It is not only illogical and deeply stupid to ignore the contents of these statements refuting the Wannsee mythology, by asserting no German was tortured.
No, it is not only that, but it shows a mentality and approach to history that is quite evil and wicked!

[borjastick]

Like a few other key claims of the holocaust, which people like the regulars here talk of as proof of 6m deaded in the gas chambers etc, they are shown to be false by the minutes of the Wansee Conference. They love to clutch at straws and do so with great regularity. The minutes of the conference clearly make no direct or indirect reference to murder or mass killings or murderous intent concerning the jews and other enemies of the state yet so desperate are they to build what they laughingly call 'evidence' they say the very opposite of what is shown to be in these minutes.

[Nessie]

Like a few other key claims of the holocaust, which people like the regulars here talk of as proof of 6m deaded in the gas chambers etc, they are shown to be false by the minutes of the Wansee Conference. They love to clutch at straws and do so with great regularity. The minutes of the conference clearly make no direct or indirect reference to murder or mass killings or murderous intent concerning the jews and other enemies of the state yet so desperate are they to build what they laughingly call 'evidence' they say the very opposite of what is shown to be in these minutes.

Wannsee took place in January 1942, after the start of mass shootings by the EG in the East in the autumn of 1941, and before AR got underway in spring 1942. One of the most notable differences between the management of the EG, the Final Solution and AR, is how the former were quite open about the mass killings & the latter two were far more careful about what they said. Meanwhile, Action T4 had started in 1939 and officially ended in August 1941. That meant the Wannsee Conference took place in the knowledge that the Nazi's use of murder to achieve policy aims, was not going to be universally accepted. Senior Nazis knew that some killings were easier to justify and would have less opposition, than others.

The killing of Jews in the east, which had a lot of support from non-Jews in the east, was not seen by seniors Nazis, as particularly controversial. As so-called revisionists like to do, they lumped Jews in with partisans, as an active enemy. That was harder to do, with the disabled and western Jews. German authorities, in particular the church, caused the official cancellation of T4. Authorities from the western occupied countries were going to be far more resistant to the killing of their Jewish citizens, than in the east.

That explains why the EG were more open about killings than those who managed the Final Solution and AR. They had to be more circumspect about what they were doing. They needed greater secrecy, hence the Hofle order for AR staff.

If the Final Solution was merely a resettlement operation, where are all the documents titled Final Solution, that detail the logistics of mass resettlement? Which department ran the operation? Who was in charge? Why did those present at the Conference, when they were interviewed after the war, with no evidence of torture, not make any comment on actual resettlement taking place? Eichmann, for example, would have had detailed knowledge of the resettlement. He should have been able to say where millions of Jews, involved in the Final Solution, were in 1944-5. But no one from the Conference knew. None had anything to say about actual resettlement taking place.

If the Holocaust was a hoax, why were the Wannsee attendees not tortured into admitting mass murders? Why were they allowed to claim no knowledge and to say they believed it was about resettlement? Instead, they were able to use their claims of plausible deniability, without actually being able to any testimony about actual resettlement taking place. Those tasked with the investigations and interviews, realised that those Nazis had learned, by January 1942, to be more circumspect about what their operations involved and not to make any mention of mass killings.