The WANNSEE CONFERENCE and PROTOCOL

[Wahrheitssucher]

.
TO USE CODE OR NOT TO USE CODE? THAT IS THE QUESTION.

On the 8th January 1942, Reinhard Heydrich sent invitations for a ministerial conference, to be held on the 20th January at Wannsee. He had previously sent them notification, enclosed with a copy of a letter from Herman Göring dated 31st July 1941 in which he had been given authorisation to plan something called 'the final solution to the Jewish question' (Die Endlösung der Judenfraga).

In all, fifteen officials attended the conference. Half the attendees were under forty years of age and only two were over fifty. They were well educated, with ten having a university education (of whom eight held academic doctorates), and eight were lawyers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wannsee_Conference

The conference lasted about an hour and a half. Shorthand notes of the presentation and discussions were taken by Eichmann's secretary, Ingeburg Werlemann. These were later written up as minutes by Eichmann in consultation with Heydrich, under the heading 'Discussion minutes', in German 'Besprechungsprotokoll'.
Copies of the minutes were then sent by Eichmann to all the participants after the meeting. In 1947 Robert Kempner, a German lawyer of Jewish descent who became a U.S. prosecutor in the Tribunal at Nuremberg, claimed to have found Luther's copy (number 16 out of 30 copies prepared) in files that had been seized from the German Foreign Office.
This copy of the minutes was claimed by the Allies at the Nuremberg show-trials to be a coded document proving the Third Reich's plan to exterminate ALL jews in Axis occupied territory.

On Monday 17th March 2025 TlsMS93 wrote here at CODOH of how there are many contemporary Third Reich documents from that period which form part of the holocaust narrative and are supposedly written with coded euphemisms, and yet at the same time period, 'holocaust' documents were written without coded words.

The Jäger Report is "uncoded" and yet the Wannsee Protocol is supposedly "coded". These documents are believed to have been produced at about the same time.

Likewise, the Einsatzgruppen Report, December 1942 is "uncoded" and yet the Korherr Report is another supposedly "coded" document. Both were supposedly produced at about the same time and both were supposedly intended for Hitler.
To support a hypothesis it must have a pattern, it must not allow for ambiguities or only point to the document that pleases [one's] worldview."

So what was the Wannsee Conference actually for?
And if it was convened to discuss and plan an extermination policy, why did the convenors decide they needed to use 'euphemisms' as code for 'killings'?

WHAT WAS THE MEETING ABOUT?
The main content of the Wannsee conference, according to the minutes, was Heydrich's lengthy exposition of past and present policies regarding the Jews, with the conclusion that these were to be superceded by new policies under Heydrich's command.
There is not very much in the document on these future policies, and where there are, these are described as "provisional". It is difficult to be certain as to what exactly the parts of the minutes referring to future policy intend, going by the minutes alone, due to the vagueness of the wording. Some of these are now regarded as "murderous euphemism" in the currently consensus understanding. E.g. when Heydrich discussed what the minutes refers to as "new possibilities in the East" and "treated accordingly".

OVER eleven million European Jews, estimated by country, were listed for inclusion in these "new possibilities." And a large chunk of the minutes concerns the difficulties in deciding exactly who could be classified as Jewish, and acknowledged that the final number would be much higher.
The only specific plan mentioned, according to a literal reading of the minutes, is that of "a provisional policy of transportation to the East ...provided that the Führer gives the appropriate approval in advance". German Jews over 65 and decorated WW1 veterans were to be excluded from this policy of re-settlement and could remain within Germany in special ghettoes.

WHO WAS AT THE MEETING?
Many of the participants came from dignified, well-established ministries that had long predated the Nazi state – the Ministry of the Interior, the Ministry of Justice, the Foreign Ministry, and the Reich Chancellery. Eight of them were highly educated men holding doctorate degrees. Two of those invited were Wilhelm Stuckart and Friedrich-Wilhelm Kritzinger and they are unique in that they attended the conference and survived both the war and the post-war Allied lynchings.

The 'holocaust' narrative maintains that the meeting was called specifically to announce, plan and discuss with these officials an extermination policy of ALL jewish and partly-jewish people in German-occupied Europe. From what can be ascertained from the minutes themselves, and from postwar testimony of Eichmann at his show-trial, nobody at the meeting expressed shock or surprise at anything said nor protested to anything. IF the meeting REALLY DID discuss a plan to kill many more than eleven million people, I myself find this hard to conceive and quite literally incredible. And this is why I tend to believe what Wilhelm Stuckart and Friedrich-Wilhelm Kritzinger maintained after the war, viz. that there WAS no discussion of killings or extermination at Wannsee of a planned eleven million and more people. If there had been, they would have objected.
There was instead a discussion about a temporary re-settlement/deportation policy, and most importantly (from Heydrich's perspective) there was an agreement acknowledged amongst these top administrators that this "provisional" new policy and any further developments now came under the control and authority of Heydrich himself. Whether this REALLY WAS Heydrich's brief and planned policy is a separate question, imo.

An important question for anyone wanting to ascertain what really happened at the meetings is to ask: 'WAS there discussion of killings and an extermination policy at Wannsee or not?' Interestingly Eichmann – who attended and wrote the minutes for the Wannsee conference – made contradictory statements at his televised, Tel-Aviv show-trial. When the judge got exasperated and asked him directly if such discussions had occurred there or not, Eichmann said that they did not. Yet the wikipedia article on Wannsee quotes him saying the exact opposite. And the online transcripts of his Tel-Aviv show trial are no longer searchable. (Hmmmm?)

The invitations for the meeting also support this understanding of top officials gathered together to hear and confirm and to approve Heydrich's new rôle in relation to der Judenfrage of a policy of forced Abschiebung (deportation).

WHEN WAS THE 'PLAN', WHICH WAS AGREED AT WANNSEE, IMPLEMENTED?
According to the currently consensus understanding, the 'holocaust' extermination policy had already begun. The official story is that mass killings of Jews had ALREADY begun on Soviet territory six months before this meeting.
And at the exact same time as the meeting, preparations for the Belzec camp were allegedly well underway, plus the Chelmno death camp was supposedly fully operational in the homicidal gassing of Jews and others, having ALREADY been operational for six weeks by the time the Wannasee Conference was in session.

This I regard as a crucial point as it raises the obvious question of 'if military units implenting the final solution mass-murder had already started, then who had had the authority to instigate this policy BEFORE Wannsee, and who had been given the permission (and from whom) to build these alleged "killing facilities" BEFORE Wannsee?'

This is one part of the problem with the currently accepted 'holocaust' history as I understand it. Neither Heydrich nor any of his guests had such power or authority, and as documents found by historian David Irving show, Hitler himself, the Supreme Commander and ultimate authority, had said shortly AFTER Wannsee, that any "final solution" should be postponed until after the war was over.
He said this around March 1942 to his senior ministers as quoted by his chief civil servant Dr Hans Lammers, chief of the Reich Chancellery, to Franz Schlegelberger, of the Ministry of Justice – who wrote it down in a memorandum.

"Herr Reich Minister Lammers informed me that the Führer had repeatedly declared to him that he wants to hear that the Solution of the Jewish Problem has been postponed until after the war is over. That being so, the current discussions are of purely theoretical value, in Mr Reich Minister Lammers' opinion. He will moreover take pains to ensure that, whatever else happens, no fundamental decisions are taken without his knowledge in consequence of a surprise briefing by any third party."

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.

WHAT IS THE CONSENSUS OPINION REGARDING WANNSEE'S SIGNIFICANCE?
Historians today are NOT in agreement about what is the correct significance of this meeting. This is presumably because the conference occurred AFTER the date agreed upon by 'holocaust' history promoters for when intial implementation of the alleged policy to kill ALL Jews in Axis-occupied Europe began.
I.e. Wannsee doesn't fit the timeline of when the claimed systematic, planned, genocidal killings of jews-because-they-were-jews started.
So the problem for the exterminationalists is how to explain the alleged planning, contingencies and processes by which so-called "final solution" killings were supposedly already occuring in occupied Soviet and Polish territory. Killings which had began months before Wannsee, plus months before some historians claim Hitler had even decided it. How were Einsatzgruppen Units involved in shootings of partisan Jewish communities being commanded? What was the chain of command there? When were their orders arranged, planned and implemented if their actions WERE part of the 'final solution'?

When Germany attacked Poland in September 1939, the Einsatzgruppen also killed civilians perceived as enemies. Together with units of the Waffen SS, Order Police, and local collaborators, they shot thousands of Jews...
...in June 1941, the scale of Einsatzgruppen mass murder operations vastly increased. The main targets were Communist Party and Soviet state officials, Roma, and above all Jews of any age or gender....
https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/ ... atzgruppen

And how did that progress and expand to a pan-European alleged gassing program?
Thus it is that 'holocaust' historians have a variety of conflicting and contradictory interpretations of Wannsee. It is because they have conflicting and contradictory interpretations of: 1.) what exactly is 'the Holocaust', and 2.) what were it's origins and beginning.
They don't agree about Wannsee's function and significance in the small detail due to their different and incompatible understanding of how and when the alleged genocidal "Final Solution - holocaust" evolved.

CONCLUSION:
the crucial point to understand if we want to fairly analyse the Wannsee Protokoll is that WE have all been conditioned and pressured to agree that a genocidal "final solution" occured, as to question that basic contention means to invite career suicide and ostracisation from society, for historians AND non-historians alike.
Questioning this basic premise and pointing out these obvious problems with it, results in accusations of neo-fascist anti-semitism at worst and naive ignorance at best. Yet it is clear that intelligent, erudite, non-racist, highly educated researchers HAVE also reached similar conclusions. Therefore not agreeing with this basic genocidal interpretation does NOT equate with not understanding it. This is a classic fallacious ad hominem response, and that this response is used as the key argument actually points to the inherent weakness of the exterminationalist position and its consensus understanding of the Wannsee Conference as a plan for genocide.

[bombsaway]

my view of the conference notes

I never claimed there was explicit indication of genocide. There's no explicit mention of the fate of the non-working Jews. A few hints about evacuation is that sterilization is seen as preferable to it and also there's this

"In conclusion, there was a discussion of the various possible forms which the solution might take, and here both Gauleiter Dr. Meyer and Secretary of State Dr. Buehler were of the opinion that certain preparatory work for the final solution should be carried out locally in the area concerned, but that, in doing so, alarm among the population must be avoided."

What do you think fits here within your worldview, for "forms which the solution might take"? The part to take into account is the preparatory work seen as being required, and the need to not cause alarm among the population.

I don't think there's any other mention of what will happen to the evacuated Jews not chosen for labor.

My main argument with the protocols is it supports killing more so than maintenance, of non-employable Jews.

[Nessie]

There was no mention in the minutes, of the logistics needed and planning for, for the resettlement of millions of Jews in the east. Instead, the minutes record huge drops in the population of Jews in eastern countries such as Latvia, with Estonia already declared Jew free.

[Wahrheitssucher]

my view of the conference notes

I never claimed there was explicit indication of genocide. There's no explicit mention of the fate of the non-working Jews…
…My main argument with the protocols is it supports killing more so than maintenance of non-employable Jews.

Your view then is what ‘holocaust’ educators would regard as ‘holocaust denial lite’.
Here is what you are supposed to believe:

The Wannsee Conference lasted only 90 minutes. After the meeting concluded, Heydrich and Heinrich Müller (head of the Gestapo), asked Eichmann to join them for brandy and a cigarette. The three genocidists sat around the fireplace in the villa, smoking and drinking for a short while. … for the Chief of Security Police and the SD there was much to celebrate. The gloating Heydrich realized that a system for destroying the entire Jewish people was settled.
~ New Orleans WW2 History Museum https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/a ... rence-1942

The purpose of the conference …was to ensure the co-operation of administrative leaders of various government departments in the implementation of the Final Solution to the Jewish Question, whereby most of the Jews of German-occupied Europe would be deported to occupied Poland and murdered.
~ Wikipedia

The Wannsee Conference was a high-level meeting of German officials to discuss and implement the so-called “Final Solution of the Jewish Question” (mass killing).
The "Final Solution" was the code name for the systematic, deliberate, physical annihilation of the European Jews. …Despite the euphemisms which appeared in the protocols of the meeting, the aim of the Wannsee Conference was clear to its participants: to further the coordination of a policy aimed at the physical annihilation of the European Jews.
~ USHMM. https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/ ... l-solution

Instead of just posting some old thing you wrote, would you care instead to consider what I wrote and respond to some or all of i? I.e. how about having a thoughtful, open-ended dialogue aimed at establishing ‘truth’?

I suggest the official narrative and interpretation is similar to if we are asked to believe that during the current Russia-Ukraine conflict, last year in January 2024 someone in the Russian high-command arranged a meeting with other top administrators of the Russian government and calmly told them he had an assignment and a plan to mass-murder the entire populations of both Norway (5.6 million) and Finland (5.7 million).
And we are expected to believe that none of the attendees at this imaginary Russian meeting expressed any surprise at this official notification, nor objected, nor asked ‘why, and why now during the war?’, and on a practical point no-one had the common-sense to ask ‘but how?’.

[TlsMS93]

There was no mention in the minutes, of the logistics needed and planning for, for the resettlement of millions of Jews in the east. Instead, the minutes record huge drops in the population of Jews in eastern countries such as Latvia, with Estonia already declared Jew free.

There is German documentation that says Sigmund Freud was alive in 1940, so was he? No country was truly free of Jews, this just proves that documentation is not enough for anything.

[borjastick]

For the Nessie of the small brain the Wannsee Conference was not there to discuss the detailed planning of the removal of jews but the concept and overarching requirement so to do. If they had discussed the minute details of every shipment and trainload of jews from every country (many of which were not ever under German control) there would have been many more functionaries and it would have taken days.

I discussed the minutes of the conference in a separate thread some weeks back.

This is not difficult to understand unless you are sub 80 IQ, looking for the jews to have been holocausted and are also wearing extra large blinkers...

[bombsaway]

my view of the conference notes

I never claimed there was explicit indication of genocide. There's no explicit mention of the fate of the non-working Jews…
…My main argument with the protocols is it supports killing more so than maintenance of non-employable Jews.

Your view then is what ‘holocaust’ educators would regard as ‘holocaust denial lite’.
Here is what you are supposed to believe:

The Wannsee Conference lasted only 90 minutes. After the meeting concluded, Heydrich and Heinrich Müller (head of the Gestapo), asked Eichmann to join them for brandy and a cigarette. The three genocidists sat around the fireplace in the villa, smoking and drinking for a short while. … for the Chief of Security Police and the SD there was much to celebrate. The gloating Heydrich realized that a system for destroying the entire Jewish people was settled.
~ New Orleans WW2 History Museum https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/a ... rence-1942

The purpose of the conference …was to ensure the co-operation of administrative leaders of various government departments in the implementation of the Final Solution to the Jewish Question, whereby most of the Jews of German-occupied Europe would be deported to occupied Poland and murdered.
~ Wikipedia

The Wannsee Conference was a high-level meeting of German officials to discuss and implement the so-called “Final Solution of the Jewish Question” (mass killing).
The "Final Solution" was the code name for the systematic, deliberate, physical annihilation of the European Jews. …Despite the euphemisms which appeared in the protocols of the meeting, the aim of the Wannsee Conference was clear to its participants: to further the coordination of a policy aimed at the physical annihilation of the European Jews.
~ USHMM. https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/ ... l-solution

Instead of just posting some old thing you wrote, would you care instead to consider what I wrote and respond to some or all of i? I.e. how about having a thoughtful, open-ended dialogue aimed at establishing ‘truth’?

I suggest the official narrative and interpretation is similar to if we are asked to believe that during the current Russia-Ukraine conflict, last year in January 2024 someone in the Russian high-command arranged a meeting with other top administrators of the Russian government and calmly told them he had an assignment and a plan to mass-murder the entire populations of both Norway (5.6 million) and Finland (5.7 million).
And we are expected to believe that none of the attendees at this imaginary Russian meeting expressed any surprise at this official notification, nor objected, nor asked ‘why, and why now during the war?’, and on a practical point no-one had the common-sense to ask ‘but how?’.

Your mistake is you are looking at this like a revisionist. The Wannsee notes don't exist in a vaccuum, to orthodox historians, and myself, the conference dovetails with independent evidence pointing to mass killings at Chelmno, the construction of Belzec, etc. Witness testimony about the conference itself also supports that there was discussion of killing activities.

But like I said, it's not in the notes itself, explicitly at least. The historians you quoted don't contradict anything I said so, I'm not doing "Holo denial lite".

If you were interested truth, you might answer the question I posed in my quoted post- about alarming the populace.

[Hektor]

For the Nessie of the small brain the Wannsee Conference was not there to discuss the detailed planning of the removal of jews but the concept and overarching requirement so to do. If they had discussed the minute details of every shipment and trainload of jews from every country (many of which were not ever under German control) there would have been many more functionaries and it would have taken days.

I discussed the minutes of the conference in a separate thread some weeks back.

This is not difficult to understand unless you are sub 80 IQ, looking for the jews to have been holocausted and are also wearing extra large blinkers...

I don't deem the Wannsee protocol to be a reliable document for a number of reasons. But assuming there was such a meeting, and this was actually attested to by former participants at the IMT, there is no reason to go into detail there. Waht the conference was probably was a briefing on policies, not on the administrative or technical details. The minutes make no mentioning of mass-killings though. One has to read this into the text according to the Holocaustian. Well, the participant in question did not know about mass-killings of Jews until the IMT and he would have been someone that should have known, simply due to his position.

[Wahrheitssucher]

Instead of just posting some old thing you wrote, would you care instead to consider what I wrote and respond to some or all of i? I.e. how about having a thoughtful, open-ended dialogue aimed at establishing ‘truth’?

I suggest the official narrative and interpretation is similar to if we are asked to believe that during the current Russia-Ukraine conflict, last year in January 2024 someone in the Russian high-command arranged a meeting with other top administrators of the Russian government and calmly told them he had an assignment and a plan to mass-murder the entire populations of both Norway (5.6 million) and Finland (5.7 million).
And we are expected to believe that none of the attendees at this imaginary Russian meeting expressed any surprise at this official notification, nor objected, nor asked ‘why, and why now during the war?’, and on a practical point no-one had the common-sense to ask ‘but how?’.

Your mistake is you are looking at this like a revisionist.

All genuine history IS ‘revisionist’, by definition.
If any narrative isn’t open to revision it is a faith-based belief-system NOT a ‘history’.
That you believe looking at the Wannsee conference through a revisionist lens is a “mistake” demonstrates that you aren’t interested in either historical accuracy, nor the genuine historiographical process.

“historiography is about understanding the history of how history has been written and interpreted. It's a critical tool for understanding how historical knowledge evolves and the influences that shape it”.

If you were interested truth, you might answer the question I posed in my quoted post — about alarming the populace.

I wrote something, and you replied yet didn’t respond to a single thing I wrote. Now you insist I should reply to your unrelated reply and conclude that if I don’t do that, this somehow proves I’m not “interested in truth”.

CONCLUSIONS:
1. You clearly aren’t a serious participant in discussion here;
2. nor are interested in an honest dialogue;
3. are showing that discussion for you is about attempting to reach ‘gotcha’ moments, not ascertaining ‘truth’.

[Nessie]

I am still waiting for evidence of the mass resettlement of millions of Jews in the east, 1943-4, that Wannsee failed to mention.

[bombsaway]

Instead of just posting some old thing you wrote, would you care instead to consider what I wrote and respond to some or all of i? I.e. how about having a thoughtful, open-ended dialogue aimed at establishing ‘truth’?

I suggest the official narrative and interpretation is similar to if we are asked to believe that during the current Russia-Ukraine conflict, last year in January 2024 someone in the Russian high-command arranged a meeting with other top administrators of the Russian government and calmly told them he had an assignment and a plan to mass-murder the entire populations of both Norway (5.6 million) and Finland (5.7 million).
And we are expected to believe that none of the attendees at this imaginary Russian meeting expressed any surprise at this official notification, nor objected, nor asked ‘why, and why now during the war?’, and on a practical point no-one had the common-sense to ask ‘but how?’.

Your mistake is you are looking at this like a revisionist.

All genuine history IS ‘revisionist’, by definition.
If any narrative isn’t open to revision it is a faith-based belief-system NOT a ‘history’.
That you believe looking at the Wannsee conference through a revisionist lens is a “mistake” demonstrates that you aren’t interested in either historical accuracy, nor the genuine historiographical process.

“historiography is about understanding the history of how history has been written and interpreted. It's a critical tool for understanding how historical knowledge evolves and the influences that shape it”.

If you were interested truth, you might answer the question I posed in my quoted post — about alarming the populace.

I wrote something, and you replied yet didn’t respond to a single thing I wrote. Now you insist I should reply to your unrelated reply and conclude that if I don’t do that, this somehow proves I’m not “interested in truth”.

CONCLUSIONS:
1. You clearly aren’t a serious participant in discussion here;
2. nor are interested in an honest dialogue;
3. are showing that discussion for you is about attempting to reach ‘gotcha’ moments, not ascertaining ‘truth’.

"So the problem for the exterminationalists is how to explain the alleged planning, contingencies and processes by which so-called "final solution" killings were supposedly already occuring in occupied Soviet and Polish territory."

This would be your main objection. The planning and details were likely done orally or documents destroyed, just like with T4, where we don't have a lot of data on the intricacies there - such as killing methods, who would be targeted, secrecy measures. In any case, with Holocaust planning there are a few planning documents, eg https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot ... html#_doc1

There is an information vacuum to be sure, but if this is a serious issue for you, you should consider that the information vacuum on resettlement is many orders of magnitude larger, and such an operation would be much larger as well. Gross hypocrisy, I say.

[TlsMS93]

I am still waiting for evidence of the mass resettlement of millions of Jews in the east, 1943-4, that Wannsee failed to mention.

The Korherr Report says they were, but for you it is a euphemism for exterminated, so the discussion ends there. You accuse us of what you are, of interpreting a document that suits you without offering the argument that corroborates your point of view.

[borjastick]

The amount of spinning, lies, deceit, imagining and so on employed by these people recently is off the scale. It shows me they know they have lost the main platform of the argument about 6m and gas chambers and are now pursuing different lines of deceit.

I might start a thread on this current strategy by the holocausters because it really catches them out big time.

For anyone without a position on the holocaust and wondering the who what and why about the Wannsee conference be quite clear about one crucial element to what was discussed there; at no point did they discuss mass murder by any means, or death by any means of the jews they would soon control and already control. They didn't.

So the fakers on this website resort to deception and assumptions that this or that was meant and nothing was required in writing because they all knew that a touch of the nose at 11.30am means gas the jews and a wiggling of the left ear at midday meant work the jews to death...

[Wahrheitssucher]

…So the fakers on this website resort to deception and assumptions that this or that was meant and nothing was required in writing because they all knew that a touch of the nose at 11.30am means gas the jews and a wiggling of the left ear at midday meant work the jews to death...

Brilliant!

[Wahrheitssucher]

The narrative is that there had been a secretary at the Wannsee Conference who took down in shorthand what was actually said during the proceedings. The narrative states further that from those verbatim transcriptions of what was said then discussed, Eichmann produced the ‘minutes’ (protokoll) by editing it down to a concise document.

There is some contradiction of whether this secretary was male or female. At his show-trial Eichmann specifically said the stenographer was male. But the consensus view now is that it was a female: Adolf Eichmann’s female secretary by the name of Ingeburg Gertrud Werlemann.

Ingeburg Werlemann was born on April 28, 1919, in Berlin-Altglienicke. She trained as a secretary and, as was common at the time, also took a shorthand course. She then worked as a typist, initially for the General Building Inspectorate in Berlin and, for a short time, for the Military Medical Academy.

From 1934, she was a member of the League of German Girls, later also of the German Labor Front and the National Socialist People's Welfare. In September 1938, she joined the NSDAP. As early as the beginning of March 1940, she began working in Adolf Eichmann's circle, when she was assigned to the Reich Central Office for Jewish Emigration at the RSHA, which he headed, and served as a so-called office clerk for a senior clerk.

Adolf Eichmann's secretary
From the end of 1940, most likely after Eichmann's assignment to Paris in September, now at the age of 21 yrs, she was directly assigned to Eichmann. Until the spring of 1945, she remained in the anteroom of the head of department and his deputy, Rolf Günther, at Kurfürstenstrasse 116 in Berlin. The managing director, Rudolf Jänisch, also worked there with her.

In March 1941, the department was restructured and now operated under the infamous abbreviation IV B 4. Another secretary position, permanently assigned to the anteroom, was filled several times during this time.

When Ingeburg Werlemann took shorthand for Adolf Eichmann at the Wannsee Conference on January 20, 1942, she was the department's longest-serving secretary.

Postwar statements by officials in the department confirm Werlemann/Wagner's special position in the anteroom of the department, which, from spring 1942, organized the Europe-wide deportations of Jews to sites in Eastern Europe. These explicitly refer to her as "Eichmann's secretary."

In June 1944 aged 25 she married a Wehrmacht Officer Heinz Wagner and so became Frau Ingeburg Wagner until 1949 when they divorced. She kept his name and after the war she worked as a photographer in Bonn using it.

Ingeburg Wagner died in 2010. Until 2019, those close to her were unaware of Ingeburg Wagner's work as a secretary in Eichmann's anteroom.

What she was never asked and why
In a trial in 1962 and an interview in 1967 she has been identified as possibly being the stenographer at the Wannsee Conference and questioned. The question she was asked was only: “were you the stenographer?”
Once it was admitted by her that it might have been, NO questions were ever asked of her regarding what was said at the conference.

She was NEVER asked to confirm or deny the holocaust mythology that claims the plan for the mass-murder of 11 million civilians was announced and discussed there.

She was never asked if she had heard that being announced and discussed with her own ears.

She was never asked if she had taken down in shorthand statements of intent to mass-murder ALL Jews in Europe.

And she was never charged for complicity in any war-crime.

The fair-minded, intelligent person will wonder why she was not asked.
Was it because she was female, as some holocaust-believers think?
That is an illogical reasoning as Allied trials and executions of females was common post-war.

Was it perhaps because a female attendee and eye-witness denying any knowledge of a plan to mass-murder would have been more credibly compelling and thus would invoke a more sympathetic listening than the same testimony from a male stenographer would?

Probably.


Ingeburg Wagner in 1944

I was once at Wannsee. I don't remember whether it was this conference. Once I took ‘minutes’ in the guest house at Wannsee. The prosecutor showed me ‘minutes’ from a book. He thought I had written it. As far as I remember, I couldn't have done that.

The question [of whether it was she who had taken the minutes at the Wannsee Conference] had been asked her completely unexpectedly; the court was investigating the deportation of Hungarian Jews in 1944. During the previous two-day witness hearing by the Frankfurt Public Prosecutor's Office a month earlier, she had not been asked about the Wannsee Conference.

The Second Interrogation: 1967
It would have been easy for her to answer this question with "I don't know," as she had already done seven times during the brief interrogation in court — or simply to deny it.

Instead, she already differentiated between taking shorthand notes of the meeting and preparing the record. This makes her testimony regarding the Wannsee Conference consistent, as by taking shorthand, she merely completed the preparatory work for the final minutes, which were written by Eichmann in consultation with Heydrich.

Five years later, she was questioned about the Wannsee Conference for the second time during an interrogation as part of the investigations against former RSHA members. Instead of retracting or qualifying her 1962 statement, she added the information that the meeting in question had taken place in the SS guest house at Berlin's Wannsee, citing the presence of Heydrich and Eichmann.
This is precisely why participation in a meeting in the guest house at Wannsee can be used to infer the Wannsee Conference on January 20, 1942. As far as we now know, no other meetings with Heydrich took place there until the death of the head of the Security Police and the SD following an assassination attempt in Prague in early June 1942.

BDM and NSDAP member
The guest house at Wannsee and the participation of Heydrich and Eichmann remained constants in the other five statements. Their statements only vary with regard to the overall composition of the participants.

Werlemann's statements did not result in any criminal consequences. She was neither charged nor convicted. Why was this woman who, through her presence at the Wannsee Conference, supposedly supported the m#ss m*rd¥r of the J€w$?

There were early indications of the presence of a typist at the Wannsee meeting. Eichmann had pointed this out several times during his televised show-trial in the early 1960s, and Ms. Wagner herself was questioned about it a total of seven times. In June 1962, an article appeared in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung that mentioned her by name. However, until 2019, there was no systematic research that would have addressed these clues.

Regrettable because, in contrast to the majority of participants in the Wannsee Conference questioned after 1945, Ms. Wagner, in addition to Eichmann and the former State Secretary of the Interior Ministry, Dr. Wilhelm Stuckart, also provided substantive information about the proceedings. For example, she stated that shorthand was difficult "because a lot of people talked at once" – a statement about the sometimes lively proceedings that corresponds with Eichmann's statements.

Just a simple secretary
It's possible that she could have remembered more outside of the criminal proceedings.

The lack of research is symptomatic of the way the [holocaust mythology] was dealt with in the early postwar decades, since, with few exceptions, the trials for National Socialist violent crimes (NSG) rarely attracted supra-regional or even sustained attention in postwar West Germany.

In any case, there was no observation or systematic monitoring of these trials by historians. When they began using trial documents as sources in the 1990s, a simple secretary may have seemed completely irrelevant given the persistent focus on perpetrators and crime complexes.

https://taz.de/NS-Taeterin-auf-der-Wann ... /!5654203/