The WANNSEE CONFERENCE and PROTOCOL

[Nessie]

....

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.

This is textbook conspiratorial thinking. You are faced with a major inconsistency between the Wannsee minutes and the EG reports, the latter strongly undermining the idea that they never mentioned killing in writing. And you're just making up excuses to square the circle.

No, I am just looking at the evidence and chronology. There is evidence of far more support for the killing of Jews in the east, than in the west. Killing Jews as partisans is evidenced, which you agree with. Framing western Jews as partisans would not work in the west. The EG shootings took place when T4 was still running. But, when that had to be cancelled, it was clear any further action, especially against western Jews, would have to be run secretively. So yes, there was a conspiracy at Wannsee to run an operation with greater secrecy.

You claim you are all about evidence. The Wannsee minutes are evidence against the Holocaust. We have a document from 1942, minutes from a private Nazi meeting on the planning of the "final solution." Yet we find NOTHING about mass extermination of Jews.

The excuses you offer here render your theory unfalsifiable (conspiracy thinking).

(Toward then end it seems you are trying to derail the thread by speculating about torture and confessions. Please stick to Wannsee.)

The Wannsee Minutes do not go into any detail about the logistical issue of resettling millions of Jews. They record huge drops in the population of Jews in the east and that one country is already Jew free. They record the policy of ridding the east of Jews. That is inconsistent with resettlement and it is consistent with killings. When the attendees of the Conference were interviewed after the war, none of them claimed mass resettlement. Instead, they just denied knowledge of, or involvement in, mass killings. If any senior Nazis had knowledge of the details of a mass resettlement programme, it would be them.

[Wahrheitssucher]

Grok’s answer:
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."

"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 attendee who was at the Wannsee conference admitted that the conference 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!

Check this out.
Here (below) is an example of genuine ‘Holocaust history’ denial:

…When the attendees of the Conference were interviewed after the war, none of them claimed mass resettlement. Instead, they just denied knowledge of, or involvement in, mass killings.

This person is claiming the complete OPPOSITE of reality.

This is denying the evidence just provided by Grok.

Which I ask all CODOH readers to ponder upon.

It is literally insane* behaviour

*(‘insane’ = unable to recognise and deal with reality)

[Nessie]

...

Check this out.
Here (below) is an example of genuine ‘Holocaust history’ denial:

…When the attendees of the Conference were interviewed after the war, none of them claimed mass resettlement. Instead, they just denied knowledge of, or involvement in, mass killings.

This person is claiming the complete OPPOSITE of reality.

This is denying the evidence just provided by Grok.

Which I ask all CODOH readers to ponder upon.

It is literally insane* behaviour

*(‘insane’ = unable to recognise and deal with reality)

I was wrong to claim they made no mention of resettlement. Being wrong is not "insane". They do say that resettlement was what they believed happened. They then provide no evidence of that resettlement taking place. For a Conference to be so concerned about evacuation, deportation and resettlement, it was rather vague as to where that would be. The minutes suggest "the east" but there are problems with that.

Wilhelm Stuckart

"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."

"The conference was concerned only with the emigration and evacuation of Jews, not their physical destruction".

He is stating that no decision was made at the Conference, as to what the final fate of the Jews would be and that they were not concerned with their physical destruction, or killing. That reads that at the time of the Conference, he did not know about the killings, but he did find out later.

Friedrich Wilhelm Kritzinger

"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."

"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".

Again, that reads he did not know about mass murder at the Conference, but he did later find out.

Chronologically, Wannsee fits into after Action T4 and the Einsatzgruppen use of killings to achieve policy aims, but before AR had started. How believable is it, that none of those interviewed, knew about Action T4, the Einsazgruppen and what was to come with AR? I would doubt that for the following reasons.

The Final Solution was, as it's centre, a policy to rid occupied Europe of Jews. The population figures it used, were already significantly down on pre-war estimates, for Eastern Europe. Estonia was recorded as Jew free. It is odd that they believed the east was then being used as a place of resettlement. Why clear it of Jews, to then fill it?

As for not discussing the destruction of the Jews, "The possible final remnant will, since it will undoubtedly consist of the most resistant portion, have to be treated accordingly, because it is the product of natural selection and would, if released, act as a the seed of a new Jewish revival (see the experience of history.)" They knew that eventually, by means they did not wish to record on the minutes, Jews would die. The Conference was not just about resettlement and labour, it was about ridding occupied Europe of Jews.

Those who ran the Final Solution, and AR, were more circumspect about what they said, than the Einsatzgruppen, to gain plausible deniability.

[Wahrheitssucher]

As for not discussing the destruction of the Jews,

"The possible final remnant will, since it will undoubtedly consist of the most resistant portion, have to be treated accordingly, because it is the product of natural selection and [would] will, [if] UPON release, act as a the seed of a new Jewish revival (see the experience of history.)"

They knew that eventually, [by means they did not wish to record on the minutes,] Jews would [die] be released later. The Conference was [not] just about resettlement and labour, it was about ridding occupied Europe of Jews.

The Wannsee protocol does NOT say “if released”!
And to claim it does is to perpetuate a deliberate deception!

What it actually says is “bei Freilassung” which means “when released” or more accurately “upon release”.

Also there is no rhetorical speculation saying “unless we kill them all they would become stronger”.
No. It very clearly states that they WILL be released.

This has been pointed out to this delusional person countless times.

—————————————————-

CONCLUSION:
1. The first FACT to recognise here is that holyH promulgators need to deceive with a mistranslation. I.e. it (the holyH) requires dishonesty and calculated deception to promote a false understanding to the world.

2. The second fact to notice is that this kind of relentless denying of reality that we are witnessing here with this individual, definitely does show someone who is unable to interact with reality in a truthful, moral and sane way.

—————————————————-

The relevant sentence reads:

Der allfällig endlich verbleibende Restbestand wird, da es sich bei diesem zweifellos um den widerstandsfähigsten Teil handelt, entsprechend behandelt werden müssen, da dieser, eine natürliche Auslese darstellend, bei Freilassung als Keimzelle eines neuen jüdischen Aufbaues anzusprechen ist. (Siehe die Erfahrung der Geschichte.)

The correct English translation is:

The remaining stock, if any, will undoubtedly be the most resilient part and will have to be treated accordingly, since it represents a natural selection and, upon release, will be considered the nucleus of a new Jewish development. (see the experience of history).

[Nessie]

As for not discussing the destruction of the Jews,

"The possible final remnant will, since it will undoubtedly consist of the most resistant portion, have to be treated accordingly, because it is the product of natural selection and would, [if] WHEN released, act as a the seed of a new Jewish revival (see the experience of history.)"

They knew that eventually, [by means they did not wish to record on the minutes,] Jews would [die] be released later. The Conference was [not] just about resettlement and labour, it was about ridding occupied Europe of Jews.

The Wannsee protocol does NOT say “if released”!
And to claim it does is to perpetuate a deliberate deception!
What it actually says “bei Freilassung” which means “when released” or “upon release”.

This has been pointed out to this delusional person countless times.

I would dispute that. Bear in mind that, because of repeated abuse by you, I rarely read what you post.

1. The first FACT to recognise here is that holyH promulgators need to deceive with a mistranslation. I.e. it (the holyH) requires dishonesty and calculated deception to promote a false understanding to the world.

2. The second fact to notice is that this kind of relentless denying of reality that we are witnessing here with this individual, definitely does show someone who is unable to interact with reality in a truthful, moral and sane way.

—————————————————-

The relevant sentence reads:

Der allfällig endlich verbleibende Restbestand wird, da es sich bei diesem zweifellos um den widerstandsfähigsten Teil handelt, entsprechend behandelt werden müssen, da dieser, eine natürliche Auslese darstellend, bei Freilassung als Keimzelle eines neuen jüdischen Aufbaues anzusprechen ist. (Siehe die Erfahrung der Geschichte.)

The correct English translation is:

The possible final remnant will, since it would undoubtedly consist of the most resistant portion, have to be treated accordingly, because it is the product of natural selection and would, when released, act as the seed of a new Jewish revival (see the experience of history).

Not according to the House of Wannsee Conference website;

https://www.ghwk.de/en/

It translates the original as;

https://www.ghwk.de/fileadmin/Redaktion ... glisch.pdf

"Those who ultimately should possibly get by will have to
be given suitable treatment because they unquestionable represent
the most resistant part and therefore constitute a natural selection that,
ifreleased, become the germ cell of renewed Jewish revival.
(Witness the experience of history.)"

Here is another translation, that uses "if released";

https://holocaust.umd.umich.edu/news/up ... tocols.pdf

There is reasonable doubt that your translation is the correct one.

[Wahrheitssucher]

.
Summary:
The ONLY section of the Wannsee protocol that the holyH promulgators claim states a genocidal, mass-murderous intent without the use of euphemism, claims that on the back of a debunked mistranslation.

The protocol does not say “…would, if released…”.
That is a deliberate, calculated mistranslation.

It actually says “…will, upon release…”.

So, yet again this particular deceitful, delusional individual is denying reality.
And that is not just a “mistake” or merely being “wrong” due to ignorance.
It is part of a decade-long pattern of wilful, stubborn, denial of all evidence presented that refutes the holyH narrative.
Which is literally insanely dishonest behaviour.

You can’t relentlessly reply to my posts with ignorant, knee-jerk contradictions and then claim you do not read my posts or their content. That is not a sane claim.

[Nessie]

.
Summary:
The ONLY section of the Wannsee protocol that the holyH promulgators claim states a genocidal, mass-murderous intent without the use of euphemism, claims that on the back of a debunked mistranslation.

The protocol does not say “…would, if released…”.
That is a deliberate, calculated mistranslation.

It actually says “…will, upon release…”.

So, yet again this particular deceitful, delusional individual is denying reality.
And that is not just a “mistake” or merely being “wrong” due to ignorance.
It is part of a decade-long pattern of wilful, stubborn, denial of all evidence presented that refutes the holyH narrative.
Which is literally insanely dishonest behaviour.

Do you accept that I can produce translations that use "if released", that come from credible sites, such as the German House of Wannsee Conference website?

You can’t relentlessly reply to my posts with ignorant, knee-jerk contradictions and then claim you do not read my posts or their content. That is not a sane claim.

I do not relentlessly reply to your posts. I only replied here, because you quoted me.

[Nessie]

If I type "eine natürliche Auslese darstellend, bei Freilassung", which I copied from the original document, into google translate, it comes up with "representing natural selection, upon release". I get the same result with DeepL and QuillBot. I do not know enough about translation to know why so many historical sites, including the German one I linked to, translate it as "if released".

How much of a difference does that make? I would go back to the evidence, as to what happened before and after the Conference and point out that it was recording huge drops in the Jewish population in the east, including one country as Jew free, at the same time it discussed resettlement in the east. That does not make any sense. Actual resettlement in the east, would mean the minutes should have been recording rises in the Jewish population in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Ukraine etc and falls in France, the Netherlands, Italy, Germany etc.

There is also the issue of why, when interviewed after the war, the participants were unable to provide any information about actual resettlement programmes. They discussed resettlement only as far as to say it was in the east, which is rather vague, and they cannot even say who dealt with the day to day work of organising such a huge operation. That Eichmann was present, who did work in the day to day operation of arresting and relocating Jews, and he still could not provide any details, is even stranger.

That means the upon and if released translations, both fit with the participants not actually planning for resettlement.