Wannsee Conference minutes debunked

[Occam's Razor]

* Please attribute correctly what I'm saying. I said something about the captions of a map and you think I say that about what you wrote.

Ok, my fault, sorry. The text of the image looked so small that I didn't bother to read it.

* Revisionists point out that the Wansee protocol is a forgery, because it obviously is one. Not because it does in any way support the extermination thesis. At best it doesn't contradict it and may contain innuendo useful to exterminationists.

I remember when I read the Bohlinger / Ney book the arguments appeared to me as very convincing. As I said, they provide a ton of arguments.

I didn't want to imply that I decide what is a forgery and what isn't on the base of whether it supports the revisionist position or not. I decide whether I invest time and energy into a question on the base of how effective the result would be for the revisionist position. It's one thing to claim something is a forgery, and a completely different thig to convince a believer, or even an undecided person, even if you think you have convincing arguments. In the area of revisionism, because of the enormous prejudice, brainwashing and social pressure, we need more than good arguments. We need perfect arguments.

The Wannsee protocol comes across as phony. But that is something it shares with a lot of other strange documents. The Goebbels diary. Himmlers Posen speech. All these weird sentences that could be interpreted as s.th. criminal, but they're never explicit. And there's never a 100% convincing argument that they're forgeries.

I actually found a map from between September 1939 and June 1941:
Note it says "Aussenstellenkarte der eingegliederten Ostgebiete". So Ostgebiete was used, although with the adjective "eingegliedert" [integrated].

Good find. That's more or less what I suggested with the Wartheland theory. But you're right. It's still not 100% convincing. It could mean anything.

And I still maintain any German author from then would be more specific (i.e.: eingegliedert nach 1939 [integrated after ... 1939]) in order to avoid confusion.

Ok, but the author didn't do that. Is that enough to claim a forgery? And aren't these numbers from the Korherr report? Or was that later? I'm too lazy to look it up right now. Maybe there was some explanation in an accompanying document that was lost, or something like that. It should be possible to find other documents that solve this question.

[Hektor]

....
Ok, but the author didn't do that. Is that enough to claim a forgery? And aren't these numbers from the Korherr report? Or was that later? I'm too lazy to look it up right now. Maybe there was some explanation in an accompanying document that was lost, or something like that. It should be possible to find other documents that solve this question.

If it would be the only oddity, I wouldn't see that as conclusive proof for a forgery. But as Bohlinger / Ney pointed out they heap up. And there are several other stronger give-aways like Heydrich missing from the participants, overall form and the wrong usage of German words indicates that it wasn't a native German speaker that drew up the text.

Although Wannsee isn't mentioned by name. It seems that Josef Buehler refers to the meeting here:

DR. SEIDL: Die Anklagevertretung hat unter US-281 einen Auszug aus dem Tagebuch Franks als Beweisstück vorgelegt. Es ist das eine Besprechung über Judenfragen. Dabei hat der Angeklagte Dr. Frank unter anderem folgendes ausgeführt:
»Ich werde daher den Juden gegenüber grundsätzlich nur von der Erwartung ausgehen, daß sie verschwinden. Sie müssen weg. Ich habe Verhandlungen zu dem Zwecke angeknüpft, sie nach dem Osten abzuschieben. Im Januar findet über diese Frage eine große Besprechung in Berlin statt, zu der ich Herrn Staatssekretär Dr. Bühler entsenden werde. Diese Besprechung soll im Reichssicherheitshauptamt bei SS-Obergruppenführer Heydrich gehalten werden. Jedenfalls wird eine große jüdische Wanderung einsetzen.«
Ich frage Sie nun: Wurden Sie vom Generalgouverneur zu dieser Besprechung nach Berlin gesandt? Und was war gegebenenfalls der Gegenstand dieser Besprechung?
BÜHLER: Ich bin zu dieser Besprechung gesandt worden, und der Gegenstand dieser Besprechung waren Judenfragen. Ich darf vorausschicken, die Judenfragen im Generalgouvernement wurden von Anfang an als Bestandteil des Zuständigkeitsbereiches des Höheren SS- und Polizeiführers betrachtet und gehandhabt. Soweit die staatliche Verwaltung Judenangelegenheiten bearbeitete, tat sie das nur geduldet und beaufsichtigt von der Polizei.
[78] Im Laufe des Jahres 1940 und 1941 waren unheimliche Menschenmassen, meist Juden, gegen den Einspruch und die Proteste des Generalgouverneurs und seiner Verwaltung in das Generalgouvernement hereingeführt worden. Dieses völlig unerwartete, unvorbereitete und unerwünschte Hereinführen der jüdischen Bevölkerung anderer Gebiete hat die Verwaltung des Generalgouvernements in eine außerordentlich schwierige Lage gebracht.
Die Unterbringung dieser Menschenmassen, ihre Ernährung und ihre gesundheitliche Betreuung, wie Seuchenbekämpfung, gingen beinahe, oder man darf ruhig sagen, bestimmt über die Kraft des Gebietes. Besonders bedrohlich war die Ausbreitung des Fleckfiebers, nicht nur in den Ghettos, sondern auch unter der polnischen Bevölkerung und auch unter den Deutschen des Generalgouvernements. Es schien, als wolle sich die Seuche auch im Reich und im Osten an der Front, vom Generalgouvernement ausgehend, verbreiten.
In dieser Situation kam diese Einladung Heydrichs an den Generalgouverneur. Die Besprechung sollte ursprünglich bereits im November 1941 stattfinden, wurde dann aber mehrmals abgesetzt und dürfte stattgefunden haben im Februar 1942.
Ich hatte Heydrich wegen der besonderen Probleme des Generalgouvernements um eine Einzelbesprechung gebeten und er hat mich hierzu empfangen. Hierbei habe ich ihm unter vielem anderen besonders die katastrophalen Verhältnisse geschildert, die infolge des eigenmächtigen Hereinführens jüdischer Bevölkerung in das Generalgouvernement entstanden waren. Er hat mir daraufhin erklärt, daß er gerade deshalb den Generalgouverneur zu dieser Besprechung eingeladen habe. Der Reichsführer-SS habe vom Führer den Auftrag erhalten, die gesamten Juden Europas zusammenzufassen und im Nordosten Europas, in Rußland, anzusiedeln. Ich fragte ihn, ob das bedeute, daß die weitere Hereinführung jüdischer Bevölkerung in das Generalgouvernement unterbleibe, und daß dem Generalgouvernement die vielen Hunderttausende von Juden, die ohne Erlaubnis des Generalgouverneurs hereingeführt worden waren, wieder abgenommen würden. Heydrich hat mir beides in Aussicht gestellt.
http://www.zeno.org/Geschichte/M/Der+N% ... agssitzung

for translation look up here:

DR. SEIDL: The Prosecution submitted an extract from Frank's diary in evidence under Number USA-281 (Document Number 2233(d)-PS.) This is a discussion of Jewish problems. In this connection Frank said, among other things:

"My attitude towards the Jews is based on the expectation that they will disappear; they must go away. I have started negotiations for deporting them to the East. This question will be discussed at a large meeting in Berlin in January, to which I shall send State Secretary Dr. Buehler. This conference is to take place at the Reich Security Main Office in the office of SS Obergruppenfuehrer Heydrich. In any case Jewish emigration on a large scale will begin."

I ask you now, did the Governor General send you to Berlin for that conference; and if so, what was the subject of the conference?

BUEHLER: Yes, I was sent to the conference and the subject of the conference was the Jewish problem. I might say in advance that from the beginning Jewish questions in the Government General were considered as coming under the jurisdiction of the Higher SS and Police Leader and handled accordingly. The handling of Jewish matters by the state administration was supervised and merely tolerated by the Police.

During the years 1940 and 1941 incredible numbers of people, mostly Jews, were brought into the Government General in spite of the objections and protests of the Governor General and his administration. This completely unexpected, unprepared for, and undesired bringing in of the Jewish population from other territories put the administration of the Government General in an extremely difficult position.

Accommodating these masses, feeding them, and caring for their health-combating epidemics for instance-almost, or rather, definitely overtaxed the capacity of the territory. Particularly threatening was the spread of typhus, not only in the ghettos but also among the Polish population and the Germans in the Government General. It appeared as if that epidemic would spread even to the Reich and to the Eastern Front.

At that moment Heydrich's invitation to the Governor General was received. The conference was originally supposed to take place in November 1941, but it was frequently postponed and it may have taken place in February 1942.

Because of the special problems of the Government General I had asked Heydrich for a personal interview and he received me. On that occasion, among many other things, I described in particular the catastrophic conditions which had resulted from the arbitrary bringing of Jews into the Government General. He replied that for this very reason he had invited the Governor General to the conference. The Reichsfuehrer SS, so he said, had received an order from the Fuehrer 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 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.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/04-23-46.asp

So, while the "Wannsee-Protocol" isn't the minutes of it, there was a conference on Jewish questions in Berlin around the time. Just that resettlement to the East (and not extermination) was the subject of it.

[Thames Darwin]

Two things:

(1) Korherr report was issued about a year later, at the conclusion of Aktion Reinhard; consequently, his numbers are far different, although he includes historical numbers for many of the same territories. Korherr was more thorough, and his figures include mortality.

(2) If the document is a forgery, then why not forge a document that is overt and explicit about extermination? This document refers to deaths only in the context of Jews suitable for labor being worked to death, but nothing clear about shootings and certainly nothing about gas chambers. So if the Allies, the Soviets, the Zionist Internation, the {insert your group or person here} were going to forge such an important document, why be so vague?

[Hektor]

I'm sure there is already a thread on Korherr somewhere.

....
(2) If the document is a forgery, then why not forge a document that is overt and explicit about extermination? This document refers to deaths only in the context of Jews suitable for labor being worked to death, but nothing clear about shootings and certainly nothing about gas chambers. So if the Allies, the Soviets, the Zionist Internation, the {insert your group or person here} were going to forge such an important document, why be so vague?

Vague indeed, and you may be already reading too much into it. But I guess this depends on the reasoning of the forger of such a document. A possible take on it maybe for example that he tried to emulate a jargon of camouflage as he may thought this to fit better with other documents. Also, the vaguer the language the less resistance will there be to it, if one confronts accused or other people with it. It's just a matter of psychology. Some forgeries are just too Nazi-cliche-ridden smearing too much butter onto the bread. And that makes people suspicious. But that's of course just a guess. I call it a forgery for objective reasons, not because it fits or opposes some narrative. It's not the cliches that strike ones eye first. It's the eccentric phraseology, outlandish pleonasms, awkward semantics and howling bloopers. That happens to an academically educated non-native German speaker that want's to show his cunning in the art, but that won't happen to any German bureaucrat not even an ordinary Schreibkraft at that level. There form and grammar would be dry but correct, the words and phrases being used in line with conventional German semantics of that time.

And of course we may ask as well: If it's a real top secret document describing the final solution, why be so vague?

[neugierig]

Hektor, there might be another reason for the ‘vagueness’. Kempner claims his staff ‘found’ the Wannsee minutes in March 1947. We discussed this issue many moons ago at the old RODOH, at that time I translated portions of the Bohlinger/Ney analysis. Here is part of what Kempner had to say about the discovery of the minutes, as mentioned, my amateurish translation:

“I was chief of the resort 'Political Ministries' (Politische Ministerien), and I asked myself, in February/March 1947: 'What is most important?'. The foreign office (AA) came to mind, the Reichs-Chancellery, they were suited for a second trial, along with the ministry of the interior and the Reichs-Security office (Reichssicherheitshauptamt), which would have to be split into two-, three cases: the officials, Schellenberg's secrete service and those SS-staff, who were not members of the immediate executive. Here I was, sitting on my chair, I had my co-workers hired, gathered from other cases which had come to an end, when some peculiar things happened: I knew only of very few AA-Documents, fewer than from any other administrations, which documented how the Reichs-Security Office (RSHA) handled the deportations. Thus I told those searching for documents; "There must be more material. I have read letters from the RSHA addressed to the AA". And to my surprise I was told that the secrete documents of the AA had been, in its entirety, transported to Berlin, (tsk, tsk, those sloppy Nazis again. Wilf) They were stored at different locations...! told my Berliner assistants, per telephone, to send everything available, I surmised that the files must contain something because of statements
made by members of Eichmann's staff: "In matters deportation, we always checked with the AA"...ln time, my desk was covered with documents from the AA...Our most important witness, at the IMT, the Hungarian lawyer Rudolf Kastner, as well as reports by Poles, Czechoslovakians and Dutch, confirmed that countless people had been murdered. Who killed them? To start with, the person who had arrested them, in Krakow and Budapest.
Here we have the murders. A certain Adolf Eichmann had organized this, and he had a boss, this Heydrich. The super-murderer was Goring, who had ordered Heydrich, on July 31.1941: Organize this". (Ankläger einer Epoche, p.310ff)

They eventually ‘found’ the minutes, allegedly, a separate issue. But what we have here is an admittance by Kempner that next to nothing was known about the event, now referred to as “The Holocaust”. Thus, the forgers were careful not to provide any details, the story had not been finalized yet.

Regards
Wilf

[Werd]

I was having a debate recently with Nessie and here is what I gave back to him.

Nessie finally got off his ass after a few pages in the recent topic mentioned above and posted this:
http://www.phdn.org/archives/holocaust-history.org/wannseeprotocol/index.html

The thing is, I knew he would eventually because I had already read it a long time ago and laughed my ass off at it. I just wasn't going to do his homework for him. Nessie thinks he got me. Well read it and weep. Mentel doesn't even come close to touching Ney!

In, Area I: Transmission and Publication, the point out differences nobody disputes. Mainly the true copy that exists out of the 30 made that is in the museum, and fascimile that was created for a book written by Kempner. They really make a good point comparing a photo of the true copy with a fascimile. How can these two have different texts, but same human handwriting? Simple. Someone took the copy of the original, and used some sort of eraser technique to clean up the typed text to leave only the human handwriting in place. However, it didn't work perfectly.

Image 6 (top) (showing a detail of image 4). Please pay attention to the position of the letter "ä" of "Auswärtiges Amt" (instance 1) and the position of the letter "u" in "Luther" (instance 2) both in relation to the respective hand-written notes on top.

Image 7 (bottom) (showing a detail of image 5). While the whole block of handwriting has been copied from the original document to the newly typed text inaccurately (note that the handwriting is moved a little bit up and further to the right compared to image 6), both instances 1 and 2 show imprecisely retouched remnants of the letters "ä" and "u" in the exact position that can be seen in image 6.

[...]

Kempner and his publisher deserve to be criticized for this procedure. First, because it is generally highly questionable to alter and manipulate historical documents. Second, because they did not comment in any way on the nature of the facsimiles and the various different reproduction techniques they employed. Thus, readers were indeed deceived when taking the facsimiles as an exact reproduction of the original documents. This lack of transparency is the starting point for revisionists; it offers them the possibility to undertake all kinds of comparisons and to question the authenticity and validity of the documents. Nevertheless, it has to be pointed out that revisionists only compare images of documents - and not documents themselves. Comparing master documents would be the procedure of choice for any serious historian, because only then can certain features be investigated and only then could reliable statements be made on the nature of the documents in question. Because there are no master documents available of the facsimiles in Kempner's book, all revisionist accusations are just unfounded claims.

That is why, revisionists don't waste time on Kempner's book too much. Thanks for showing the world why us revisionists don't and why we prefer to deal with the one known copy to exist out of the total 30 that were made. This isn't really a slam dunk or a homerun.

In Area II: Bureaucratic Formalities and Witness Reports, Christian Mentel says that revisionists have a somewhat dishonest agenda when asking for things that are supposed to be on the document if it is real:

Pretending to investigate the features of the documents in a reasonable way, revisionists claim that the Protocol could not be authentic. According to them, crucial bureaucratic features that ought to be there are missing. They ask: Where is the rubber-stamp displaying the date when the document arrived at its destination? Where is the obligatory signature? Where is the obligatory reference number? Where is the name of the issuing authority and person and where is the date of issue?

These questions are exactly the questions any serious historians would ask themselves when dealing with any historical document. But the revisionists' intentions are of a different kind - they employ these perfectly legitimate and necessary questions to deceive their readership and to convince them that the Wannsee Protocol is of a somewhat dubious nature. What is suppressed by the revisionists is the simple fact that the Wannsee Protocol was not prepared and not sent out as an isolated document by itself. Instead, it was an attachment to a letter of invitation for a Wannsee follow-up conference. It is on this higher-ranking cover letter (dated February 26, 1942; cf. image 10), where all the features can be found that revisionists complained about on the Protocol.


Image 10 (left): Click for an enlargement. Reinhard Heydrich's letter of invitation to Martin Luther, 26.2.1942, PAAA, Akt. Inl. II g 177, l. 165. (A PDF can be downloaded here: http://www.ghwk.de/fileadmin/user_uploa ... h-1942.pdf.)

Image 11 (right): Click for an enlargement. Wannsee Protocol, p. 1, PAAA, Akt. Inl. II g 177, l. 166. (A PDF can be downloaded here: http://www.ghwk.de/fileadmin/user_uploa ... ar1942.pdf.)

Isolating two documents that need to be seen in context is all there is to this both simple and striking act of sleight of hand. Many years ago, the then director of the memorial site House of the Wannsee Conference Gerhard Schoenberner and historian Peter Klein pointed out this manipulation. The revisionists' response to being debunked is worth mentioning here. While they admitted that all the bureaucratic formalities were indeed to be found on the cover letter, they claimed that the Protocol ought to also show these formalities. Only if this were the case, could one be sure that individual pages or all of them had not been replaced. Moreover, contemporary regulations concerning top secret documents called for such a procedure. To be clear: According to revisionists, an authentic Wannsee Protocol would have to display on every single one of its 15 pages all bureaucratic formalities: all rubber stamps, dates, signatures, reference numbers, names, etc. Some revisionists even claim that because the margin width was not correct and the line pitch were not as they should be, the whole Protocol was not sufficiently authorized, not effective legally, and thus worthless for historiography.

And what's the response?

It has to be stressed that all official regulations, norms, requirements and orders adduced by the revisionists against the Wannsee documents were never effective either for the issuing authority (Reich Security Main Office) or the receiving authority (Foreign Office). Again, this revisionist argument has to be considered as a crude attempt to damage the Wannsee documents by use of allegedly objective benchmarks - against the general assumption that Nazi bureaucracy had been perfect. Thus, even the slightest deviations from virtual norms are used as clear-cut "evidence" that the documents were forgeries, not one word is wasted on the question of how general requirements were put into real-life practice in respective areas of competency.

I don't see you gas chamber mongers wasting time on that question either so why don't you enlighten us and ease our concerns and make us drop our revisionism with convincing argument? Or can you maybe just shut up and quit throwing random shit to the wall hoping it will stick?
2. Recall what he said earlier about an excuse for missing features:

What is suppressed by the revisionists is the simple fact that the Wannsee Protocol was not prepared and not sent out as an isolated document by itself. Instead, it was an attachment to a letter of invitation for a Wannsee follow-up conference. It is on this higher-ranking cover letter (dated February 26, 1942; cf. image 10), where all the features can be found that revisionists complained about on the Protocol.

So Wansee was not really a government document worthy of putting forth the effort to put all those little things on it because it was an attachment letter. So why the hell did these sought after features even show up AT ALL on the high ranking cover letter? Am I the only one who sees a contradiction here? Are we supposed to see stamps, notes, numbers, etc or not? If you're going to stamp one, why not the other? Is Mentel arguing that in order to save time, the Nazi bureaucracy determined it was not necessary to stamp every single page every single time? That they couldn't do it at least just once to at least one page of Wannsee? What do revisionists think of this?

Getting back to the article...

To complement this, another striking pattern of revisionist argumentation is used. It goes like this: Even if all of the - as shown above: absurd - revisionist demands in terms of authenticity and bureaucratic formalities were met, the document in question might still constitute a forgery. Because, after the end of the war, the Allies had access to all papers, rubber-stamps, typewriters and files, therefore all kinds of forged documents are possible - forgeries that are undetectable. In short, while exonerating files were systematically destroyed, incriminating and perfectly fabricated documents were created. With this surprise coup, revisionists consider all German files as potential forgeries, even if these files meet their own demands in terms of authenticity. Using this rationale, there is no possibility to determine the authenticity of any document and historiography is made impossible. However, it is telling that the suspicion that all captured German documents might be forged is only applied to those which are "incriminating". In contrast, captured documents which count for the revisionists as "exonerating" are naturally considered authentic.

Nice conspiracy theory about revisionists. Now try proving it. If this is true, where are the revisionists denying the authenticity of these key markings that exist on this high ranking cover letter? I can't find them....

In Area III: Linguistics and Semantics, Christian Mentel complains that revisionists of past have made too much about this.

Revisionists apparently also love to omit key phrases from the article:

Time and time again, revisionists quote Bauer's statement in the weekly "The Canadian Jewish News" covering a 1992 historians' conference: "The public still repeats, time after time, the silly story that at Wannsee the extermination of the Jews was arrived at." (Cf. image 12.) The newspaper's coverage is not only lurid, it is plain wrong, when it reports the sensation that Bauer, as the first (and maybe only) historian, rejected and debunked an opinion that until this moment was commonly held by historians. Bauer was far from the first scholar who has rejected the "Wannsee decision" - as already said, this was accepted by historians for decades. But for revisionists, the short newspaper article provides a bonanza: referring to a Jewish historian quoted in a Jewish newspaper, revisionists claim that these days even Bauer accepts the revisionist position that Wannsee was fairly marginal and a "silly story" in general. This, of course, is not what Bauer said, and it is hardly surprising that all revisionists keep silent about Bauer's next sentence: "Wannsee was but a stage in the unfolding of the process of mass murder".

Okay, one little quote mine perhaps by Udo Walendy in the 80's. If it was him. I don't know the revisionist who did such a hack job and left out a key phrase, if he/she at all did. So what? Let's get back on track and deal with some serious issues.

revisionists focus on the language of the Protocol itself. On the basis of style, vocabulary, syntax and figures of speech, revisionists try to argue that the Protocol could not have been written by a German native speaker. Or, if it was, the author surely must have been a German-Jewish emigrant out of touch with his mother tongue for some time. In other words: when investigating certain words and expressions which are allegedly uncommon in German, revisionists claim the Protocol is either a bad translation from American English, or it is influenced strongly by it. In any event, the Protocol's author could never be Eichmann or one of his staff, and therefore it can not be authentic.

Correct. That is but one section of the massive work that Ney wrote on Wansee years ago. Here is the original German (long version) and here is a google translation into English. Here is also a short version in English.
https://codoh.com/library/document/934/
Why do I bring these sources up? For a couple of reasons. One, two let people have access to them in this topic. But also to let people observe how Christian Mentel sets up the stage as if he is going to show how revisionist concerns about language, expressions, punctuation are all for nothing. And yet he completely avoids mentioning one single thing that Ney pointed out back in the 90's when he wrote his paper. What does Christian do? First advance the Austrian versus German version of German conspiracy theory.

Furthermore, a figure of speech that is uncommon in German as it is spoken in Germany, is claimed to be a bad translation from American English - disregarding the fact, that this particular figure is a common, and even formal, expression in Austria's variation of German. The absurdity of the revisionist claim is revealed when noting the fact that the author of the Protocol - Adolf Eichmann - lived in Austria during his childhood and worked there for many years thereafter. Thus, from a linguistic point of view, phrasings and expressions here and there typical of Austrian German are evidence for Eichmann's authorship of the Protocol, not against it.

Funny how Adolf Hitler was also born and raised in Austria and nobody seemed to have a problem with the way he spoke and wrote. Furthermore, Christian OFFERS NOT ONE EXAMPLE to prove his point that there is any significance between an Austrian way of saying something and a Deutsch way of saying something regarding certain passages that revisionists have a problem with. Christian could have picked ANY PASSAGE that Ney had a problem with. HE CHOSE NOT DO. HE IGNORED IT. HE PRETENDED NEY AND NEY'S ARTICLE DIDN'T EVEN EXIST. THEY'RE NOT IN THE FOOTNOTES OF CHRISTIAN'S ARTICLE. Ney only shows up once in the article:

The goal is to provide an overview over decades of revisionist publications on Wannsee, brought forth mostly by German authors like Johannes Peter Ney, Roland Bohlinger, Udo Walendy and Germar Rudolf, but also elaborated by Robert Faurisson and David Irving.

Yeah, some overview indeed! A completely wasted opportunity to show why the passages Ney is concerned about are due to the German being too Austrian. It's not that Christian didn't have space, time, or opportunity. He did. He couldn't prove his Austrian versus German language conspiracy theory. Because it's not factual.

Now that this little twerp has been exposed as a dishonest person who lies by omission and obfuscation, let's get to the passage he sees fit to complain about.

A second revisionist line of argumentation in terms of language advances the notion that the Wannsee Protocol does not contain indicators of an intended genocide, but instead gives evidence that Heydrich had the same noble vision of establishing a Jewish state as the Zionists. The basis for this claim is the camouflage language the Nazis used: Instead of terms like "Ermordung" (murder), softer expressions were adopted: "natürliche Verminderung" (natural attrition), "entsprechende Behandlung" (suitable treatment), "Lösung von Problemen" (solution of problems) and not least "Endlösung der Judenfrage" (Final Solution of the Jewish Question). This technique can be observed best in the following paragraph (p. 7/8 of the Protocol, an English translation of the whole Protocol can be read here):

In the course of the final solution and under approriate [sic] direction, the Jews are to be utilized for work in the East in a suitable manner. In large labor columns and separated by sexes, Jews capable of working will be dispatched to these regions to build roads, and in the process a large number of them will undoubtedly drop out by way of natural attrition. Those who ultimately should possibly get by will have to be given suitable treatment because they unquestionably represent the most resistant segments and therefore constitute a natural elite that, if allowed to go free, would turn into a germ cell of renewed Jewish revival. (Witness the experience of history.)


Image 13: Clippings from the Wannsee Protocol, p. 7 and 8, PAAA, Akt. Inl. II g 177, l. 172 and 173. (A PDF can be downloaded here: http://www.ghwk.de/fileadmin/user_uploa ... ar1942.pdf)

This paragraph of the Protocol is essential and shows what Heydrich had in mind: not only deportation, but also forced labor as a method of murder. The survivors would be especially dangerous because they would be the most resistant. These would then have to be treated accordingly (meaning: killed), because if not, they would constitute the beginning of a new Jewish "super race".

Or simply moved out of the country. As in transited. Nice job putting the cart before the horse. Try not reading your previously established belief about gas chambers into the text lest you be accused of sneaky circular reasoning. You're supposed to be an academic who knows better. Leave that shit to idiot trolls like Nessie. The final paragraph is a nice little conspiracy theory again:

It is important to bear in mind that revisionists are anything but a homogeneous group. But the one thing they have in common, no matter how different their methods, political world views and backgrounds, is anti-Semitism. Without the traditional anti-Semitic construct of a Jewish world conspiracy, revisionist writings are not possible. Underlying all revisionist writings is the idea that this alleged conspiracy is using false allegations of all kinds against Germany to dominate it and to gain money for Israel and the Jews. The implicit or explicit claim of a conspiracy of "World Jewry", which has at its command immense power and all means imaginable to make up and fabricate vast quantities of documents (the Wannsee Protocol being just one), is as irrational as the other revisionist line of argumentation: namely that for decades this Jewish conspiracy managed to influence all historians so that they - intentionally or unintentionally - misinterpret the allegedly innocuous Wannsee Protocol as proof of an intended genocide. Thus, irrationality and anti-Semitism constitute the basis of this kind of historical falsification.

Not ONE LINGUISTIC CONCERN OF NEY'S WAS DIRECTLY ADDRESSED. The theory that all apparently bad German utterances were due to Austrian German instead of high Deutsch German was interesting but had no actual proof or evidence for it. In other words Ney's criticisms remain unscathed.

[Werd]

Maybe Mentel has something more of substance to say in this German article where Ney's name at least shows up more than once.
http://www.ghwk.de/fileadmin/user_upload/pdf-wannsee/texte/mentel_protokoll_revisionismus.pdf

Slowly working on translating the relevant parts about Ney through google...

For example, in two publications from 1992, Johannes Peter Ney claims that not is known, "how, where, when, by whom and from which file area"
13 the Wannsee documentary -he was also found in a paper published in 1994, that the findings were unknown.14 In contrast, Ney, in a "report" prepared in collaboration with Roland Bohlinger, attacks Kempner because of alleged contradictions in now even more discovery reports. That "report", which leads the statements of the individual publications ad absurdum, appeared in 1992 and 1994 in two editions - in each case in parallel with two independent contributions Neys. 15 A correction consequently, not even a simple reference to Kempner's needs of his assertions Autobiography, where this describes the discovery in detail - it is sufficient a reference to Neys own publications.

These problematic facsimiles are used by revisionists for various comparisons with facsimiles of the original documents and subsequently for alleged proof of forgery. It is simply assumed that Kempners print template was created before the original document, so therefore a draft copy for a fake. For example, Ney argues that the facsimile of Kempner is a "too bumbling [it]" "concoction" which an improved version has been "pushed". For him, "[...] this apparent attempt to supplement the goodness of the forgery [...]" suspects "that both Protocols are counterfeits ".23 By this reversal of the development chronology will be consequently, the differences from the original document resulting from the transcription process presented as an elimination of deficiencies in an evolutionary counterfeiting process. One, if however, attempts are made only in a comprehensible way to justify it, but in vain in revisionist publications. The actual reason for the production of Kempner 's transcriptions and collages, on the other hand, are likely to be influenced by the printing constraints of
to be found in the early 1960s. Even a superficial comparison of the numerous facsimiles in Eichmann and accomplices shows that - depending on the nature of the respective archives - different reproduction methods were used, sometimes even for lay people easily recognizable photomontage was used and last but not least the transcripts are created consistently with the same typewriter type.

[...]

Thus, Bohlinger and Ney argue that the Wannsee Protocol lacks all those formalities "that would otherwise never be absent in a run-down bureaucracy",
28 including the date, the inbox stamp or the sign of the issuing office. In order to be able to make such allegations, however, Bohlinger and Nie tacitly separate the Wannsee minutes sent by attachment from the accompanying letter. With this simple trick, you can use the formals on the cover letter. - which also apply to the installation - on the protocol treated as independent complain. Despite such attempts at deception, revisionists behave as consistent critical and accuse historians, not according to the "principles of historical knowledge - "every student of history already in the first semesters of his Studies learn ". 29 The criticism of Gerhard Schoenberner and Peter Klein in the name of the memorial house of the Wannsee conference
30 The question of the impermissible separation of the Wannsee Protocol and the cover letter is therefore addressed as without formalities
the protocol "the possibility "could be ruled out beyond doubt" that a falsified specimen or a very different specimen was deferred as the original ". 31 In order to decrypt the documents as insufficiently authorized and consequently as questionable, they will become their own Ideas on the generally binding standard are explained, on which the Wannsee Protocol is to be measured, instead of using the actual office practice as a comprehensible standard of assessment.

The lack of reality of their demand that, for an authentic document, all formalities on cover letter and attachment or even on each of the 15 log pages should be completely present, Bohlinger and Ney obscure the reference to timely administrative regulations and rules on the handling of secret documentions allegedly infringed. There is no denying they that the regulations cited neither for the Reich Security Main Office nor for the Foreign Office possessed each validity. 32 Implicit as explicit is from a perfect bureaucracy in which errors or even minor deviations come from. Otherwise, Lachout could hardly a "Order No. 2 of the Reichsstelle for Paper and Packaging, R.A. z. No. 304 BC 31.12.1941 "against which by Deviating border width, line spacing and the like was allegedly infringed. According to Lachout, such rules would have been "given special attention" and a non-compliance he already refers to the prosecution as "evidence of forgery". 33 But even if it does would have been violated orders, so leads already Scheffler as reply to the revisionist arguments, they often act"Not at all about a form violation[...], but the usual handling of a normal process ". 34

[...]

Ney certified the Wannsee Protocol a "miserable un-German language" 53 and comments on the sentence found in the minutes "The objective task was to clean up the German habitat of Jews in a legal way."54 Here is, the American spattered New German anticipated by 49 years. Walendy wants from "un-German genitive nested in succession" which occurs in the executives of the German-speaking party, not more talk." 56 Misplaced opinions such as "This word soup is not German",57 "That's not how a German expresses himself, let alone a senior officer" 58 change off with unreasonable claims, such as that "In time", "state worker" and "private occupations" are Americanisms. 59 Also, according to Bohlinger and Ney in German the word "Heavy" is not used in the sense of "difficult". Such use points to a translation of "difficult" in American in both Meanings could be used. 60 That Bohlinger and Ney only three pages on it use "heavy" even in that supposedly wrong sense, then speak for itself.







Well it appears Christian Mentel doesn't like Ney's opinions but he does nothing to disprove them. He just takes note of them, says they are wrong and moves on. That's all I could find relating to Ney in that slightly expanded German version article. It's just as bad as the English version Nessie found and that I already had known about for some time. If the only "proof" of the genuine nature of this sole surviving copy of Wannsee that Mentel has is that

1. Wannsee didn't need all these official letterheads, insignia, page numbers, etc, because the document Wannsee was attached to contained all of that stuff that should satisfy revisionists.
2. The German utterances Ney has a problem with are of no consequence in Deutsch German, or they are colloquialisms in Austrian German

He has a long way to go considering all of the linguistic arguments from Ney he DID IGNORE. Simply saying, "There's no problem," or simply saying, "It's Austrian" and walking away is not proof of anything. Just because some revisionist may have made a tiny mistake about a fascimile in Kempner's book doesn't over-ride the tougher arguments that Mentel IGNORED.

[borjastick]

Good work chaps and very interesting. Maybe I am splitting hairs here but the foaming at the mouth of people like Nessie is just a sideshow to the truth they wish to obscure.

The Wannssee Conference took place on January 20th 1942.

The claims of the holocaust state that it began at the various camps a long time before that; Chelmno December '41, Auschwitz in '40 and so on.

My own opinion on these minutes and the conference itself is that it was decided there to organise a mass and well planned deportation of jews under German control. The conference was just the starting point and more logistical planning and deliberation would have taken place in the weeks and months afterwards. Thus the dates don't add up for the holocaust mongers.

Germany wanted rid of the jews and though some may have been killed in the east due to being shot as partisans etc, together with some locals exacting revenge on jews here and there, the Wannssee conference was all about deportations. But it was retrospectively elevated into its current position to fit the claimed six million nonsense and the planned nature of it all.

Simples.

[Reviso]

In "Zwischen „Jahrhundertfälschung“ und nationalsozialistischer Vision eines „Jewish revival“ –
Das Protokoll der Wannsee-Konferenz in der revisionistischen Publizistik"
(http://www.ghwk.de/fileadmin/user_uploa ... nismus.pdf),

Christian Mintel says :

"Auch könne laut Bohlinger und Ney im Deutschen das Wort „schwer“ nicht im Sinne von „schwierig“ gebraucht werden. Eine solche Verwendung deute auf eine Übersetzung von „difficult“ hin, das im Amerikanischen in beiden Bedeutungen verwendet werden könne.60 Dass Bohlinger und Ney nur drei Seiten darauf „schwer“ selbst in jenem angeblich falschen Sinne benutzen, spricht dann für sich."

My translation (sorry for my bad English) :
"Nor could, according to Bohlinger and Ney, the word "schwer" be used in German with the meaning "difficult". Such a use should hint to a translation of "difficult", that could be used in both meanings in American. The fact that Bohlinger and Ney only three pages further themselves use "schwer" in this allegedly false meaning speaks volumes."

Well, I have the two following German-French dictionaries : H. A. Birmann, Vollständiges deutsch-französisches Wörterbuch (19th century) and Langenscheidts Grosswörterbuch 1979 (German-French). Both give "difficile" ("difficult") as a meaning of "schwer". Thus, I think that this argument of Ney is bad.

As you know, Kempner lived in Germany from his birth (1899) to 1935. He was a lawyer. He was also an archive thief. Thus, we can expect that the Wannsee Protocol is written in the German of a German lawyer.
R.

[Reviso]

By the way, I don't know if it was noted on this forum that the version Kempner gave of the "discovery" of the Wannsee Protocol is different from the version given by members of his team. The details are here :
Sven Felix Kellerhoff, " "Durchführung der Endlösung" – der Protokollfund ", Die Welt, 11 January 2012,
https://www.welt.de/kultur/history/arti ... lfund.html
I don't know if the members of the team carefully read the Protocol before they gave it to Kempner.
R.

[Werd]

In "Zwischen „Jahrhundertfälschung“ und nationalsozialistischer Vision eines „Jewish revival“ –
Das Protokoll der Wannsee-Konferenz in der revisionistischen Publizistik"
(http://www.ghwk.de/fileadmin/user_uploa ... nismus.pdf),

Christian Mintel says :

"Auch könne laut Bohlinger und Ney im Deutschen das Wort „schwer“ nicht im Sinne von „schwierig“ gebraucht werden. Eine solche Verwendung deute auf eine Übersetzung von „difficult“ hin, das im Amerikanischen in beiden Bedeutungen verwendet werden könne.60 Dass Bohlinger und Ney nur drei Seiten darauf „schwer“ selbst in jenem angeblich falschen Sinne benutzen, spricht dann für sich."

My translation (sorry for my bad English) :
"Nor could, according to Bohlinger and Ney, the word "schwer" be used in German with the meaning "difficult". Such a use should hint to a translation of "difficult", that could be used in both meanings in American. The fact that Bohlinger and Ney only three pages further themselves use "schwer" in this allegedly false meaning speaks volumes."

Well, I have the two following German-French dictionaries : H. A. Birmann, Vollständiges deutsch-französisches Wörterbuch (19th century) and Langenscheidts Grosswörterbuch 1979 (German-French). Both give "difficile" ("difficult") as a meaning of "schwer". Thus, I think that this argument of Ney is bad.

You have good English. Can you spend time to read this
http://www.vho.org/D/Wannsee/Gutachten/3.html
and see if there are other bad arguments Ney should not make?

As you know, Kempner lived in Germany from his birth (1899) to 1935. He was a lawyer. He was also an archive thief. Thus, we can expect that the Wannsee Protocol is written in the German of a German lawyer.
R.

Do you believe Christian Mentel is correct that Ney is making problems where none exist because there is so much Austrian German in the Wannsee document? And therefore there really is no bad German?

[Werd]

Just used the search engine. Found that Roberto Muehlenkamp had some comments years ago about Ney's problems with the German in the Wannsee document of which only one surviving copy exists, that was attached to an invitation letter from Heydrich to Luther.


https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3793&start=45

Roberto has the following to say.

Poor German my ass. Contrary to what Mr. Ney tries to make believe, there is nothing in the protocol that suggests a foreign author to a native speaker of the language like myself. What the protocol may be considered to shows signs of is the Nazi bureaucratic parlance that Victor Klemperer referred to as Lingua Tertii Imperii – something that ignoramus Ney probably never heard of either.

Click on the hyperlink and we get here.

LTI - Lingua Tertii Imperii: Notizbuch eines Philologen (1947) is a book by Victor Klemperer, Professor of Literature at the University of Dresden. The title, half in Latin and half in German, translates to The Language of the Third Reich: A Philologist's Notebook.

Lingua Tertii Imperii studies the way that Nazi propaganda altered the German language to inculcate people with National-Socialist ideas. The book was written under the form of personal notes which Klemperer wrote in his diary, especially from the rise of the Nazi regime in 1933, and even more after 1935, when Klemperer, stripped of his academic title because he was Jewish (under the Nuremberg Laws), had to work in a factory and started to use his diary as a personal exit to his frustrating and miserable life.

LTI shows a German language twisted into a Newspeak-like language. It also demonstrates how the new language came to be naturally spoken by most of the population. On the reverse, the text also emphasizes the idea that resistance to oppression begins by questioning the constant use of buzzwords. Both the book and its author unexpectedly survived the war. LTI was first published in 1947 in Germany.

Roberto then also asks about Ney's take on wansee, what lingustic problems in the document? I can not only given an answer with some Ney excerpts, but I can also say one more thing before I copy and paste Ney. I sure hope that soon Roberto will take direct examples of phrases Ney has a problem with, find them in Klemperer's book, and then explain everything away one bit at a time, instead of just putting an interesting lingustic theory out there without any hard exmples and evidence to support his 'refutation' of Ney's problems with German. With that in mind, let me close by quoting some stuff from Ney.

At this point, what is quoted comes from the short English article that showed up in DISSECTING THE HOLOCAUST. The sections quoted are from 3.2 Analysis of the Wannsee Conference Protocol parts 3.2.2 Linguistic Content all the way to 3.2.4 Internal Consistency. And then a block quote from 3.3 The Accompanying Letter, parts 3.3.1 Form to 3.3.5 The Slip-up

[Werd]

Still on page 4.
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3793&start=45

after Roberto clarified what he meant about the road building, his argument does seem quite persuasive.

Before this spam-quoting he tries to reverse the burden of proof, claiming that I have to demonstrate that the Wannsee Conference Protocol contains LTI when actually it is Ney who has to demonstrate that the expressions used are such that no Nazi bureaucrat would have used and point to a foreign origin, as he claims. Nice try, my friend.

Actually Roberto, you have reversed the burden of proof. You are implying that the reason for those apparent strange sayings in German in Wansee is because of how the German language changed over time during the second world war. You pointed to this book that explained it as part of your reason for what you are saying. So you actually DO have to prove how each crazy German phrase Ney points out, has a reason behind it. Ney when he says there is a problem with the German, is justfied in agnosticism. But he will not be justified in agnosticism, if you can fulfill your burden of proof and show him how each phrase he has a problem with can be fully explained away by the work of that author, THEN you will have proven your point that Ney doesn't have much to go on.

Or an unimaginative German bureaucrat with a poor vocabulary. Eichmann neither was nor had to be a Goethe, and what matters in a minutes of meeting is clarity, not linguistic elegance. Pathetic argument.

Care to prove that he has poor German vocabulary since you just assumed a burden of proof with the utterance of this positive assertion? Care to also explain why you have to be like Goethe to speak and write in proper German? Weren't bureaucrats usually properly educated in high school and university in Germany? Shoudln't they have figured out how to properly use the German by then? Come on.

Ney wrote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The phrase; "der allfällig endlich verbliebene Restbestand [...]" ("the possible final remnant")
may perhaps appear in a prose text, but certainly not in the minutes of a conference.


Why, because Mr. Ney says so, or for some reason worth considering? "Allfällig", as Leo tells us, is an expression meaning "possible" used in Austria and Switzerland. Eichmann spent much of life in Austria, so it’s rather probable that he picked up the local vocabulary.

See Roberto, that's getting closer. But again. Only probable.

So we are supposed to rely on the opinion of Mr. Walendy (another "Revisionist" charlatan) about what is or is not "German style"?

Why not if he speaks German? Don't you also speak German? If so, shouldn't we all listen to you too when you translate German?

Ney wrote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The text is interspersed with empty phrases such as; "Im Hinblick auf die Parallelisierung der Linienführung" ("in order to bring general activities into line") (Tiedemann(11))
Bureaucrats like to use empty phrases to sound erudite, big deal.

Ney wrote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and nonsensical claims such as; "Die evakuierten Juden werden Zug um Zug in [...] Durchgangsghettos gebracht [...]" ("The evacuated Jews will first be sent, group by group, into [...] transit-ghettos [...]").
Since the evacuation of the Jews was not then ongoing, but rather was planned for the future, this would have to have read:
"Die zu evakuierenden Juden [...]" ("The Jews to be evacuated [...]").
Unless, of course, the author meant to say "the Jews [that will have been] evacuated", the term "evacuated" referring to the process of rounding up and departure alone and not including the arrival. Mr. Ney is feebly grabbing for straws here.

Ney wrote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further: "Bezüglich der Behandlung der Endlösung" ("Regarding the handling of the final solution")
How does one handle a solution? (Walendy(8))
Like one handles a problem or the execution of a program or task, the term "Endlösung" being obviously used here as referring to a problem, program or task (the problem, program or task of implementing/bringing about the "final solution"). Mr. Walendy seems to be so senile that he should be taken off the circuit before he further makes a fool of himself (assuming he hasn't beaten the boots yet).

Ney wrote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wurden die jüdischen Finanzinstitutionen des Auslands [...] verhalten [...]" Does the author mean "angehalten"?*
Could be another Austrian particularity or a misreading of stenographic notes, but certainly not an indication of a foreign forger, unless the wisecracker can explain what foreign-language expression the "verhalten" is supposed to come from.

Ney wrote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Italien einschließlich Sardinien" ("Italy incl. Sardinia") Why the need to specify? In Europe people knew very well what all was part of Italy.
Simple answer to a stupid question: why not, especially considering that Sardinia has a tradition of claiming autonomy from Italy? (Google "Sardinia autonomy").

Ney wrote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Die berufsständische Aufgliederung der [...] Juden: [...] städtische Arbeiter 14,8%" ("The breakdown of Jews [...] according to trades [...]: [...] communal workers 14.8%" [i.e. "municipal" workers; -trans.] Were all of these people common laborers? (Ney(10)) "Salaried employees" is probably what the author meant here. "[...] als Staatsarbeiter angestellt" (the Nuremberg Translation renders this as "employed by the state", which glosses over the difference between "Arbeiter", i.e. blue-collar workers, and "angestellt", i.e. the condition of employment enjoyed by salaried and public employees; -trans.): so what were they, laborers or government employees? Did the author mean civil servants? (Ney, ibid.)
He probably meant civil servants and state employees without civil servant status. Rather than ask pointless questions, Ney should tell his readers why he expects the foreign forger of his fantasies to have used a Teutonic bureaucratic expression such as "berufsständisch".
Ney wrote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"In den privaten Berufen - Heilkunde, Presse, Theater, usw." ("in private occupations such as medical profession, newspapers, theater, etc."). In German these are called "freie Berufe", not "private Berufe". Such persons are known as doctors, journalists, and artists.
I wouldn’t put it beyond an Austrian to use the term "private" instead of "freie" here. But considering Leo’s translation choices for "freie Berufe", it is rather unlikely that an Anglo-Saxon forger would use this term. He might say "unabhängige Berufe" (independent professions), "liberale Berufe" (liberal professions) or just "Berufe" (professions).

Ney wrote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"usw." is never preceded by a comma in German, whereas the English "etc." almost always is. Was du da nicht sagst, alter Eumel. How come my spelling and grammatical checker (whether I use German or Austrian German) doesn’t point out a grammatical error there?
And how about this (emphasis added)?

Dabei handelte es sich allerdings um den üblichen Lärm Jugendlicher, wie Streifzüge mit dem Moped, Lärm in den Haushöfen, usw. One minute of googling was all it took.

Ney wrote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Die sich im Altreich befindlichen [...]" Well, German is a difficult language. (Ney, ibid.)
My spelling and grammar check shows no errors in either German or Austrian German. I guess what Ney is trying to tell us is that the "sich" before "befindlichen" is redundant and no true German (or Austrian?) would indulge in such redundancy. So let’s see what Google gets us for "sich befindlichen". First page:
Getreue Abbildungen der zu Paris und Versailles sich befindlichen vornehmsten Prospecte, Statuen und kostbaren Wasserkünste nebst einer kurzen Beschreibung.
... dem Ephrates sich befindlichen Völker
'Ein Prospect des Rathauses in Batavia wie dasselbe von fornen anzusehen, sambt dessen Platzund liegenden Gebäuden, ohne die sich befindlichen Bäume'
Maybe Eichmann was fond of antiquated expressions or used this one to make his writing look more erudite, assuming the expression didn’t survive in Austrian usage longer than it did in Germany.
And maybe (though that’s far less likely) Mr. Ney can tell us from what English expression the Anglo-Saxon forger of his fantasies is supposed to have derived the "sich befindlichen".
So we can conclude that Mr. Ney’s linguistic arguments are no better than the "contradictions and inconsistencies" baloney discussed above, some of these arguments being so primitive and silly as to raise doubts about the lucidity of Mr. Ney or his source Mr. Walendy.

I appreciate your going through those Roberto. You seem to have convincing arguments saying how Rey may be grasping at straws. But to say that Eichmann was fond of antiquated expressions, which is the claim that buttresses many of your replies, requires further proof. Show me other parts of his writings, wherever they come from, to show other examples of him using German phrases that typically wouldn't be used, as revisionists like Ney say they wouldn't be typically used. What about some more cross references with other words of Eichmann in other places to back up your fairly interesting theory behind these German phrases Ney has a problem with?

And finally, at the bottom of page 4.

Noone denied that Heydrich is mentioned in the text of the protocol. But he isn't in the list of participants at the beginning of the protocol. Of course this is a severe mistake of that fabrication of Mr. Kempners, called "The Wannsee Protokoll". I don't need to explain, why the omission of the most senior alleged participant (and chairman) to that "conference" in the list of participants can't be explained by the obvious fact that he is mentioned later on in the text of that fake "document".

Moreover there is serious reason to believe that Heydrich even wasn't in Berlin that day. In fact we know that he was in Prague at 5 p.m. of that day (January 20th, 1942). There is no way to get there by car or by train in the time from the end of that strange "conference" at 2:30 or 3 p.m. Perhaps he could have made it by plane, but it would have been very close. Why should he have made appointments at 12 o'clock in Berlin and at 5 p.m. in Prague on a very cold winter day, if he easily could have avoided that?

Another hint that the alleged "invitiation" to that alleged "conference" is fake. Noone would have invited to a conference exactly at lunchtime and most certainly really noone who speaks German would have invited to a "Frühstück" (breakfast) after the end of that conference, i.e. in the midst of the afternoon.

Must have been a late brunch or a breakfast-like snack, then. Is that supposed to be an indication of forgery? If so, why?
[...]

And you, my dear German-speaking (or not) wise guy, are kindly invited to grow a pair and continue writing on the thread of the RODOH forum where I am writing now, for as you well know I have no access to the stinking Cesspit you are writing from.

That's absolute nonsense. No native German speaker would call such a snack "Frühstück". Perhaps Mr. "Wise Guy"
can come up with some evidence for such a meal in the middle of the afternoon having been or being called "Frühstück" in German language. He won't find any.

Greetings from the Führerbunker to the ghetto, Mr. Mühlenkamp!

Well Reinhard, not only do you appear to be saying that you won't by the argument of, "Oh he's already in the text so it shouldn't matter he's not on the list of participants" argument, but you also appear to be saying that Kempner who found this document must have faked it. Well as seen in this article
http://www.phdn.org/archives/holocaust-history.org/wannseeprotocol/index.html
there is the only surviving copy, and a fascimile that Kempner made for his book.

Image 2 (left): Click for an enlargement. Wannsee Protocol, p. 1, PAAA, Akt. Inl. II g 177, l. 166. (A PDF can be downloaded here: http://www.ghwk.de/fileadmin/user_uploa ... ar1942.pdf.)

Image 3 (right): Click for an enlargement.. Wannsee Protocol, p. 1, in: Robert M. W. Kempner, Eichmann und Komplizen. Zürich/Stuttgart/Vienna 1961, p. 133.

Mentel has a point that revisionists should stop wasting time on the facsimiles made by Kempner and focus on the only surviving copy. As far as I can tell, when it comes to the body of the text, Kemper's facsimiles were faithful reproductions. So just ignore them. As I said, pointing out something like how Kempner used a type of erasing technique to get the handwritten stuff from the invitation letter (from Heydrich to Luther) and superimpose it on his facsimile, is not a big deal. If Kempner ever claimed his facsimile was not a facsimile, then I would have a problem.

[Werd]

By the way, I don't know if it was noted on this forum that the version Kempner gave of the "discovery" of the Wannsee Protocol is different from the version given by members of his team. The details are here :
Sven Felix Kellerhoff, " "Durchführung der Endlösung" – der Protokollfund ", Die Welt, 11 January 2012,
https://www.welt.de/kultur/history/arti ... lfund.html
I don't know if the members of the team carefully read the Protocol before they gave it to Kempner.
R.

Would you also mind looking at what Roberto says about Ney's language arguments and giving your opinion?

[Hannover]

Cutting to the chase:

- If the desperate Zionist claims about Wannsee were true then we wouldn't have this 800 lb. gorilla staring us in the face:

We're talking about an alleged '6M Jews & 5M others' ... 11,000,000.
There is not a single verifiable excavated enormous mass grave with contents actually SHOWN, not just claimed, (recall the claim of 900,000 buried at Treblinka, 1,250,000 at Auschwitz, or 250,000 at Sobibor, 34,000 at Babi Yar) even though Jews claim they still exist and claim to know exactly where these alleged enormous mass graves are.

- If the desperate Zionist claims about Wannsee were true then we wouldn't have a 'gas chambers' scenario that is utterly, laughably impossible.

For a thorough demolition of the alleged Auschwitz gas chambers & alleged Auschwitz homicidal gassing process see analysis at:
http://forum.codoh.com/search.php?keywo ... sf=msgonly
and:
Chemistry of Auschwitz / Birkenau


- If the desperate Zionist claims about Wannsee were true and there was ‘a plan to kill every Jew the Germans could get their hands on’ as alleged, then why are there countless numbers of so called “survivor$"?

- If the desperate Zionist claims about Wannsee were true then why are there laws in Europe to prevent scrutiny of the 'holocaust' storyline? What kind of “truth” needs to imprison people to prevent free speech?

- Hannover

"One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge—even to ourselves—that we’ve been so credulous."

- righteous Jew, Carl Sagan