![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Could the following paragraph be clarifed:
What does "take off the final solution in the General Government" mean? I'm not totally clear on "black market that deorganises the work of the authorities". Then, how does genocide solve the deoraganisation? Finally, why are there "no transporation problems"?
EmRick 00:15, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
If you check the link to the Wannsee Protocol translation, you will see this paragraph, which explains your questions:
"State Secretary Dr. Buehler stated that the General
Government would welcome it if the final solution of this problem
could be begun in the General Government, since on the one hand
transportation does not play such a large role here nor would
problems of labor supply hamper this action. Jews must be
removed from the territory of the General Government as quickly
as possible, since it is especially here that the Jew as an
epidemic carrier represents an extreme danger and on the other
hand he is causing permanent chaos in the economic structure of
the country through continued black market dealings. Moreover,
of the approximately 2 1/2 million Jews concerned, the majority
is unfit for work."
-- Space_Balls 19:12, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I'd express some concern about using the transcript of the Wannsee meeting as some sort of ultimate truth on this matter; it should be clearly stated that what we know from the transcript may be unreliable. Let us not forget that Eichmann almost certainly edited the minutes, and may have also passed them on to Heydrich for further editing. The truth is, we have pretty near no certainties here. I've also noticed some related articles which apparently seem to be using Conspiracy as some sort of historical document on the matter. Vincent-D 21:49, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I'd like to see the Numerberg piece removed or edited. Anything said at the Nuremberg trials is, as far as I am concerned, completely contentious. It is known that false confessions were beaten out of SS officers and that some SS officers would have done and said anything the Allied told them to escape the hangman's noose... even though they were killed anyway, just so they couldn't recant or be cross examined.
According to Conspiracy, the attendants were told to distroy their copies of the transcription, but one survived to be discovered after the war. Is that so? -- Error 00:44, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Do you have a link to his original - in German? The translation in English is very politically correct ( too correct ). Has the original been analyzed by experts - the middle section seems to a dramatic shift in direction and tone , and then it returns. A textual critic is needed - and probably been done - links to experts?
SORRY, I see you have the German - original?? - on the main page. On the German site I, however, see absolutely no discussion. Is this because Germans have no ideas or is it that discussing this is ilegal. A real analysis of course is impossible from an English copy. Do you have links to discussions by expert textual critics - and at least a photo copy of Luther's original - where is the original if it exists, who holds it. Where is Marin Luther, if alive? SORRY AGAIN - chasing this down I find that Yehuda Bauer - a big shot in this field - says that only idiots ( paraphrasing ) still think that the Wannasee Protocols are a smoking gun - enough for me - I doubt he came to this opinion unless the evidence was more than good. Why is this still being pushed - do you think Bauer is the idiot? SOORY ONCE MORE - it turns out there are several versions/cover letters to this one surviving copy. One version is an obvious forgery - others are interesting. This article is alot surer than the facts would allow - it must be pro-Hezbollah.
How do holocaust deniers react to the transcript of the Wannsee Conference?
They just laugh and laugh and laugh and.........
Yes, we laugh and laugh because it confirms that the Final Solution was a plan of evacuation, not mass murder.
Seems odd there isnt a see also, maybe listing other important events in the Holocaust, or are we relying on in article links?
The 5th paragraph used to say: "The protocol of the meeting was prepared by Adolf Eichmann aided by Reinhard Heydrich and does not explicitly mention mass murder; Eichmann later admitted at his trial that the actual language used during the conference was much more blunt and included terms such as "extermination" and "annihilation".
My edit read this way instead: The protocol of the meeting was prepared by Adolf Eichmann aided by Reinhard Heydrich, does not explicitly mention mass murder and according to the Wannsee Conference, Hitler wanted to legally move Jews outside of German borders as mentioned in the Wannsee Protocol in the 7th paragraph "The aim of all this was to cleanse German living space of Jews in a legal manner."
Unfortunately, the "Wannsee Conference" was edited back to its original form and protected the article from me editing it again. I did not edit this in an ill manner. I gave concrete evidence of what Hitler really wanted. I thought it was unfair to list "extermination" and annihilation" since Eichmann said this during his Nuremberg testimony. Of course hes going to say whatever, he didnt want to die, so he made stuff up on trial. I dont think that it was factual or even relevant.
Apparently whomever re-edited this can't handle the truth. I presented factual proof on this topic in a responsible fashion and you couldn't stand to hear it. That simply proves what I've been saying all along. Jews are re-writing history to suit their own means.
Thanks for confirming my suspicions on this.
And people are getting smart to that "6 million" figure jews killed during WWII also. Auschwitz lowered its estimates almost 10 years ago from 4 million to 1 million killed there... a 3 million person difference, bringing the amount of jews killed to 3 million, not 6 million. A big difference!
A big difference. So 3 million is better than 6 million. Interesting. How many million is better than 2 million? 10 million? There are those who say (Jung chang) that Mao ze Dong killed 70 million. Would 60 million have been better? It's irrelevant! They killed huge numbers of people, that's enough to brand them as wicked. That they did it ultimately for their own self aggrandizement brands them as evil.
"blustering" - once the numbers drop down to the level of natural mortality rates, then see who blusters.
This article is complete garbage, and needs to be either drastically re-written or deleted altogether. It does not state facts or quote sources (this is after all meant to be an encyclopedia) , but merely states opinions. In fact the only reference is the minutes of the Wannsee meeting itself, from which the following facts can be obtained - (i) the purpose of the meeting was to discuss the "Jewish question", ie. what to do with European Jews in order to achieve the Nazi goal of "the expulsion of the Jews from the living space of the German people". (ii) it was accepted that emigration to other countries (both voluntary and forced) had so far been only somewhat successful (537,000 people by October 1941). (iii) a new solution was "the evacuation of the Jews to the East", ie. to the large concentration camps in Poland and neighbouring countries.
There is too much interpretation (reading between the lines) being made on the wording in the minutes, for instance the claim that "evacuation" is a euphemism for "execution". Why would a meeting like this need to resort to such cloak and dagger coded language? Unless someone can present evidence to the contrary, the wording should be taken literally. Also, great care must be made in the translation from German, particularly bearing in mind the era and the circumstances. Who has personally reviewed the translation? Finally, the comments by Israeli Holocaust historian Yehuda Bauer quoted below are important and relevant, and deserve mention in the article. Logicman1966 10:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Dr. Josef Bühler pushed Heydrich to implement the final solution in the General Government. As far as he was concerned, the main problem within the General Government was an overdeveloped black market that disorganised the work of the authorities. He saw a remedy in solving the Jewish question in the country as fast as possible. An additional point in favour was that there were no transportation problems there.
Apart from being hardly understandable without the context (black market, general government, etc.), the paragraph uses the Nazi term "Jewish question" without quotation marks and without explaining it. The term presupposes there is a problem with the Jews in Germany (or in general with Jews) and it is therefore completely inappropriate for an encyclopedia article to repeat it unthinkingly. Ben T/ C 00:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
After spending an hour trying to edit what seemed unnecessarily confusing and opaque, I decided to start over. It’s not complete, certainly not perfect, but is better. I’ve tried to focus primarily upon the reason for the conference and secondarily upon the reason that historians of Nazi Germany and the Holocaust focus upon the conference.
Why was the conference necessary? That should be the starting point for explaining it. Doing anything on a mass scale—including deportations and killings—requires organization and subsequent bureaucratic coordination even in totalitarian states. Things don’t just happen and in the case of Germany in 1942 the systematic elimination of European Jewry was not happening as the Nazi state wished it to happen. Calling together the senior ministers and officials was a way to “cut thru the red tape.”
An equally important reason for the conference was the resistance of many of the main German civilian and quasi-civilian bureaucracies to making anti-Jewish measures a priority. This is not to say that these ministers sympathized with the Jews. On the contrary. They felt that they had competing priorities, however, and many of the civilian bureaucrats felt that the insistence by the SS to give pride of place to the “Jewish Question” was getting in the way of addressing these myriad other problems. It wasn’t “rational.” It is important to understand this aspect of the conference. Destruction was always at the heart of the Nazi ideology but for nearly a decade a lot of people, including some Nazis, believed that it was about creation. Wannsee is the turning point—where the SS made clear to those representing the Nazi German state that reason for Nazi Germany was not winning the war, reclaiming lost lands, providing work opportunities for Germans or any of the other supposed themes and impulses for the post-1933 era. It was all about destroying the Jews. If the rest was lost, so be it. Forthecommongood 17:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I will add references to the text. Also, I was not able to append the following to the above discussion:
The issue about whether or not the conference “explicitly” referred to systematic killing seems to me to be unimportant. You don’t need to look any further than the text itself to see that the authors recognized that mass deportations and the organization of the deportees into forced work brigades was a death sentence into itself for most of them. Although I append a comment seeking to place the term “suitable treatment” into the historic context of Nazi racial theory (which believed that those who survived hardship and deprivation were superior to those consumed by it) so to illustrate that the meaning of the phrase could be nothing other than systematic execution of the survivors, it is not necessary to the conclusion that the forced labor envisioned in the protocol was mass murder. Indeed twentieth century history is replete with examples of those presiding over such “work brigades” being tried and convicted for murder. Suffice it to say that there is a full evidentiary record describing mass executions of the Jews in the period after the Wannsee conference but, in my opinion, the text itself provides sufficient evidence of the proposition that the purpose of the Final Solution described at the Wannsee Conference was the physical elimination of European Jewry from the earth. Forthecommongood 17:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
It would be helpful to understand the reason for the insertion of the recent POV tag. Also, the comment that the article could benefit from a "Jewish [writer]" ought to be explained. Forthecommongood 14:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
What's with the evolution bashing? Consistent with Nazi racial theories which were explicitly evolutionary in their approach (my emphasis). This sentence doesn't fit with the flow of the article, and IMO it just looks like some creationist attempt to make a spurious link between evolution and the Nazis. I'm removing it. Dancing Meerkat 12:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Here is the page of the Wannsee Conference minutes in which the number of Jews in each country was enumerated. I doubt this was done for the purpose of sending them Christmas cards. Adam 13:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
On this, see Cesarini, Eichmann, 114; Browning, Origins of the Final Solution, 412; Rees, Auschwitz, 117. Breitmann, Architect of Genocide, 231-233, deals directly with the doctoring of the minutes. Adam 13:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm confused by the protocol section. The first thing it says makes sense: The minutes of the meeting discussed a change from getting rid of Jews by encouraging their emigration to instead forcibly deporting them, organizing them into work gangs, and outright killing them. But then it says something confusing:
If we're speaking of people deported "out of the territories held or conquered by Germany and its allies", how could the people thus deported possibly be organized by the Nazis into work brigades? Presumably the work brigades were organized on territory held or conquered by Germany or its allies? -- Delirium 13:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
This article still needs a lot of work. When I have time I will attempt a rewrite. In the meantime, however, attempts by Holocaust-deniers to tamper with it or stick spurious tags on it will be reverted. Adam 07:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
I recommend not tampering or whatever spurious tagging means - straight above board discussion of the attempt to turn this article and the Wannasee into somthing it isn't and never was is more than enough to satisfy any denier - thanks for the help.
This is from a review on Amazon of Arthur R. Butz's book, "Hoax of the Twentieth Centrury: by Michael Santomauro: <<<Is someone a "Holocaust denier" if he does not accept that the January 1942 "Wannsee conference" of German bureaucrats was held to set or coordinate a program of systematic mass murder of Europe's Jews? If so, Israeli Holocaust historian Yehuda Bauer must be wrong -- and a "Holocaust denier" -- because he recently declared: "The public still repeats, time after time, the silly story that at Wannsee the extermination of the Jews was arrived at." In Bauer's opinion, Wannsee was a meeting but "hardly a conference" and "little of what was said there was executed in detail." [5]>>> Footnote [5] is <<<Canadian Jewish News (Toronto), Jan. 30, 1992. >>> Why is such a different view being expressed by a Jewish historian?
regal away - Jewish historians are gradually abandoning much of the holocaust foolishness. But we can hope that wikipedia sticks to its guns. Foolishness needs a home too. ( By the way, reading Bauer is mostly a waste of time - he has abandoned the the most stupid foolishness but he bravely hangs on to the rest)
As promised I have rewritten this article and archived all this rather silly and irrelevant talk. Any attempt to add revisionist nonsense to this article will be reverted. Adam 13:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I will judge all edits on their merits. Nonsense of any type will be reverted. Adam 08:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity - after reading the lead statement ( Adam rewriting and silly stuff ) I checked out the original wiki article ( 2002 ). It was full of it but was actually a far superior product. How did it get so long and so full of it - dare I guess at the author's identity, silly me.—Preceding
unsigned comment added by
159 109 80 63 (
talk •
contribs)
Perhaps as the "Adam-Approved Forum" or something along those lines. Seriously, it's a talk page and you shouldn't just automatically assume your POV is correct. Discussion and exchanging idead, facts, and sources will produce the best article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.108.17.7 ( talk) 16:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
I question the accuracy of the opening remark: "The purpose of the conference was to plan the 'Final solution...'" I guess it depends on exactly what is meant by "plan", but it sounds as if the main issue was open before the conference and decided during it. This contradicts the more accurate statement later in the article: "It thus became necessary to bring together representatives of all the relevant departments to explain to them what was intended and how it was to be carried out, and to make it clear that this undertaking was done on the highest authority of the Reich and could not be resisted." In other words the main purpose was to inform not to plan, and no important decisions were made. I propose changing "plan" to "inform senior Nazi's of plans for", but there are other options. -- Zero talk 12:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree that is a better wording. Adam 03:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
90 minutes is an informational meeting at best. Using Eichmann's testimony, from many years later - when he was trying to not get hung, as valuable intrepretative information shows how uninformative the Wannsee document is. One of the opening qoutes attributed to Hitler - "looking sideways" - from some notes by Goring. Any citation as to where to read the original? The citation given may have the quote but finding it in the maze is virtually impossible.
It appears this article was written with the "hope" that noone would bother to actually clink the link to, and read, the Wannsee report. By the war's beginning there appears to have been very few Jews in Germany ( or most of what most people call Europe ). The Wannsee counts include Russia, etc - places the Germans ended up never conquering. Unless every Jew in Russia, etc ran to the border and begged to be caught by the Germans they appeared to be well out of Hitler's grasp. 159.105.80.63 10:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
The minutes of this meeting were a forgery. Why on earth would such a top secret and incriminating document just happen to fall into the hands of an angry jewish man. Since when does wikipedia state debatable theories as fact —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.69.11 ( talk) 05:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I have made a minor edit. Heydrich was, at the time of receipt of the directive from Goering, only a Gruppenfuhrer. He was promoted to Obergruppenfuhrer on 27 9 41.-- Anthony.bradbury 21:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I have deleted all unsigned / anonymous commentary on this page and will continue to do so. This is a page for serious discussion of a serious topic by serious people, not a playground for neo-Nazi crackpots. Adam 03:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
According to the film The Wannsee Conference (which to the best of my knowledge was based on the Minutes of the Meeting) A. Bradbury is correct. Heydrich makes a point of correcting the stenographer on this matter. 142.27.68.101 ( talk) 00:49, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
That last comment was by Aliotra (I forgot to login). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aliotra ( talk • contribs) 00:50, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
I have added a few words to the first now paragraph, to clarify that not all attenders were confirmed Nazis. Kritzinger certainly was not, and possibly Neumann.-- Anthony.bradbury 17:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
How do you define "not a Nazi"? Adam 09:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, my comment was, in hindsight, disgracefully fuzzy. What I meant was that Kritzinger, and perhaps Neumann, were not rabid followers of the Nazi anti-semitic policy in the way that the other attendees appear to have been.-- Anthony.bradbury 11:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Didn't they plan to liquiadate the Slavs of Europe in similar breakdowns to the Jews, extermination and work camps, etc. Wasn't this phase two of the grand plan. Londo06 22:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Was relying of a documentary for this information. I wouldn't trust that link though, it states words changed for clarity. After reading the original German copy there are inconsistencies. Mostly with the 'odd' language used by the Nazis. Londo06 06:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
This phrase in the quotation (from Browning) doesn't make sense. I imagine the original German is 'scheel ansehen' which means 'to pull a face (at someone)' - and the thing is lifted from Kaiser Wilhelm II's 'Hunnenrede' of 1900. I was tempted to correct the translation, but I didn't do so as I don't know at which point the mistranslation arose. In other words, it's possible that as a quotation it's mechanically correct. Norvo 13:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
The article currently seems to credit Christian Gerlach's thesis that the Conference's purpose changed after it was reset, and that originally the Final Solution wasn't the topic -- wasn't even decided yet. I'm an amateur on the subject, but is that anything like a consensus view? Christopher Browning doesn't buy it, I know from his endnotes in The Origins of the Final Solution, but Michael Burleigh does in his survey of the Third Reich.
Any experts care to comment or edit? ---- Andersonblog 21:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Białystok is merely a city in Poland, and it's entire population was not 400,000 (and isn't even now). -- HanzoHattori ( talk) 03:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I have removed the link; it leads to Martin Luther, the father of the Reformation, and not the individual referenced in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.21.84.77 ( talk) 22:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
An archival photograph dated 1973 shows the text of a memorial plaque on the building where the Wannsee Conference was held. The text, in German:
IM DIESEM HAUS FAND IM JANUAR 1942 DIE BERÜCHTIGTE WANNSEE-KONFERENZ STATT
DEM GEDENKEN DER DURCH NATIONALSOZIALISTISCHE GEWALTHERRSCHAFT UMGEKOMMENEN JÜDISCHEN MITMENSCHEN
The photographer is the late Miriam Novitch; I have no further information at present. -- Deborahjay ( talk) 12:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
First of all, forgive me, I am new to Wikipedia - yet the letter at http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/53/Wannsee_Conference_-_Letter_from_Reinhard_Heydrich_to_Martin_Luther_%28Invitation%29.JPG is not an invitation, but a declining responsefrom the person it was addressed to saying that the person in question cannot attend the conference for "personal reasons". I am German, so the text is quite clear to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.34.192 ( talk) 04:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I am not a GA reviewer, but I would like to see this article improved. I am sure that the GA reviewer will ask for more citations; currently there are major elements that are unreferenced, such as the "List of attendees" and "Fates of the attendees" sections in their entirety. The "list of the numbers of Jews in the various European countries" should be split into its own section and referenced as well.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Piotrus' comments immediately above are valid, and the tags he added have remained for a week without any attempt by the nominator or anyone else to address those concerns. Therefore, I am quick-failing the article for GA. Please feel free to re-nominate once these issues have been addressed. Acdixon ( talk • contribs • count) 18:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I started to edit a bit of the comma and period placement throughout the article for consistency, but I might be mistaken on format. I think British English allows punctuation outside of quotes for words and phrase fragments, but American English encloses commas and periods within the quotation marks, so I haven't edited those purely on the grounds of regional differences. However, I *think* that in a sentence like:
"With this expedient solution," he said, "in one fell swoop many interventions will be prevented."
The comma goes after "solution" within the quotes, regardless of where we are from. If I'm wrong, sorry. I read war stuff and watch the Military Channel when I am bored.
Ytcracker (
talk)
11:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
On http://www.ghwk.de/deut/proto.htm are all pages of Wannsee Protokoll photographed. Those pages are in German national arhive and the only protokoll copy (No. 16.) which can be reached untill today. I hope it is enough as a source, even if in german. -- Seha ( talk) 01:44, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
I think that this phrase is not factually correct: "To fulfill its obligations under its Tripartite Pact with Italy and Japan, the Reich government immediately began preparing to issue a declaration of war on the US on 11 December."
Germany (and Italy) had no such obligation, since Article 3 of the Tripartite pact states that "Japan, Germany, and Italy agree to [...] assist one another with all political, economic and military means if one of the Contracting Powers is attacked by a Power at present not involved in the European War or in the Japanese-Chinese conflict."
Japan clearly was not attacked by the US, so there was no need for Germany to declare war on the US.
Rizzardi (
talk)
11:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Under the “Background” section of the article, the following quote is made:
“Hitler addressed a meeting of ministers, including Reichsmarschall Hermann Göring, at which the administration of the occupied Soviet territories was discussed. He said that Soviet territories west of the Urals were to become a 'German Garden of Eden’, and that 'naturally this vast area must be pacified as quickly as possible; this will happen best by shooting anyone who even looks sideways at us.’ [emphasis added]
“Hitler's chief lieutenants, Göring and the SS chief Heinrich Himmler, took this and other comments by Hitler at this time (most of which were not recorded, but were attested to at postwar trials) as authority to proceed with a more radical 'final solution of the Jewish question' (Die Endlösung der Judenfrage), involving the complete removal of the Jews from the German-occupied territories.’”
It is mentioned in the above quotation that the remark attributed to Hitler was one of several that Göring and Himmler interpreted as authorization for the extermination of Jewish people (and other “subhumans"). Isn’t there any stronger evidence that Hitler personally ordered the Holocaust to quote here rather than this seemingly questionable quotation? (Questionable in the sense as to what he was referring to and not as to whether he actually said it.)
To me, this sounds much more like Hitler was ordering that no resistance be tolerated within the territories of the Soviet Union that the Germans controlled; that anyone offering the slightest resistance be summarily executed, than an order, even an oblique one, for the establishment of organized mass murder camps dedicated to extermination of Jewish (and other) people in a factory-like fashion.
I can certainly understand the top Nazis speaking obliquely, employing euphemisms such as “Final Solution” and “Total Solution,” but this reference seems far too cryptic to me to establish that Hitler intended (at least at that point) to order what occurred at Auschwitz and other killing centers. I would not like to see Hitler’s guilt extenuated even to the extent of claiming that he never intended the genocide, but approved of or tolerated the situation whenever he did become aware of how far Göring, Himmler and Heydrich had gone on their own volitions.
(On a side note, I have never understood why Göring should have been so personally involved in such matters, and why the infamous memo to Heydrich came from him and not Himmler, Heydrich’s immediate superior. Göring always struck me as a greedy, vainglorious, corrupt high official of a more pragmatic strain and not a malevolent idealist like Hitler, Himmler, Goebbels, et. al.. Although no less evil than his top Nazi cohorts, it seemed to make him somewhat less dangerous. To employ gangster terminology (as the Nazis were always glorified gangsters): “He’s a man you can do business with.")
There are those, only a step above out-and-out Holocaust deniers, who are apologists for Hitler, claiming he didn’t know what was going on regarding the Holocaust. I would not like to see them given ammunition, thus my reason for concern here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HistoryBuff14 ( talk • contribs) 15:58, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Quote...***On a side note, I have never understood why Göring should have been so personally involved in such matters*** You enunciate on so much, yet are unaware of the depth of hatred Goring had for the Jews? Unaware that any issue Hitler held close to his heart, Goring took on vicariously as his own? Goring was a pure cipher for Hitler's hatreds (primarily towards Jews & Communists, then any other enemies of the German State); to anyone aware of these facts, it comes as no suprise that he made sure he 'dipped his toes in the constructive waters of the Final Solution'.
In the first paragraph "Wannsee Protocol" links directly back to the page. I don't know how to fix this but I'm hoping someone monitoring the page does.
-- 71.234.191.0 ( talk) 00:53, 10 May 2011 (UTC)Adrienne
Moved from incorrect place on this page:
"MI6 took care that no survivors would be there to deny the story...causing death of innocent civilians in Czech Republic, who Churchill considered "racially inferior", according to his drunken bathtub talk." This is just one of many biased, inaccurate statements in the article. The article also contradicts numerous other Wikipedia articles as well as Wikimedia commons and wikisource articles. Quite frankly this article is a disgrace to Wikipedia. Dan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.169.254.75 ( talk) 05:48, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article, File:Eichmann, Adolf.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 23 March 2012
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Eichmann, Adolf.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 01:16, 23 March 2012 (UTC) |
Let me first qualify this by stating that I in no way doubt the hollocaust and do not intend to suggest that the final solution was anything other than attempted genocide. However, shouldn't rather glaring instances of taking sides be avoided? What I mean is the editor making statements like "no one at the conference can have misunderstood Heydrich's meaning." No one should presume to know what any person at that conference did or did not understand. Such statements are just silly, no matter how much we might like to avoid hollocaust deniers. I would say that per Wikipedia guidlines the article should just state the facts, state that the word murder or killing is never used and present the evidence arguments for interpreting the available record of the conference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdlund ( talk • contribs) 06:11, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
I removed pop culture trivia from this article on June 20, and it has now been re-added. The reason I removed it is because of the rationale provided in my edit summary: WP:MILPOP calls for the exclusion of "In popular culture" sections unless the subject has had a well-cited and notable impact on popular culture. This conference has not had a wide impact on popular culture, so the section needs to be removed, and I am doing so right now. -- Diannaa ( talk) 02:33, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Brigade Piron ( talk · contribs) 09:28, 12 August 2013 (UTC) Hello, I'm happy to review this if you don't object? It's obviously been written and researched very diligently, well done! I'll read it through and bring up the template.--- Brigade Piron ( talk) 09:28, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
![]() |
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. |
|
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. |
I have a few reservations about the lead:
|
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
![]() |
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | |
![]() |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). |
There're a couple of direct quotes and other phrases that need referencing:
|
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). |
|
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. |
|
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
![]() |
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. |
I'm very happy to pass this, congratulations! Good working with you! |
Hi Brigade Piron. I have dealt with the points presented so far. Here are comments on work completed so far:
If I compare these versions it seems that there was a lot of editing on the background-chapter. I cannot make up if it is better this way. Anyone got an idea if it is? Jeff5102 ( talk) 20:34, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
A list of articles that I've already brought to GA status can be found at User:Diannaa/Barnstars and my most recent nomination, Nazi Germany, will be promoted in the next few days. Talk:Nazi Germany/GA1. I chose to work on Wannsee Conference because there's two good books on the topic available at my local library, and there's information on this topic in Longerich and Evans as well, so I have almost enough source material to bring the article up to GA. I am now awaiting a copy of Eichmann: His Life and Crimes which I have ordered from Amazon and then I will be able to finish up here and nominate for GA. -- Dianna ( talk) 16:49, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Isn't there a place to mention in the table, what happened to the Conference participants after the war was over? Many of them were sent to jail for a few years, and later worked as clerks in West Germany. Hardly any of them, like most of the German war criminals, was seriously punished by post-war Germany's juridical system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.56.94 ( talk) 06:27, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
The purpose of the conference was not "whereby most of the Jews of German-occupied Europe would be deported to Poland and murdered". It was to "cleanse" Germany - or rather a Greater Germany - of Jews by emigration to the East. Royalcourtier ( talk) 03:34, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
The fictional British film Conspiracy (2001 film) , build on a real protocol this meeting (belonging to a Martin Luther), as well as William L Shirer and others I just can't recall at the moment, sets the date to early December 1941. (Perhaps "Höss diaries" ?) From where comes this "new" date ? Just an imprinted stamp on the protocol or something else ? (I'm aware of the fact that history once in a while must be re-written, and am not really questioning this date, but simply curious of how and why the date is several months later) Boeing720 ( talk) 17:35, 2 October 2017 (UTC) This https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endl%C3%B6sung_der_Judenfrage#/media/File:Heydrich-Endlosung.jpg image suggests a different address, Kurfürstenstrasse 116 (spelled like that), something appear to impair, at least. Boeing720 ( talk) 17:54, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Especially Roland Freisler (but also the other State secretaries) could be given more exact titles (like of what department). But this Freisler is yet another quite unfamous figure of the Third Reich. Mainly known as judge of the "People's Court". Boeing720 ( talk) 13:49, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
You are uncooperative. Let the reader verifies [1]. The text has been published by Haus der Wannsee-Konferenz, Gedenk- und Bildungsstätte, so some relation exists.
Xx236 ( talk) 09:36, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Article currently reads in part The minutes of the Wannsee Conference estimated the Jewish population of the Soviet Union to be five million, with another three million in Ukraine. ( [4], my emphasis)
But at the time, Ukraine was one of the republics that made up the Soviet Union. Can anyone clarify exactly what the minutes say? It seems strange for such a big mistake to be made at such a senior meeting. Andrewa ( talk) 05:23, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
I re-used the photo from the biographical page for Rudolf Lange for this article but it has been removed here. Check also this page: https://www.picswe.com/pics/rudolf-lange-wannsee-conference-c0.html. -- Gepid ( talk) 13:53, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi Diannaa, thanks for adding sources. I can't find anything on Longerich 2012, p. 523, that supports "systematic killing of men, women, and children began only in June 1941". Can you post a few words from the page so that I can search for it?
The killing of women and children began in August, and it wasn't clear whether it began as a result of a policy change or local radicalization; see Matthäus in Browning 2004, p. 281ff; Browning 2004, pp. 311–312; Longerich 2010, p. 207; and Gerlach 2016, pp. 69–71.
As for "Heydrich emphasized that once the mass deportation was complete, the SS would take complete charge of the exterminations", I can't see the source ( Longerich 2000, p. 14). But it's misleading because it implies that he spoke plainly. SarahSV (talk) 21:15, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Diannaa, another question. Do you mind if I restore the citations to the 2004 rather than 2007 edition of Browning, Origins of the Final Solution? I'd like to do it for two reasons. First, the article used the 2004 print edition from December 2006 until May 2015, when Poeticbent changed the short cites to 2007, but in the long citation he changed the isbn to the 2004 e-book. He didn't change page numbers, and I don't have access to the 2007 edition to check whether they're the same. The second reason is that I'd like to add something from it, but I only have the 2004 edition. SarahSV (talk) 15:05, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
"For Heydrich, two things mattered above all others on 20 January 1942: first, the deportations had to be accepted by the decision-making authorities of the Reich (everything that happened after the deportations was a matter internal to the SS and did not have to be agreed with the other offices). Secondly..."I didn't use the e-book of Browning when preparing the article for GA - I used the hardcover 2004 but I don't have a copy locally - I would have to bring it in on inter-library loan. If you have a copy and wish to change the citations back, that would be great, as the pagination may or may not be the same in the e-book (I have no way of knowing whether Poeticbent checked). — Diannaa 🍁 ( talk) 17:06, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
The following item quotes a conference in 1940 that sounds similar to the Wannsee Conference of 1942. Could this be a journalistic error? • [1] ---- MountVic127
See also • [2]
( talk) 00:58, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
References
The second source says that Hitler and Goebbels were at the 1940 meeting, so it must have been a different event. I can't find anything on it in Longerich.— Diannaa ( talk) 01:24, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
This was recently tagged for discussion as to splitting off the house of Wannsee (museum) to a separate article. I do not believe that’s necessary. History of the house up to the present day can easily be kept and incorporated with this article. They’re both tied together in history. It would be an unnecessary fork. Kierzek ( talk) 12:02, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Yehuda Bauer, major Holocaust historian, has rejected the importance of the Wannsee Conference. His statements were printed in the Jewish Telegraphic Agency and in Canadian Jewish News. HonestManBad ( talk) 18:22, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Could the following paragraph be clarifed:
What does "take off the final solution in the General Government" mean? I'm not totally clear on "black market that deorganises the work of the authorities". Then, how does genocide solve the deoraganisation? Finally, why are there "no transporation problems"?
EmRick 00:15, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
If you check the link to the Wannsee Protocol translation, you will see this paragraph, which explains your questions:
"State Secretary Dr. Buehler stated that the General
Government would welcome it if the final solution of this problem
could be begun in the General Government, since on the one hand
transportation does not play such a large role here nor would
problems of labor supply hamper this action. Jews must be
removed from the territory of the General Government as quickly
as possible, since it is especially here that the Jew as an
epidemic carrier represents an extreme danger and on the other
hand he is causing permanent chaos in the economic structure of
the country through continued black market dealings. Moreover,
of the approximately 2 1/2 million Jews concerned, the majority
is unfit for work."
-- Space_Balls 19:12, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I'd express some concern about using the transcript of the Wannsee meeting as some sort of ultimate truth on this matter; it should be clearly stated that what we know from the transcript may be unreliable. Let us not forget that Eichmann almost certainly edited the minutes, and may have also passed them on to Heydrich for further editing. The truth is, we have pretty near no certainties here. I've also noticed some related articles which apparently seem to be using Conspiracy as some sort of historical document on the matter. Vincent-D 21:49, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I'd like to see the Numerberg piece removed or edited. Anything said at the Nuremberg trials is, as far as I am concerned, completely contentious. It is known that false confessions were beaten out of SS officers and that some SS officers would have done and said anything the Allied told them to escape the hangman's noose... even though they were killed anyway, just so they couldn't recant or be cross examined.
According to Conspiracy, the attendants were told to distroy their copies of the transcription, but one survived to be discovered after the war. Is that so? -- Error 00:44, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Do you have a link to his original - in German? The translation in English is very politically correct ( too correct ). Has the original been analyzed by experts - the middle section seems to a dramatic shift in direction and tone , and then it returns. A textual critic is needed - and probably been done - links to experts?
SORRY, I see you have the German - original?? - on the main page. On the German site I, however, see absolutely no discussion. Is this because Germans have no ideas or is it that discussing this is ilegal. A real analysis of course is impossible from an English copy. Do you have links to discussions by expert textual critics - and at least a photo copy of Luther's original - where is the original if it exists, who holds it. Where is Marin Luther, if alive? SORRY AGAIN - chasing this down I find that Yehuda Bauer - a big shot in this field - says that only idiots ( paraphrasing ) still think that the Wannasee Protocols are a smoking gun - enough for me - I doubt he came to this opinion unless the evidence was more than good. Why is this still being pushed - do you think Bauer is the idiot? SOORY ONCE MORE - it turns out there are several versions/cover letters to this one surviving copy. One version is an obvious forgery - others are interesting. This article is alot surer than the facts would allow - it must be pro-Hezbollah.
How do holocaust deniers react to the transcript of the Wannsee Conference?
They just laugh and laugh and laugh and.........
Yes, we laugh and laugh because it confirms that the Final Solution was a plan of evacuation, not mass murder.
Seems odd there isnt a see also, maybe listing other important events in the Holocaust, or are we relying on in article links?
The 5th paragraph used to say: "The protocol of the meeting was prepared by Adolf Eichmann aided by Reinhard Heydrich and does not explicitly mention mass murder; Eichmann later admitted at his trial that the actual language used during the conference was much more blunt and included terms such as "extermination" and "annihilation".
My edit read this way instead: The protocol of the meeting was prepared by Adolf Eichmann aided by Reinhard Heydrich, does not explicitly mention mass murder and according to the Wannsee Conference, Hitler wanted to legally move Jews outside of German borders as mentioned in the Wannsee Protocol in the 7th paragraph "The aim of all this was to cleanse German living space of Jews in a legal manner."
Unfortunately, the "Wannsee Conference" was edited back to its original form and protected the article from me editing it again. I did not edit this in an ill manner. I gave concrete evidence of what Hitler really wanted. I thought it was unfair to list "extermination" and annihilation" since Eichmann said this during his Nuremberg testimony. Of course hes going to say whatever, he didnt want to die, so he made stuff up on trial. I dont think that it was factual or even relevant.
Apparently whomever re-edited this can't handle the truth. I presented factual proof on this topic in a responsible fashion and you couldn't stand to hear it. That simply proves what I've been saying all along. Jews are re-writing history to suit their own means.
Thanks for confirming my suspicions on this.
And people are getting smart to that "6 million" figure jews killed during WWII also. Auschwitz lowered its estimates almost 10 years ago from 4 million to 1 million killed there... a 3 million person difference, bringing the amount of jews killed to 3 million, not 6 million. A big difference!
A big difference. So 3 million is better than 6 million. Interesting. How many million is better than 2 million? 10 million? There are those who say (Jung chang) that Mao ze Dong killed 70 million. Would 60 million have been better? It's irrelevant! They killed huge numbers of people, that's enough to brand them as wicked. That they did it ultimately for their own self aggrandizement brands them as evil.
"blustering" - once the numbers drop down to the level of natural mortality rates, then see who blusters.
This article is complete garbage, and needs to be either drastically re-written or deleted altogether. It does not state facts or quote sources (this is after all meant to be an encyclopedia) , but merely states opinions. In fact the only reference is the minutes of the Wannsee meeting itself, from which the following facts can be obtained - (i) the purpose of the meeting was to discuss the "Jewish question", ie. what to do with European Jews in order to achieve the Nazi goal of "the expulsion of the Jews from the living space of the German people". (ii) it was accepted that emigration to other countries (both voluntary and forced) had so far been only somewhat successful (537,000 people by October 1941). (iii) a new solution was "the evacuation of the Jews to the East", ie. to the large concentration camps in Poland and neighbouring countries.
There is too much interpretation (reading between the lines) being made on the wording in the minutes, for instance the claim that "evacuation" is a euphemism for "execution". Why would a meeting like this need to resort to such cloak and dagger coded language? Unless someone can present evidence to the contrary, the wording should be taken literally. Also, great care must be made in the translation from German, particularly bearing in mind the era and the circumstances. Who has personally reviewed the translation? Finally, the comments by Israeli Holocaust historian Yehuda Bauer quoted below are important and relevant, and deserve mention in the article. Logicman1966 10:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Dr. Josef Bühler pushed Heydrich to implement the final solution in the General Government. As far as he was concerned, the main problem within the General Government was an overdeveloped black market that disorganised the work of the authorities. He saw a remedy in solving the Jewish question in the country as fast as possible. An additional point in favour was that there were no transportation problems there.
Apart from being hardly understandable without the context (black market, general government, etc.), the paragraph uses the Nazi term "Jewish question" without quotation marks and without explaining it. The term presupposes there is a problem with the Jews in Germany (or in general with Jews) and it is therefore completely inappropriate for an encyclopedia article to repeat it unthinkingly. Ben T/ C 00:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
After spending an hour trying to edit what seemed unnecessarily confusing and opaque, I decided to start over. It’s not complete, certainly not perfect, but is better. I’ve tried to focus primarily upon the reason for the conference and secondarily upon the reason that historians of Nazi Germany and the Holocaust focus upon the conference.
Why was the conference necessary? That should be the starting point for explaining it. Doing anything on a mass scale—including deportations and killings—requires organization and subsequent bureaucratic coordination even in totalitarian states. Things don’t just happen and in the case of Germany in 1942 the systematic elimination of European Jewry was not happening as the Nazi state wished it to happen. Calling together the senior ministers and officials was a way to “cut thru the red tape.”
An equally important reason for the conference was the resistance of many of the main German civilian and quasi-civilian bureaucracies to making anti-Jewish measures a priority. This is not to say that these ministers sympathized with the Jews. On the contrary. They felt that they had competing priorities, however, and many of the civilian bureaucrats felt that the insistence by the SS to give pride of place to the “Jewish Question” was getting in the way of addressing these myriad other problems. It wasn’t “rational.” It is important to understand this aspect of the conference. Destruction was always at the heart of the Nazi ideology but for nearly a decade a lot of people, including some Nazis, believed that it was about creation. Wannsee is the turning point—where the SS made clear to those representing the Nazi German state that reason for Nazi Germany was not winning the war, reclaiming lost lands, providing work opportunities for Germans or any of the other supposed themes and impulses for the post-1933 era. It was all about destroying the Jews. If the rest was lost, so be it. Forthecommongood 17:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I will add references to the text. Also, I was not able to append the following to the above discussion:
The issue about whether or not the conference “explicitly” referred to systematic killing seems to me to be unimportant. You don’t need to look any further than the text itself to see that the authors recognized that mass deportations and the organization of the deportees into forced work brigades was a death sentence into itself for most of them. Although I append a comment seeking to place the term “suitable treatment” into the historic context of Nazi racial theory (which believed that those who survived hardship and deprivation were superior to those consumed by it) so to illustrate that the meaning of the phrase could be nothing other than systematic execution of the survivors, it is not necessary to the conclusion that the forced labor envisioned in the protocol was mass murder. Indeed twentieth century history is replete with examples of those presiding over such “work brigades” being tried and convicted for murder. Suffice it to say that there is a full evidentiary record describing mass executions of the Jews in the period after the Wannsee conference but, in my opinion, the text itself provides sufficient evidence of the proposition that the purpose of the Final Solution described at the Wannsee Conference was the physical elimination of European Jewry from the earth. Forthecommongood 17:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
It would be helpful to understand the reason for the insertion of the recent POV tag. Also, the comment that the article could benefit from a "Jewish [writer]" ought to be explained. Forthecommongood 14:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
What's with the evolution bashing? Consistent with Nazi racial theories which were explicitly evolutionary in their approach (my emphasis). This sentence doesn't fit with the flow of the article, and IMO it just looks like some creationist attempt to make a spurious link between evolution and the Nazis. I'm removing it. Dancing Meerkat 12:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Here is the page of the Wannsee Conference minutes in which the number of Jews in each country was enumerated. I doubt this was done for the purpose of sending them Christmas cards. Adam 13:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
On this, see Cesarini, Eichmann, 114; Browning, Origins of the Final Solution, 412; Rees, Auschwitz, 117. Breitmann, Architect of Genocide, 231-233, deals directly with the doctoring of the minutes. Adam 13:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm confused by the protocol section. The first thing it says makes sense: The minutes of the meeting discussed a change from getting rid of Jews by encouraging their emigration to instead forcibly deporting them, organizing them into work gangs, and outright killing them. But then it says something confusing:
If we're speaking of people deported "out of the territories held or conquered by Germany and its allies", how could the people thus deported possibly be organized by the Nazis into work brigades? Presumably the work brigades were organized on territory held or conquered by Germany or its allies? -- Delirium 13:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
This article still needs a lot of work. When I have time I will attempt a rewrite. In the meantime, however, attempts by Holocaust-deniers to tamper with it or stick spurious tags on it will be reverted. Adam 07:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
I recommend not tampering or whatever spurious tagging means - straight above board discussion of the attempt to turn this article and the Wannasee into somthing it isn't and never was is more than enough to satisfy any denier - thanks for the help.
This is from a review on Amazon of Arthur R. Butz's book, "Hoax of the Twentieth Centrury: by Michael Santomauro: <<<Is someone a "Holocaust denier" if he does not accept that the January 1942 "Wannsee conference" of German bureaucrats was held to set or coordinate a program of systematic mass murder of Europe's Jews? If so, Israeli Holocaust historian Yehuda Bauer must be wrong -- and a "Holocaust denier" -- because he recently declared: "The public still repeats, time after time, the silly story that at Wannsee the extermination of the Jews was arrived at." In Bauer's opinion, Wannsee was a meeting but "hardly a conference" and "little of what was said there was executed in detail." [5]>>> Footnote [5] is <<<Canadian Jewish News (Toronto), Jan. 30, 1992. >>> Why is such a different view being expressed by a Jewish historian?
regal away - Jewish historians are gradually abandoning much of the holocaust foolishness. But we can hope that wikipedia sticks to its guns. Foolishness needs a home too. ( By the way, reading Bauer is mostly a waste of time - he has abandoned the the most stupid foolishness but he bravely hangs on to the rest)
As promised I have rewritten this article and archived all this rather silly and irrelevant talk. Any attempt to add revisionist nonsense to this article will be reverted. Adam 13:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I will judge all edits on their merits. Nonsense of any type will be reverted. Adam 08:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity - after reading the lead statement ( Adam rewriting and silly stuff ) I checked out the original wiki article ( 2002 ). It was full of it but was actually a far superior product. How did it get so long and so full of it - dare I guess at the author's identity, silly me.—Preceding
unsigned comment added by
159 109 80 63 (
talk •
contribs)
Perhaps as the "Adam-Approved Forum" or something along those lines. Seriously, it's a talk page and you shouldn't just automatically assume your POV is correct. Discussion and exchanging idead, facts, and sources will produce the best article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.108.17.7 ( talk) 16:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
I question the accuracy of the opening remark: "The purpose of the conference was to plan the 'Final solution...'" I guess it depends on exactly what is meant by "plan", but it sounds as if the main issue was open before the conference and decided during it. This contradicts the more accurate statement later in the article: "It thus became necessary to bring together representatives of all the relevant departments to explain to them what was intended and how it was to be carried out, and to make it clear that this undertaking was done on the highest authority of the Reich and could not be resisted." In other words the main purpose was to inform not to plan, and no important decisions were made. I propose changing "plan" to "inform senior Nazi's of plans for", but there are other options. -- Zero talk 12:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree that is a better wording. Adam 03:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
90 minutes is an informational meeting at best. Using Eichmann's testimony, from many years later - when he was trying to not get hung, as valuable intrepretative information shows how uninformative the Wannsee document is. One of the opening qoutes attributed to Hitler - "looking sideways" - from some notes by Goring. Any citation as to where to read the original? The citation given may have the quote but finding it in the maze is virtually impossible.
It appears this article was written with the "hope" that noone would bother to actually clink the link to, and read, the Wannsee report. By the war's beginning there appears to have been very few Jews in Germany ( or most of what most people call Europe ). The Wannsee counts include Russia, etc - places the Germans ended up never conquering. Unless every Jew in Russia, etc ran to the border and begged to be caught by the Germans they appeared to be well out of Hitler's grasp. 159.105.80.63 10:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
The minutes of this meeting were a forgery. Why on earth would such a top secret and incriminating document just happen to fall into the hands of an angry jewish man. Since when does wikipedia state debatable theories as fact —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.69.11 ( talk) 05:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I have made a minor edit. Heydrich was, at the time of receipt of the directive from Goering, only a Gruppenfuhrer. He was promoted to Obergruppenfuhrer on 27 9 41.-- Anthony.bradbury 21:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I have deleted all unsigned / anonymous commentary on this page and will continue to do so. This is a page for serious discussion of a serious topic by serious people, not a playground for neo-Nazi crackpots. Adam 03:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
According to the film The Wannsee Conference (which to the best of my knowledge was based on the Minutes of the Meeting) A. Bradbury is correct. Heydrich makes a point of correcting the stenographer on this matter. 142.27.68.101 ( talk) 00:49, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
That last comment was by Aliotra (I forgot to login). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aliotra ( talk • contribs) 00:50, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
I have added a few words to the first now paragraph, to clarify that not all attenders were confirmed Nazis. Kritzinger certainly was not, and possibly Neumann.-- Anthony.bradbury 17:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
How do you define "not a Nazi"? Adam 09:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, my comment was, in hindsight, disgracefully fuzzy. What I meant was that Kritzinger, and perhaps Neumann, were not rabid followers of the Nazi anti-semitic policy in the way that the other attendees appear to have been.-- Anthony.bradbury 11:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Didn't they plan to liquiadate the Slavs of Europe in similar breakdowns to the Jews, extermination and work camps, etc. Wasn't this phase two of the grand plan. Londo06 22:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Was relying of a documentary for this information. I wouldn't trust that link though, it states words changed for clarity. After reading the original German copy there are inconsistencies. Mostly with the 'odd' language used by the Nazis. Londo06 06:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
This phrase in the quotation (from Browning) doesn't make sense. I imagine the original German is 'scheel ansehen' which means 'to pull a face (at someone)' - and the thing is lifted from Kaiser Wilhelm II's 'Hunnenrede' of 1900. I was tempted to correct the translation, but I didn't do so as I don't know at which point the mistranslation arose. In other words, it's possible that as a quotation it's mechanically correct. Norvo 13:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
The article currently seems to credit Christian Gerlach's thesis that the Conference's purpose changed after it was reset, and that originally the Final Solution wasn't the topic -- wasn't even decided yet. I'm an amateur on the subject, but is that anything like a consensus view? Christopher Browning doesn't buy it, I know from his endnotes in The Origins of the Final Solution, but Michael Burleigh does in his survey of the Third Reich.
Any experts care to comment or edit? ---- Andersonblog 21:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Białystok is merely a city in Poland, and it's entire population was not 400,000 (and isn't even now). -- HanzoHattori ( talk) 03:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I have removed the link; it leads to Martin Luther, the father of the Reformation, and not the individual referenced in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.21.84.77 ( talk) 22:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
An archival photograph dated 1973 shows the text of a memorial plaque on the building where the Wannsee Conference was held. The text, in German:
IM DIESEM HAUS FAND IM JANUAR 1942 DIE BERÜCHTIGTE WANNSEE-KONFERENZ STATT
DEM GEDENKEN DER DURCH NATIONALSOZIALISTISCHE GEWALTHERRSCHAFT UMGEKOMMENEN JÜDISCHEN MITMENSCHEN
The photographer is the late Miriam Novitch; I have no further information at present. -- Deborahjay ( talk) 12:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
First of all, forgive me, I am new to Wikipedia - yet the letter at http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/53/Wannsee_Conference_-_Letter_from_Reinhard_Heydrich_to_Martin_Luther_%28Invitation%29.JPG is not an invitation, but a declining responsefrom the person it was addressed to saying that the person in question cannot attend the conference for "personal reasons". I am German, so the text is quite clear to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.34.192 ( talk) 04:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I am not a GA reviewer, but I would like to see this article improved. I am sure that the GA reviewer will ask for more citations; currently there are major elements that are unreferenced, such as the "List of attendees" and "Fates of the attendees" sections in their entirety. The "list of the numbers of Jews in the various European countries" should be split into its own section and referenced as well.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Piotrus' comments immediately above are valid, and the tags he added have remained for a week without any attempt by the nominator or anyone else to address those concerns. Therefore, I am quick-failing the article for GA. Please feel free to re-nominate once these issues have been addressed. Acdixon ( talk • contribs • count) 18:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I started to edit a bit of the comma and period placement throughout the article for consistency, but I might be mistaken on format. I think British English allows punctuation outside of quotes for words and phrase fragments, but American English encloses commas and periods within the quotation marks, so I haven't edited those purely on the grounds of regional differences. However, I *think* that in a sentence like:
"With this expedient solution," he said, "in one fell swoop many interventions will be prevented."
The comma goes after "solution" within the quotes, regardless of where we are from. If I'm wrong, sorry. I read war stuff and watch the Military Channel when I am bored.
Ytcracker (
talk)
11:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
On http://www.ghwk.de/deut/proto.htm are all pages of Wannsee Protokoll photographed. Those pages are in German national arhive and the only protokoll copy (No. 16.) which can be reached untill today. I hope it is enough as a source, even if in german. -- Seha ( talk) 01:44, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
I think that this phrase is not factually correct: "To fulfill its obligations under its Tripartite Pact with Italy and Japan, the Reich government immediately began preparing to issue a declaration of war on the US on 11 December."
Germany (and Italy) had no such obligation, since Article 3 of the Tripartite pact states that "Japan, Germany, and Italy agree to [...] assist one another with all political, economic and military means if one of the Contracting Powers is attacked by a Power at present not involved in the European War or in the Japanese-Chinese conflict."
Japan clearly was not attacked by the US, so there was no need for Germany to declare war on the US.
Rizzardi (
talk)
11:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Under the “Background” section of the article, the following quote is made:
“Hitler addressed a meeting of ministers, including Reichsmarschall Hermann Göring, at which the administration of the occupied Soviet territories was discussed. He said that Soviet territories west of the Urals were to become a 'German Garden of Eden’, and that 'naturally this vast area must be pacified as quickly as possible; this will happen best by shooting anyone who even looks sideways at us.’ [emphasis added]
“Hitler's chief lieutenants, Göring and the SS chief Heinrich Himmler, took this and other comments by Hitler at this time (most of which were not recorded, but were attested to at postwar trials) as authority to proceed with a more radical 'final solution of the Jewish question' (Die Endlösung der Judenfrage), involving the complete removal of the Jews from the German-occupied territories.’”
It is mentioned in the above quotation that the remark attributed to Hitler was one of several that Göring and Himmler interpreted as authorization for the extermination of Jewish people (and other “subhumans"). Isn’t there any stronger evidence that Hitler personally ordered the Holocaust to quote here rather than this seemingly questionable quotation? (Questionable in the sense as to what he was referring to and not as to whether he actually said it.)
To me, this sounds much more like Hitler was ordering that no resistance be tolerated within the territories of the Soviet Union that the Germans controlled; that anyone offering the slightest resistance be summarily executed, than an order, even an oblique one, for the establishment of organized mass murder camps dedicated to extermination of Jewish (and other) people in a factory-like fashion.
I can certainly understand the top Nazis speaking obliquely, employing euphemisms such as “Final Solution” and “Total Solution,” but this reference seems far too cryptic to me to establish that Hitler intended (at least at that point) to order what occurred at Auschwitz and other killing centers. I would not like to see Hitler’s guilt extenuated even to the extent of claiming that he never intended the genocide, but approved of or tolerated the situation whenever he did become aware of how far Göring, Himmler and Heydrich had gone on their own volitions.
(On a side note, I have never understood why Göring should have been so personally involved in such matters, and why the infamous memo to Heydrich came from him and not Himmler, Heydrich’s immediate superior. Göring always struck me as a greedy, vainglorious, corrupt high official of a more pragmatic strain and not a malevolent idealist like Hitler, Himmler, Goebbels, et. al.. Although no less evil than his top Nazi cohorts, it seemed to make him somewhat less dangerous. To employ gangster terminology (as the Nazis were always glorified gangsters): “He’s a man you can do business with.")
There are those, only a step above out-and-out Holocaust deniers, who are apologists for Hitler, claiming he didn’t know what was going on regarding the Holocaust. I would not like to see them given ammunition, thus my reason for concern here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HistoryBuff14 ( talk • contribs) 15:58, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Quote...***On a side note, I have never understood why Göring should have been so personally involved in such matters*** You enunciate on so much, yet are unaware of the depth of hatred Goring had for the Jews? Unaware that any issue Hitler held close to his heart, Goring took on vicariously as his own? Goring was a pure cipher for Hitler's hatreds (primarily towards Jews & Communists, then any other enemies of the German State); to anyone aware of these facts, it comes as no suprise that he made sure he 'dipped his toes in the constructive waters of the Final Solution'.
In the first paragraph "Wannsee Protocol" links directly back to the page. I don't know how to fix this but I'm hoping someone monitoring the page does.
-- 71.234.191.0 ( talk) 00:53, 10 May 2011 (UTC)Adrienne
Moved from incorrect place on this page:
"MI6 took care that no survivors would be there to deny the story...causing death of innocent civilians in Czech Republic, who Churchill considered "racially inferior", according to his drunken bathtub talk." This is just one of many biased, inaccurate statements in the article. The article also contradicts numerous other Wikipedia articles as well as Wikimedia commons and wikisource articles. Quite frankly this article is a disgrace to Wikipedia. Dan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.169.254.75 ( talk) 05:48, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article, File:Eichmann, Adolf.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 23 March 2012
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Eichmann, Adolf.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 01:16, 23 March 2012 (UTC) |
Let me first qualify this by stating that I in no way doubt the hollocaust and do not intend to suggest that the final solution was anything other than attempted genocide. However, shouldn't rather glaring instances of taking sides be avoided? What I mean is the editor making statements like "no one at the conference can have misunderstood Heydrich's meaning." No one should presume to know what any person at that conference did or did not understand. Such statements are just silly, no matter how much we might like to avoid hollocaust deniers. I would say that per Wikipedia guidlines the article should just state the facts, state that the word murder or killing is never used and present the evidence arguments for interpreting the available record of the conference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdlund ( talk • contribs) 06:11, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
I removed pop culture trivia from this article on June 20, and it has now been re-added. The reason I removed it is because of the rationale provided in my edit summary: WP:MILPOP calls for the exclusion of "In popular culture" sections unless the subject has had a well-cited and notable impact on popular culture. This conference has not had a wide impact on popular culture, so the section needs to be removed, and I am doing so right now. -- Diannaa ( talk) 02:33, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Brigade Piron ( talk · contribs) 09:28, 12 August 2013 (UTC) Hello, I'm happy to review this if you don't object? It's obviously been written and researched very diligently, well done! I'll read it through and bring up the template.--- Brigade Piron ( talk) 09:28, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
![]() |
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. |
|
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. |
I have a few reservations about the lead:
|
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
![]() |
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | |
![]() |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). |
There're a couple of direct quotes and other phrases that need referencing:
|
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). |
|
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. |
|
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
![]() |
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. |
I'm very happy to pass this, congratulations! Good working with you! |
Hi Brigade Piron. I have dealt with the points presented so far. Here are comments on work completed so far:
If I compare these versions it seems that there was a lot of editing on the background-chapter. I cannot make up if it is better this way. Anyone got an idea if it is? Jeff5102 ( talk) 20:34, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
A list of articles that I've already brought to GA status can be found at User:Diannaa/Barnstars and my most recent nomination, Nazi Germany, will be promoted in the next few days. Talk:Nazi Germany/GA1. I chose to work on Wannsee Conference because there's two good books on the topic available at my local library, and there's information on this topic in Longerich and Evans as well, so I have almost enough source material to bring the article up to GA. I am now awaiting a copy of Eichmann: His Life and Crimes which I have ordered from Amazon and then I will be able to finish up here and nominate for GA. -- Dianna ( talk) 16:49, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Isn't there a place to mention in the table, what happened to the Conference participants after the war was over? Many of them were sent to jail for a few years, and later worked as clerks in West Germany. Hardly any of them, like most of the German war criminals, was seriously punished by post-war Germany's juridical system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.56.94 ( talk) 06:27, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
The purpose of the conference was not "whereby most of the Jews of German-occupied Europe would be deported to Poland and murdered". It was to "cleanse" Germany - or rather a Greater Germany - of Jews by emigration to the East. Royalcourtier ( talk) 03:34, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
The fictional British film Conspiracy (2001 film) , build on a real protocol this meeting (belonging to a Martin Luther), as well as William L Shirer and others I just can't recall at the moment, sets the date to early December 1941. (Perhaps "Höss diaries" ?) From where comes this "new" date ? Just an imprinted stamp on the protocol or something else ? (I'm aware of the fact that history once in a while must be re-written, and am not really questioning this date, but simply curious of how and why the date is several months later) Boeing720 ( talk) 17:35, 2 October 2017 (UTC) This https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endl%C3%B6sung_der_Judenfrage#/media/File:Heydrich-Endlosung.jpg image suggests a different address, Kurfürstenstrasse 116 (spelled like that), something appear to impair, at least. Boeing720 ( talk) 17:54, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Especially Roland Freisler (but also the other State secretaries) could be given more exact titles (like of what department). But this Freisler is yet another quite unfamous figure of the Third Reich. Mainly known as judge of the "People's Court". Boeing720 ( talk) 13:49, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
You are uncooperative. Let the reader verifies [1]. The text has been published by Haus der Wannsee-Konferenz, Gedenk- und Bildungsstätte, so some relation exists.
Xx236 ( talk) 09:36, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Article currently reads in part The minutes of the Wannsee Conference estimated the Jewish population of the Soviet Union to be five million, with another three million in Ukraine. ( [4], my emphasis)
But at the time, Ukraine was one of the republics that made up the Soviet Union. Can anyone clarify exactly what the minutes say? It seems strange for such a big mistake to be made at such a senior meeting. Andrewa ( talk) 05:23, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
I re-used the photo from the biographical page for Rudolf Lange for this article but it has been removed here. Check also this page: https://www.picswe.com/pics/rudolf-lange-wannsee-conference-c0.html. -- Gepid ( talk) 13:53, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi Diannaa, thanks for adding sources. I can't find anything on Longerich 2012, p. 523, that supports "systematic killing of men, women, and children began only in June 1941". Can you post a few words from the page so that I can search for it?
The killing of women and children began in August, and it wasn't clear whether it began as a result of a policy change or local radicalization; see Matthäus in Browning 2004, p. 281ff; Browning 2004, pp. 311–312; Longerich 2010, p. 207; and Gerlach 2016, pp. 69–71.
As for "Heydrich emphasized that once the mass deportation was complete, the SS would take complete charge of the exterminations", I can't see the source ( Longerich 2000, p. 14). But it's misleading because it implies that he spoke plainly. SarahSV (talk) 21:15, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Diannaa, another question. Do you mind if I restore the citations to the 2004 rather than 2007 edition of Browning, Origins of the Final Solution? I'd like to do it for two reasons. First, the article used the 2004 print edition from December 2006 until May 2015, when Poeticbent changed the short cites to 2007, but in the long citation he changed the isbn to the 2004 e-book. He didn't change page numbers, and I don't have access to the 2007 edition to check whether they're the same. The second reason is that I'd like to add something from it, but I only have the 2004 edition. SarahSV (talk) 15:05, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
"For Heydrich, two things mattered above all others on 20 January 1942: first, the deportations had to be accepted by the decision-making authorities of the Reich (everything that happened after the deportations was a matter internal to the SS and did not have to be agreed with the other offices). Secondly..."I didn't use the e-book of Browning when preparing the article for GA - I used the hardcover 2004 but I don't have a copy locally - I would have to bring it in on inter-library loan. If you have a copy and wish to change the citations back, that would be great, as the pagination may or may not be the same in the e-book (I have no way of knowing whether Poeticbent checked). — Diannaa 🍁 ( talk) 17:06, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
The following item quotes a conference in 1940 that sounds similar to the Wannsee Conference of 1942. Could this be a journalistic error? • [1] ---- MountVic127
See also • [2]
( talk) 00:58, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
References
The second source says that Hitler and Goebbels were at the 1940 meeting, so it must have been a different event. I can't find anything on it in Longerich.— Diannaa ( talk) 01:24, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
This was recently tagged for discussion as to splitting off the house of Wannsee (museum) to a separate article. I do not believe that’s necessary. History of the house up to the present day can easily be kept and incorporated with this article. They’re both tied together in history. It would be an unnecessary fork. Kierzek ( talk) 12:02, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Yehuda Bauer, major Holocaust historian, has rejected the importance of the Wannsee Conference. His statements were printed in the Jewish Telegraphic Agency and in Canadian Jewish News. HonestManBad ( talk) 18:22, 15 July 2021 (UTC)