Unless correspondents ask us not to, this Website will post selected letters that it receives and invite open debate.
Ramanujan still argues, Wednesday, January 28, 2004, that the Wannsee conference did discuss killing the Jews
Was killing really not on the Wannsee agenda?
I ADMIRE your tremendous breadth of knowledge of WWII, but in the name of intellectual honesty, I ask whether you agree with my points below. Consider these passages of the Wannsee Protocol:
In conclusion the different types of possible solutions were discussed, during which discussion both Gauleiter Dr. Meyer and State Secretary Dr. Buehler took the position that certain preparatory activities for the final solution should be carried out immediately in the territories in question, in which process alarming the populace must be avoided.
The possible final remnant will, since it will undoubtedly consist of the most resistant portion, have to be treated accordingly, because it is the product of natural selection and would, if released, act as a the seed of a new Jewish revival (see the experience of history.)
I believe it is your thesis that the Wannsee conference did not discuss the destruction of the Jews but rather their deportation, and that the wording of the minutes do not reflect a euphemistic reference to destruction, but rather to relocation.
I believe it is the Jewish contention that the minutes represent a euphemistic reference to actually destroying Jews.
It seems to me that a careful reading of the above passages is more likely to support the Jewish interpretation than yours. Are we agreed that the "populace" referred to in the last line of paragraph A, is the surrounding Gentile populace? If the final solution were merely relocating them, why would they be alarmed? They see the transportation. Also what preparatory action would be involved in transporting them?
Paragraph B seems to indicate as well that the evacuation is a euphemism for death. The possible final remnant is a phrase which leaves us with the question, remnant of what? It is easier to assume the Jewish reading than yours here.
Bookmark the download page to find the latest new free books
David Irving replies:
WELL, I have dealt with these points before.
First, since the conference report is in itself deliberately vague, we should, and can, turn to the interrogations of all the participants for further information. I know that I did so. All stated under interrogation that killing was not on the agenda, though at least one felt that the language used (by Adolf Eichmann's adjutant Günther) was unnecessarily coarse, referring to the Jews being deported in terms more appropriate to cattle.
Second, the argument about "alarming the populace" is not strong enough by itself. There is evidence that when the deportations of Jews from the Generalgouvernement began, it led to unrest among the remaining Poles who (a) believed they knew what the likely fate of those deported was, and who (b) believed that they, as Poles, were likely to be next. This alarm would however result whatever the actual fate of the deportees was.
I refer in my biography of Dr Joseph Goebbels to a 1943 tour of the Generalgouvernement by his legal adviser, Schmidt-Leonhardt, who reported on precisely the above concerns to him. As I stated, one paragraph of the Schmidt-Leonhardt report has been physically cut out of the document and placed in the Minister's safe, as it was geheime Reichssache, i.e. probably referring too explicitly to liquidation.