YES, it would be
convenient if there were any proof of this.
Unfortunately for the conformist historians,
enough people who attended the "Wannsee
conference" survived the war to be questioned
about it, both before and after the protocol was
found in 1947, and one thing is plain from their
interrogations. Nobody at that conference talked
about killing Jews, let alone about a
Hitler Order to that effect. The language used
by the participants was at times both cruel and
crude, but not homicidal.Notwithstanding recent
"dramatized" television productions which
suggest the contrary, and even have Adolf
Hitler himself present at the conference (he
wasn't: it was a conference of mid-level
ministerial planners, working on the logistics
of the deportation operation) the
existing
transcript
certainly does not support Mr Spilberg's claim,
other than one passage in which Reinhard
Heydrich speculates that those Jews who
might survive the rigorous road construction
programme in the east -- to which work the
deported Jews were actually
put -- might have to
be dealt with separately:
"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 would, if released
[bei
Freilassung], act as a the
seed of a new Jewish revival (see the
experience of history.)"
"Treated accordingly"
-- at worst interpretation, liquidated;
at best, "not released." But no proof either way
as to the correct interpretation. (Note that
there was much learned dispute at the Lipstadt
Trial [Days 17,
25
and 26]
on the phrase bei Freilassung --
translated here by one Holocaust History guide
as "if released", but perhaps more accurately as
"upon their release", with all that that
implies.
It is clever to
stipulate, as Mr Spilberg does, that Heydrich
merely "revealed," rather than issued, such a
verbal Hitler order at the Wannsee conference of
January 20, 1942, as what would otherwise
explain the massacres of Jews and others that
had already occurred prior to that conference,
e.g. at Riga in November 1941?
Himmler in one document
talks of the decision "which I, in conjunction
with the RSHA" (i.e. Heydrich), "have taken."
Why do the Germans and their accomplices
nowhere refer to it as a Hitler Order, as
they did quite explicitly when referring for
example to the equally questionable Euthanasia
order?
That would have cleared
them immediately in the eyes of querulous
subordinates. (Euthanasia incidentally now seems
to be becoming more politically correct in
countries like Holland,though rather too late
for the likes of Dr Karl Brandt who was
hanged at Nuremberg for administering it).
![[]](../../online/std/dings/list.gif){kind=small}
