Talk:Wannsee Conference/Archive 1

Archive 1

Clarify

Could the following paragraph be clarifed:

Dr. Josef Buhler pushed Heydrich to take off the final solution in the General Government. As far as he was concerned, the main problem of General Government was an overdeveloped black market that deorganises 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 here.

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)

General Government

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 I've also noticed some related articles which apparently seem to be using Conspiracy as some sort of historical document on the matter.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)

Nuremberg

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.

You'd think somebody might have said something at the time.Gzuckier 16:19, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Transcription

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)

Yes. The copy retained by Marin Luther survived, and was extensively quoted from at Nuremburg. Anthony.bradbury 17:30, 17 April 2006 (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.

Holocaust denial

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.

---

See Also?

Seems odd there isnt a see also, maybe listing other important events in the Holocaust, or are we relying on in article links?

re-writing history to suit your own means

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.

Seriously, stop with the old "Auschwitz's numbers lie," which requires willful ignorance and a desire to manipulate data to state with a straight face. No historian has ever used the 4 million number on a plaque to calculate death totals, as Holocaust deniers well know. From the article on Auschwitz: For many years, a memorial plaque placed at the camp by the Soviet authorities and the Polish communist government stated that 4 million people had been murdered at Auschwitz. This number was never taken seriously by Western historians, and was never used in any of the calculations of the death toll at Auschwitz (which have generally remained consistantly around 1-1.5 million for the last sixty years) or for the total deaths in the Holocaust as a whole. After the collapse of the Communist government, the plaque was removed and the official death toll given as 1.1 million. Holocaust deniers have attempted to use this change as propaganda, in the words of Nizkor: "Deniers often use the "Four Million Variant" as a stepping stone to leap from an apparent contradiction to the idea that the Holocaust was a hoax, again perpetrated by a conspiracy. They hope to discredit historians by making them seem inconsistent. If they can't keep their numbers straight, their reasoning goes, how can we say that their evidence for the Holocaust is credible? One must wonder which historians they speak of, as most have been remarkably consistent in their estimates of a million or so dead. In short, all of the denier's blustering about the "Four Million Variant" is a specious attempt to envelope the reader into their web of deceit, and it can be discarded after the most rudimentary examination of published histories." --Goodoldpolonius2 20:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

"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.

• • Although there is talk of harsh treatment being applied to the Jews, nowhere does it mention "systematic execution" or "the extermination of the entire Jewish population of Europe" - claims like this are purely conjecture.

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)

Wording

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)

Rewrite

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)

Excellently done. It would be great if you could add references as well. --Goodoldpolonius2 17:09, 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)

You are right, but I am always amazed at the number of Holocaust deniers who come to articles like this one and make statements like "they never said explicitly that they were going to kill the Jews." I keep hoping that nobody gets taken in by patent nonsense like this (for the reasons you state), but it is always best to be explicit in Wikipedia, and not give those who want to deny genocide any wiggle room. I have seen many less attacks on the victim counts of the Holocaust since I added 6+ references to different sources about the number of people killed in the main article, so I try to be as clear as possible in addressing these attacks up front. --Goodoldpolonius2 05:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

POV tag

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)

I should have provided a better explanation for the POV tag than what I wrote in the edit summary, sorry, here is one now:

The language was discribing in technical and euphemistic terms (e.g. "eliminate," etc.) the plan to kill millions of people. If that's not POV, then what is? It sounded like somebody copied from the translation of the minutes, because that was exactly the language used at the time. I imagine a Jewish person with relatives who died in gas chambers could take offense at such expressions. By refering to Jewish contributors I wanted to say that the article could profit from another point of view, no insults intended, whatsoever.

Goodoldpolonius2 already changed some phrases after I inserted the tag. What I still don't like is the phrase historically German lands, because it is again POV. First, what does it mean? What does it refer to? When were those lands supposed to be German? What kind of German people was that? and so on, and so on, please see, German history and ask yourself what German lands could have possibly meant before 1871. It needs a certain interpretation of history to say historically German lands' (compare e.g. German romanticism and Nazi mysticism). Second: German lands implies the Nazi claim they should be German "again." Please be careful with terminology and please change the German lands to something else. I also don't like the following sentence:

The Wannsee Conference was called to reiterate the preeminence of this goal for the Nazi state and to obtain the necessary high-level "buy in" from the most senior level of the relevant organizations so that the myriad implementing steps required to effectively carry out the "Final Solution" could be taken without delay or bureaucratic squabbling.

It sounds euphemistic IMO, e.g. "without [] bureaucratic squabbling", "myriad implementing steps", "reiterate the preeminence [..]". I would also advise against using effectively too much. Ben ^T/_C 19:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Much better! :) Thank you, guys, for improving the article! Ben ^T/_C 00:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Evolution reference

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)

Minutes

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)

protocol section is hard to follow

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:

Deportation was not an end in itself. Forcibly transportating the Jews out of the territories held or conquered by Germany and its allies was a measure taken not simply to remove Jews from Nazi controlled territory but to better facilitate organizing those deported into work brigades.

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.

Jewish Historian With Different Opinion

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?

Well, if you were interested in an answer, you could read Yehuda Bauer instead of regaling us with fourth hand questions sourced from some egoboost spammed over a dozen reviews in Amazon who repeats the Denier Litany, freely available word for word on a simple Web search. Gzuckier 17:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

Archiving

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)

Are you saying you will revert only material which is patently "nonsense", or are you saying you will deem any material associated with revisionism automatically to be "nonsense"? Wulfilia 08:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I will judge all edits on their merits. Nonsense of any type will be reverted. Adam 08:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Will you consider material to be nonsense merely because it is associated with revisionism? Wulfilia 04:07, 15 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)

You are a known Holocaust denier, and this will be taken into account by all who read your comments.--Anthony.bradbury 22:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Re-name this page?

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)

To plan or to inform?

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)

Yes, that's a fair comment. The main purpose of the conference, as revealed in the minutes, was to clarify that Jews and half-Jews (with some exceptions) would be deported to the East - anyone who refuses to believe that this means to Auschwitz, Treblinka, Sobibor, Chelmno, Maidenek or Belsec has his head in the sand - and that the SS would be in charge of the operation. It is clear that the intent, as shown in the document signed by Goering and quoted at the conference by Heydrich, was to notify all relevant departments of the plans alrady formulated by the SS. It is assumed that there was a verbal directive from Hitler, which has not been definitively attested to, although the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming.--Anthony.bradbury 18:00, 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)

On the date of the conference there were 3-4 million Jews in Poland; 500,000 in Hungary; perhaps 5 million in the USSR, which at that time the Nazi government expected ultimately to control, and smaller but significant numbers in France, belgium, Holland, Scandinavia and, of course, in Great Britain. There were small numbers in the Baltic states, but, as reported at the conference, none in Estonia. Incidentally, according to the Simon Wiesenthal institute, at the end of the war in Europe there were still some 7,000 Jews in Berlin!--Anthony.bradbury 11:18, 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)

Rank

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)

Attendees

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)

27 million Slavs

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)

Maybe: certainly Hitler is on record as not wanting Slavs in the Third Reich, although that did not stop Himmmler from recruiting them to the SS in 1944. But they were not discussed, as far as the surviving minutes show, at Wannsee.--Anthony.bradbury 22:04, 20 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)

'Look sideways' ?

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)

If someone has a copy of the source from which this quotation is taken, then it is not a problem - we can check if the quote itself is the problem or a translation on this site. If the quote is as it is written, then there is no point in changing. Ultimately, we could look at a source copy of the minutes themselves in German. ck lostsword • T • C 13:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

This quote is, of course, from the meeting of July 16 between Hitler, Goering and senior personnel and not from the discussion at Wannsee. I do not have a copy of the original in German, but the translation of the minute made by Martin Bormann was given in evidence at Nuremberg.--Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 14:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Gerlach taken as gospel?

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)

"Bialystok"

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)

Perhaps Bezirk Bialystok is what is being meant? This should be clarified.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

You are probably correct. Mtsmallwood (talk) 03:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

"Martin Luther"

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)

Who was a jew-hater, too —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.211.112 (talk) 11:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Text of memorial plaque

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)

The letter is on Heydrich's letterhead, it was sent from Prague, and it has his signature at the end. It is addressed to "Dear Party Comrade Luther." It has a Foreign Ministry stamp showing that it was received there. It gives the date of the cancelled meeting in the first paragraph and the date and place of the rescheduled meeting towards the end. So the typed letter is clearly an invitation from Heydrich to Luther. Are you saying that the handwritten notes on the letter are by Luther, declining the invitation? This makes no sense since Luther did in fact attend. So I think you are mistaken. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 23:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Wannsee Conference and GAN

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)

GA Quick fail

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)

Punctuation

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)

References added

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)

Should their be a separate entry on this document? --41.14.4.95 (talk) 12:46, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Tripartite pact

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)

Hitler's Personal Responsibility for the Holocaust

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'.

Wannsee Protocol

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

unacceptable text

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)

This was recently added by some disruptor, I'm reversing it. Please indicate other problems too. Zero^talk 06:19, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Eichmann, Adolf.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

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 What should I do? 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. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review 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)

NPOV

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 couldn't find that quotation in the article. Are you sure that's what it says? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:37, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Pop culture trivia

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)

Diannaa, I will look in detail into the wikipedia guidelines you mention. If indeed the section does not belong here, it then it would be appropriate to list both films under the "See also section", as they are wikipedia articles related to the topic. I will add them there. (talk) user:Al83tito 3:58, 24 June 2013 UTC

That would be a good compromise. Thanks, -- Diannaa (talk) 14:24, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Wannsee Conference/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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.	Just one small point, could the Holocaust menu be moved a bit further down to de-clutter the lead? Say, to the "Background" section? "Mischlings" in italics, please.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	There's quite a bit of repeated linking in the article. Remember that it's best to only have the first mention linked! It can be removed quite easily if you ask someone using AWB. Lead I have a few reservations about the lead: Could the first paragraph of the lead be rephrased to be more concise? The casual reader will only read the first chunk and I do not see that it expresses "what" the conference did and why it is important to this history of the Holocaust. This is well-covered by the last paragraph of the lead, but it would be good to have it up-front. The second paragraph, to my mind, is a bit over-detailed for the lead and is not directly relevant to the conference. I suggest that it could be removed, or at least condensed and merged with the below sentence. Background Could you please include literal translations of German words/phrases used (i.e. Sonderfahndungsbuch Polen, Einsatzgruppen etc.) in brackets after their first mention to clarify what they are? It is already done in the same section, but not at the first mention. Could you also de-link articles already mentioned above (i.e. Einsatzgruppen)? Attendees "or partially occupied and quiescent, in the case of France" - Link to Vichy France please Capital "J" on judenfrei "English translation:" Unnecessary, please delete. Proceedings "evacuating Jews to the east" - " " over evacuated please. "German historian Peter Longerich notes that vague orders couched in terminology that had a specific meaning for members of the regime were common, especially when people were being ordered to carry out criminal activities." Please explain clearly what this relates to in the text. It's clear if you read the whole section, but not if reading up to it. You might consider moving it to after the quotation and having it as a stand-alone paragraph? Not a good article point (so please feel free to ignore), but for A-class, I'd say that this statement is so important that it would require a second reference from a different source. "He outlined categories of people who would be exempted. Jews over 65 years old, and Jewish World War I veterans who had been severely wounded or who had won the Iron Cross, might be sent to Theresienstadt concentration camp." I'm not sure that makes sense? "Exempted" from what? Link to Congnac Last sections "He said at his trial: "How shall I put it — certain over-plain talk and jargon expressions had to be rendered into office language by me"." Link to Adolf Eichmann#Trial please.
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: " In a letter dated 2 July 1941 Heydrich communicated to his SS and Police Leaders that the Einsatzgruppen were to execute Comintern officials, ranking members of the Communist Party, extremist and radical Communist Party members, people's commissars, and Jews in party and government posts." - ref please. "On 29 November, Heydrich sent invitations for a ministerial conference to be held on 9 December at the offices of Interpol at 16 Am Kleinen Wannsee." Reference (and italics on "Am Kleinen") needed please. "Heydrich went on to say that in the course of the "practical execution of the final solution", Europe would be "combed through from west to east" but that Germany, Austria, and the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia would have priority "due to the housing problem and additional social and political necessities". - reference please ""Mischlings of the second degree" (persons with one Jewish grandparent) would be treated as Germans unless they were married to Jews or Mischlings of the first degree, had a "racially especially undesirable appearance that marks him outwardly as a Jew", or had a "political record that shows that he feels and behaves like a Jew"." Reference please. "The museum also hosts permanent exhibits of texts and photographs that document events of the Holocaust and its planning." Ditto.
	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).	"In the dining room where the conference was held, photographs and biographies of the participants hang on the wall." This doesn't add anything and seems to be a bit over-detailed. Also runs the risk of becoming outdated if display is changed.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	"Eight of the participants held doctorates, and none would be taken unaware: the process of dissemination information about the fate of the Jews was already well underway by the time the meeting was held.[35]" I don't think this actually adds anything. Their doctorates are probably to minor to merit a mention and the rest seems quite partial. If you want to keep it, at least remove the section "and none would be taken unaware:" "Very soon, 600,000 Jews of Hungary (and parts of Czechoslovakia, Romania, and Yugoslavia occupied by Hungary) were sent to their deaths by Eichmann and the willingly collaborating Hungarian authorities.[52]" Please rephrase the last bit to something like "...with the collaboration of Hungarian authorities" to avoid POV. "The Wannsee Conference lasted only about ninety minutes, and for most of its participants it was one meeting among many in a busy week." Please remove last section - value judgement? "Despondent, Wulf committed suicide in 1974" Because of the argument about the museum? Otherwise please remove.
	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!

Comments

Hi Brigade Piron. I have dealt with the points presented so far. Here are comments on work completed so far:

• 1a: I have replaced the sidebar template with a navbox down below.
• 1b: Items are now linked once in the lead and once in the body, or in some instances once in the table and once in the body, as allowed per WP:OVERLINK.
• 4: Yes, he did commit suicide over this, as well as the failure of the German authorities to pursue convictions for Nazi war criminals. I will add a bit. -- Diannaa (talk)
• 1b: I will look for more information on this point next time I have Kershaw at home (it's over at the library right now). This sort of thing is difficult to locate in a book by using the index, so it will take a bit of searching to find another supporting citation. Thanks for taking on this review. -- Diannaa (talk) 13:12, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Background

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)

Hi Jeff5102. I am the person who did these edits. I edit a lot on Nazi Germany topics and am pretty knowledgeable on this topic. One difference is that the old version was largely unsourced, and the new version has sources. Do you have any specific parts of the new version that you think are sketchy or questionable? Thanks. -- Dianna (talk) 23:53, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the things you wrote are not the problem. The problem I had was the gap between 1939 and 31 Juli 1941 that is in the background-paragraph at the moment. Before your edits, it read:

In 1939, Adolf Hitler signed a "euthanasia decree" (later known as Action T4), which instituted a forced eugenics program extending the existing laws enabling sterilisation for those deemed genetically or socially unfit. Under this new policy doctors were allowed, and in some cases required, to take the lives of those deemed unfit rather than to sterilize them, as had been the law before. The term euthanasia in this context is a euphemism, since its aim was not to relieve pain and suffering but rather, for the sake of societal purity, to prevent further 'pollution' of the race by 'inferior' genetics.

The notion of mass deportation of Jews, as part of the plan to "purify" all of Europe, reached its peak in the forced deportation of Jews to labor camps in Poland and in the Madagascar Plan of 1940, but was shelved due to logistical challenges during the war.

The rapid German advances in the opening weeks of the invasion of the Soviet Union, Operation Barbarossa, created a mood of euphoria among the Nazi leadership, which began to take a view of the "solution" of the "Jewish question" increasingly freed from moral or ethical restraints. The so-called "Jewish question" seemed even more urgent with the growing likelihood that the four million Jews of the western Soviet Union would fall under German control. REFERENCE-The minutes of the Wannsee Conference estimated the Jewish population of the Soviet Union to be five million, including nearly three million in the Ukraine and 900,000 in Byelorussia.</ref> On 16 July 1941 Hitler addressed a meeting of ministers, including Reichsmarschall Hermann Göring, at which 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." REFERENCE-Christopher R. Browning, The Origins of the Final Solution (University of Nebraska Press 2004), 309. The quotations are from Martin Bormann's minutes of the meeting, which were presented in evidence at the Nuremberg Trials.</ref>

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 definitive "final solution of the Jewish question" (Die Endlösung der Judenfrage) involving the complete removal of the Jews from the German-occupied territories...

Now it is deleted. It might be done with all the right reasons, but I am curious what these reasons are. Regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 09:13, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

The paragraph about Aktion T4 was off-topic and unsourced. The second paragraph was also unsourced, and was replaced with two paragraphs of more detailed well-sourced information about Generalplan Ost and the Hunger Plan. The next three paragraphs were largely unsourced as well. The only thing that had a citation was the Garden of Eden quotation, which was sourced to Browning page 309. This material was replaced with one paragraph of more detailed well-sourced information covering what happened after the start of Barbarossa. I think you are right in that we should add some material about the activities of the Einsatzgruppen in Poland from the start of the war to Barbarossa to cover the time frame September 1939 to July 1941, but I think the material on Aktion T4 should stay out, as it's off-topic. -- Dianna (talk) 15:33, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I think if I give you a little background information on myself, perhaps you might find it reassuring. I have been editing on this wiki since 2009 and became an administrator a year later. I currently have over 71,000 edits to this wiki. Since late 2011 I have been focussing on improving our most important articles on Nazi Germany. Specifically I have been doing re-writes of articles for which I am able to obtain sources, with an eye toward nominating articles for Good Article status. In most cases it's sourcing that separates an ordinary article from a Good Article. Unsourced or poorly sourced material has to be removed and replaced with sourced material. Vague and generalised unsourced information can and should be replaced with detailed information sourced to high-quality books and journal articles. Off-topic material needs to be removed in order to pass a GA nomination.

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)

I wrote the first and second paragraphs which you say are off-topic and unsourced. I disagree. First, in the context of a increasingly murderous regime, culminating in genocide, the inclusion of the Aktion T4, a program of forced euthanasia, is not only germane, but serves to underscore the point that the Wansee Conference did not represent a distinctly different or new direction for Nazi Germany circa 1941: it is called a 'final solution' not for the end result but because of the increasingly drastic solutions tried beforehand. The' euthanasia' decree also underlines how far the Nazis were willing to go for racial and societal purity. It is context. Secondly, I was careful to link them to other wikipedia articles, which are themselves sourced. Why does this not provide adequate sourcing? Not every sentence has to be sourced rigorously if the focus of that sentence has it's own page and that page well sourced. --Petrsw (talk) 16:24, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

At WP:Good article level and above, all material requires a source. That's what separates GA-class articles from B-class and C-class. Pointing to other articles is not considered adequate sourcing to pass an article to GA-class. I chose not to include any information on Action T4 or the Madagascar Plan in the background section when I did the re-write, as I think it's too much detail for this article. The article was promoted to GA in pretty much its present state, so I think these were good choices. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:10, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your explanation. I've been editing om Wikipedia for some time now, and one of the things I do is chasing vandals who abuse WWII-articles (like User:Sempi or the person behind User talk:188.223.142.186.) When I saw you deleting certain paragraphs here I was too swift with my conclusions. It looks like I was suffering from tunnel vision, I fear. My apologies and keep up the good work! Regards, Jeff5102 (talk) 20:16, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Aftermath

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)

I think it an excellent idea to add a section on post conference activities of the participants. I don't think, however, it is entirely accurate to say "hardly any of them was seriously punished" Some did escape formal punishment: Heydrich, for example was killed by Czech partisans only a few months after the Conference; Friesler died in a bombing raid in '45; Lange is believed to have died fighting the Soviets in '45. As for punishment: Buhler was indicted at Nuremburg and later transferred to Poland for further trial, after which he was executed; Shongarth was executed by the Brits; Eichmann escaped, lived in Argentina until capture, trial and execution by the Israelis in '62. A few of the others died, either from natural causes, or apparent suicide, before being caught. Some served some time but the courts were unable to accurately determine guilt. Only Heinrich Muller was completely unaccounted for: he disappeared, and it is believed that he died in the bunker shortly after Hitler killed himself but no body was ever found. TreebeardTheEnt (talk) 13:59, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it's a good idea to add material on the fate of the attendees, as it's off-topic for this article and is readily available in their individual articles. -- Diannaa (talk) 15:17, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Completely disagree. If the postwar Nuremberg trials occurred and are referenced here (which they are prominentlly) it is accurate and wholly on-topic to note the relationship of the conference attendees to the aftermath. Indeed, If the house itself is now a holocaust museum... that is to say if there is a section on the aftermath with respect to the setting of the conference (...and there is...) why are relationships of the attendees to the trials not mentioned. Indeed, I think this a rather glaring omission and not at all 'off-topic'. TreebeardTheEnt (talk) 15:31, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Also missing, in light of the section entitled "Interpretation" in which the analyses points to power consolidation by Heydrich rather than new policy as to the meetings purpose, is any discussion whatsoever about Heydrichs death , less than six months later and the effect, if any, this had upon the plans. Given that it is clearly stated that Heydrich called the meeting to "impose his own authority on the various ministries and agencies involved in Jewish policy matters, and to avoid any repetition of the disputes that had arisen earlier in the annihilation campaign." One is left to wonder if, in fact, these disputes arose again... I think failure to note the aftermath is not good history, the conference didn't occur in a vacuum and it did have consequences... well, what were they? TreebeardTheEnt (talk) 15:42, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

The only trial that is mentioned in the article is Eichmann's trial, and only to discuss his testimony about the Wannsee Conference. Heydrich's death is off-topic, and does not belong in this article unless there's reliable sources that make a link between the two events. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:49, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Did you even read the article? The third graf of the intro specifically mentions the Tribunal at Nuremberg. It's mentioned again later. Also, Heydrichs death is absolutely on topic, unless you want to treat the Wansee Conference as an isolated event, in a vacuum, untouched by, and untouching, other events. Why have a page on the conference at all if not to put it in the context of what the Nazis were and what they did? It absolutely makes NO SENSE to insert all that information about Heydrich consolidating power and the resulting plan put into place without noting that VERY SHORTLY afterward Heydrich was killed... If Heydrichs death is off-topic then the entire "interpretation" section is likewise off topic, else you have to argue that the Wannsee Conference had no implications on further actions of the Nazis. Why, then, have the page at all? If nothing about the aftermath is, as you allege, on-topic than the section about the building now being a holocaust museum is likewise off topic. TreebeardTheEnt (talk) 22:28, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Purpose mistated

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 purpose of the conference - as cited by numerous sources - was to work out the practical issues of the Holocaust for ANYPLACE that the German army held or was to hold - i.e., if the Nazi's had control of the territory, the Jews in that territory would be eliminated.HammerFilmFan (talk) 16:21, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

The Germans often used euphemisms, especially when discussing illegal activities. "Evacuation to the east" was a euphemism for death. Heydrich called the conference for a couple of reasons. First, he wanted to assert that his dept (the RSHA) would be heading up the project, and that the SS would be in charge of the actual exterminations. Second, he wanted to arrive at a decision as to who exactly would be killed. Longerich points out that the conference also has the side benefit of making everyone present an accomplice to the crime, and thus ensuring their silence. -- Diannaa (talk) 16:34, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Yehuda Bauer, professor of Holocaust Studies at the Avraham Harman Institute of Contemporary Jewry at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, says that to claim that the Wannsee Conference was all about “killing Jews,” or as Netanyahu told the United Nations, that the minutes contain “precise instructions on how to carry out the extermination of the Jews . . .” is an outright lie, a "silly story."

Bauer is also the founding editor of the journal Holocaust and Genocide Studies, and a member of the editorial board of the Encyclopaedia of the Holocaust, published by Yad Vashem in 1990. 

As long ago as 1992, Bauer, speaking at a conference held in London to mark the fiftieth anniversary of the Wannsee meeting, told the audience that the claim that Wannsee was a “master plan” to kill Jews was nothing a but a “silly story.”

Bauer’s remarks were reported in the Jewish Telegraphic Agency of January 23, 1992, and the Canadian Jewish Times of January 30, 1992.

Titled “Nazi Scheme Not Born at Wannsee, Israeli Holocaust Scholar Claims,” (http://www.jta.org/1992/01/23/archive/nazi-scheme-not-born-at-wannsee-israeli-holocaust-scholar-claims) the JTA report continued:

"London (JTA)—An Israeli Holocaust scholar has de-bunked the Wannsee Conference, at which top Nazi officials are said to have gathered at a villa in a Berlin suburb in 1942 to draw the blueprints of the ‘Final Solution.’

According to Prof. Yehuda Bauer of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, Wannsee was a meeting, ‘but hardly a conference’, and ‘little of what was said there was executed in detail.’

Bauer addressed the opening session of an international conference held here to mark the 50th anniversary of the decision to carry out the "Final Solution". "But it was not made at Wannsee", the Czech born scholar said.

"The public still repeats, time after time, the silly story that at Wannsee the extermination of the Jews was arrived at, Wannsee was but a stage in the unfolding of the process of mass murder," he said."

His comments were repeated in the Canadian Jewish News, which read as follows:

"Wannsee’s importance rejected 

London (JTA) — An Israeli Holocaust scholar has debunked the Wannsee Conference, at which top Nazi officials are said to have gathered at a villa in a Berlin suburb in 1942 to draw the blueprints of the “Final Solution.”

According to Prof. Yehuda Bauer (photo) of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, Wannsee was a meeting, “but hardly a conference”, and “little of what was said there was executed in detail.”

“The public still repeats, time after time, the silly story that at Wannsee the extermination of the Jews was arrived at.”

Is the phrase precise?

Jews of German-occupied Europe would be deported to Poland and murdered

Poland belonged to German-occupied Europe but the phrase excludes it.

Some German Jews were transported to places outside Poland, see Riga Ghetto.Xx236 (talk) 06:53, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Do you have a suggested wording? how about "Jews of German-occupied Europe would be deported and murdered" ? — Diannaa (talk) 15:44, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• Deported, but where? The word deportation implies expulsion from one territory to another. Meanwhile, the point of destination still needs to be defined in an unambiguous way. Poeticbent talk 17:07, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

They were deported to multiple locations or killed on the spot. How much of this needs to be included in the lead? because that's where the sentence under discussion is located. — Diannaa (talk) 17:38, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

The first and the last paragraphs in the lede seems stubby and should be merged. Not everybody needs to be mentioned upfront, like Robert Kempner for example. Poeticbent talk 19:06, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Sounds okay to me. — Diannaa (talk) 19:22, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Date ?

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)

The meeting was originally scheduled for early December but the attack on Pearl Harbour and the entry of the US into the war meant the meeting was postponed. This is covered in the section "Planning the conference" . Shirer page 965 says January 20. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:34, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Of course you're right about Shirer! Stupid me. In my Swedish edition, would it be - Part IV, chapter 27 - "Nyordningen" - The New Order, headline ""Den slutgiltiga lösningen"" , "The final solution" (with " -signs), page 75. If I translate back to English, the sentence would be something like this "For this purpose, did Heydrich call representatives for the different departments and parts of/within SS-SD to a summit at 20.January.1942" (something inline with that) And "Wannsee" then follows in the next sentence. I must humbly thank you for this correction of my memory. I'm most certainly wrong about the British film as well. But the question of Kurfürstenstrasse 116 remains interesting. (strange enough not "Kurfürstenstraβe"; was this German typewriter incomplete, I wonder...) Boeing720 (talk) 13:23, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

List of attendees, titles

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)

remove; it's not clear if or how this meeting was related to the Wannsee Conference. Also, removed a lower quality citation

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.

[2]

August Meyszner participated in the meeting [3] the text quotes Martin Moll: Vom österreichischen Gendarmerie-Offizier zum Höheren SS- und Polizeiführer Serbien, 1942–1944. August Meyszner: Stationen einer Karriere. In: Danubiana Carpathica. Jahrbuch für die Geschichte und Kultur in den deutschen Siedlungsgebieten Südosteuropas. Band 5 = Heft 52, 2011

Page August Meyszner describes the meeting The conference discussed the use of forced labour, the coming Final Solution and Generalplan Ost,. I don't have the book to verify the statement.

Xx236 (talk) 09:36, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

You haven't explained how this meeting was related to the Wannsee Conference. If the material was there at the time of GA review, the reviewer would ask for its removal as being off-topic, unless a properly sourced connection can be shown between the two meetings. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:11, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Soviet Union and Ukraine

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)

The File:WannseeList.jpg shows 5 million in the USSR with totals for Ukraine and Bialystock set inset. So these people were included in the 5 million USSR tally. I will change the prose accordingly. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:05, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Rudolf Lange

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)

Sorry but non-free images are not allowed in lists. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:58, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

June 1941

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)

I have Longerich 2012 here (it's the Heyrich bio). The content there lists commissars, adults in state posts, Comintern officials, etc. but no women or children are mentioned at that point in time. So the citation I recently added was incorrect. We have sourced content in the body that states indiscriminate killing started in August (not June) so I have restored the entire paragraph to the version that passed GA to remove the incorrect data. The June 1941 data was added by Poeticbent here.

The content about the SS was changed by an IP in 2016 diff and does not accurately reflect what the source says, so I have changed it back. I can see the source document and what it says is "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 lead paragraph you restored is much better, thanks. It could use some more editing. For example, it's misleading to say "After the invasion of Poland in September 1939, the extermination of European Jewry began ...". The consensus is that the genocide began between August 1941 and early 1942. There's also a problem in the Background section with "On 31 July 1941, Hermann Göring gave written authorization to ... Heydrich ... to prepare and submit a plan for a 'total solution of the Jewish question' ... The resulting Generalplan Ost ..."

I'll restore Browning 2004, and I'll check the page numbers as I do it. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:23, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

The reason it says that is because the Einsatzgruppen were given lists of who to kill immediately after the invasion of Poland (Longerich 2010, p. 144). Around 65,000 civilians (not all of them Jews) were killed by the end of 1939 (Evans 2008, p. 15). This does not mark the beginning of the Holocaust per se but the beginning of extrajudicial killings of Jews (and others) in Poland. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:43, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

1940 conference ?

The following item quotes a conference in 1940 that sounds similar to the Wannsee Conference of 1942. Could this be a journalistic error? • ----MountVic127

See also •

(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)

split

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)

I've removed the tag. There's no reason for a split at present. If and when there's enough material for a separate article, we can create one. That might never happen, because as far as I know the site is only notable for this one event.— Diannaa 🇨🇦 (talk) 13:57, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Yehuda Bauer's comments should be included

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)