Adolf Eichmann, the SS Lieutenant
Colonel who was tried and executed in Israel in 1962, was tasked with taking
the minutes which have become known as the Wannsee Protocol.
Because
of this, Eichmann was naturally enough questioned about the Wannsee conference
and the minutes during his trial in Israel, at which he confirmed that the
meeting was only about transporting Jews to the East. Amongst the points which
Eichmann made during his evidence in court, were the following:
- The meeting was held to extend
Reinhard Heydrich’s influence over the rest of the civil service bureaucracy;
- He had personally prepared the
overview of all attempts to move the Jews out of Europe which Heydrich had
presented to the conference;
- He specifically denied that the
meeting had discussed killing Jews. The only time, he told the Israeli court,
that the killing of Jews was discussed in any form was in informal conversation
between some delegates afterwards—but Eichmann was unable to give any precise
details on what was said or who said it.
- He said the conference had
certainly never discussed murder by gas chambers and the informal conversation
had only mentioned shooting as a form of execution. This would have been
perfectly understandable in terms of the activities of the Einstazgruppen which
were already operating behind the German front line in the Soviet Union.
Eichmann also claimed in court that
he had seen “preparations in the East for extermination.” This was a reference
to his earlier claim, made in a taped interview in Argentina, that he had
visited a gas chamber in operation at the Majdenek camp near Lublicn in “the
latter part of 1941” for which a Russian U-Boat motor was used to generate
exhaust fumes which allegedly killed Jews.
This claim has always been
controversial and a subject of dispute. The reason for this is that the Lublin
camp was built as a prisoner-of-war camp in 1941 to accommodate some of the
hundreds of thousands of Soviet soldiers captured during the opening offensive
of the German invasion of Russia.
Even the exterminationist “experts”
who promote the Holocaust story do not claim that there were gas chambers at
Majdenek in 1941. According to those sources, and the official guide book
handed out at the camp museum today, “construction of the gas chambers at
Majdanek started in August 1942 and was completed in October 1942.”
This would make Eichmann’s claim to
have seen a gassing in 1941 impossible. So why did he say this?
The reason might be found in the
rest of his so-called memoirs, which were published in Life magazine in
1960 and which contain so many “mistakes” and contradictions that they give
cause for great doubt as to their authenticity.
For example, in the section entitled
“The Final Solution: Liquidation,” Eichmann claims that the Wannsee Conference
took place on “Jan. 10, 1942” – whereas it in fact took place on January 20th.
(Life, Vol. 49, No. 22, November 28, 1960, pp. 24, 101,102). It is
unlikely that he would have made such an error, seeing as he was responsible
for the minutes.
Other impossible claims made in
Eichmann’s “memoirs,” which cast further doubt on their authenticity, included
a claim that he had witnesses the gassing of 1,000 Jews in buses which were
“were normal, high-windowed affairs with all their windows closed. During the
trip, I was told, the carbon monoxide from the exhaust pipe was conducted into
the interior of the buses. It was intended to kill the passengers immediately.”
(Life, Vol. 49, No. 22, November 28, 1960, pp. 24, 102, 104).
Apart from the fact that an ordinary
windowed bus full of people would never be airtight, there is no possible way
that the victims would have not opened or smashed out the windows as soon as
the exhaust fumes entered the interior. This version also contradicts the
exterminationists’ claim that the “gas buses” used by Nazis were specially
constructed machines with no windows.
All in all, there is good reason to
doubt the Eichmann “memoirs” as accurate, while his evidence before the Israeli
court merely served to confirm that the Wannsee conference did not discuss mass
murder.
Verbatim: Adolf Eichmann’s
Testimony in Jerusalem about the Wannsee Conference
(English transcript of the Eichmann
trial [mimeographed], June 231961, session 78, pp. ZI, Aal, Bbl; June 26,
1961, session 79, p. BI; July 24, 1961, session 107, pp. El, Fl, GI., Dr.
Robert Servatius was Eichmann’s German attorney.)
Dr. Servatius: ... Will
the witness explain what do you know in connection to the initiative to call
this conference?
Accused: Without any doubt, the
main reason for the convening of the conference was Heydrich’s intention to
extend the scope of his influence.
Dr. Servatius: Was he afraid of
any difficulties? Did he have reason to be afraid?
Accused: Experience up to then
showed that all those questions were usually dealt with by various
authorities and if it were, there was no coordinated activity and,
therefore, actions were delayed considerably as there were all sorts
of activities carried out within various offices. And, in a nutshell, one
may point out that in the deliberations which were held so far they
wouldn’t see the wood for the trees, and they wouldn’t arrive at any
definite solution or any coordinated solution. This is one of the reasons why
Heydrich convened the Wannsee Conference, why he actually convened it on his own
initiative in order to imprint his own will and that of the
Reichsführer SS.
Dr. Servatius: The witness I
believe already declared here in Court that you prepared Heydrich’s
speech. Or this may be collected from the appendix to the Sassen report.
Presiding Judge: Yes.
Dr. Servatius: Are you ready to
repeat once again your explanation how it came about that you were asked
to prepare this speech?
Accused: Yes. I was instructed
to collect material which Heydrich thought relevant for his speech
which he was about to hold. That means to say that it should have been a
general survey of all the operations that had been carried out in the
course of the last years in the realm of the emigration of Jews. It had to
be a survey of the results and the difficulties of the operations in
question. These prepared remarks that I drew for Heydrich’s speech can be seen
on the seven pages of the document in front of us, but it struck me that
certain points which I prepared were [not] prepared by me. They are not
the fruit of my pencil, so to speak, but simply expressed by Heydrich without
taking heed of what I had prepared. Because very often as I had seen from
experience he would speak very freely, without always taking care of the
prepared points. And here on page 6 the last passage, according to which
Jews were earmarked for special labor effort and they were to be sent,
within the framework of the final solution, to the eastern territories
and, as I said, this was to conform with the framework set for the labor effort
in the east. The labor columns were to be formed and a separation was to be
carried out between the sexes so that the Jews fit for work would be
brought within the framework of this plan and would be employed in the
construction of the roads. This particular passage could not have possibly
stemmed from me and the remarks couldn’t possibly been ascribed to what I wrote
because this particular passage actually constituted a turning point in the
policy towards the Jews and this policy appears for the first time in the
Wannsee Conference.
Presiding Judge: I believe
there is a written translation into the Hebrew of this document.
Court Interpreter: I do not
have it before me.
Accused: May I further point
out, your Honors, to complete the picture, that the second function which
was bestowed upon me was the function of keeping minutes of the meeting
together with a secretary.
Accused: These minutes to which
I was referring were rendering the salient points quite clearly. But so
far as the particulars were concerned, I have to point out that this was
not a verbatim report because certain colloquialisms were then couched by
me in official language and certain official terms had to be introduced. Later
on it had been revised three or four times by Heydrich. It came back through official
channels to us through the channel of Mueller and then again we had
to elaborate on it until it assumed its final form.
Dr. Servatius: What is not
reflected in the protocol is the spirit which reigned at this conference.
Can you report or comment regarding the spirit and attitude at this
conference?
Accused: Yes, the climate of
this conference was characterized as it were by a relaxed attitude of
Heydrich who had actually more than anybody else expected considerable
stumbling blocks and difficulties.
Q: It is important how these
things found expression on the part of the other participants.
A: It was an atmosphere not
only of agreement on the part of the participants, but more than that, one
could feel an agreement which had assumed a form which had not been expected.
Unflinching in his determination to participate fully in the functions
with regard to the final solution of the Jewish problem and particularly
outstanding in the enthusiastic and unexpected form of agreement was the
State secretary, Buehler, and even more than Buehler, Stuckart had evinced
boundless enthusiasm. He was usually hesitating, and reserved, reticent and
furtive, but all of a sudden he gave expression to boundless enthusiasm, with
which he joined the others with regard to the final solution of the Jewish
question.
Q: The witness saw before the
calling of this conference the preparations in the East for the
extermination? He saw the steps taken there?
A: Yes, Sir.
Q: Did the participants at this
conference know anything about the way for the final solution?
A: I have to assume that the
things were known to the participants of the Wannsee Conference because
after all the war against Russia had been going on already about six months. As
we saw in some various relevant documents, the operational groups were already
acting in the Russian war theater and all those key personalities in the
Reich Government must have known about the state of affairs at that time.
Q: How long did this conference
go on and what happened after the conference was over?
A: The conference itself took
only a very short period of time. I can’t recall exactly how long it
lasted, but it seems to me that I would not be mistaken in saying that it
didn’t take longer than an hour or an hour and a half. Of course, the
gentlemen who participated in it would later on be standing in small
groups to discuss the ins and outs of the agenda and also of certain work
to be undertaken afterwards. After the conference had been a[d]journed,
Heydrich and Mueller still remained and I was also permitted to remain and
then in this restricted get-together, Heydrich gave expression to his
great satisfaction I already referred to before....
Presiding Judge: ... Now
in connection with the Wannsee Conference , you answered my colleague Dr.
Raveh that this part of the meeting, which is not mentioned in the protocol,
the discussion was about means of extermination. Systems of killing.
A: Yes.
Q: Who discussed this subject?
A: I do not remember it in
detail, Your Honor. I do not remember the circumstances of this conversation.
But I do know that these gentlemen were standing together, or sitting together,
and were discussing the subject quite bluntly, quite differently from the
language which I had to use later in the record. During the conversation they
minced no words about it at all. I might say furthermore, Your Honor, that I
would not have remembered this unless I had later remembered that I told
myself, Look here, I told myself, even this guy Stuckart, who was known as
one of these uncles who was a great stickler for legalities, he too uses
language which is not at all in accordance with paragraphs of the
law. This incident remained engraved in my memory and recalled the entire
subject to my mind.
Q: What did he say about this
subject?
A: In detail I do not.
Q: Not details in general, what
did he say about this theme?
A: I cannot remember it in
detail, Your Honor, but they spoke about methods for killing, about
liquidation, about extermination. I was busy with my records. I had to make the
preparations for taking down the minutes; I could not perk up my ears and
listen to everything that was said. But it filtered through the small room
and I caught fragments of this conversation. It was a small room so from
time to time I heard a word or two.
Q: I believed that this was the
official part of the meeting, of the conference.
A: The official part did not
take too long.
Q: Was this in the official
part of the conference, or not? It was my belief that this was in the
official conference because this should have been included in the protocol
of the meeting, although nothing is mentioned.
A: Well of course, it was in
the official part, Your Honor. But again this official part had two
subdivisions. The first part where everyone was quiet and listened to the
various lectures, and then in the second part, everyone spoke out of turn
and people would go around, butlers, adjutants, and would give out
liquor. Well, I don’t want to say that there was an atmosphere of
drunkenness there. It was an official atmosphere, but nevertheless it was not
one of these stiff, formal, official affairs where everyone spoke in turn.
But people just talked at cross vertices.
Q: And were these also recorded
by the short-hand typists?
Accused: Yes, yes they were
taken down.
Presiding Judge: And you were
ordered by someone not to include it in the memorandum of the meeting in
the official Protocol of this meeting, weren’t you?
Accused: Yes, that’s how it
was. The stenographer was sitting next to me and I was to see to it that
everything would be taken down; then she deciphered this and then Heydrich
gave me his instructions as to what should be included in the record and
what should be excluded. Then I showed it to Heydrich and he polished it
up and proof-read it and that’s how it was kept.
Q: And that which was said
about this very important theme, you cannot remember at all is this what
you say?
A: Well, the most important
thing here was...
Q: I did not say, the most
important I said it was an important theme, and important enough to be excluded
from the record.
A: Well, no. The significant
part, from Heydrich’s point-of-view, was to nail down the Secretaries of
State, to commit them most bindingly, to catch them by their words; and
therefore, it was quite the contrary the important part did go into the
record and the less significant ones were excluded. It was, I would
say, that Heydrich wanted to cover himself, wanted to be sure that each
and every one of these Secretaries of State would be nailed-down and these
matters, therefore, were put down.
Q: That means to say that the
methods of killing the systems of extermination was not an important theme?
A: Ah! the means of killing....
Q: That is what we are speaking
about the means of killing.
A: No, no this of course was
not put into the record no, no!
Q: Did they discuss killing by
poison gas?
A: No, with gas no.
Q: But, how then?
A: It was ... this
business with the engine, they spoke about this; they spoke about shooting, but
not about gas.
Q: [Reading from the Wannsee
Minutes]Dr. Meyer and Dr. Buehler that their opinion was that preparatory work
should begin immediately for the “final solution” in the various areas, but at
the same time to avoid unrest and anxiety on the part of the population.
A: Ah, yes...
Q: To which preparatory work
does this refer?
A: I cannot imagine anything,
but...
Q: Don’t imagine! My question
is and I put it to you, as the Attorney-General put it to you before and all
the time what can you remember? This was a turning point, in fact.
A: I was there and I witnessed
the preparatory work, with these two little houses in the Lublin area.
Q: Which two little huts in the
Lublin area? I’m asking you this question about the Conference.
A: Well, I had seen the
preparatory work before in fact, but I don’t really know. They spoke about
the matter, at the meeting, of not creating any anxiety and perplexity
amongst the local population, so all I thought was being discussed, was
this same kind of business.
Q: And did you report what you
saw to this Conference?
A: At the Wannsee Conference?
No, I never uttered a syllable; I was not authorized to open my mouth. No,
I had no permission.
Q: So, who was it, who brought
the technical details to the Conference?
A: Well, no one discussed the
technical details. That is to say, Heydrich opened the meeting and then
everyone spoke about it. Well, I mean maybe Buller [Buehler] spoke about it or
possible Krueger. I suppose he would have; he was the senior SS and Police
Commander in the Government General. In a way he was the head of the
entire business, in charge of it. Globocnik was subordinated to this man
Krueger. Krueger, as the boss, must have known it in detail.
Presiding Judge: But Krueger
did not take part at the Wannsee Conference, according to the list of
participants.
A: Yes, but earlier he visited
Heydrich and extracted from him an invitation for Buller [Buhler] to take part
at the meeting. And then, one spoke about it in detail. Heydrich and
Krueger discussed it and for that reason I had to issue special invitations
for Krueger and Mueller [Buehler].
Q:You told the Court that you do not
consider yourself an anti-Semite and that you never were an anti-Semite.
A: An anti-Semite I never was.
No.
Comments
Post a Comment