Scott wrote:
In any case, the Wannsee document doesn't say anything about killing people. It says that Jews will be forcibly relocated...
The Wannsee protocol says that a large proportion of the Jews fit for work will be worked to death in the east and that the final remnant will be "treated accordingly, because it will without doubt represent the most [physically] resistant part, it consists of a natural selection that could, on its release, become the germcell of a new Jewish revival."
That's the fate of the Jews who could work, according to Wannsee. Destruction through labour and the final remnant are "treated accordingly".
The protocol doesn't speak out what should happen to the Jews that couldn't work, however, according to the protocolant Eichmann:
Q. Now, in connection with the Wannsee record of proceedings - in connection with the Wannsee Conference - you replied to my colleague, Judge Raveh, that in the part not referred to in the record, methods of killing were talked about.
A. Yes.
Q. Who spoke about this topic there?
A. Today, I no longer have any detailed recollection of this matter, Your Honour, but I know that these gentlemen stood together and sat together, and in very blunt words they referred to the matter, without putting it down in writing. I would definitely not be able to remember this, if I did not know that at that time I said to myself: Look at that...Stuckart, who was always considered to be a very precise and very particular stickler for the law, and here the whole tone and all the manner of speech were totally out of keeping with legal language. That is the only thing, I would say, which has actually remained imprinted on my mind.
Q. What did he say about this topic?
A. In detail, Your Honour, I would like...
Q. Not in detail - in general.
A. There was talk about killing and eliminating and exterminating. I myself had in fact to make my preparations for drawing up the record - I could not stand there and just listen - but the words did reach me...got through to me because the room was not, in fact, such a big one that one could not catch single words from the flood of words...
Q. I thought this was in the official part of the meeting?
A. The official part - that did not last very long, that was the...
Q. Was this in the official part or not? I thought it was in the official part, because it appears in the record and...
A. It was also in the official part, Your Honour, but the official part, if you like, in turn consisted of two parts - that is to say, the beginning, where everyone kept quiet and had to listen, and then near the end, where everyone spoke about the matter all at once, and where the whole time the orderlies kept serving cognac or other drinks, and it got to the stage of alcoholic influence...all I mean is that, although it was an official matter, but still, it was not a stiff official matter, where everyone is quiet and everyone lets all the others have their say to the end, but at the end everyone spoke all at once.
Q. But this was also taken down by the male or the female stenographer?
A. Taken down by the male stenographer.
Q. And apparently you were instructed not to include that in the official record of proceedings?
A. Yes, that was the case. The shorthand-typist sat next to me, and I had to ensure that everything was recorded. And after that the shorthand-typist typed this up, and then Heydrich decided what should and what should not be included in the record. And then he, so to speak, polished it further, and then it was ready, this record of proceedings.
Q. And what was said about this important topic, you have no recollection at all of this?
A. Your Honour, this is not the most important point. What is the most important point in the record...
Q. Excuse me, I did not say the most important point, I said "an important topic" - so important that it was then left out.
A. No, on the contrary, Your Honour, Heydrich wanted to make sure that the main points were worked into the record. So it is in fact precisely the other way round. The essential points are in the record, and the non-essential points were then left out by him, because here, so to say - how shall I put it - he created a form of reinsurance, by pinning down the State Secretaries separately.
Q. Does that mean, then, that the methods of killing were an unimportant topic?
A. Oh, the methods of killing?
Q. That is what we are talking about.
A. He did not include those, no, no.
Q. At that time was there talk of killing by gas?
A. No, not by gas.
Q. Then how?
A. There was a discussion about the engine business. I remember that, shooting. About gas I did not know anything, I cannot remember.
Q. There was a discussion of the various methods of possible solutions, and on that District Leader Meyer and State Secretary Dr. Buehler expressed the opinion "that some preparatory work in the course of the Final Solution should be carried out immediately in the relevant areas, but in so doing any alarming of the population should be avoided." Do you remember that?
A. I am sorry, I did not understand that.
Q. If you did not understand, I shall read it out to you again.
A. Yes.
Q. What kind of operations were discussed here? What was the intention?
A. I cannot imagine anything else here, and that I...
Q. Not imagine, I am still asking you, as the Attorney General also asked you all along, "What can you remember?" This was a turning point here, was it not?
A. I had previously seen the preparatory work in the Lublin district, I...where two huts were hermetically sealed, during my...
Q. We have already heard this. I want to know what happened at this conference, what was said about this at that time.
A. Today, I no longer remember, but I am sure that this matter was discussed. Where it says, "on the spot, without alarming the population," I cannot imagine the intention being anything else other than such installations, which I had seen shortly before that time.
Source:
http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/e/eic ... 07-02.html
