Reviso wrote: ↑16 Oct 2020, 20:40 Mark Roseman, in his book The Wannsee Conference and the Final Solution, A Reconsideration, 2002, (ehthusiastically greeted by Ian Kershaw and others), notices that the Wannsees protocol, as transmitted by Robert Kempner, does not conform to descriptions of the conversations reported from the time of the war by German officials. He concludes that the protocol is the result of tampering. But he does not suspect Robert Kempner: for him, the falsifier is Heydrich:
« When the participants received it [le procès-verbal], they learned what it was he [Heydrich] wished them to know, whether or not it accorded with their own memory of what had been discussed. For this reason, some of the civil servant's postwar denials that murder had been discussed at the meeting are beside the point. Perhaps not surprisingly, no one dared submit criticisms or amendments to Heydrich, though internal memos in the ministries suggested that on at least one matter the outcome of the discussion had been less conclusive than the protocol indicated. » (p. 98)
That theory would fit the M.O of the hoaxters: that which is not there is the best evidence of all.
See also in our discussion on Globocnik's report; Sergey theorizes that, among the many words and pages written by Globocnik, the part that mentions exterminations was in the portfolio of that one document which is missing and the proof is therefore lost to history.
One could only imagine what the Wannsee was REALLY about given that the minutes were "fabricated" by Heydrich, in the same way one can only imagine what was in Globocnik's attached portfolio.
Imagination truly is the best evidence of the Holocaust (because let's face it, what's actually there is not great evidence).