No actually you need to show some evidence to support your own assumption.
As the link you supply showed only relatively small numbers of a/c were involved in the transit over the Atlantic so probably even less were involved in the previous year [1940]. Without that there is no reason to assume British production is anything but British production. American machine tools may have helped British production but that's still production inside Britain.
I did, you're just refusing to accept it.
Production that would have been impossible without American material. That's the point. It isn't simply about whole aircraft.
But then I gather no matter what I provide you'll claim it isn't good enough because it doesn't meet your unnamed criteria.
A considerable source of production that countered your argument isn't a minor point.
Case in point.
I plowed through the 1st 3rd of that and it mentions some documents being refused use but gives no reason for that happening. It also shows Raider admitting to being a hard line anti-Semite and about the last section I read was where he supported the invasion of the rump Czech state without excuse in March 1939.
And that has what to do with forged documents? I explained what I was talking about and you have gone off talking about Rader (Raider is not the spelling of his name and I didn't mention anything about him).
I had assumed you'd have followed the part at the beginning that talked about the discussion of the documents on the previous day and clicked the link to the previous day to see. Anyway here is the link:
Here are some of the relevant parts from the original link since it discusses the withdrawal of the L-3 document I mentioned and the issues with the other documents lacking any markings:
DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, I wanted to say this only because it is unpleasant to have the American Delegation misunderstand my motion concerning the document. I make no charges concerning the manner in which the document was found, I merely say that it is undecided among which papers it was found. It came to my attention that Mr. Dodd treated the three documents concerned in quite the same way, whereas Mr. Alderman on Page 188 of the record (Volume II, Page 286), states that one of these three documents, L-3, was evidently not in order because of its doubtful origin. And therefore he withdrew the document.
DR. SIEMERS: There is another key document, that is, Document 789-PS, Exhibit USA-23, the very long speech made by Hitler on 23 November 1939 before the commanders-in-chief.
The document, Mr. President, is in Document Book 10a on Page 261. This is again a Hitler speech where there is no indication of who recorded it. Signature and date are missing.
Now for the previous day when the documents were discussed further with the largest chunk of discussion, most relevant parts bolded:
DR. SIEMERS: Now I come to the third key document-namely, Hitler's speech before the commanders-in-chief on 22 August 1939, at Obersalzberg. There are two documents: Document 1014-PS and Document 798-PS. Document 1014-PS is Exhibit USA-30, in Raeder Document Book 10a, Page 269; and Document 798-PS is Exhibit USA-29, in Document Book 10a, Page 266. In regard to this Document 1014-PS, which I have here in the original in the form submitted by the Prosecution, I should like to make a formal request. This Number 1014-PS was read into the record in the afternoon session of 26 November 1945 (Volume II, Page 286). I object to the use of this document. I request that this document be stricken from the trial record for the following reason...
THE PRESIDENT: What document are you speaking about now, 1014-PS?
DR. SIEMERS: In Raeder Document Book 10a, Page 269, Exhibit USA-30.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, what are your reasons?
DR. SIEMERS: The deficiencies which were already mentioned in the other transcripts are much greater here. This document is nothing but two pieces of paper headed "Second Speech by the Fuehrer, on 22 August 1939." The original has no heading, has no file number, no diary number, and no notice that it is secret; no signature, no date, no...
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal would like to look at the original. Yes, Dr. Siemers.
DR. SIEMERS: It has no date, no signature-in the original in the folder, it has no indication of where the document comes from. It is headed "Second Speech..." although it is certain that on this date Hitler made only one speech, and it is hardly 1 1/2 pages long, although . . .
THE PRESIDENT: When you say it has no date, it is part of the document itself which says that it is the second speech of the Fuehrer on the 22d of August 1939.
DR. SIEMERS: I said, Mr. President, it has a heading but no date.
THE PRESIDENT: But you said it has no date.
DR. SIEMERS: It has no date as to when these notes were put in writing. It has only the date of when the speech is supposed to have been made. On all documents which the Prosecution submitted, also in the case of minutes, you will find the date of the session and the date on which the minutes were set up; also the place where the minutes were set up, the name of the person who set it up, an indication that it is secret or something like that. Furthermore, it is certain that Hitler spoke for 2 1/2 hours. I believe it is generally known that Hitler spoke very fast. It is quite out of the question that the minutes could be 1 1/2 pages long if they are to give the meaning and the content, at least to some extent, of a speech which lasted 2 1/2 hours. It is important-I may then refer to still another point. I will submit the original of Document 798-PS afterwards. I am no expert on handwriting or typewriters, but I notice that this document, which is also not signed, whose origin we do not know, is written on the same paper with the same typewriter.
THE PRESIDENT: You say we do not know where it has come from-it is a captured document covered by the affidavit which was made with reference to all other captured documents.
DR. SIEMERS: Well, but I would be grateful to the Prosecution if, in the case of such an important document, the Prosecution would be kind enough in order to determine the actual historical facts to indicate more exactly where it originates. Because it is not signed by Schmundt or Hossbach or anyone and has no number, it is only loose pages.
......
DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, Mr. Dodd just pointed out that my objection comes rather late. I believe I recall correctly that repeated objections were raised...
THE PRESIDENT: I think it was I who pointed it out, not Mr. Dodd.
DR. SIEMERS: Excuse me. I believe I recall correctly that the Defense on several occasions raised objection during the Prosecution's case, and it was said that all statements could be made during the Defense's case at a later time-namely, when it is the defense counsel's turn to speak.
THE PRESIDENT: I only meant that it might not be possible at this stage to find out exactly where the document came from, whereas, if the question had been asked very much earlier in the Trial, it might have been very much easier. That is all I meant. Have you anything more to add upon why, in your opinion, this document should be stricken from the record?
DR. SIEMERS: I should like to point out, Mr. President, that I do not do it for formal reasons but rather for a very substantial reason. Most important words in this document have constantly been repeated by the Prosecution during these 5 or 6 months- namely, the words "Destruction of Poland, main objective... Aim: elimination of vital forces, not arrival at a certain line." These words were not spoken, and such a war aim the German commanders-in-chief would not have agreed to. For that reason it is important to ascertain whether this document is genuine.
In this connection, may I remind the Court that there is a third version of this speech as mentioned in this courtroom-namely? Document L-3, which is even worse than these and which was published by the press of the whole world. Wherever one spoke to anyone, this grotesque and brutal speech was brought up. For that reason it is in the interest of historical truth to ascertain whether Hitler spoke in this shocking way at this time. Actually, I admit he used many expressions which were severe, but he did not use such words, and this is of tremendous significance for the reputation of all the commanders who were present.
Let me point out the next words. They say expressly, "close your hearts against pity, brutal measures." Such words were not used. I will be in a position to prove this by another witness, Generaladmiral Boehm.
I therefore request the Court to decide on my request for striking this document from the record. I should like to point out that the document is mentioned in the record at many points. Should the honorable Court so wish, I would have to look for all the points. I have found only four or five in the German record. If necessary, I would give all the points in the English record. It was submitted on 26 November 1945, afternoon session (Volume II, Page 286).
THE PRESIDENT: I do not think you need bother to do that. You are now only upon the question of whether the document should be stricken from the record. If it were to be stricken from the record, we could find out where it is. Is that all you wish to say?
DR. SIEMERS: One question to Admiral Raeder.
The words which I just read, "brutal measures, elimination of vital forces"-were these words used in Hitler's speech at that time?
RAEDER: In my opinion, no. I believe that the version submitted by Admiral Boehm, which he wrote down on the afternoon of the same day on the basis of his notes, is the version nearest to the truth.
That of course is only part of it, there is an annex where Boehm, who wrote the actual meeting notes, which were actually available at the trial, points out the key differences between the unknown, unmarked documents line by line. If you really want I can look for that and post the link here with the page numbers.
On the Hossbach memo is "as evidence to be used against Hitler later." backed by any evidence or simply an assumption on your part? Checking on-line there Hitler himself distained minutes and other records but it makes sense that other members of the meeting, especially if they disagreed with Hitler's plans would make copies if only to try and cover their own backs.
Fair question. You have to put two and two together, but the pieces are all out there:
en.wikipedia.org
In the mid-1930s, Beck started to create his own intelligence network of German military attachés, which he used both to collect and to leak information.[14] Besides military attachés, Beck also recruited civilians for his private intelligence network, the most notable volunteer being
Carl Goerdeler.
[14]
....
Beck resented
Adolf Hitler for his efforts to curb the army's position of influence.
[17]
....
Together with the
Abwehr chief, Admiral
Wilhelm Canaris, and the German Foreign Office's State Secretary, Baron
Ernst von Weizsäcker, Beck was a leader of the "antiwar" group in the German government, which was determined to avoid a war in 1938 that it felt Germany would lose. The group was not necessarily committed to the overthrow of the regime but was loosely allied to another, more radical group, the "anti-Nazi" fraction centred on Colonel
Hans Oster and
Hans Bernd Gisevius, which wanted to use the crisis as an excuse for executing a
putsch to overthrow the Nazi regime.
[33] The divergent aims between both factions produced considerable tensions.
[34]
en.wikipedia.org
Canaris and his associates were not necessarily committed to the overthrow of Hitler's regime, but they were loosely allied to another more radical group: the
"anti-Nazi" faction, led by Colonel Hans Oster and Hans Bernd Gisevius, which wanted to use the crisis as an excuse for executing a putsch to overthrow the Nazi regime.[50] The most audacious plan contemplated by Canaris, in collaboration with Ewald von Kleist-Schmenzin, was to capture and to unseat Hitler and the entire Nazi Party before the invasion of Czechoslovakia. At that particular moment, Kleist visited Britain secretly and discussed the situation with British MI6 and some high-ranking politicians.[51] There, the name of Canaris became widely known as Kleist's executive hand in the event of an anti-Nazi plot.
From this paper:
Jonathan Wright and Paul Stafford*
Hitler, Britain and the Hoßbach Memorandum
It is natural to assume that Hoßbach also wanted a record to show General Beck, who was not present at the meeting. Given Hoßbach's closeness to Beck, he would have been conversant with Beck's critical attitudes and, in particular,
Beck's anxiety that German military action in Central Europe would set off a general
war, which Germany was bound to lose. On these grounds Beck had already, in May
1937, criticized a contingency plan for military intervention in Austria in the event of
an attempt to restore the Habsburg dynasty. Beck was bound to be acutely interested in
the ideas Hitler expressed on 5 November for German expansion and in particular for
military action against Austria and Czechoslovakia. Hoßbach's record of the statement
did indeed have a profound effect on Beck: he described it as »niederschmetternd« and
drew up a detailed critique of Hitler's arguments, dated 12 November3 6.
There is a related question about Hoßbach's treatment of the incident in his memoirs
of his period as Adjutant to Hitler. The purpose of the memoirs, as Hoßbach explains,
is to provide evidence for the degree of responsibility which should attach to the military leadership for the disastrous course of German policy to 1945. In effect, the purpose is to exonerate Fritsch and, in particular, Beck from blame.
That of course was Hossbach's post-war rationale.
Through Beck Hossbach was in league with the German Resistance ring around Canaris and Oster, which plotted an overthrow of Hitler and were gathering evidence and even leaking some to the foreign press:
en.wikipedia.org
In August 1939,
Louis P. Lochner contacted the American diplomat
Alexander Comstock Kirk and showed him the text, but Kirk was not interested.
[2] Lochner next contacted the British diplomat
George Ogilvie-Forbes, who indeed transmitted it back to London on 24 August 1939.
[3] The Canadian historian Michael Marrus wrote that Lochner almost certainly obtained the text from Admiral Wilhelm Canaris, the chief of the Abwehr (German intelligence), who was present at the Obersalzberg Conference.[4]
The high-ranking German military leaders believed that if Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia or any other country, Britain would declare war on Germany.
[52] MI6 was of the same opinion. The British declaration of war would have given the General Staff, it thought, both the pretext and the support for an overthrow of Hitler, which many of them were planning because of the prevailing "anti-war sentiment of the German people".
[53]
So the leaks and collection of info were to try and get the British to go to war so they could stage a coup and then provide evidence to justify their actions to the German people so they could avoid being counter-couped.
Do you have any information on Ciano's claims?
As I mentioned the translator Dollman's memoirs:
He has a section in the book that talks about it. I can copy-paste the particulars if you'd like. This post is already getting quite long with the quotes though, so I won't do it now.
I know that Britain has a mission at the embassy in Washington to counter Germany propaganda and get across the British message. That was pretty much standard practice.
Not just there, the main work was done out of New York to influence the media covertly (though we found out later with massive American pro-war faction support) and involved the use of prostitutes to influence isolationist government officials:
en.wikipedia.org
Its purpose was to investigate enemy activities, prevent sabotage against British interests in the Americas, and mobilise pro-British opinion in the Americas. As a 'huge secret agency of nationwide news manipulation and black propaganda', the BSC influenced news coverage in the
Herald Tribune, the
New York Post,
The Baltimore Sun, and
Radio New York Worldwide.
[1] The stories disseminated from the organisation's offices at
Rockefeller Center would then be legitimately picked up by other radio stations and newspapers, before being relayed to the American public.
[1] Through this,
anti-German stories were placed in major American media outlets to help turn public opinion.
[2]
Its cover was the British Passport Control Office. BSC benefitted from support given by the chief of the US
Office of Strategic Services,
William J. Donovan (whose organisation was modelled on British activities), and US President
Franklin D. Roosevelt who was staunchly anti-Nazi.
[3]
en.wikipedia.org
She was one of his sex-pionage agents; in the biographies about her they talk about how she 'worked' isolationist senators on Stephenson's orders.
Let's see what it actually says:
On 13 March 1941, in the lead-up to
Operation Barbarossa, the planned invasion of the Soviet Union, Hitler dictated his "Guidelines in Special Spheres re: Directive No. 21 (Operation Barbarossa)". Sub-paragraph B specified that
Reichsführer-SS Heinrich Himmler would be given
"special tasks" on direct orders from the Führer, which he would carry out independently.
[32][33] This directive was intended to prevent friction between the
Wehrmacht and the SS in the upcoming offensive.
[32] Hitler also specified that criminal acts against civilians perpetrated by members of the Wehrmacht during the upcoming campaign would not be prosecuted in the military courts, and thus would go unpunished.[34]
[/QUOTE]
Ok? He laid out a division of responsibilities without name to prevent friction between the SS and Army.
He separately noted that the coming war would be fought with the utmost savagery by the enemy, so normal rules would not be enforced since it would be necessary to fight partisans, which the Soviets had used effectively in the Russian and Spanish Civil Wars. It wasn't like the Soviets didn't already have a rather nasty reputation before the invasion after all, including poor treatment of prisoners.
In a speech to his leading generals on 30 March 1941, Hitler described his envisioned war against the Soviet Union. General
Franz Halder, the Army's Chief of Staff, described the speech:
Though General Halder did not record any mention of Jews, German historian
Andreas Hillgruber argued that because of Hitler's frequent contemporary statements about the coming
war of annihilation against "Judeo-Bolshevism", his generals would have understood Hitler's call for the destruction of the Soviet Union as also comprising a call for the destruction of its Jewish population.[35] The genocide was often described
using euphemisms such as "special tasks" and "executive measures";
Einsatzgruppe victims were often described as having been shot while trying to escape.
[36] In May 1941, Heydrich verbally passed on the order to murder the Soviet Jews to the SiPo NCO School in Pretzsch, where the commanders of the reorganised Einsatzgruppen were being trained for Operation Barbarossa.[37] In spring 1941, Heydrich and the First Quartermaster of the
Wehrmacht Heer, General
Eduard Wagner, successfully completed negotiations for co-operation between the
Einsatzgruppen and the German Army to
allow the implementation of the "special tasks".[38] Following the Heydrich-Wagner agreement on 28 April 1941, Field Marshal
Walther von Brauchitsch ordered that when Operation Barbarossa began,
all German Army commanders were to immediately identify and register all Jews in occupied areas in the Soviet Union, and fully co-operate with the Einsatzgruppen.[39]
In further meetings held in June 1941 Himmler outlined to top SS leaders the regime's intention to reduce the population of the Soviet Union by 30 million people, not only through direct murder of those considered
racially inferior, but by depriving the remainder of food and other necessities of life.
[40]
I have highlighted the details referring to murders of Jews. Other bits make clear the intent to murder millions of other people, both directly and by deliberate starvation. You yourself admit that large numbers were murdered but quote excuses about partisan activity and the like. Given the the bulk of those murdered were elderly, women and children that excuse is very thin. Especially since you yourself have claimed that partisan activity was minimal - Belarus aside - until the Red Army advanced forward in the last year or so of the war.[/QUOTE]
Hillgruber is making far too great a leap of logic, given that 'Judeo-Bolshevism' was understood to be a specific ideology, NOT Jewish people in general. One could make a fair argument that that applied to the shooting of Commissars and Communist government officials however.
For the comment about Heydrich's verbal order at that single NCO school, not a published order (why not a published order given that they published several orders starting in July about killing Jews?), we should see what the particular source claims was said and how we know about said verbal order. Also why would the commanders of the Einsatzgruppen, officers all with PhDs, be trained at an NCO school? That doesn't make sense without a lot of context.
From looking up the article the only source of the supposed comments by Heydrich at the NCO school was Ohelndorf's deposition, which Reginal Pagent, a Labour Party member of parliament and lawyer who defended Manstein in his 1949 trial, pointed out was highly inconsistent, with a changing story every time he was either disposed or put on the witness stand, who was trying to save his skin by saying whatever his interrogators wanted or thought would absolve him of responsibility for the crimes he oversaw (not that it saved him in the end, he hanged in 1951 for his crimes). I've order Pagent's book about the trial and am waiting for it to get the details of the problems with his testimony.
As to the Wagner bit, that was to iron out jurisdiction behind the lines rather than Wagner being told about what the special tasks might consist of. Turns out the majority of it, judging by the Einsatzgruppen reports, was actually more administrative and restoring administration for governance than anything else initially until the partisan war became so intense that they were focused mainly on fighting spies and guerrillas.
Without the context of the registration order it is hard to say for sure what the specific rationale for that was, as they also did the same in Poland and Czechoslovakia, as well as Austria, without resorting to mass murder. Well until 1942 for Polish Jews and later for the Czech ones, but the order for that came in 1942 at the Wannsee Conference and was directly related to the food situation...which brings us to the last point.
The Baeke memo/"Hunger Plan" on the food situation. The original memo doesn't say 30 million people, it says potentially umpteen (literally rendered as "X") millions would die if they seized the entire grain necessary to feed the German army, and if they don't then the war would be lost due to the famine in Europe since 1940. Given the general famine conditions in Europe since 1940 thanks to the poor harvest of that year and the blockade that cut off the ability to import planners in Germany were getting desperate...desperate enough to invade the USSR to seize the food and potentially let millions die. In reality despite the Soviets destroying or taking the majority of food stocks in 1941 as part of the Scorched Earth campaign, plus of course agricultural tools, which basically eliminated any significant stocks of food that could be seized, 'only' about 6-9 million starved to death of which 3 million were PoWs. There was no food to feed them. Per "Stalin's War" the Germans repeatedly tried to deal with the Soviets to treat PoWs under the Geneva convention and get help feeding Soviet PoWs, but was repeatedly ignored. The Soviets viewed PoWs as traitors and treated them thusly, including sending the survivors of the horrible 1941 winter to gulags after the war as traitors.
No in Poland the main target were the Polish middle classes and interlectuals to try and deny the Poles any likely leaders for resistance. This occur from the start of the conquest. The alleged murder of ~5,000 German even if it had occurred would have been no excuse for the murder of tens of thousands of other people.
It wasn't alleged, it was based on secret internal investigations. The Nazis inflated that to 50,000 for propaganda and justification for their own murders. During the invasion the Polish fought hard and did conduct a guerrilla war, so it isn't shocking that the killings began when encountering behind the lines combatants. BTW the US army manual from 1940 also says shooting of hostages in retaliation for guerrilla war is consistent with the rules of war:
en.wikipedia.org
Regarding hostage taking, the tribunal came to the conclusion that under certain circumstances, hostage taking and even reprisal killings might constitute a lawful course of action against guerilla attacks. In the tribunal's opinion, taking hostages (and killing them in retaliation for guerilla attacks) could be legitimate subject to several conditions.
[2] The tribunal also remarked that both the
British Manual of Military Law and the U.S.
Basic Field Manual (Rules of Land Warfare) permitted the taking of reprisals against a civilian population. (The British manual did not mention killing, but the US manual included killing as a possible reprisal.
[3])
Revenge murders though were a crime, especially given the lack of trials for any killing the Poles did.
Also it seems odd that you think it wrong for a people occupied by a murderous dictatorship intent on enslaving them should even consider resistance.
I think it is a bad idea to give an occupying force reasons to kill even more people, as ultimately it is the innocent civilians who end up suffering the most as a result. As we can see with the Czech example the only killings there happened due to resistance activities. Where there was no resistance there were no killings in Czechoslovakia and could have happened in Poland, but it was the hotbed of resistance in Europe:
en.wikipedia.org
If the order was to shoot all males of fighting age why were others slaughtered? Also again their alleging partisan resistance excused mass murder but your repeatedly said there was little such partisan activity.
The shootings at that point were confined to anyone engaged in resistance activities, so if women and in some cases children, note they mention a 12 year old who supposedly started deadly fires at the behest of his parents, were involved they were shot. When the July 8th order came in they said shoot men of fighting age, but treat the rest as partisans, which given the body counts in the reports meant they were arrested, but not shot.
Orders that came after that about murdering all Jews is not mentioned, which I assume means it wasn't ordered but decided on locally (see below), but Pogroms by Baltic militia, Ukrainians, and Polish groups killed tens of thousands as soon as the Germans arrived, largely in areas where the NKVD prison massacres happened. I haven't seen a timeline for what the Einsatzgruppen started massacring all men, women, and children. The first major shooting I've seen referenced was July 30th, with the single biggest shooting in September at Baba Yar after the Kiev bombings, which were blamed on the Jews, but really was the work of NKVD sabotage groups when the city fell:
en.wikipedia.org
Axis forces, mainly German, occupied Kyiv on 19 September 1941. Between 20 and 28 September, explosives planted by the
Soviet secret police caused extensive damage in the city; and on 24 September an explosion rocked Rear Headquarters Army Group South.
[16] Two days later, on 26 September, Maj. Gen.
Kurt Eberhard, the military governor, and SS-
Obergruppenführer Friedrich Jeckeln, the
SS and Police Leader, met at Rear Headquarters Army Group South. There, they made the decision to exterminate the Jews of Kyiv, claiming that it was in retaliation for the explosions.
[17] Also present were SS-
Standartenführer Paul Blobel, commander of
Sonderkommando 4a of Einsatzgruppe C, and his superior, SS-
Brigadeführer Dr.
Otto Rasch, commander of
Einsatzgruppe C. The mass-killing was to be carried out by units under the command of Rasch and Blobel, who were ultimately responsible for a number of atrocities in Soviet Ukraine during the summer and autumn of 1941.
Seems the decision was a local one however, so absent any claims about a specific order to target entire communities (in writing, not affidavits at the Nuremberg trial, which had all sort of problems with accuracy and even some prosecutors involved said it shouldn't be the basis of historical studies), I'm not sure one was specifically issued; rather the commanders of these groups acted on their own, which fits with the 'bottoms up' argument to the Holocaust:
en.wikipedia.org
In Götz Aly's book '
Final Solution': Nazi Population Policy and the Murder of the European Jews, Aly points to a very specific proposal by
Rolf-Heinz Höppner, who at the time was simply an
SS-Obersturmbannführer (or an SS Officer).
[2] This letter written by Höppner was sent to
Adolf Eichmann about a viable solution to solve the
Jewish question. In a portion of the letter he wrote:
There is a danger that, in the coming winter, it will become impossible to feed all the Jews. It must seriously be considered whether the most humane solution is to finish off the Jews unfit for labour through some fast-acting means. This would definitely be more pleasant than letting them starve to death.
[3]
The letter, which was sent on July 16, 1941,
[4] is one that functionalists arguing the bottom-up approach utilize as evidence. Aly goes deeper and explains that the letter had not only been written by Höppner, but it had also been discussed at a lower level.
[5] Götz Aly writes, "Thus it was the lowest ranks of the resettlement apparatus that thought up 'things' which, it was said, 'sometimes [sounded] fantastic'."
[6]
Aly is not the only one that argues that the lower ranks were responsible for bringing about The Final Solution—though he is the most recognized.
Dan Stone, author of the book
Histories of the Holocaust, asserts that "The perpetrators on the ground were not automatons who simply followed instructions from Berlin; they were much worse—active agents who drove the murder process forward at every stage."
[7] However, he is less extreme than Götz Aly since he gives the leadership credit for making the process a reality. Stone cites the work of the
Einsatzgruppen in the months leading up to the decision to exterminate the Jews.
[8] As
Timothy D. Snyder, author of the somewhat controversial book
Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin, describes the situation, Einsatzgruppen were being used as a way to tally up mass shootings of Jews to report back to
Reichsführer-SS Heinrich Himmler as a method to continue rising in ranks.
[9]
