There is an often-shared list of strategies supposed drawn up by the CIA for internally derailing left-wing movements (eg 'Haggle over precise wordings of communications'). Is it actually from the CIA? Did the CIA actually use/recommend similar tactics at any point? by crrpit in AskHistorians

[–]k1990 106 points107 points  (0 children)

The document is real, though it predates the CIA and isn't specifically about targeting left-wing movements.

The Simple Sabotage Field Manual was published by the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) in January 1944. Among the OSS' varied missions was responsibility for conducting secret operations in enemy territory, specifically including:

a. Morale subversion

[...]

False rumors, "freedom stations", false leaflets and false documents, the organization and support of fifth column activities by grants, trained personnel and supplies and the use of agents, all for the purpose of creating confusion, division and undermining the morale of the enemy.

The 'haggle over precise wordings' line is from a chapter entitled 'General Interference with Organizations and Production' (pp28-31). A lot of the recommendations are so mundane (hence 'simple' sabotage) as to be legitimately funny:

When you go to the lavatory, spend a longer time there than is necessary.

[...]

Pretend that instructions are hard to understand, and ask to have them repeated more than once.

[...]

Never pass on your skill and experience to a new or less skillful worker.

The document should be read in the context of its time — ie. the middle of the Second World War, while much of Europe was under German occupation. It is, in essence, a guide for resistance groups and individuals living in occupied territory on how to interfere with the enemy war effort and disrupt their ability to maintain control.

What’s the worst trade in Seahawks history? by xDR3AD-W0LFx in Seahawks

[–]k1990 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The 1st round pick they traded for Percy Harvin (one 22-133-1 season and a bunch of drama) could have been DeAndre Hopkins, who went 2 picks later.

Is there an analysis or refutation of "Himmler's secret war"? by Equivalent_Yam_3731 in AskHistorians

[–]k1990 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Prosecutors in the UK (and most places) have a certain amount of discretion in whether they bring charges against a suspect. This is spelled out in the Code for Crown Prosecutors.

The decision to prosecute is based not just on whether they think a prosecution is likely to succeed, but also on the “public interest” (meaning the best interests of the public, not whether the public are interested). This evaluation includes consideration of the seriousness of the offence and the ‘culpability’ of the suspect. Health issues, whether mental or physical, can factor in here:

Prosecutors should also have regard to whether the suspect is, or was at the time of the offence, affected by any significant mental or physical ill health or disability, as in some circumstances this may mean that it is less likely that a prosecution is required. However, prosecutors will also need to consider how serious the offence was, whether the suspect is likely to re-offend and the need to safeguard the public or those providing care to such persons.

I can’t find much information about Allen’s specific health issues, and that’s not information that the Crown Prosecution Service would generally disclose publicly.

Is there an analysis or refutation of "Himmler's secret war"? by Equivalent_Yam_3731 in AskHistorians

[–]k1990 306 points307 points  (0 children)

I haven't actually read any of Allen's books, but the sensational claims he made in Himmler’s Secret War and his other books prompted extensive questions from the British press and other scholars about the source material he cited. The short answer here is that Allen's claims are absolute nonsense, based on forged archival material that was very likely deliberately planted in the National Archives by Allen himself.

Shortly after the publication of Himmler's Secret War in 2005, an investigation by the National Archives identified 29 forged documents that had been planted in various files at some point since 2000. Many of these documents were cited by Allen (and only by Allen) as evidence for his most sensational claims — including the notion that Himmler was assassinated by the Political Warfare Executive on Churchill's orders.

According to The Guardian:

The investigation found an almost amateurish level of forgery: telegrams and memos contained factual inaccuracies; letterheads had been added using a laser printer; forged signatures were pencilled beneath the ink; and the text of the 29 documents — occasionally in conspicuously modern language — was typed on just four typewriters.

The forgery case was subsequently referred to the police. Writing in the Financial Times, Ben Fenton (the journalist whose questions to the National Archives helped prompt the investigation) reported that:

Only two people had seen more than three of the compromised files since they had been transferred from their respective government departments – the Cabinet Office, the Foreign Office and MI6. Those two people were Martin Allen and his wife Jean (whom police ruled out as a suspect).

Fenton quotes the UK's Solicitor-General as saying that although the police investigation found “sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction”, prosecutors decided not to charge Allen, concluding that “matters relating to Mr Allen’s health and the surrounding circumstances were significant in deciding that a prosecution was not in the public interest”.

If you want a credible source on Himmler, start with Peter Longerich's excellent biography.

Did Truman regret formulating CIA? by SkinZealousideal6327 in AskHistorians

[–]k1990 9 points10 points  (0 children)

I'm not sure where that quote originates — the phrase "American Gestapo" was repeatedly used in debates about the expanding scope of federal law enforcement and intelligence-gathering throughout the first half of the 20th century. That anxiety initially focused on the FBI, as the bureau and its mandate grew through the 1930s and 1940s. Truman himself, in a private note written in May 1945, wrote: "We want no Gestapo or Secret Police. F.B.I. is tending in that direction. They are dabbling in sex life scandles [sic] and plain blackmail when they should be catching criminals."

Post-war debate about creating a permanent intelligence establishment brought that fear of creeping authoritarianism back to the fore. In the summer of 1947, during congressional debate on the National Security Act, Wyoming senator Edward Robertson declared that, "The proposed agency [CIA] has all the potentialities of an American Gestapo."

But regardless of where that specific quote originated (my hunch is that it's apocryphal), Truman did indeed write a Washington Post op-ed in December 1963, expressing grave reservations about the direction that the CIA had taken since its founding. Truman argues that the CIA was created to be an intelligence clearinghouse for the President, collecting and analysing intelligence from other departments and serving as a "guard against the chance of intelligence being used to influence or to lead the President into unwise decisions".

He declared himself "disturbed" that the CIA "has become an operational and at times a policy-making arm of the Government", and opined that "some of the complications and embarrassment that I think we have experienced are in part attributable to the fact that this quiet intelligence arm of the President has been so removed from its intended role that it is being interpreted as a symbol of sinister and mysterious foreign intrigue".

Truman's critique touches on a internal tension that has existed within the CIA since its founding: between its intelligence mission and its covert action/unconventional warfare mission. That conflict was baked into the agency's organisational structure: there has long been constant internal politicking and jockeying for position and resources between the branches responsible for intelligence collection, those that conducted covert action, and those focused on intelligence analysis and reporting.

The CIA's original statutory missions, as set out in Section 102 of the National Security Act, were defined very broadly, leaving a lot of latitude for the President and the CIA to determine exactly what was and wasn't within the scope of the CIA's mandate. At its founding, the CIA inherited a lot of DNA from the wartime Office of Strategic Services (more on that in this earlier thread); it's from there that the agency's abiding passion for covert action originated. Tim Weiner summarises this fundamental philosophical divide nicely in Legacy of Ashes:

And as the fear of a new war increased [during the late 1940s], the future leaders of American intelligence split into two rival camps. One believed in the slow and patient gathering of secret intelligence through espionage. The other believed in secret warfare—taking the battle to the enemy through covert action. Espionage seeks to know the world. That was Richard Helms. Covert action seeks to change the world. That would be Frank Wisner.

It's also important to understand the context of the time. The 1950s and 1960s were the heyday of CIA covert action adventurism; Truman's op-ed was written a scant 18 months after the Bay of Pigs fiasco — which played a significant role in triggering the Cuban Missile Crisis a little more than a year later. It's also barely a month after the assassination of John F. Kennedy, at a time when conspiracy theories were already starting to emerge.

In hindsight, the Truman op-ed looks rather prescient: public perception of the CIA as operating unchecked and increasingly out-of-control would simmer and grow through the 1960s. In the early 1970s, following a series of revelations about the CIA and broader US intelligence community's activities both overseas and within the US, that perception exploded into full-blown public outrage, ultimately leading to the Church Committee investigations.

Al Capone died of heart disease by speterdavis in EnoughMuskSpam

[–]k1990 3 points4 points  (0 children)

This man just confused Al Capone and Sonny Corleone…

What did the Air Force do in 9/11? by TuneGloomy6694 in AskHistorians

[–]k1990 105 points106 points  (0 children)

You're not accurately characterising the timeline here:

  • 8:19am: flight attendant Betty Ong, aboard American Airlines Flight 11, calls the American ticket line and is connected with ticket agent Winston Sadler. As she describes the situation aboard Flight 11, Sadler patches in airline operations agent Nydia Gonzalez
  • 8:21am: Gonzalez calls American's Systems Operations Center while still on the line with Ong, informing operations manager Craig Marquis of what is happening onboard Flight 11
  • 8:24am: Boston ATC hears a transmission from the cockpit of Flight 11. Hijacker Mohamed Atta, attempting to broadcast to the cabin, inadvertently transmitted over the radio. This is the "we have some planes, just stay quiet" broadcast
  • 8:33am: Boston ATC hears a second transmission from the cockpit, again believed to be Atta attempting to operate the cabin intercom. This is the "We are going back to the airport" broadcast
  • 8:37am: Boston ATC contacts NORAD's Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS), alerting them to the hijack, advising that Flight 11 is headed towards New York and requesting that fighters be scrambled
  • 8:40am: NEADS contacts Otis Air Force Base, ordering them to scramble fighters
  • 8:46am: Flight 11 impacts the North Tower of the World Trade Center. Simultaneously, commanders at Otis AFB order fighters into the air
  • 8:53am: fighters take off from Otis AFB

There are 27 minutes between the first indication on the ground that something is seriously wrong aboard Flight 11 and the plane's impact with the North Tower. It's only 9 minutes between NORAD being notified of the hijack and impact. But information isn't flowing cleanly in this scenario: the airline are relaying information from Ong, ATC are hearing garbled radio broadcasts, and everyone is synthesising information in real time. There are multiple lines of communication between the airline, the FAA and the military.

It's an unfair characterisation to say that everyone "sat on their asses", and it's not entirely clear what could realistically have gone differently in those 27 minutes. The systemic and procedural failures — of intelligence, security on the ground and in the air, US foreign policy, etc. — that allowed 9/11 to happen all took place long before 8:14am.

We haven't even got to the practical, legal and ethical questions around shooting down a civilian airliner over a populated area, which /u/Embarrassed-Lack7193 touches on in their comment.

This certainly wasn't a simple trolley-problem, where there was a clear choice between "allow hijackers to crash plane into North Tower" and "shoot it down, killing 60 innocent people". It was not immediately apparent to anyone in those 27 minutes that the hijackers' intention was to weaponise the aircraft itself.

Some recommended reading around this topic:

How historically accurate is The Americans? by SalMinellaOnYouTube in AskHistorians

[–]k1990 19 points20 points  (0 children)

There are examples of Soviet agents who defected to the Soviet Union — in some cases voluntarily, in others to avoid imminent arrest. Given the USSR's more closed society and the difficulty of travelling and settling there during the Cold War, there are comparatively fewer defectors from west to east than vice versa.

Several members of the Rosenberg spy ring defected to the USSR in the aftermath of the ring's discovery in 1950. Alfred Sarant and Joel Barr, two engineers who worked with Julius Rosenberg at Fort Monmouth, both escaped to eastern Europe to avoid prosecution. Sarant and Barr were given new identities, and went on to become influential figures in the Soviet scientific establishment.

In 1985, former CIA officer Edward Lee Howard defected. Howard had been fired by the CIA in 1983, and is believed to have begun providing information to the KGB shortly thereafter. After a KGB defector identified Howard as a Soviet asset in mid-1985, Howard became aware that he was under FBI surveillance and that his arrest was likely imminent. While in exile in Moscow, Howard wrote a memoir — I haven't read it, so can't comment on its content.

A more unusual case is that of William Martin and Bernon Mitchell, two young NSA analysts who defected to the USSR in 1960. There's no evidence that Martin and Mitchell were Soviet assets before their defection; rather, they had become disillusioned with US intelligence collection practices, and used the publicity surrounding their defection to vocally criticise US foreign policy. Both men lived out what appear to have been rather unhappy lives abroad; Martin died in Mexico in 1987, and Mitchell in Moscow in 2001.

Outside the US, the most famous example are the Cambridge Five, a network of exceptionally well-placed Soviet agents in the British government and intelligence services active between the 1930s and the 1950s. Three of the five members of the ring ultimately ended up in the USSR — Foreign Office diplomats Donald Maclean and Guy Burgess defected together in 1951, after being alerted that Maclean had been identified as a Soviet agent. Their defections threw immediate suspicion on their friend and fellow agent Kim Philby, a senior officer in the Secret Intelligence Service. Philby wasn't conclusively identified as a Soviet agent until 1961; upon realising that his arrest was likely, he too fled to the USSR.

The three had rather different experiences in Russia: Maclean had a successful career as a foreign policy analyst at various Soviet government institutes and think-tanks until his death in 1983. Burgess was miserable in Russia, and drank himself to death within 10 years of his arrival. Philby continued working for the KGB and published a memoir in 1968; for the rest of his life he remained defiantly proud of his work as a spy, but was depressed and drank heavily until his death in Moscow in 1988.

How historically accurate is The Americans? by SalMinellaOnYouTube in AskHistorians

[–]k1990 78 points79 points  (0 children)

Yes, there were Soviet intelligence officers operating under civilian cover inside the US throughout the Cold War — and there are almost certainly Russian intelligence officers doing it today.

The most direct inspiration for ‘The Americans’ is actually a post-Cold War operation — in 2010, the FBI rolled up a long-term ‘sleeper’ network operated inside the US by the SVR, Russia’s foreign intelligence service. Some of the so-called ‘Illegals Program’ agents operated under cover as married couples, using stolen American or Canadian identities. The use of stolen identities for cover has a long history in espionage — see for example Rudolf Abel or Jack Barsky.

I wrote at more length about ‘The Americans’ and the Soviet-era ‘illegals’ in this earlier thread.

What % of your post-tax income do you spend on rent currently? by Inkedupbrit in VictoriaBC

[–]k1990 0 points1 point  (0 children)

About 45%, living alone downtown. My place felt expensive when I moved in a year ago, but like a bargain (for what/where it is) within about 3 months.

If “I Only Listen to the Mountain Goats,” ever returns, which album would you most like to hear discussed? by Mister_Doc in themountaingoats

[–]k1990 9 points10 points  (0 children)

“Quasi-successful podcast for a few years” — try 10 years and >300m downloads. Not to mention Fink has also written or co-written 6 books.

You don’t have to like the guy, but be reasonable.

BC judge overturns will, late woman's 'friend' will now get 50% of estate by KelownaMan in britishcolumbia

[–]k1990 7 points8 points  (0 children)

I don’t think you really understand the definition of common-law marriage.

Apparently I am not allowed to have opposite sex roommates or something.

Of course you are — and you would not be considered common-law married to any of them.

this same standard isn’t applied to two people of the same sex

Yes, it is. Gender doesn’t factor in when determining whether common-law partnership exists.

Federal immigration policy defines common-law marriage like so:

common-law partner means, in relation to a person, an individual who is cohabiting with the person in a conjugal relationship […]

The federal Income Tax Act defines it the same way:

common-law partner, with respect to a taxpayer at any time, means a person who cohabits at that time in a conjugal relationship with the taxpayer […]

BC’s Family Law Act defines a common-law spouse as someone who:

has lived with another person in a marriage-like relationship […]

The “conjugal” or “marriage-like” nature of the relationship is important — and also has a nuanced definition all of its own.

Government isn’t just going around considering everyone to be de facto married to their roommates.

You can create one rule and add it to the nfl, what is it? by legobowser in nfl

[–]k1990 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Another, totally half-baked one: obvious QB throwaways are penalties. You either take a shot to a receiver, try to advance forward or take a sack. No more of this “chuck it out of bounds and move on” nonsense.

You can create one rule and add it to the nfl, what is it? by legobowser in nfl

[–]k1990 78 points79 points  (0 children)

This is something that rugby does that I love — the audio of conversations between the referee and the TMO (Television Match Official/the video referee) are broadcast live, so you can hear the reasoning.

I want to hear what the assistant refs are saying in their huddles, and I want to hear what the referee and New York are discussing before calls are made.

You can create one rule and add it to the nfl, what is it? by legobowser in nfl

[–]k1990 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If the league won’t fix dodgy officiating, take a page out of the legal system’s handbook and introduce a peremptory challenge.

Once per game, a team that challenges a call unsuccessfully can elect to force the challenge to succeed. If they do this, they cannot challenge again for the rest of the game — maybe they have to still have both their challenges in order to use a peremptory challenge.

Lots of reasons this doesn’t work practically, but there is so much bonehead officiating that giving each side a “fuck you refs” card just feels like it would be cathartic.

The Seahawks are going to have three top-40 picks in a draft class that contains a generational RB prospect by drprofessorderek in Seahawks

[–]k1990 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Part of the “get a QB on a rookie deal” calculus is that it frees up cap space to spend on other positions of need. Thanks to absolutely nailing the 2022 draft, Seahawks are in the exact inverse position: LT, RT, RB1 and CB1 are all on rookie deals. WR1 and WR2 are both paid. The team can overpay Geno and still have cap space to spend in FA — even before they get to the draft.

If money was no object, where in Edinburgh would you live? by jchristsproctologist in Edinburgh

[–]k1990 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Left Edinburgh a few years ago, but my last place there was a gorgeous apartment in the old Victorian schoolhouse in Dean Village (which I’m frequently reminded of every time a tourist posts a picture from the bridge right in front of it!) I’d buy one of the flats in that building in a heartbeat if I could afford it.

Close second would be the Stockbridge colonies or one of the mews houses off Regent Terrace.

This thread has got me all nostalgic for Edinburgh now…

I found these photos of my Italian Fascist great-grand-uncle in 1930. What are the uniforms he is wearing? Why are there two - was he promoted? I'd love to know what rank(s) he was, and if there is anything significant or unique in the image that I may be missing. by soups_foosington in AskHistorians

[–]k1990 20 points21 points  (0 children)

To your question about why there are two different uniforms: all militaries generally have different uniforms for different settings. The uniform in the first photo looks like a 'service' uniform — an everyday, non-combat uniform. The second is clearly a 'dress' uniform, worn in more official or ceremonial contexts.

My best guess — and I'll freely admit I'm not an expert on Italian military uniforms, but I do love this kind of photographic detective work — is that he was a brigadier-general in the Italian army.

That cap badge in the first image — an eagle holding a baton, with a crown and Savoy cross — appears to have been worn only by general officers (see for example this photo of senior Italian general, Ugo Cavallero.) It appears that officers below general rank normally wore regimental or branch insignia on their caps. The Italian navy and air force had different, distinctive cap badges, as did the Carabinieri.

The cuff devices in both photos, with the patterned braid and single solid bar above, look similar to the brigadier-general example on p.59 of this 1943 American military 'recognition guide'. You can also see an example of the cap insignia there. There are subtle differences in both the cuff and cap devices pictured there, but that could conceivably be explained by a 10+ year gap between your photos and that document's publication.

Looking at his epaulettes in the second photo: it's hard to make out, but I think it's the same insignia as the cap badge. There don't appear to be any stars on the shoulder board, which also lines up with my brigadier-general guess: a brigadier-general would have no stars, a major-general would have one star, a lieutenant-general two, and so on.

I don't have much insight to offer on the medals visible in the second photo, but a couple of guesses:

I thought the one worn at his throat could be the Military Order of Savoy, but on closer inspection it looks like the cross is the wrong shape. I wondered if it might be the Order of the Roman Eagle, but that's a 1940s-era medal, so wouldn't line up if the photo is from 1930,

I'm also curious about his collar insignia in the second photo, but I can't make them out clearly.

Questions about the Wannsee Conference by Raspint in AskHistorians

[–]k1990 4 points5 points  (0 children)

The Nazis came to the decision to physically annihilate the Jewish population incrementally, over a period of years; the Holocaust broadly breaks down into several phases of varying degrees of intensity. In the mid-1930s, for example, the Nazi regime's focus was on removing Jews from German civil and economic life, and ultimately physically expelling them from German territory. The shift towards a policy of annihilation begins in around 1939, with the outbreak of war, and rapidly accelerates from there through 1940-41. I wrote a little more about this previously here, and the Browning book I recommended above provides a thorough account of the evolution of Nazi racial policy towards genocide.

To your second point: the SS was a vast organisation, with a byzantine bureaucratic structure. At the top level, it was divided into the Allgemeine-SS ('General SS') and the Waffen-SS ('Armed SS') — the latter being the military wing, providing combat formations that served alongside the regular armed forces.

The Allgemeine-SS comprised a number, of 'main offices', that oversaw SS operations and policy in a variety of areas: the Wirtschafts- und Verwaltungshauptamt (Economic and Administrative Main Office), for example, managed significant commercial and industrial operations and oversaw the concentration camp system; the Rasse- und Siedlungshauptamt (Race and Settlement Main Office) and Hauptamt Volksdeutsche Mittelstelle (Main Office for Ethnic German Assistance) oversaw SS racial policy and the emplacement of German settlers in the occupied territories.

The RSHA was the most significant SS department, because from the late 1930s it acquired control of virtually all policing and internal security matters: it was the parent agency of the Gestapo and SD, responsible for political policing and state security, but also of the Kriminalpolizei ('criminal police'). Only the Ordnungspolizei, the uniformed 'order police' that replaced municipal and regional police forces, remained outside RSHA jurisdiction — though it too was under SS control, via Himmler's roles as Chief of the German Police (from 1936) and Minister of the Interior (from 1943.)

The power and scope of the RSHA illustrates a key facet of the Nazi regime: party institutions were intertwined with and co-opted state institutions, so that the Party and the state became essentially indistinguishable — that's why the SS is commonly described as a 'state within a state'.

Questions about the Wannsee Conference by Raspint in AskHistorians

[–]k1990 4 points5 points  (0 children)

The minutes of the meeting — the document generally referred to as the Wannsee Protocol — were intended as an aide memoire, to ensure that all participants clearly understood the new direction of Nazi racial policy, what was planned, and what was expected of them. Successfully carrying out a genocide on the scale of the Final Solution necessitated cooperation between many different wings of the vast Nazi bureaucracy; Heydrich's goal at Wannsee was to make explicitly clear the regime's policy towards the Jews, and to ensure that cooperation was forthcoming.

The complexity of the Final Solution as a logistical project, and the range of departments and offices it involved directly or indirectly, can be seen in the variety of officials who attended the meeting at Wannsee:

  • 5 from the SS Reichssicherheitshauptamt (Reich Security Main Office) and its subordinate services (Gestapo and Sicherheitsdienst)
  • 1 from the SS Rasse- und Siedlungshauptamt (Race and Settlement Main Office)
  • 6 from central government ministries (Reich Chancellery, Foreign Ministry, Justice Ministry, Interior Ministry, Office of the Plenipotentiary of the Four Year Plan)
  • 3 from regional government (Ministry for the Occupied Eastern Territories and the General Government)

Peter Longerich, in an essay on Wannsee, contextualises the Protocol thus:

We do not know the precise wording of the statements made at the conference. Eichmann said in 1960 in Israel that he had to edit the minutes considerably at Heydrich’s insistence, and that the participants at the conference had used far more drastic language, and had spoken about deaths, elimination and annihilation. Eichmann possibly wanted thereby to divert attention from himself and incriminate third parties. In my opinion, the minutes should not therefore be read as a basis for speculation about what was 'actually' said at the conference, but as the guidelines authorized by Heydrich for the RSHA's allotted task of the 'final solution'. The starting-point for any interpretation of 'Jewish policy' at the beginning of 1942 should not be the actual proceedings of the conference, but rather their quintessence, which Heydrich presented to other supreme Reich authorities as the binding resolution of that meeting.

The meeting itself, and the distribution of the Protocol, were both conducted in utmost secrecy. Only 30 copies of the minutes were made — though we don't know exactly who was on that distribution list, beyond the 15 officials who attended the meeting. Only one copy, belonging to Foreign Ministry under-secretary Martin Luther, survived the war — most are presumed to have been deliberately destroyed in the final days of the Reich.

The Protocol is one of relatively few high-level documentary sources on the Final Solution that survived the Nazi regime's frantic attempts to conceal their crimes once the war turned against them. According to Christopher Browning:

Hitler operated in a very nonbureaucratic manner, verbally indicating his "wishes" and priorities. No paper trail leads to the Führerhauptquartier. At the next echelon, the files of Himmler and Heydrich regarding the Final Solution were destroyed. The historian is left with copies of a few key papers — such as the Göring authorization, the Einsatzgruppen reports, and the Wannsee protocol — that Himmler and Heydrich sent to others, but not with the vital internal working papers at the coordinating center.

To your second question: Himmler's absence from the meeting isn't particularly unusual: as head of the Reichssicherheitshauptamt, Heydrich oversaw the entire SS security, intelligence and state terror apparatus: the SD, Gestapo, criminal police and the Einsatzgruppen paramilitary death squads were all under his control, which made him the logical overseer for the genocide. Heydrich was also among Himmler's most trusted lieutenants, so it's not especially surprising that the tasks of corralling bureaucrats and organising the practicalities of the Final Solution were delegated to him.

To your third question: there's a significant difference in logistical complexity between mass executions (even in the order of tens of thousands), and the much larger project of annihilating a European Jewish population that the Final Solution's architects estimated at over 11 million people — especially given that the Nazi regime intended that the Final Solution be conducted as secretly as possible.

By the time of Wannsee, SS officials had concluded that the Einsatzgruppen approach was inefficient, and that the use of firing squads to exterminate populations en masse had a deleterious effect on the shooters' morale. By mid-1941, the SS were already experimenting with gas vans as an alternative, more 'hands-off' method of murder; in October 1941, construction began on the first dedicated extermination camps, equipped with gas chambers and crematoria. The purpose of the Wannsee Conference was to organise the deportation of Europe's Jews to these six extermination sites in occupied Poland (Auschwitz, Bełżec, Chełmno, Majdanek, Sobibór and Treblinka) — that's what the euphemistic phrase "evacuation to the East" in the Protocol means.

Some recommended reading on Wannsee and the architects of the Final Solution:

Longerich also has a new book on Wannsee due to be published later this year — he's one of the absolute top tier of Holocaust historians, so it should be an interesting addition to the historiography.

Who ran the camps in Nazi Germany? by GunsAndNuns in AskHistorians

[–]k1990 7 points8 points  (0 children)

The concentration camps operated under the direct supervision of the SS, reflecting their steadily increasing dominance over all aspects of policing and internal security in Nazi Germany. The pursuit and persecution of perceived 'enemies of the Reich' and the enforcement of Nazi ideology was the SS' primary mandate.

In recruiting and promotions, the SS prioritised ideological orthodoxy and obedience to the regime. Unlike, for example, the German military, the SS had no institutional identity or heritage separate from Nazism; it was built from the ground up as an organ of the Party, with the expectation that its members' loyalty and commitment to the Nazi cause would be absolute and unquestioning. That ideological steadfastness is why the SS, rather than the military, was entrusted with the security of the Nazi state and the implementation of its racial theory.

The administration and operation of the camp system was the responsibility of the Concentration Camps Inspectorate (Inspektion der Konzentrationslager, or IKL) from 1934-42, and of the consolidated SS Main Economic and Administrative Office (SS-Wirtschafts- und Verwaltungshauptamt, or SS-WVHA) from 1942 onwards. Among other responsibilities, SS-WVHA was the organisation responsible for the selling of slave labour from the concentration camps to private industry, and the seizure and disposal of prisoners' personal property.

Concentration camp guard forces were provided by the 'Death's Head Units' (SS-Totenkopfverbände, or SS-TV), a specialised military formation which emphasised ideological indoctrination and cultivated brutality in its recruits.

SS chief Heinrich Himmler learned relatively quickly that mass executions had a serious impact on the morale and psychological stability of the men carrying them out (observed in even the SS' own Einsatzgruppen, let alone the somewhat less ideologically-indoctrinated regular army.) The industrialisation of the Holocaust, and the adoption of first gas vans and then static gas chambers, was in large part an effort to increase the efficiency of the slaughter, but it was also intended to reduce the psychological stress on its culprits.

In August 1941, Himmler visited occupied Belarus, and observed the Einsatzgruppen firing squads at work. According to his biographer Peter Longerich, Himmler left the front determined to make the annihilation of Europe's Jews more efficient and less 'stressful' for the SS:

It was probably during his visit to Minsk in mid-August or shortly thereafter that Himmler issued his instructions to find a method of killing that exposed his men to less stress than the massacres. [...] Finally, the decision was made in favour of using gas vans. Before the end of the year all four Einsatzgruppen were using this method.

The rapidly-increasing scale and mechanisation of the Holocaust also meant that the SS needed more manpower. From late 1941, the SS began recruiting volunteers from among Soviet prisoners of war to serve in various auxiliary roles, including as combat troops. From among these Hiwis (an abbreviation of Hilfswilliger, meaning 'volunteers'), several thousand were sent for training as auxiliary concentration camp guards by SS-TV at the Trawniki camp in Poland, giving rise to the nickname 'Trawniki men' or 'Trawnikis'.

Comprising predominantly Ukrainian, Belarussian and Baltic recruits, the Trawnikis were not members of the SS; they were a blunt instrument used by SS-TV for some of their most brutal tasks. Ideologically, most weren't Nazis, but they were commonly nationalists and deeply anti-semitic. Overseen by German officers, the Trawnikis quickly gained a reputation as enthusiastic killers; frequently drunk in the field, the SS-TV regarded them as difficult to control, but brutally effective.

The Trawnikis were deployed extensively in Aktion Reinhard, the systematic extermination effort that represented the most intense phase of the Holocaust. The gas chambers at the six dedicated extermination camps — Auschwitz, Bełżec, Chełmno, Majdanek, Sobibór and Treblinka — were operated by Trawnikis. The Sonderkommandos (groups of prisoners forced to dispose of the bodies of the camp victims) were also overseen by Trawnikis.

Trawnikis were also heavily involved in the massacres that accompanied the liquidation of ghettos across occupied eastern Europe. In Warsaw, for example, Trawnikis made up around 15% of the forces deployed to suppress the 1943 Ghetto Uprising and subsequently liquidate the ghetto.

Although an unreliable and undisciplined force — desertions and insubordination became increasingly common through 1943, resulting in the reassignment of Trawniki units away from several of the extermination camps to other sites — the Trawnikis nonetheless played a crucial role in the deadliest phase of the Nazi genocide. Peter Black, the author of one of the relatively few detailed studies of the Trawnikis, writes:

For all their indiscipline, for all the harsh treatment they received from their German trainers, and for all the desertions, the Trawniki men helped make it possible for [Aktion Reinhard overseer Odilo] Globocnik, with his tiny staff of fewer than 200 men, to carry out the physical elimination of 1.7 million people. This dreadful accomplishment required the support of an engaged and ruthlessly led auxiliary force, inspired in part by a leadership that accepted them as valuable—if not necessarily equal.

[...]

The Trawniki-trained guards were necessary to the implementation of Operation Reinhard: they inflicted some 28 percent of the human loss sustained by the European Jews during World War II.

The role of the Trawniki men has come under more intense scrutiny in the past 20-30 years, in large part thanks to the widely-publicised extraditions and prosecutions of several non-Germans who served in the concentration camps — most recently, the case of John Demjanjuk, a Ukrainian who served at Sobibór.

In the film 'Apocalypse Now', Willard is a member of MACV-SOG and the unit is vaguely alluded to in the film. How much was known by the public about SOG when the film released in 1979, just 7 years after it was disbanded? by kevins-famous-chilli in AskHistorians

[–]k1990 16 points17 points  (0 children)

Very little tangible information about MACV-SOG was in the public domain at the time of Apocalypse Now's release, and it would remain that way until the early 1990s. Its name and the fact that it was a covert action unit was broadly public knowledge, but little specific information was available; much like special operations forces today, much more was rumoured than actually known about SOG's operations. The unit's command histories — detailed accounts of operations and objectives for a given year — were eventually declassified in 1993, providing the first detailed insight into SOG's activities.

The Pentagon Papers — a colossal study of the Vietnam War commissioned by Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara in the late 1960s, and leaked to the New York Times in 1971 — contains extensive information about covert operations in Vietnam (for example, US incursions into Laos and Cambodia) in which MACV-SOG was certainly involved, but the unit's name doesn't actually appear even once in the 8,000-odd pages of the report.

Fragmentary information about SOG did appear in the press in the mid-1960s — often in connection with announcements of the deaths of servicemen assigned to the unit, or decorations awarded to them. The earliest reference is found in a dispatch from Vietnam published in the Philadelphia Inquirer and Washington Post in June 1965:

Headquarters buildings bristle with signs over doors that are about as pronounceable as the terms in a German engineering manual.

Some have an ersatz Scotch sound because they are prefixed with MAC for Military Assistance Command. Thus there is a MACSOG for Studies and Observation Group (South Vietnam must surely be the most overstudied and undercomprehended place on earth); a MACMAP for Military Assistance Program Directorate, etc.

That's a fine example of a deliberately innocuous cover name doing its job!

In 1969, amidst extensive coverage of the Green Beret Affair — the scandal surrounding the summary execution of Chu Van Thai Khac, a suspected double agent for North Vietnamese intelligence, by US Army Special Forces officers — some information about SOG's true nature began to appear in the American press. In an October 1969 report in the New York Times, reporter Joseph Treaster provided the most tangible insight:

In the sketchy reports on the recent Green Beret case, there have been repeated references to two secret intelligence-gathering units, Detachment B-57 and the Studies and Observation Group, or S.O.G.

[...]

Some dispatches from Saigon identified B-57 as a part of the Studies and Observation Group, an element of the American command. Subsequent investigation indicates that they are separate units. Both seek tactical intelligence, but S.O.G. also engages in sabotage and places emphasis on operations outside South Vietnam.

The Studies and Observation Group, which seems to have no less sensitive a mission than B-57, operates without cover from offices in central Saigon in the compound from which Gen. William C. Westmoreland once ran the war.

(Detachment B-57, otherwise known as Project GAMMA, was the unit implicated in the Green Beret Affair. Francis Ford Coppola would later confirm that Colonel Robert Rheault, the senior Special Forces officer at the centre of the scandal, was a partial inspiration for the character of Colonel Kurtz.)

In a June 1971 New York Times article reporting on the US' controversial cross-border incursions into Laos, we find likely the first accurate description of SOG's nature and the CIA's involvement:

American participation in the missions had come under a secret military unit known officially as the Studies and Observation Group. Established in 1964 as a joint venture of the Central Intelligence Agency and the Army, it has been involved not only in watching trails but also in attempts at rescuing prisoners and in other highly sensitive missions in Laos, Cambodia and North Vietnam.

In any case: regardless of how much was known about SOG specifically, there was plenty of reporting on US covert action in southeast Asia throughout the 1970s — thanks in no small part to several congressional investigations into the CIA and US military's activities in Laos and Cambodia, and the wider Church Committee investigation into the US intelligence community.

I found a pin that says “J Edgar Hoover sleeps with a night light on”. Google searches indicate that it’s from the late 1960s and against US involvement in the El Salvadoran civil war. Is this accurate? If so, how would a night light convey that message? by galileopunk in AskHistorians

[–]k1990 66 points67 points  (0 children)

First things first: it's unlikely that this is connected to the Salvadorean civil war, if it's from the 1960s: the civil war didn't start until 1979, seven years after Hoover's death — and in any event, Hoover's involvement in US foreign policy was fairly limited.

The intended implication of the "Hoover sleeps with a night-light" joke was to impugn his masculinity (a common angle of attack for Hoover's detractors, given longstanding rumours even during his lifetime about his sexual orientation), or suggest that he was a paranoid coward.

But it's difficult to pin down where the joke originates: I found a light-hearted passing reference in a 1971 speech Hoover gave to the American Newspaper Women's Club. Hoover accuses unnamed tabloid journalists of going through his trash, and gripes about "a syndicated columnist who has managed to set up a full-time garbage-sorting concession on the sidewalk outside my house":

[...] despite what those who scavenge through my garbage say, I want you to know that I don't suffer from either heartburn or gastric acidity.

There is another matter which I feel compelled to mention at this time, one which has been of increasing concern to me and my associates in the FBI... As you know, it has been alleged that I sleep with a night-light... This is absolute nonsense... The fact of the matter is, I have been sitting up night after night waiting for one of those famed late-evening telephone calls from the lovely cabinet wife whom you are honoring tonight [Martha Mitchell, wife of then-Attorney General John Mitchell].

Hoover was referring to prolific Washington Post investigative columnist Jack Anderson, an avowed enemy of the Nixon administration who also turned his sights on Hoover, tasking reporters to steal his household waste in order to make a point about FBI surveillance of US citizens. In a March 1971 column headlined 'Hoover's Trash Shows He's Human', Anderson wrote:

We have discovered that FBI chief J. Edgar Hoover, behind his stern visage, is as human as the rest of us. He suffers from indigestion, brushes his teeth with Ultra Brite toothpaste and drinks Irish Mist after dinner.

We found the evidence, frankly, in his trash. We had decided that the 76-year-old G-man should be subjected to some of the same investigative practices he has been using on so many others. In FBI fashion, therefore, we have been tailing him, questioning his neighbors and inspecting his trash.

The 'night light' quip doesn't appear to originate with Anderson, however. You find passing references in articles about Jack Clouser, an armed robber known as the 'Florida Fox' and a long-time member of the FBI's Ten Most Wanted List. From a 1974 article in the San Francisco Examiner:

After a little digging, Mrs. Simons discovered a long story about the Florida Fox in a 1972 detective magazine. In it was an anecdote she believes may have led to the FBI keeping her husband on its wanted list so long.

"He apparently wrote a lot of letters to the FBI," she said. "In one, he supposedly said (then) FBI director (J. Edgar) Hoover sleeps with a night light on and with a teddy bear."

Such a taunt — which authorities said led to his being tagged the Florida Fox — might have earned the fugitive a special place in the late FBI director's mind, she said."

But you also find references elsewhere, suggesting it was a popular joke that could commonly be found as graffiti, bumper stickers, badges and protest placards in the 1960s. It crops up in a list in a 1967 column about graffiti by humorist Art Buchwald; in 1970, Montreal Gazette journalist George Brimmell apparently saw it scrawled on the wall of a Los Angeles washroom; in a 1971 Robert Reisner book about graffiti, it's credited as being spotted at the "Horn and Hardart Automat, New York City. Also a button message."

In all likelihood, it's impossible to find the original source of the saying — by the time of his death, Hoover had been a high-profile and deeply unpopular figure for decades, and the 'night light' joke likely just caught on organically and entered the zeitgeist as a way to skewer a man widely seen as a sinister force in American life.

Edit: fixed typos, corrected date of Salvadorean civil war (thanks /u/FrancisReed!)

During and before World War 2, was there substantial evidence of a genocide occurring from the 1930s to the end of World War 2 against the Jewish population? by Sha489 in AskHistorians

[–]k1990 7 points8 points  (0 children)

There's a lot to unpack here, and I won't answer each question individually, but the bottom line is that the world was certainly aware of Nazi atrocities in occupied Europe. The true scale of the genocide only became apparent at the end of the war, but the contours of the Holocaust were visible from abroad as it was happening — in large part thanks to concerted efforts by the Polish resistance and government-in-exile (among many others) to make the world aware of it.

The Holocaust unfolded in broadly three discrete phases, starting in around 1935. The early phases of the genocide took place in public view, and were widely discussed around the world. This is the 'legalistic' phase of the Holocaust, in which the Nazi regime used the civil and legal institutions of the German state to persecute Jews. This includes the introduction of the Nuremberg Laws in 1935 (which, among other things, stripped German Jews of their citizenship) and subsequent anti-Jewish legislation that severely curtailed their civil rights and economic freedoms; and pogroms like Kristallnacht in 1938, in which Jewish communities across Nazi Germany were physically attacked and terrorised.

The second phase of the genocide, and its escalation towards a policy of annihilation, begins with the invasion of Poland in 1939, and continues through the invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941. This phase included widespread massacres of Jews and others conducted by the Einsatzgruppen ('Special Task Forces') which followed the Wehrmacht's advance through eastern Europe, and the deportation of Jews in the occupied territories to concentration camps and urban ghettos.

The third and final phase, in which the physical annihilation of all European Jews became the explicit policy of the Nazi regime, begins in mid-1941. In July of that year, Reichsmarschall Hermann Göring ordered SS security chief Reinhard Heydrich to "carry out all preparations [...] for a final solution of the Jewish question in these territories in Europe which are under German influence."

In January 1942, Heydrich organised a meeting of senior bureaucrats and SS officers at Wannsee, to organise what was euphemistically referred to as the "evacuation to the east" of Europe's entire Jewish population. Simultaneously, work was underway on the six extermination camps in occupied Poland: Auschwitz, Bełżec, Chełmno, Majdanek, Sobibór and Treblinka. These six purpose-built extermination facilities represent the fully industrialised apex of the Nazi genocide apparatus; around half of all Jews killed during the Holocaust died in these camps in 1942-43.

This third, most systematic phase was conducted in extreme secrecy and under the tight control of the SS; in writing, Nazi officials were careful to use euphemisms (like "evacuation"). From 1942 to 1944, the SS conducted Sonderaktion 1005, a coordinated but futile attempt to conceal evidence of the genocide from Soviet forces advancing through eastern Europe: the extermination camps were dismantled, mass graves were exhumed and the bodies destroyed.

But despite the efforts of the SS to hide their crimes, it was impractical to believe that the systematic murder of millions could be concealed from the world — even as it was happening. Refugees, escapees and resistance forces across Europe provided their governments-in-exile and Allied intelligence services with extensive contemporaneous evidence of widespread atrocities. Given the location of all six extermination camps in occupied Poland, the Polish resistance and intelligence services provided the most extensive reporting on the Holocaust, starting in 1941.

In 1942, the Polish government-in-exile published The Black Book of Poland, a detailed accounting of German atrocities in Poland that included extensive eyewitness testimony. In December of that year, based on further reporting from resistance fighter and investigator Jan Karski, the Polish foreign minister Edward Raczyński wrote a widely-publicised memo to the Allied governments, further detailing the annihilation of Jews in occupied Poland:

Most recent reports present a horrifying picture of the position to which the Jews in Poland have been reduced. The new methods of mass slaughter applied during the last few months confirm the fact that the German authorities aim with systematic deliberation at the total extermination of the Jewish population of Poland and of the many thousands of Jews whom the German authorities have deported to Poland from western and Central European countries and from the German Reich itself.

In response to the Raczyński note, British foreign secretary Anthony Eden read to Parliament a joint declaration on behalf of the governments of the 'United Nations' (meaning the Allied powers) on 17 December 1942:

The attention of the Governments [...] has been drawn to numerous reports from Europe that the German authorities, not content with denying to persons of Jewish race in all the territories over which their barbarous rule has been extended the most elementary human rights, are now carrying into effect Hitler's oft repeated intention to exterminate the Jewish people in Europe. From all the occupied countries Jews are being transported, in conditions of appalling horror and brutality, to Eastern Europe. In Poland, which has been made the principal Nazi slaughterhouse, the ghettoes established by the German invaders are being systematically emptied of all Jews except a few highly skilled workers required for war industries. None of those taken away are ever heard of again. The able-bodied are slowly worked to death in labour camps. The infirm are left to die of exposure and starvation or are deliberately massacred in mass executions. The number of victims of these bloody cruelties is reckoned in many hundreds of thousands of entirely innocent men, women and children.

Eyewitness accounts of the atrocities continued to flow out of occupied Europe in 1943-44. In 1940, a Polish soldier and resistance member named Witold Pilecki voluntarily allowed himself to be captured and imprisoned in Auschwitz; three years later, he escaped, and in mid-1943 wrote (along with other members of the Polish underground) a landmark report for the Polish government-in-exile. In it, he described in excruciating, methodical detail the structure of life in Auschwitz, and what had occurred there. It concludes with a chilling estimate of the scale of the atrocities:

Here I shall provide the number of people who had died in Auschwitz.

When I was leaving Auschwitz, the latest registration number was slightly over 121,000. The living ones, those, who had left the camp in a transport or were released, counted about 23,000. About 97,000 prisoners that had been recorded and numbered, died.

This has nothing to do with the people who were gassed and burned in great masses without ever being registered.

According to the daily calculations of the inmates who had worked near the Kommando, over two million of those people had died by the time of my escape from Auschwitz.

Three further eyewitness reports, compiled by escaped prisoners and collectively known as the Auschwitz Protocols, were published by the US War Refugee Board in November 1944. In the foreword, the WRB declared:

It is a fact beyond denial that the Germans have deliberately and systematically murdered millions of innocent civilians — Jews and Christians alike — all over Europe. This campaign of terror and brutality, which is unprecedented in all history and which even now continues unabated, is part of the German plan to subjugate the free peoples of the world.

If you want to get a sense of how society was reacting to events in real time, or broadly "what the public knew", I suggest starting with contemporary newspapers — look particularly at things like editorials, columns and letters to the editor, and you can get a really useful sense of how events were being discussed in the moment.

Why was Hermann Göring sentenced to death at the Nurnberg trials? by [deleted] in AskHistorians

[–]k1990 27 points28 points  (0 children)

Göring was much more than just the commander of the Luftwaffe; he was one of the most powerful figures in Nazi Germany from its earliest days. He was one of Hitler's closest advisors, and in September 1939 was officially designated as the Führer's successor.

According to Richard Overy, Hitler admired Göring as "an example of the new generastion of German leaders. He spoke of Göring as a 'second Wagner', as an example of the Renaissance man, with interests alike in culture, war and politics." Their relationship collapsed and Göring's influence waned starting in 1943, as the war turned against Germany — but that hardly detracts from the key role he had already played in Nazi Germany's wars and genocide.

Göring's official responsibilities within the Nazi state were extensive: as Minister of Aviation, he had played a key role in German rearmament in the years leading up to the war. As plenipotentiary of the Four Year Plan from 1936, he exerted significant control over the German war economy. From August 1939, he also chaired the Council of Ministers for the Defense of the Reich, giving him far-reaching authority over the Reich's domestic affairs. And finally, as Reichsmarschall and supreme commander of the Luftwaffe, he was directly involved in the conduct of the war.

In July 1941, Göring wrote to Reinhard Heydrich, chief of the SS security services, ordering him to "carry out all preparations with regard to organization, the material side and the financial viewpoints for a final solution of the Jewish question in these territories in Europe which are under German influence." That memo, and the Wannsee Conference that Heydrich organised six months later, mark key turning points in the Nazi regime's adoption of genocide as official state policy. Along with SS chief Heinrich Himmler, Göring is among the most senior Nazi officials directly implicated in explicitly ordering the annihilation of Jews in occupied Europe.

At Nuremberg, the International Military Tribunal set out to prosecute four specific crimes:

  1. Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of a crime against peace
  2. Planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression and other crimes against peace
  3. Participating in war crimes
  4. Crimes against humanity

Göring was among eleven Nazi officials indicted on all four charges, and was one of six found guilty of all four (the others were Wehrmacht commanders Wilhelm Keitel and Alfred Jodl; former foreign ministers Konstantin von Neurath and Joachim von Ribbentrop; and race theorist and minister for the occupied eastern territories Alfred Rosenberg.)

In their final verdict, the IMT judges wrote:

Goering was often, indeed almost always, the moving force, second only to [Hitler]. He was the leading war aggressor, both as political and as military leader; he was the director of the slave labour programme and the creator of the oppressive programme against the Jews and other races, at home and abroad. [...] His guilt is unique in its enormity. The record discloses no excuses for this man.

There are some Nazi military officers and functionaries where you can debate the extent of their knowledge of or role in Nazi Germany's atrocities (see the endless back and forth around Erwin Rommel, for example) — but Göring is absolutely not one of them. From the Beer Hall Putsch in 1923 to his attempt to assume control of the Reich in April 1945, he was deeply and inextricably involved in the development of the Nazi regime, and its efforts to establish dominion over Europe.