ГУЛаг Палестины

      other refugees, as "quislings" and "war criminals" it is interesting to note
      that no specific charges of war crimes have been made by the Soviet or any
      other Government against any members of this group. (in Jules Deschenes,
      Commission of Inquiry on War Criminals, 1986, p. 252)
      Judge Deschenes concludes:
      It is an acknowledged fact that the members of the Division were volunteers who
      had enlisted in the spring and summer of 1943, essentially to combat the
      "Bolsheviks"; indeed, they were never used against Western allies. (Jules
      Deschenes, Commission of Inquiry on War Criminals, 1986, p. 255)
      Although as we have just seen "no specific charges of war crimes have been made by the Soviet or
      any other Government against any members of this group," Mr. Safer ventures to do what no one
      has done before - where angels fear to tread, Mr. Safer rushes in to lay a specific crime at the
      feet of the Galicia Division:
      SAFER: Thousands of Ukrainians joined the SS and marched off to fight for
      Naziism. In the process, they helped round up Lvov's Jews, helped march more
      than 140,000 of them to extinction - virtually every Jew in Lvov.
      However, the rounding up of Lviv's Jews was begun in 1941 and was largely completed in 1942, so
      that by 1943 when the Galicia Division was formed, there were not 140,000 Jews left in Lviv to
      round up. In truth, the Galicia Division never participated in the rounding up of Jews in Lviv
      or anywhere else. To repeat: the Galicia Division was a combat unit. More particularly, the
      Galicia Division saw action on only a single occasion - in facing the Soviets in the Battle of
      Brody in July 1944.
      Talk of the Galicia Division Induces Paralysis of the Comparative Function
      The broad topic of "Paralysis of the Comparative Function" is discussed within its own larger
      section below, but such a paralysis becomes evident in other places throughout this essay, as
      for example in discussions of the Galicia Division. In such discussions, the comparison - the
      elementary and obvious comparison - that is not made is that between the Ukrainian contribution
      to German armed forces of Waffen SS troops and the similar contribution made by other peoples.
      Below, I reproduce a quote from an interview by Slavko Nowytski of Professor Norman Davies,
      historian at the University of London, and author of the recent Europe: A History, published by
      Oxford University Press:
      In discussing the question of collaborating with Germany Prof. Davies noted
      that, "A large number of the volunteers for the Waffen SS came from Western
      Europe. The nation which supplied it the largest number of divisions was the
      Netherlands [four]. There were two Belgian divisions, there was a French
      Waffen SS. To my mind, it's rather surprising that Ukraine, which is a much
      larger country [than the Netherlands or Belgium] supplied only one Waffen SS
      Division.... It's surprising that there were so few Ukrainians [in the German
      Army]. Many people don't know, for example, that there were far more Russians
      fighting alongside the Wehrmacht or in the various German armies than there
      were Ukrainians.... Thanks to Soviet propaganda, the Russian contribution to
      the Nazi war effort has been forgotten, whereas the Ukrainian contribution has
      been remembered, I think, too strongly." (Andrew Gregorovich, Forum, No. 95,
      Spring, 1997, p. 34)
      And so the information in the above quotation leads to several questions:
      (1) As the population of The Netherlands is small, and as The Netherlands contributed the
      largest number of Waffen SS divisions, this gives The Netherlands the largest per capita
      contribution to the Waffen SS of any country. Would Mr. Safer conclude from this that the
      people of The Netherlands are the most anti-Semitic in the world? And following the same line
      of reasoning, would he conclude that the people of Belgium are the next most anti-Semitic? And
      also that as the population of France is approximately equal to the population of Ukraine, and
      as each of these contributed one Waffen SS division, that the French are approximately as
      anti-Semitic as the Ukrainians?
      (2) As Mr. Safer attacks the former members of the Galicia Division as war criminals, I wonder
      why he does not attack former members of The Netherlands, Belgium, and French Waffen SS
      divisions in the same way? Why does he single out the Galicia Division? How is the Galicia
      Division different from the other Waffen SS divisions?
      (3) If in comparison to several other countries, Ukraine contributed proportionately fewer
      numbers to the Waffen SS, or to any of the German armed forces, then why didn't Mr. Safer
      commend Ukrainians for their relatively small contribution to the German war effort?
      (4) It would have been instructive of Mr. Safer to inform 60 Minutes viewers whether the Waffen
      SS divisions of other countries were created under the same proviso that they not be used
      against the Western Allies, but only against the Soviets on the Eastern Front? Perhaps
      Ukrainians are to be commended again for limiting the role that their Waffen SS troops played
      within the German military.
      (5) Finally, given that Canada's Deschenes Commission on War Criminals failed to identify even a
      single member of the Galicia Division as calling for further investigation; and given that not a
      single member of the Division has ever been convicted of any crime, or even tried for any crime;
      and, most importantly, given that nobody has ever specified any crime of which the Galicia
      Division as a whole, or any member of the Galicia Division, might have been guilty - given all
      this, it would have been instructive of Mr. Safer to inform 60 Minutes viewers whether the
      Waffen SS divisions of The Netherlands, Belgium, and France have proven to be as free from blame
      as has the Ukrainian Galicia Division.
      Why Did Himmler Want a Waffen SS?
      If the Wehrmacht was the combat arm of the German forces, and Himmler's SS was dedicated to
      running the concentration camps, then why were there combat units within the SS? Why weren't
      non-German combat units such as the Galicia Division considered to be part of the Wehrmacht
      rather than part of the SS? The suspicion in the mind of the impartial observer might readily
      be that any unit that was considered part of the SS may in fact have performed some duties that
      were uniquely SS, and thus was more likely to be guilty of war crimes than a Wehrmacht unit.
      Israeli historian Leni Yahil provides an answer - the war effort had taken center stage; Himmler
      wanted to remain on center stage; and it is for that reason that Himmler defined certain combat
      units as falling within the SS:
      The very fact that Himmler and his executors became the central force
      directing the implacable war against the Jews accorded them, and primarily
      Himmler as their leader, a crucial position in the hierarchy of Nazi rule
      wherever it extended. Hitler's hatred of the Jews and the importance he
      ascribed to solving the Jewish problem according to his concept were among the
      factors that ensured Himmler's status as the man who carried out the fuhrer's
      program.
      It might have been assumed that in wartime, when stress is necessarily laid
      on the military struggle, the influence of the SS would have declined, since it
      no longer held the center stage. If Hitler had lost interest in Himmler's
      activities, the latter's own political career would have come to an end. He
      forestalled the danger in two ways: one was by associating the SS with the war
      effort through the establishment of the armed or Waffen SS while being careful
      to prevent the army's influence over these corps from overriding his own.
      (Leni Yahil, The Holocaust: The fate of European Jewry, 1932-1945, Oxford, New
      York, 1990, p. 145)
      The Nightingale Unit
      60 Minutes also mentioned the Nightingale Unit, otherwise known as the Nachtigall Unit. The
      Nachtigall Unit was eventually merged with the Ukrainian Roland Unit, some 600 Ukrainian
      soldiers in all. These two units were formed on German territory prior to the outbreak of World
      War II by Ukrainians who had either not fallen within the Soviet zone of occupation, or who had
      escaped from it, and who anticipated German assistance in liberating Ukraine from Soviet rule.
      These units too, however, fail to support the picture of Ukrainians "marching off to fight for
      Hitler."
      Specifically, shortly after the entry of the Germans into Lviv, Stepan Bandera, "(supported by
      members of the Nachtigall Unit) decided - without consulting the Germans - to proclaim on 30
      June 1941, the establishment of a Ukrainian state in recently conquered Lviv. ... Within days
      of the proclamation, Bandera and his associates were arrested by the Gestapo and incarcerated"
      (Orest Subtelny, Ukraine: A History, 1994, pp. 463-464). Refusing to rescind the proclamation,
      Bandera spent July 1941 to September 1944 in German prisons and concentration camps. (Stepan
      Bandera is mentioned at this point because he was supported by the Nachtigall Unit; Bandera was
      not a member of the Nachtigall Unit.) "Because of their opposition to German policies in
      Ukraine, the units were recalled from the front and interned. ... Toward the end of 1942, the
      battalion was disbanded because of the soldiers' refusal to take an oath of loyalty to Hitler"
      (Ukraine: A Concise Encyclopaedia, Volume 2, p. 1088). "The battalion was disarmed and
      demobilized, and its officers were arrested in January 1943. Shukhevych, however, managed to
      escape and join the UPA" (Encyclopaedia of Ukraine, Volume 4, p. 680). Roman Shukhevych who had
      been the highest-ranking Ukrainian officer of the Nachtigall unit went on to became
      commander-in-chief of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA), a partisan group opposing all foreign
      occupation, and which during the Nazi occupation was directed primarily against the Nazis.
      Ukrainians in the Nachtigall and Roland Units, then, were also not Ukrainians marching off to
      fight for Hitler, but rather they were Ukrainians calculating that an alliance with German
      forces would promote their national interests, they were Ukrainians whose willingness to fight
      for Hitler or to promote Nazi interests proved to be close to non-existent, and they were
      Ukrainians who fell out with their Nazi sponsors in the early stages of the war.
      It must be noted also that unlike the Galicia Division, the Nachtigall and Roland Units were not
      part of the SS, and so that Mr. Safer was in error when he stated that "Roman Shukhevych ... was
      deputy commander of the SS Division Nightingale."
      It is another mark of 60 Minutes' biased coverage that in objecting to streets being named after
      the above-mentioned Stepan Bandera, it did not mention that he spent most of the war in German
      captivity, nor that he lost two brothers at Auschwitz; and in objecting to the commemoration of
      the above-mentioned Roman Shukhevych, it did not mention that he escaped from German captivity
      and commanded the Ukrainian guerrilla war against the German occupation. These omissions are
      part of a pattern of distortions and misrepresentations used by 60 Minutes to create the false
      impression of undeviating commitment to Naziism on the part of Ukrainians. Take Ukraine's
      staunchest opponents of Naziism, let 60 Minutes' makeup crew touch them up for the camera, and
      somehow they appear on the air with swastikas smeared on their foreheads.
      And so 60 Minutes has painted a picture entirely at variance with the historical record. The
      idea of Ukrainians en masse unselfconsciously celebrating the SS is preposterous and on a par
      with the image of Jews sacrificing Christian children to drink their blood. These sorts of
      fantastic and inflammatory charges are leveled by the more hysterical elements within each
      community, are passed along by the more irresponsible members of the mass media, and are aimed
      at consumption by the more naive and gullible members of their respective groups. 60 Minutes'
      allegations have smeared members of the Galicia Division and Ukrainians generally with a
      reckless disregard of evidence that is readily available to any researcher who is interested in
      presenting an impartial picture. It is a blatant calumny for 60 Minutes to hold out any of the
      above-mentioned units as evidence that Ukrainians "marched off to fight for Hitler" and it
      overlooks also that on the Soviet side fighting the Nazis were about two million Ukrainians
      which in view of their much larger number, 60 Minutes could have taken as evidence of Ukrainians
      "marching off to fight against Hitler" and it overlooks as well the large number of Ukrainians
      fighting against Hitler in the various national armies of the Allied forces.
      Morley Safer's Contempt for the Intelligence of his Viewers.
      Morley Safer states that "Nowhere, not even in Germany, are the SS so openly celebrated," and
      while he is saying this, we might rightly expect that the scenes presented will be supportive of
      his statement. What we do see is elderly veterans of the Galicia Division at a reunion in
      Lviv. What details of these scenes support Morley Safer's strong conclusion? Let us consider
      ten possibilities.
      (1) Perhaps Mr. Safer counted swastikas, and their large number supported his strong
      conclusion? But no, that can't be it - for there is not a single swastika to be seen anywhere.
      Not one! But how is it possible to hold the world's most open celebration of the SS without a
      single swastika? Mr. Safer's conclusion does not seem to be supported by the scene presented
      in fact, his conclusion seems to be contradicted by the scene presented. Well, but perhaps
      there were other clues?
      (2) Surely at the world's most open celebration of the SS, one would find the "SS" insignia in
      plentiful supply? But no, there is not a single "SS" visible anywhere. The camera scans the
      veterans, we can see their medals and decorations, but we cannot see a single "SS." So far,
      then, we have the world's most open celebration of the SS, but without a single swastika and
      without a single "SS." But let us move ahead more quickly.
      (3) The number of portraits of Hitler, commander-in-chief of all the German armed forces, and so
      commander-in-chief of the SS? Zero!
      (4) The number of portraits of Himmler, head of the SS? Zero!
      (5) The number of portraits of any member of the Nazi hierarchy, or indeed of any German? Zero!
      (6) Any Nazi salutes being made? No, not one!
      (7) Any Nazi songs being sung? None!
      (8) A single word of German spoken? No, not one!
      (9) Perhaps there was literature circulated during the reunion which revealed Nazi sympathies?
      But no such literature was shown. How about at any time prior to the reunion - even during the
      entire 50 or so years following the formation of the Division and up until the reunion? 60
      Minutes does not appear to have discovered any such Nazi literature.
      (10) As these veterans have been living for more than 50 years predominantly in Canada, the
      United States, and Australia, then they can readily be interviewed, and so perhaps 60 Minutes
      interviewers managed to elicit pro-Nazi statements from them? No, this golden opportunity too
      was passed over, not a single question was asked, not a single word spoken, and not a single
      pro-Nazi statement was to be heard.
      What then are we left with? We seem to be left with Morley Safer making a fantastic claim while
      presenting as evidence images devoid of the slightest detail supporting that claim. We are
      left, in short, with Morley Safer revealing his contempt for the intelligence of the 60 Minutes
      viewer.
      CONTENTS:
      Preface
      The Galicia Division
      Quality of Translation
      Ukrainian Homogeneity
      Were Ukrainians Nazis?
      Simon Wiesenthal
      What Happened in Lviv?
      Nazi Propaganda Film
      Collective Guilt
      Paralysis of the Comparative
      Function
      60 Minutes' Cheap Shots
      Ukrainian Anti-Semitism
      Jewish Ukrainophobia
      Mailbag
      A Sense of Responsibility
      What 60 Minutes Should Do
      PostScript
      Quality of Translation
      Were all those Ukrainians really saying "kike" and "yid"?
      In one instance, I could make out the Ukrainian word "zhyd." Following conventions of Ukrainian
      transliteration into English, by the way, the "zh" in "zhyd" is pronounced approximately like
      the "z" in "azure," and the "y" in "zhyd" is pronounced like the "y" in "myth." Quite true, to
      continue, that in Russian "zhyd" is derogatory for "Jew" and "yevrei" is neutral. In Ukrainian,
      the same is true in heavily Russified Eastern Ukraine, and even in Central Ukraine. But in the
      less Russified Western Ukraine old habits persist, and here especially among the common people
      - "zhyd" continues to be as it always has been the neutral term for "Jew," and "yevrei" sounds
      Russian.
      Thus, in non-Russified Ukrainian, the "Jewish Battalion" of the Ukrainian Galician Army formed
      in 1919 was the "zhydivskyi kurin". "Judaism" is "zhydivstvo." A "learned Jew" is "zhydovyn."
      "Judophobe" is "zhydofob" and "Jodophile" is "zhydofil." The adjective "zhydivskyi" meaning
      "Jewish" was used by Ukrainians and Jews alike in naming Jewish orchestras and theater groups
      and clubs and schools and government departments. The Encyclopaedia Judaica (1971, Volume 11,
      p. 616) shows the May 18, 1939 masthead and headlines of the Lviv Jewish newspaper which was
      published in Polish. The Polish language is similar to Ukrainian, but uses the Roman rather
      than the Cyrillic alphabet. The headline read "Strejk generalny Zydow w Palestynie" which means
      "General strike of Jews in Palestine." The third word "Zydow" meaning "of Jews" is similar to
      the Ukrainian word that would have been used in this context, and again serves to illustrate
      that the Jews of this region did not view the word "zhyd" or its derivatives as derogatory.
      We find this same conclusion in the recollections of Nikita Khrushchev (in the following
      quotation, I have replaced the original translator's "yid" which rendered the passage confusing,
      with the more accurate "zhyd"):
      I remember that once we invited Ukrainians, Jews, and Poles ... to a meeting at
      the Lvov opera house. It struck me as very strange to hear the Jewish speakers
      at the meeting refer to themselves as "zhyds." "We zhyds hereby declare
      ourselves in favour of such-and-such." Out in the lobby after the meeting I
      stopped some of these men and demanded, "How dare you use the word "zhyd"?
      Don't you know it's a very offensive term, an insult to the Jewish nation?"
      ... "Here in the Western Ukraine it's just the opposite," they explained. "We
      call ourselves zhyds...." Apparently what they said was true. If you go back
      to Ukrainian literature ... you'll see that "zhyd" isn't used derisively or
      insultingly. (Nikita Khrushchev, Khrushchev Remembers, 1971, p. 145)
      But 60 Minutes' mistranslation went even further than that - upon listening to the broadcast
      more carefully, it is possible to hear that where the editor of the Lviv newspaper For a Free
      Ukraine was translated as saying in connection with a joke circulated among the common people
      "In terms of the Soviet Union which is abbreviated SSSR, that stands for three kikes and a
      Russian," - in fact he was using the unarguably neutral term "yevrei" which it is obligatory to
      translate not as "kike" but as "Jew" not only in Russian, but in Eastern and Western Ukrainian
      as well.
      Thus, in at least two instances, and possibly in all, the 60 Minutes' translator was translating
      incorrectly, and in such a manner as to make the Ukrainian speakers appear to be speaking with
      an unrestrained anti-Semitism, when in fact they were not. On top of that, the translator
      gratuitously spit out his words and gave them a venomous intonation which was not present in the
      original Ukrainian. And then too, where the speaker spoke in grammatical Ukrainian, the
      translator on one occasion at least, offered a translation in ungrammatical English, making the
      Ukrainian appear uneducated or unintelligent - specifically, the Ukrainian "We Ukrainians do not
      have to rely on..." was rendered into the English "We Ukrainians not have to rely on...."
      Since "zhyd" is currently held to be derogatory in much of Ukraine, any speaker of contemporary
      Ukrainian who wishes to give no offense may choose to view it as derogatory in all of Ukraine,
      and switch to "yevrei" in all contexts and in all parts of the country. The fact that a Western
      Ukrainian old enough to have escaped thorough Russification has not as yet made this switch,
      however, is not evidence of his anti-Semitism, and his use of "zhyd" cannot rightly be taken to
      be derogatory. In non-Russified Western Ukrainian, there is only one word for Jew, and that is
      "zhyd," and there is no word corresponding to the derogatory "kike" or "yid" or "hebe" of
      English.
      A further discussion of the use of "zhyd" vs "yevrei" can be found within the Ukrainian Archive
      in a discussion of the Sion-Osnova Controversy.
      CONTENTS:
      Preface
      The Galicia Division
      Quality of Translation
      Ukrainian Homogeneity
      Were Ukrainians Nazis?
      Simon Wiesenthal
      What Happened in Lviv?
      Nazi Propaganda Film
      Collective Guilt
      Paralysis of the Comparative
      Function
      60 Minutes' Cheap Shots
      Ukrainian Anti-Semitism
      Jewish Ukrainophobia
      Mailbag
      A Sense of Responsibility
      What 60 Minutes Should Do
      PostScript
      Ukrainian Homogeneity
      In his every statement, Mr. Safer reveals that he starts from the assumption that Ukrainians are
      homogeneously anti-Semitic and Nazi in their inclinations. In doing so, Mr. Safer does not stop
      to wonder how it is that Ukrainians can be so entirely different in this respect from all other
      peoples. Take Americans, for instance. Surely we all agree that among Americans, there are
      some who would pitch in and help if they saw Nazis killing Jews, and others who would risk their
      lives - and give their lives - to stop that very same killing, and of course the great bulk in
      the middle who would consider immediate self-interest first, and look the other way and pretend
      to see nothing. But Ukrainians, if we are to believe Mr. Safer, are a people apart - exhibiting
      no such heterogeneity, clones one of another, genetically programmed to hate Jews.
      To suggest such a thing is, of course, preposterous. The obvious reality is that Ukrainians do
      exhibit a normal degree of heterogeneity. Had 60 Minutes wanted to, it could have found plenty
      of evidence of this: (1) Since the city of Lviv was featured in the 60 Minutes broadcast, 60
      Minutes could have mentioned - in fact, it was duty-bound to mention the heroism of
      Metropolitan Andrey Sheptytsky's effort on behalf of Jews. (2) Since 60 Minutes was throwing
      blanket condemnations over Ukrainians collectively not only for being the world's greatest
      anti-Semites, but for the most extreme war crimes and crimes against humanity, it was incumbent
      on 60 Minutes to notice the vast number of instances that can be found of Ukrainian sacrifices
      to save Jews. (3) Since the city of Lviv was featured on the 60 Minutes broadcast, as were
      Ukrainian auxiliary police units, as was Simon Wiesenthal, 60 Minutes should have mentioned that
      in the city of Lviv, just such a Ukrainian police auxiliary by the name of Bodnar risked his
      life - possibly sacrificed his life - to save the life of Simon Wiesenthal himself.
      Let us consider each of these points in turn.
      Metropolitan Andrey Sheptytsky
      There is little doubt as to the almost saintly role of Ukrainian (Greek)
      Catholic Metropolitan Andrey Sheptytsky. Sheptytsky, Archbishop of L'viv and
      head of the church, was widely known as being sympathetic to the Jews. ...
      The elderly metropolitan wrote directly to SS commander Heinrich Himmler in the
      winter of 1942 demanding an end to the final solution and, equally important to
      him, an end to the use of Ukrainian militia and police in anti-Jewish action.
      His letter elicited a sharp rebuke, but Sheptytsky persisted even though the
      death penalty was threatened to those who gave comfort to Jews. In November
      1942 he issued a pastoral letter to be read in all churches under his
      authority. It condemned murder. Although Jews were not specifically
      mentioned, his intent was crystal clear.
      We can never know how many Ukrainians were moved by Sheptytsky's appeal.
      Certainly the church set an example. With Sheptytsky's tacit approval, his
      church hid a number of Jews throughout western Ukraine, 150 Jews alone in and
      around his L'viv headquarters. Perhaps some of his parishioners were among
      those brave and precious few "righteous gentiles" who risked an automatic death
      penalty for themselves and their families by harbouring a Jew under their roof.
      The towering humanity of Sheptytsky remains an inspiration today. (Harold
      Troper Morton Weinfeld, Old Wounds, 1988, pp. 17-18)
      Raul Hilberg adds concerning Sheptytsky:
      He dispatched a lengthy handwritten letter dated August 29-31, 1942 to the
      Pope, in which he referred to the government of the German occupants as a
      regime of terror and corruption, more diabolical than that of the Bolsheviks.
      (Perpetrators, Victims, Bystanders, 1992, p. 267)
      Unbiased reporting might have mentioned such details as the following:
      One of those saved by Metropolitan Andrey Sheptytsky was Lviv's Rabbi Kahane
      whose son is currently the marshal commander of the Israeli Air Force.
      (Ukrainian Weekly, June 21, 1992, p. 9)
      Sheptitsky himself hid fifteen Jews, including Rabbi Kahane, in his own
      residence in Lvov, a building frequently visited by German officials. (Martin
      Gilbert, The Holocaust, 1986, p. 410)
      Vast Ukrainian Sacrifices to Save Jews
      And Sheptytsky's actions are not unique - Ukrainians risking their lives and giving their lives
      to save Jews was not a rare occurrence. In the first Jewish Congress of Ukraine held in Kiev in
      1992, "48 awards were handed out to Ukrainians and people of other nationalities who had rescued
      Jews during the second world war" (Ukrainian Weekly, November 8, 1992, p. 2). References to
      specific cases are not hard to find:
      Prof. Weiss [head of the Israeli Knesset] reminisced about Ukraine, the country
      of his childhood, and gratefully acknowledged he owed his life to two Ukrainian
      women who hid him from the Nazis during World War II. (Ukrainian Weekly,
      December 13, 1992, p. 8)
      In the Volhynian town of Hoszcza a Ukrainian farmer, Fiodor Kalenczuk, hid a
      Jewish grain merchant, Pessah Kranzberg, his wife, their ten-year-old daughter
      and their daughter's young friend, for seventeen months, refusing to deny them
      refuge even when his wife protested that their presence, in the stable, was
      endangering a Christian household. (Martin Gilbert, The Holocaust, 1986, p.
      403)
      Help was given even though the probability of detection was substantial and the penalties were
      severe:
      Sonderkommando 4b reported that it had shot the mayor of Kremenchug, Senitsa
      Vershovsky, because he had "tried to protect the Jews." (Raul Hilberg, The
      Destruction of the European Jews, 1985, p. 308)
      Consulting the original Einsatzgruppe report reveals that a Catholic priest, Protyorey Romansky,
      was involved in the above plot to save Jews, though Romansky's punishment is not specified:
      The fact that Senitsa, the mayor of Kremenchug, was arrested for sabotaging
      orders, demonstrates that responsible officials are not always selected with
      the necessary care and attention. Only after the Einsatzkommandos had
      interrogated the official could it be established that he had purposely
      sabotaged the handling of the Jewish problem. He used false data and
      authorized the chief priest Protyorey Romansky to baptize the Jews whom he
      himself had selected, giving them Christian or Russian first names. His