The first source is unusable; I've had a big discussion elsewhere as to why I'm not going to pay any attention to people who can't get peer review.
This is problematic for the newspaper articles as well. Journalists do not have the best track record of adequately presenting academic research to a lay audience.
The third source is useful, but also seems to state that the intercepted documents were not necessarily seen during the war, and if they were seen they were often misunderstood. The numbers were all seriously understated as well. In short, some people may have had some idea that something not too good was going on, it doesn't seem clear at all that the allies knew the purpose and extent of the holocaust. Additionally, there is no indication that any of this information made any difference to allied actions.
no subject
The first source is unusable; I've had a big discussion elsewhere as to why I'm not going to pay any attention to people who can't get peer review.
This is problematic for the newspaper articles as well. Journalists do not have the best track record of adequately presenting academic research to a lay audience.
The third source is useful, but also seems to state that the intercepted documents were not necessarily seen during the war, and if they were seen they were often misunderstood. The numbers were all seriously understated as well. In short, some people may have had some idea that something not too good was going on, it doesn't seem clear at all that the allies knew the purpose and extent of the holocaust. Additionally, there is no indication that any of this information made any difference to allied actions.
In short, this is far from convincing.