Talk:Reinhard Heydrich/Archive 5

Use of the word 'murder'

Murder is a legal term and as Heydrich was not breaking any laws of the state at the time, it is technically 'killing'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.11.77.198 (talk) 22:54, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Speculation re death

Someone with the sources should add a brief section on speculation that Heydrich would have recovered, but that Hitler and Himmler conspired to have him infected by Dr. Karl Gebhardt, Himmler's personal physician, because Heydrich had begun to think too highly of himself for the Nazi hierarchy to bear. I've read several references to this idea but don't have the sources readily at hand. Sca (talk) 13:12, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

That is only speculation and therefore should not be added per: WP:FRINGE and WP:VERIFY problems. Kierzek (talk) 16:40, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

"History is consensus of fact and probability...." What I'm suggesting is that it be presented as informed speculation, not as fact. From what I've read, it's widely accepted that Himmler and Hyedrich hated each other. But again, I don't have references for that at hand. Sca (talk) 21:01, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Harris, Robert. and Paxman, Jeremy. in A higher form of killing. Chatto and Windus 1982 p 88ff suggest that Dr Paul Fides on detatchment from the Medical research council to Porton Down provided the SOE with a grenade infected with Botulism for the Assassination, the main source is the authors conversation with Alvin Pappenheimer March 1981. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.41.77.207 (talk • contribs) , 22:02, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

The section is unconvincing and historians have not supported the theory, I mention it so that others reading the book know that it is unreliable and shouldn't be added to the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.41.34.222 (talk • contribs) 17:43, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Worth it?

Quote "The reprisals were "nothing compared to the losses we would have suffered if Heydrich had been allowed to live.""

Refer to my archived comment on 'strategic analysis'.

Well here we have the nub of it. This is important. I might have thought the Nazi policy for the region did not depend on one man, and would have continued unchanged under his successors. This is presented as the opinion of one person - is there any provable profit v loss analysis which shows that more people were saved than were killed?

89.168.91.252 (talk) 11:07, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you, and have removed the material. -- Dianna (talk) 20:38, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

useful

Wikimedia UK and National Archives have released this 1942 painting. Victuallers (talk) 20:39, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

It looks nice but is not accurate. Heydrich was entering the Prague suburb at the "hairpin" curve in the road. There was no truck blocking his way. Gabčík's Sten submachine gun jammed. Heydrich was only in the car with his one SS driver. There was no second SS man in the front passenger seat. Heydirch ordered his driver to stop (to take them on). Kubiš then threw the bomb. This photo of the area is wrong; too many people shooting at Heydrich. It should not be added. Kierzek (talk) 13:35, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Doyble post. Please remove.

Deletion of links

I am puzzled as to why a link to a good article on Heydrich's assassination and the location of his grave (including photographs) was deleted by one of Wikipedia's admins despite the fact the "Find A Grave" link is still there.

Which makes it all the more bizarre as the "Find A Grave" article for Heydrich lists his resting place in the WRONG PLACE of the Invalidenfriedhof in Berlin. A fact that can easily be confirmed by a quick google search.

Removing links which have been on the page for a full year whilst not removing erroneous information simply weakens Wikipedia's reputation as a source of research.

Please think twice before you delete links in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.8.53 (talk • contribs)

The one I think you are most interested in was this one, which was not functioning earlier this evening, but is working now. -- Dianna (talk) 02:29, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

What makes that webpage a reliable page? I see no author listed at all. It looks like a self-published website. Other pages at worldwarstoday.co.uk include photos and text copyrighted to others. Binksternet (talk) 14:58, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Binkersnet. Unless someone finds and posts some information that would lend credibility to worldwarstoday.co.uk, it can't be taken as reliable, even if at least parts of it are. Some of the website is "reliable" in as much as it provides unaltered copy-pastes of newspaper articles. ColaXtra (talk) 16:07, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you both. It has copyright problems to say the least. Kierzek (talk) 16:13, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Looks like some very quick work by the website owner or by some other means has resulted in the website being shut down. Binksternet (talk) 17:14, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

The Wannsee Conference section doesn't make sense

How can Heydrich, according to the article, host the Wannsee Conference (January 1942) " at which he presented to the heads of a number of German Government departments a plan for the deportation and transporting of 11 million Jewish people from every country in Europe, to be worked to death or killed outright in extermination camps" when Operation Reinhard had already been launched in October 1941?

Odilo Globocnik, was already three months into building Belzec extermination camp, on the orders of Himmler. So the suggestion that Wannsee was the turning point in the decision to kill all the Jews of Europe is wrong. Chełmno extermination camp, which wasn't an Aktion Reinhard camp, was already using gas vans in December 1941.

This article suggests that Heydrich brought the perpetrators together in January 1942 and outlined "a plan" to get things started. But my point is events had already began in the General Government to systematically murder millions. As chief of the RHSA, Heydich would have known what Globocnik was doing in Lublin. Heydrich was not chairing a proposal seminar he was giving a heads up on what had started. 86.176.20.2 (talk) 09:05, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

That's a good observation. The decision was taken long before Wannsee, and the conference was not where the decision was made. But it was where the decision was formalised, and made policy. I will look at the sources and amend the wording when I get home from work. -- Dianna (talk) 14:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, good catch and tweak as to the matter. That is correct. The Wannsee Conference was formalization and guidelines, set out in the Wannsee Protocol (document). Kierzek (talk) 01:10, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

ENGVAR

This revision was written in British English. Per WP:RETAIN we should maintain this spelling unless there are pressing reasons to change it. Are there? --John (talk) 18:44, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think there's a compelling reason to change. In fact the article is tagged as British English and uses British style dates. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:56, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

You're right, I should have checked before posting here. I've made a few small copyedits, including several Americanisms in spelling and vocabulary. Hope it looks ok to you. --John (talk) 19:12, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

It looks okay to me, John. They creep into articles sometimes. Like Diannaa said, has been and it is to be a British English article and one using d/m/y. Kierzek (talk) 21:11, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Was Heydrich's first name really pronounced /ˈʁaɪnhɐt/, as it says in the article? That name is usually pronounced /ˈʀaɪ̯nhaʁt/, and that's the only pronunciation given in German Wiktionary. Kelisi (talk) 17:24, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

The pronunciation was changed on January 13 with this edit. I have changed it back. -- Diannaa (talk) 17:30, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Source failed verification

I have removed the information sourced to HistoryPlace.com. The material does not appear in the cited source, which does not look like a high qualify scholarly resource regardless. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:11, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Good catch. I went back and checked the events and have added detail with cites from Gerwarth and Williams, in the proper section. Kierzek (talk) 15:05, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, this is a big improvement. Much more detailed, with good sourcing. -- Diannaa (talk) 15:16, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

No sense in detail about his offspring

The article read, "The couple had four children: Klaus, born in 1933; Heider, born in 1934; Silke, born in 1939; and Marte, born shortly after her father's death in 1942. Klaus was killed in a traffic accident in 1943. Lina wrote a memoir, Leben mit einem Kriegsverbrecher (Living With a War Criminal), which was published in 1976. She remarried once and died in 1985."

It did not mention who Lina was, the article is long and at first read seemed to imply he had a child named Lina who wrote the book, however after reading again I see it was his wife, therefore this has been changed to reflect that,

--86.172.80.83 (talk) 22:31, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Kersten section

I deleted the Kersten bit again: it is WP:UNDUE emphasis on Kersten with very little light shed on Heydrich. Not important to Heydrich's life and career. This is the third time the section has been deleted. Per WP:BRD, I invite Jonas Vinther to argue for inclusion. Binksternet (talk) 17:07, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Once again, it should not be included per undue weight. It is a minor footnote, if it occurred at all. Kerstens memoirs, are very suspect and not well regarded. Kierzek (talk) 17:17, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with removal of the section. The incident is not an important one in Heydrich's life and the sourcing is inadequate. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:03, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I hear what your saying guys. I still don't agree, but wont take it any further. I also wasn't aware that Kersten's memoirs are not well regarded. Jonas Vinther (talk) 17:04, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Chancellor?

Shouldn't it say "officeholder" instead of "Chancellor" in the infobox? Jonas Vinther (talk) 17:05, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I am confused :/ I don't see the word Chancellor in the info box. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:27, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I see this under edit:

{{Infobox chancellor | name = Reinhard Heydrich))

Jonas Vinther (talk) 16:15, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay thanks; I have fixed the problem. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:09, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Super. :) Jonas Vinther (talk) 20:35, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Dates

The article reads « On 30 June 1934 the SS and Gestapo acted in coordinated mass arrests that continued throughout the weekend », so the reader has to check a calendar 80 years back to understand how many and which days this involves. Whence my edit of 19 Apr 2014 14:30 GMT: « On Sat 30 June 1934... ». Unfortunately that edit was reverted 5 minutes later by Kierzek: maybe he missed the "throughout the weekend"? Not wanting to start a quibble I don't correct again, up to anyone with sufficient "authority" in Wikipedia to decide. TIA, Michel Merlin (talk) 16:25, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Since we don't normally specify days of the week on which events occur, I have changed the prose to show the attacks continued for two days. -- Diannaa (talk) 17:18, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I didn't miss anything, Michel; the addition was un-needed as "throughtout the weekend" speaks for itself and as Diannaa stated, normally specific days of the week are not included. With that said, it is now moot given the tweak by Diannaa. Kierzek (talk) 19:11, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies starts with a top box saying "it will have occasional exceptions", which links to Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, whose 1st line reads "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it."

Here I recall that (according to the information available a few decades ago when the affair was more known and discussed) the organizers of the killings had Röhm and his large SA staff, who were to be on holydays starting Sun 01 Jul, have a feast on Sat 30 Jun at the entirely booked nice hotel on the Tegernsee lake shore, where they went all unarmed (!), relying for their security on the SA group that did arrive at the hotel... after Hitler. Meanwhile Hitler made him visible in Berlin, then even farther in place (Essen) time (28 Jun) and purpose (a wedding), and only in the Sat 30 Jun early morning did he fly to Münich and take the SA by surprise.

To better understand the flow of events, please see http://goo.gl/maps/XvjHq Hitler's itinerary: Berlin, Wedding in Essen, short meeting with Police in Münich, Hanselbauer Hotel (nowadays Pension Bergsee) in Bad Wiessee, Riedersteinweg 1, 83707, Germany.

I think loading the article with the 8 characters ("Sat " and "Sun ") is way lighter than the benefit to readers. Now I won't face Wikipedia bureaucracy, so up to gurus to decide.

Versailles, Wed 23 Apr 2014 16:18:00 +0200 Michel Merlin (talk) 14:18, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Plans for Heydrich?

What is known of the suspicions of Heydrich's Jewish ancestry within the Nazi inner circle? Did Hitler and other Nazis plan to visit the allegations once Heydrich had done the sordid tasks for them and then to eliminate him? Rammer (talk) 20:35, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Read the TP archives - this issue has been beaten to death.HammerFilmFan (talk) 02:01, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Request for opinions: External Link

I recently added an "External Link" to a page at the Spartacus Educational website: http://spartacus-educational.com/GERheydrich.htm, on the grounds that it contains a number of useful primary sources and photographs. Editor Kierzek has reverted the edit on the grounds that links to Spartacus Educational have previously been discussed and rejected. It strikes me that this particular page meets the criteria for Wikipedia (error free, references etc). A discussion of the notability and reliability of the Spartacus website was recently conducted here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Spartacus_Educational, and the decision was in favour of the site. I would be grateful for other opinions on this. Tartarusrussell (talk) 18:52, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Again, you know why I reverted as this was discussed by us at length on my talk page; you discussed it on another editor's talk page (who separately reverted your addition on another article page) and it was discussed on the talk page of Talk:Nazi Germany [1], which you were involved. There was no consensus to add it there and I was not the only one who stated it does not meet RS standards. Spartacus is the personal website of one man with no editorial oversite. The discussion you mention was as to whether the article page should be deleted or not; that is different. Kierzek (talk) 21:08, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Wannsee Conference

The 1942 Wannsee Conference did not formalise "plans for the final solution to the Jewish Question—the deportation and extermination of all Jews in German-occupied territory". The formal plans were the deportation of Jews to work camps in the east. That was no more a "formal plan for extermination" than were Stalin's mass deportations to work camps. The practical realities in both cases may have been different.Royalcourtier (talk) 06:49, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Please discusse the subject here Talk:Wannsee Conference and quote your sources. Do you understand Nazi language?Xx234 (talk) 09:17, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

German military awards and trophie

No such section.Xx234 (talk) 09:13, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

This is already covered in the info box and in general in the sub-section "Summary of career", which links to the main sub-article: Service record of Reinhard Heydrich. Kierzek (talk) 14:19, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Role in Holocaust - Letter from Göring

The caption suggests that the letter hides the intention of the "final solution" behind the euphemism "in the manner of emigration or evacuation". Actually the letter reads: Amending the task given to you by decree of 24.1.39, to solve the Jewish question [...] in the manner of emigration or evacuation, I hereby give you the task to make all necessary preparations [...] for a final solution ... (my translation, I'm a native German speaker) So this order from Göring to Heydrich actually marks the departure from thoughts about emigration, and the only euphemism left is "final solution" itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CF30:B2D0:215:58FF:FEC5:BC50 (talk) 01:21, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a suggestion for a new caption? -- Diannaa (talk) 01:28, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I tweaked it. Kierzek (talk) 15:02, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Hardly the crime of the century, but think about including it in the article

Reinhard was a total tax evader. Source: Markus, Hugh (1997). The History of the German Public Accounting Profession. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-0815330103, page 99. Best, Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 00:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Monthly salary

The article currently states "Himmler was impressed and hired him immediately. His pay was 180 Reichsmarks per month (40 USD)". I have virtually no idea what the equivalent of one Reichmark is so I'm going to assume that the 40 dollars stated in the sentence is true. This, however, is (IMO) unlikely to be true; according to this source todays equivalent of 40 dollars in 1931 (the year Heydrich was hired by Himmler) is 583 dollars... I find it hard to believe that top-ranking SS figures like Heydrich would receive a mere 600 dollars a month compared to how much an army general would make (1,640 dollars, click here). I also have a source here from World Media Rights which says Dietrich earned almost one million Reichmarks every year since the start of the war. If the 40 dollars in question is the salary Heydrich received for being Himmler's assistant immediately upon starting his job, I suggest mentioning that to avoid confusion. Furthermore, it would much more interesting to know how much he earned when he was at the height of his power and influence. I'd like some opinions on this. Cheers, Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 15:09, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I am able to see on Google the page in Dederichs 2009, which is the source for these two sentences, and the purported salary is not there (though the SS and NSDAP member numbers are). It's not in Longerich either. So I don't know where the salary figure came from. I think we should take it out as unsourced. -- Diannaa (talk) 15:33, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I see here that the 40 USD salary bit was included in the article during the GA-review in 2012 so going through the article history to find the editor who included the part could take some time! Long story short, I'm also in favor of removing it as it's unsourced and unlikely to be true (given my reasons above). Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 15:49, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Wait a second, Diannaa! I just discovered that the 40 USD bit is actually true! This Der Speigel source reads "Heydrich's starting monthly salary of only 180 reichmarks was considerably lower than that of a skilled laborer. But he placed more value on having a chance to participate in a national revolutionary movement that rejected the political system of the day, which he had come to hold fundamentally responsible for destroying his previous middle-class existence. He was also sure this would be the way to suitably impress Lina von Osten's family". Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 15:52, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I suggest this new wording:

Himmler was impressed and hired him immediately. His starting monthly pay was only 180 Reichsmarks (the equivalent of 40 dollars), a salary lower than that of a skilled laborer. Heydrich, however, was at the time more interested in the Nazi movement than a certain salary and further believed that a career in the SS would impress Lina's family.

Thoughts? Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 16:06, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

The article is a review of Hitler's Hangman: The Life of Heydrich by Robert Gerwarth, which I can pick up this afternoon at the local library. I'd rather source to a book than a review of the book. From what I can see on Google, it looks like there's more info on salaries throughout his career on pages 110-111. -- Diannaa (talk) 16:22, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good, please ping me when you have more information. :) Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 16:35, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Also, Diannaa, we should, in the new sentence, mention that besides the money he later earned for being the man with the iron heart, Heydrich was also a tax evader (see section right above). Sounds pretty relate-able. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 20:01, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I have Gerwarth's book at home and can check it tonight if need be; sorry, I could not reply and check it sooner; was sick all weekend. Kierzek (talk) 12:29, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to hear you were sick; hope it was nothing serious and that you're feeling better now. I'm sure Diannaa will produce a proposed wording which we can then tweak a bit, but I think it would be helpful if you show us what the pages 110-111 (as Diannaa mentioned above) says, if anything, about Heydrichs later salary or wealth. Cheers, Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 15:37, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

It was nothing serious, thanks. I will look tonight at Gerwarth, if Diannaa does not beat me to it. :) I recall when Heydrich started the SD it was on a very meager budget and he had to share a typewriter. Kierzek (talk) 16:40, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good. :) Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 17:02, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to hear you've been sick, Kierzek. The info on the 1931 salary appears on page 52 of Gerwarth's book. On that same page is information about why he took this low-paying job: his career in the navy had ended; Lina's family supported the Nazi movement; and the quasi-military and revolutionary nature of the post appealed to him. The story about the shared office and typewriter is on page 55. The "comfortable" salary he was making 15 months later was 290 Reichsmarks (page 58); but it wasn't fifteen months later - it was December 1931, at the time of his wedding. I don't know what event this 15 months is being measured from, but it's not from the start of his service with Himmler (August 1931), and it's not from the date he left the navy (April 1931). So that sentence needs to be tweeked.

Heydrich's 1936 tax return showed a base income of 8,400 RM per year, plus a 12,000 RM allowance as head of the Gestapo; 1937 - total declared income of 15,729.59 RM; 1938 - 17,371.53 RM. This income included 6000 RM as a member of the Reichstag from 1936. (pages 110-111) Gerwarth states that he got these figures from income tax returns, so he was certainly filing, if not paying. I can't see the relevant pages of The History of the German Public Accounting Profession in Google view, so I don't know how to interpret this. -- Diannaa (talk) 22:01, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposed new wording:

His starting monthly pay was only 180 Reichsmarks (the equivalent of 40 dollars), a salary lower than that of a skilled laborer. Heydrich, however, decided to take the job as his career in the navy had ended, Lina's family supported the Nazi movement, and the quasi-military and revolutionary nature of the post appealed to him. In the beginning he had to share a typewriter with a college. By 1932, Heydrich was earning 290 Reichsmarks a month, a salary he called "comfortable". Throughout the 1930s, as his power and influence grew bigger, his income increased enormously, and in 1938 he declared a gross income of 17,371.53 Reichsmarks (the equivalent of 78,000 dollars).

Thoughts? Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 22:22, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Tis okay, perhaps a bit too long. "College" should be "colleague". -- Diannaa (talk) 01:10, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I tweaked it, see what you guys think. Off to bed for me. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 01:23, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I just edit-conflicted with you, K. Here's what I came up with:

Although the starting salary of 180 Reichsmarks (the equivalent of 40 USD) was low, Heydrich decided to take the job because Lina's family supported the Nazi movement, and the quasi-military and revolutionary nature of the post appealed to him. At first he had to share an office and typewriter with a colleague, but by 1932 Heydrich was earning 290 Reichsmarks a month, a salary he described as "comfortable". As his power and influence grew throughout the 1930s, his salary grew commensurately; by 1938 his income increased to 17,371.53 Reichsmarks (the equivalent of 78,000 USD).

-- Diannaa (talk) 01:25, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Sound fine. Kierzek (talk) 12:23, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Yea, looks very good. I say implement it. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 13:17, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay added and I believe I got the page cites correct as noted above. Kierzek (talk) 14:34, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Wunderbar. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 16:24, 5 May 2015 (UTC)