Talk:Reinhard Heydrich/Archive 4

Suggested addition--a recently available film of the state funeral.
You tube has with English subtitles two versions of the propaganda film on this man's funeral. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AtyWAf2xCq0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9P17nUoG0Q&feature=related Nothing else, in my opinion, compares as respects demonstrating the centrality of Heydrich to Nazi ideology; find another Nazi leader so celebrated at his funeral. You can simply reference the films in that section on his funeral or describe them separately, but they really do show how much the third reich loved this monster. That the film depicts the Hall as a Cathedral and makes his award look like the cloth a Bishop or Pope wears accentuates the horror. As for Heydrich's being Jewish because of his nose, visit Germany to see that the so called Jewish nose is a non-Jewish German nose in many parts of the country; this comes as a shock to many on their first visit. --CharlesHenryLeaFan (talk) 20:28, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Image of Lidice
I have restored the image of Lidice removed form the article. It is directly relevant to the article sub-section. I also note that there are no images of the many crimes perpetrated by Heydrich in this article. This seems to me counter to Wikipedia policy. Peterlewis (talk) 10:37, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The Holocaust
I have restored the reference to the Holocaust in the lead to the article. This is his main contribution to history, and needs emphasis to those who are not aware of his role at the Wannsee conference and earlier. Peterlewis (talk) 17:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It is already clear from the lede and clear in the article but I will add a link to lede sentence. Kierzek (talk) 17:59, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

OK. I have also inserted relevant images which clearly show the nature of his activities. Otherwise, one might not appreciate the awful magnitude of his many crimes. Peterlewis (talk) 22:33, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

When unprotected
Please remove duplicate Prague entry on line 6 and wiki-ize first entry.

I will revisit for readability. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.230.117.16 (talk) 23:17, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Continuation of archived succession comments
I retrieved these comments from the Discussion archive:

"Adolf Hitler considered him a possible successor?

Any source about this affirmation? If not, it will be better to be deleted —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.79.85.254 (talk) 16:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that this sentence should be deleted.--TL36 (talk) 17:03, 5 July 2009 (UTC)"

I remember reading two sources about this, one that went into considerable detail. It may have been William L. Shirer or the diaries of Goebbels. At any rate, I've never read an opinion contrary. As I recall, the reference included a number of points: a) That Hitler regarded Heydrich the "perfect Aryan", b) That Heydrich had wide popular support, c) That Hitler sent his personal physician to evaluate Heydrich's condition after the shooting, d) That Hitler followed his progress closely and e) That Hitler's anger about the killing of his favorite was the reason for his extreme response.

At any rate, if my memory is right in this, Heydrich was the heir presumptive to the Third Reich. And if that's true, it's highly significant vis-a-vis Hitler's paranoia and outlook generally. 98.210.208.107 (talk) 11:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I've just gone through all the pages listed as mentioning Heydrich in the index of Shirer's Rise and Fall and there is no reference to Heydrich being Hitler's successor in any way. Goebbels Diaries, possibly - I don't have a copy to hand. HTH, Squiddy | (squirt ink?)  13:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks. It might have been a later Shirer. Now I'm feeling guilty, but I'm not sure how to quickly track down the sources I was thinking of. Darn. 98.210.208.107 (talk) 23:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I can tell you it is referred to in Louis L. Snyder's (good for it's time but now quite dated) Encyclopedia of the Third Reich. This on page 144 for the entry on Heydrich. Kierzek (talk) 01:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Grammatical error needs correcting
The following sentence has a simple grammatical error that should be corrected. The verb gave should be give.

He explained, "...making this Czech garbage into Germans must gave way to methods based on racist thought". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexlange (talk • contribs) 00:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You are correct. It probably was a typo. Kierzek (talk) 01:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. Kierzek (talk) 17:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

President of Interpol
In August 1940, he was appointed and served as President of Interpol (the international law enforcement agency).

I didn't know that, honestly! -80.141.165.128 (talk) 18:22, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Interpol during World War II was little more than a Nazi controlled security police agency. Heydrich simply took the title of President by default.  The WWII Interpol was far different from what that agency is today. -OberRanks (talk) 21:21, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Nicknames
I've removed "Himmler's Evil Genius" and "The Young Evil God of Death" from the info box because (1) They aren't sourced, (2) I've never heard them anywhere else, and (3) They sound made-up. Please don't replace them unless a source is found saying they were widely-used nicknames for him. Squiddy | (squirt ink?)  07:51, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * They are NOT made up. Really, would I do that or allow someone else to do that; heck no. I would suggest you consider reading up more in depth as to Heydrich and Himmler. I will go back and source them when I get the time. Time is the real problem here. Kierzek (talk) 14:18, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I added back in "Young Evil god of Death" with the book cite. I know I have read the other one mentioned above, I just can't place what book, at the moment. The other issue is the reinsert of his "main" nickname in the lede again. I took it out of the lede for it is redundant as it is listed in the "nickname" section, as well. Therefore, it is not needed in the lede. But if no one else cares, I will not revert it again Hoops. Kierzek (talk) 14:44, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I too have heard "Himmler's Evil Genius" several times, will be sure to add in a citation if I happen across the source.Hoops gza (talk) 17:38, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

It appears that "Himmler's Evil Genius" was not Reinhard Heydrich, but Professor Karl Gebhardt, Heinrich Himmler's personal physician. "He was universally regarded as Himmler's evil genius.", page 114, The Last Days of Hitler, by Hugh Redwald Trevor-Roper. EdwardEditor (talk) 05:34, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Supposed Jewish ancestry
It's amazing what can be lost in history but put very simply, those that were unfortunate enough to have a prominent Schnabel (literally: a beak) were thought to have Jewish ancestry. This was the only reason that it ever came to be questioned by those that would use it against him. To suggest that his grandmother's second husband had a Jewish name as being the reason is farcical. The immediate sight of his 'beak' was the only reason for his enemies to question the lineage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.21.158.172 (talk) 21:38, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Although he was not Jewish, I still think it should be put in that as a youth he was often targeted by the rumor was his grandmother was Jewish.--Jimmyson1991 (talk) 16:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I have added this and is relevant and worth putting in.--Jimmyson1991 (talk) 19:55, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Night and Fog Decree
"To Hitler's dismay, anti-Nazi resistance was alive and well, especially in Norway, France, the Netherlands and Belgium."

In the Netherlands, the resistance was not alive and well. Besides that, the sabotage attempts were amateuristic and even in 1944, a mere 40% of the resistence fighters was armed. Most of the Dutch population chose to accommodate. Only after february 1942 did tensions between the population and the occupier really build up. 81.68.255.36 (talk) 11:40, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Be WP:BOLD in moderating the heroic formulations, which are in discord with the policies of WP:NPOV If you want to add "amateuristic", please provide a source "Dr Example", and add "according to Dr Example". Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 15:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Murder vs. execution
Hi, I don't want to start another boring edit war ! But I have 2 issues here. First, as I already said, it is really incorrect to describe Nazi killings as "executions" when all the leaders responsible for the orders were hanged when caught, precisely because all these killings were crimes. For us to describe killings as executions in Wikipedia, we need evidence that there was due legal process - that the people "executed" had a semblance of a trial and some evidence, whether manufactured or not, presented that they had indeed committed some crime. Hence the killing of those who attempted to assasinate Hitler were indeed executions - they had a trial and evidence was presented. Those killed in the Night of the Long Knivers were murdered - no trial, no evidence, no dure legal process. The Nazis never even bothered with "due legal process" with those in occupied countries, which means, if we are to be accurate, lethal reprisals against locals, partisans etc. for attacks on Germans were murders, even if some killed had in fact engaged in partisan activy. If the Nazis had bothered to stage a trial and prsent "evidence" that these guys had attacked or even just plotted against Heydrich, then the word "execution" would apply. There is a danger that if we are sloppy with such words in Wikipedia that we in fact falsify history - that we imply that mass reprisals were legallly santioned by law, trial and evidence - because "execution" implies a state punishing specific people after due process. Mass reprisals are generally considered illegal under international law, and were in WWII - the Nazis knew they were flouting international law but didn't care. Secondly, when the article makes no mention that it is quoting directly from a published source, as here, Wiki must take responsibility for its choice of words. If we say "execution" we must be able to back up that assertion (like I said before, we need evidence that there was at least some semblance of a trial and evidence presented, no matter how corrupt, that those those on trial did the crime - 192 men couldn't all have attacked Heydrich. If, as you imply here, it is the referenced source that actually used ther term "execution" we need to make it very clear that this is a direct quote, the word is the author's, not Wiki's. regards, Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 13:53, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If I could throw in my two cents here (thank you KZ for the use of your talk page), this ties directly to the policy of WP:NEUTRAL. Historically on Wikipedia, introducing language into Nazi related articles labeling the Nazis as "killers" and "murderers" has always been reverted due to POV issues.  Instead of "they were vicious murderers", usually the article will state something like "He was convicted of war crimes for the murder of 10,000 people".  The execution vs. murder term is due to the legal definition of such - I don't know where the exact discussion is, but there once a LENGTHY talk page debate about this and a consensus was reached that if a formal execution order was given, to regard the action in the text as an execution.  So, that's all I know about this, its a deep and personal subject to some Wikipedia editors as KZ and I found out dealing with a recent similar situation on another article. (PS- I think this thread should be copied to the article page for better visibility) -OberRanks (talk) 14:35, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Rcbutcher, with all due respect, the fact is "executed" does not imply legitimate crimes therein; that was the ordered method used and what the detail cited source states; they were "executed" by firing squad. It was a quote, which I could put in quotes, if need be. I must ask, have you read the cited source? It was a detailed analysis put together by three Czech historians on behalf of and in cooperation with the Czech Ministry of Defence; in their wording, do you really think those guys are going to cut the Nazis a break; of course not! Neither would I do so. BTW-you will note that I had agreed with the wording in the very next sentence in the lede which stated the people were "murdered"; and that word was used by me in the body text; so that should have made the matter very clear to all readers. Clearly, this is a strong personal matter for you, as to certain wording; I believe in objective presentation of history as far as reasonability possible; and given I agreed to the change, "shot by firing squad"; this point is really moot. I would encourage you to read the source cite for further detailed info. I added portions of it to the article as I thought the article needed more detail on the matter. I will further move this discussion to the talk page for better visibility. Thanks for the thoughts, gentlemen. Kierzek (talk) 15:04, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Redundancy of the "aftermath"
Gentlemen, in a related matter as to the discussion above, I note some redundancy which needs to be dealt with; in the: "Killing in Prague" section it gives an uncited, incomplete statement (at the end) as to the reprisals and murders, etc. Then in the "Aftermath" section, the reprisals are dealt with in detail, including cited sources. I believe the short uncited (older) additional part in the "Killing in Prague" section should be taken out for redundancy and concision reasons; plus it is not in detail. Kierzek (talk) 15:32, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Hearing no objection I removed the redundancy and moved the "Aftermath" section up so it is now after the "Killing in Prague" section; this for better flow. Kierzek (talk) 19:02, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks good. Trying to adhere to neutrality with this article is obviously difficult, and there are a lot of personal feelings out there about this man.  His son still lives in Germany and I often wonder what the man must go through whenever someone finds out who his father was. -OberRanks (talk) 19:07, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

File:The place where Reinhard Heydrich was killed.jpg Nominated for Deletion
I see that no reason was provided and the deletion happend. Can someone tell me why? Was it inacurate - a good reason for deletion or what? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.122.239.20 (talk) 09:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Has to do with being determined to be a non-free image by someone (it was not me). If the image is non-free, it may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. Kierzek (talk) 16:54, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Reichsprotektor of Bohemia & Moravia
Is it not rather misleading to have a section heading "Reichsprotektor of Bohemia & Moravia", when he never held this title? There were only two Reichsprotectors, Neurath and Frick. Heydrich was Deputy Reichsprotector, and then Acting Reichsprotector when Neurath was sent on "leave" by Hitler. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 10:07, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * As "acting" Reichsprotector, it is not misleading, in fact. He was the de facto head of the Nazi government; the leader and the one with all the power. However, you can add the word "Acting" to the title if you feel strongly about it. Kierzek (talk) 14:38, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No, Intelligent Mr. Toad, it isn't misleading. Heydrich in fact submitted a personal request to replace Neurath as Reichsprotektor of Bohemia and Moravia. That request was approved by Hitler himself. And003 (talk) 05:01, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Getting there
I am removing the "refimprove" tag from the article now. If there are particular things noted that need sourcing, please mark them with a "citation needed" tag. Thanks. --Dianna (talk) 03:22, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Kierzek (talk) 03:38, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't find a thing on the "Night and Fog Decree". Have you got any sources for that section? Thanks. --Dianna (talk) 04:28, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. Kierzek (talk) 02:28, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. How does the Decree tie directly to Heydrich? Is it too peripheral to include in the article? --Dianna (talk) 04:58, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Heydrich's SD was charged with carrying it out and reporting on it to the RSHA command (Heydrich). I see your point as to nexus, it could be moved to the SD article or at least incorporated into the main text without being a separate sub-section. Kierzek (talk) 15:05, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * We could say "Heydrich's SD". Section headers can be looked at once the main copy edit and sourcing is done; there may be other sections that are too short and should be combined. Do you have a source for the claim of 7000 victims? --Dianna (talk) 16:50, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No-not for that point. Kierzek (talk) 17:39, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I found an online source: http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007465, but it does not mention Heydrich; it talks about Keitel, who is not mentioned in this article. I am thinking it should be removed as too peripheral to this particular biography. If he was directly involved in the implementation of this decree, there would be more information in our primary sources. --Dianna (talk) 19:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC) I have tweeked the content as discussed above, so it is all good in the meantime, and ok to leave as-is if that's what you think is best. See you later, gotta go out now. --Dianna (talk) 20:21, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Keitel signed the order. Heydrich's SD was charged with carrying it out and reporting on it to the RSHA command; which was Heydrich at the top, until he was killed. That was Heydrich's involvement. Kierzek (talk) 22:21, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I am now more inclined to leave it in. It is not like we are crazy cramped for space, like we were with Adolf Hitler. This article is still under 6000 words; a reasonable size for a figure of this importance. --Dianna (talk) 05:57, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay by me. Kierzek (talk) 13:42, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

What about Flight ?
Hi,

I didn't really read the article, but I see nothing about the Heydrich's short career. It's an forgetting sthforgetting thing or I didn't read well enough ?! --Bobybarman34 (talk) 15:29, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It is in there. See: "Summary of career section" and for even more detail, the main article: Service record of Reinhard Heydrich (which is linked). Kierzek (talk) 23:54, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Pop culture cut
I have cut the popular culture section in its entirety. I feel it is completely inappropriate here, and was getting so large as to overwhelm the article. Any comments or discussion welcome. Regards, --Dianna (talk) 17:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Bravo! Iloveandrea (talk) 02:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Seconded! Good decision. Squiddy | (squirt ink?)  08:45, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I added a section on fictional portrayals - haven't seen the "pop culture" section, but if there's so much pop reference to Heydrich, it seems it should be made into a separate article, rather than being cut altogether.

Given that a novel about Heydrich won a major prize in 2010, there is no reason to treat the subject of his fictional portrayal as somehow taboo. Thusblogsanderson (talk) 17:22, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Deleted as trivia. Heydrich is not/was not a pop culture subject and shouldn't be treated as such. Fictional portrayals may be notable elsewhere but not within this article. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—►  17:34, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * That's absurd. Binet's novel won the Prix Goncourt - obviously he IS a "pop-culture subject," whether you like it or not. Show me a general Wikipedia policy against references to fictional portrayals in biographical articles, or any other Wikipedia policy that justifies your cut. --Thusblogsanderson (talk) 17:49, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * First, there is the consensus policy (that thing you went against knowingly). That is where the judgment calls of editors come into play. The fact that you don't know that Binet nor his prize do not redefine subjects as pop culture is telling. The addition is nothing more than cruft...typical pollution of articles that is pulled out wholesale when an effort is made to improve an article. Alternate histories and fictionalization of characters don't belong in articles unless the article subject is a pop culture subject...and even then it is questionable. See cruft, kill cruft. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—►  18:13, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * (1) "Fictional portrayals" is much narrower than "pop culture." Reverting the deleted pop-culture section would've been against consensus; adding new material on a narrower topic was not. (2) "The fact that you don't know that Binet nor his prize do not redefine subjects as pop culture is telling" - what does that even mean? In fact, both Binet's novel and a Kerr novel about the assassination of Heydrich are being published in the U.S. in 2012. (3) Your "cruft" label is offensive and unjustified. Offensive because I certainly am not a "fan" of Heydrich's.  Unjustified because, if you actually read the "cruft" article that you linked, brief mentions of fictional portrayals don't fit the definitions therein.  (4) You didn't answer my question about any policy against a "fictional portrayals" section in a biographical article.  If there were a great deal of pop culture stuff on Heydrich, a separate article (as was done for Hitler) would be appropriate.  But mention of a couple of contemporary novels doesn't merit such segregation. --Thusblogsanderson (talk) 18:26, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I have a couple of problems with the addition of fictional portrayals. First, your addition has no sources; this article has achieved the status of Good Article; that means all material should have sources. But the main reason I cut the pop culture trivia in the first place, and the reason I would like to eliminate it from all our articles about the Nazi elite, is because it trivialises the enormous loss of life and suffering that these people caused during WWII. Who gives a care how American popular culture views the Nazi elite? It is not important; it's trivia; it's disrespectful to the people that died in the Holocaust. I feel pretty strongly about this. --Dianna (talk) 18:58, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Dianna, the point about sources is a good one, and can be easily redressed. As for your major reason, however, I confess myself a bit stunned: is it Wikipedia policy that pop-culture or literary references to the Holocaust are taboo? Is it your position, by implication, that all fiction addressing the Holocaust is "trivialising" and "disrespectful"?  I don't think your position is tenable.  Moreover, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, which records the world as it is, not as someone would like it to be.  I respect your feeling on the subject, but literature is one way people try to understand and address terrible things; I don't see why Wikipedia should take the position of disparaging that. --Thusblogsanderson (talk) 20:40, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * (re to Thusblogsanderson) (1) You've already acknowledged that you were attempting to add pop culture stuff to the article; backpedaling here doesn't quite work. (2) "Heydrich appears as a minor character..." is pretty much a statement that identifies it as a minor point not worth mentioning. (3) Your misunderstanding. (4) Your addition falls short of notability; is there a secondary source that points out the significance of the works relative to their influence on Heydrich being a "pop culture subject"? Fictional portrayals are pop culture and are treated as such here. From WP:IPC, "Many articles about subjects with broad cultural impact have sections titled "In popular culture," "Cultural references," or "In fiction," which exclusively contain references to the subject in popular culture."


 * "When trying to decide if a pop culture reference is appropriate to an article, ask yourself the following:


 * Has the subject acknowledged the existence of the reference?
 * Have reliable sources that don't generally cover the subject pointed out the reference?
 * Did any real-world event[clarification needed] occur because of the reference?


 * If you can't answer "yes" to at least one of these, you're just adding trivia. Get all three and you're possibly adding valuable content.
 * ⋙–Berean–Hun<b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b> 19:09, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * (1) Okay, it appears now that you are simply being argumentative, not constructive; I mentioned "pop culture" in reference to the previous Talk comments, and I distinguished fictional references from general "pop culture" (Simpsons references, etc.). (2) As it happens, Kerr has a novel due out in a few weeks in the U.S. (Prague Fatale) about the Heydrich assassination, and that doesn't address the Binet novel. (3) Would you care to refer to the "cruft" article, or do you have no real point to make? (4) I can certainly supply such references if they're needed, but the IPC essay - which, I note, is an ESSAY not a policy - seems to have more trivial references in mind than "a novel devoted to the historical figure in question." And as your own citation proves, many Wikipedia articles DO have such sections, and there is no implication they are to be shunned in all instances.


 * The 3-part test is a bit dubious in this context - Heydrich is unlikely to acknowledge the existence of any references to him - but for instance, reliable sources have covered Binet's novel and its literary recognition. I will be happy to supply them, per Dianna's excellent suggestion above.  But it seems that I am dealing really with a prejudice against mentioning fictional portrayals of Nazis, and I am afraid we are going to have to get some third-parties in here to consider this issue, when I have the time to gin that up.


 * It may bear mention that I came to the Heydrich article in the first place because I was a bit skeptical of Kerr's picture of Heydrich, and wanted to see whether the article addressed any issues therewith. Many, many more people are going to "learn" about Heydrich from reading Kerr or Binet than from reading a published biography, and Wikipedia is well-suited to treating issues of difference between fiction and fact (see, e.g., the article on the von Trapp family which notes discrepancies in The Sound of Music. --Thusblogsanderson (talk) 20:40, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * We can't really treat the issues of the differences between fact and fiction without reliable sources to back it up. For us to do so ourselves is considered original research. I would like to elaborate a bit on my previous response. Huge trivia sections used to appear at the bottom of virtually every article in Wikipedia, but the decision was made some years ago to cut them all. In my opinion we should be doing the same with these "pop culture" or even "fictional depictions" sections. You don't see any of that stuff in copies of paper encyclopedias, and I don't think we should be including them here in Wikipedia if we expect to be treated as a serious encyclopedic resource. Our readership is world-wide, and the vast majority of the world is Not American, and does not care how American culture depicts things. Regards, -- Dianna (talk) 20:58, 27 April 2012 (UTC)