Talk:Reinhard Heydrich/Archive 6

"The Merciful Butcher"
Donnelley, Paul (2012). Assassination!. Lulu Publishing. ISBN 978-1908963031 says on page 48:

Do you think it's worth including that he made some exceptions to certain Jews, like Hitler did with Gütman and Bloch? Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 17:12, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we could, especially if we balance it out with some information about his leadership style, which can be sourced to pp.73-75 of Gerwarth. It says he had a authoritative leadership style, using fear to extract obedience and respect. He was a serious person, never friendly or jovial. He cultivated a soldierly appearance and demeanour, taking daily physical exercise, and expecting his subordinates to do the same. He expected his subordinates also to be professional, efficient, ideologically committed, and physically fit. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:33, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Got a proposed wording? Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 19:49, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I thought my addition could go in the section "Summary of career" and perhaps could be worded quite close to what I said above. Something like this:

I'm not sure where your addition would be placed; probably somewhere in the section on events in Poland in 1939. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:37, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * well, perhaps it shouldn't be in a paragraph about his leadership style, but in some sort of personal life section or ... overall contributions to the Nazi cause–whatever comes closest to any of those two. But I like your wording though, just don't think it totally relates to my overall reason for starting this section. But, yea, good wording; I say implement it for sure. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 23:48, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * "Summary of career" is a good place for your addition Diannaa. Kierzek (talk) 01:02, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Jonas, I think it relates, because he was a nasty person. We don't want to de-emphasize that based on the fact that there were a few people he did not wish to have killed. Do either of you think my addition is too trivial? Like, of course he expected his staff to behave professionally. Perhaps the last sentence should be omitted. -- Diannaa (talk) 02:49, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry if my previous post seemed a little rude (I am just tired today). I have gone ahead and added my edit (minus the last sentence). Jonas, if you would like to prepare a suggested edit and tell us where you think it would best fit into the prose? -- Diannaa (talk) 03:34, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it can be left out but will listen to other opinions. Diannaa, your addition is fine. Kierzek (talk) 11:27, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Proposed new wording:


 * Simply tweaked your last sentence in regard to your latest comment, Diannaa, and added the part about Jewish exceptions. What yall think? Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 12:56, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Diannaa, I did not see your edit in which you said you had already implemented your first wording minus the last bit! In any case, let me know what you think about my proposal. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 12:58, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that's the best location for it. If we put it in a different location, the wording might have to be changed. Regardless, I would drop the part "Although a convinced Nazi," as it's redundant. -- Diannaa (talk) 13:32, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Diannaa, how about tweaking it to "Heydrich, however, moved to ensure the safety and well-being of certain Jews he had a personal relations to, such as Paul Sommer, the former German champion fencer. Others included the 1936 Summer Polish Olympic fencing team" and placing it in "Role in the Holocaust" section? Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 20:34, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * What about at the end of the third paragraph, right after the sentence that ends "including over 700,000 in Russia alone" -- Diannaa (talk) 23:10, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Sounds just about perfect! :) Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 23:15, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I've included it in the article. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 12:30, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME
I suggest changing "President of the ICPC" to "President of Interpol" as I strongly believe most people know recognize the name "Interpol" as apposed to the abbreviation. Any objections? Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 15:45, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It was not commonly called Interpol until 1956. Perhaps should leave it as-is, and add "now Interpol" in brackets? -- Diannaa (talk) 15:49, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree with Diannaa. Kierzek (talk) 15:55, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I've known about Interpol since I was a kid from movies, but when I saw "President of the ICPC" I thought to myself "What the hell is that?". Changing it altogether or adding "Interpol" in brackets makes no difference to me; just think it's important to include that name. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 15:59, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Try to find a better place for this photo
File:SS general Reinhard Heydrich with his wife Lina and their children, unknown date.gif. Cheers, Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 16:27, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Use of primary sources
In the part heydrichs role in the holocaust in this lemma is a qotation cited form primary sources. This use of primary sources correspondends not with the Wikipedia Guideline No_original_research, which prescribes secondary sources. In this case was the classical meaning of the quotation ambigous. There I added the rating of a reliable secondary source. (The only drawback is, that I cited a book in German. But this book is also published in English, which is not accessable fpr me in HAmburg. If you have to add something, you could take the english edition of the encyclopedia of the holocaust.). --Orik (talk) 10:34, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Your addition has been challenged and removed by two different editors. Please don't re-add it unless you can get consensus on the talk page to do so. The reason I removed it is because it's not correct. The purpose of the Wannsee conference was to organize, not to announce, and is not the "first explicit naming" of the plan; it is not even the first written mention of the plan. The Nazis began systematically killing Jews shortly after the invasion of Poland in 1939. On 31 July 1941 Göring gave written authorization to Heydrich to prepare and submit a plan for a "total solution of the Jewish question" in territories under German control and to coordinate the participation of all involved government organisations. Hitler gave a speech on 12 December 1941 to his Gauleiters where he announced the approaching extermination of the Jews. See  -- Diannaa (talk) 12:16, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Diannaa's WP:RS cited points are what I was driving at in my edit summary. What you purpose to add is just not correct. The meeting was to organize and prioritize. A primary goal of the meeting was to emphasise that once the deportations had been completed, the implementation of the Final Solution became an internal matter of the SS, totally outside the purview of any other agency. Longerich, (2000) p. 14. A secondary goal was to determine the scope of the deportations and arrive at definitions of who was Jewish, who was Mischling, and who (if anybody) should be spared. Longerich, (2000) p. 14. Longerich, Peter, "The Wannsee Conference in the Development of the 'Final Solution' " (2000), "Holocaust Educational Trust Research Papers", Volume: 1, Issue: 2, The Holocaust Educational Trust. ISBN: 0-9516166-5-X. Further, Eichmann's biographer David Cesarani agrees with Longerich's interpretation. Kierzek (talk) 12:48, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * at first @ Kierzetalk. In your summary you objected to me, that I would deal with the origins of the Endlösung der Judenfrage. But, as I wrote, I didnt. I was only concerned with the  first public mention of the word Endlösung - in front  of mainly the leaders of the administration -. This word had the meaning  of Murder and was the first public mentioning of the murder. Therefore I can not see with which authority you I adopt the cited arguments of Diannaa.
 * @ Diannaa: my edit is based on the  encyclopedia of holocaust edited also from Browning. That my edit was removed by two different authors, means not the superiority of their opinion. I will try to check your argument in the cited literature. The problem is, that the german editions, which are on my hand,  are partly not arranged in the same way. You could please consider, that i dealt only withe the significance of the quote of a primary source, which is currently not explained. Not more! The quote is in my opinion a excessive demand for a reader, who is not familiar with the holocaust. Please excuse my bad english. --Orik (talk) 19:57, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to removing the quotation. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:49, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see a problem with it, still; but with that said, do not feel strongly that it needs to be kept, either. The RS cited points are made without it, so it can be removed. Kierzek (talk) 21:02, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Lina's pension
The topic and court ruling of Lina's widows pension for a general killed in action was not without controversy and subject of numerous discussions in Konrad Adenauer’s cabinet. The issue had been brought forward by the SPD see the German Federal Archive bundesarchiv.de protocols from 3 September 1958, 3 December 1958 and 14 January 1959. I believe this should be mentioned in the article. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:19, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hitler's Hangman on page 291 says in 1956 and 1959 Lina won a series of court cases to obtain the pension, which the Federal Republic had previously denied because of his role in the Holocaust. She was entitled to a substantial pension because her husband was a German general killed in action. -- Diannaa (talk) 13:08, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I remember reading about this in several sources; it could be briefly mentioned here and it should be added to Lina's article. Kierzek (talk) 15:29, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay I got it added to both articles. Lina's article needs some page numbers, if you have any of those books. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:07, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, good job. I will look to replace the cites needed from another source. Kierzek (talk) 02:55, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * My original comment here had a slightly different intend. Even after the court ruled to grant her the pension, the German government all the way up to Konrad Adenauer's cabinet, debated this decision. If a court decides to grant a pension, such a topic should not normally reach the Chancellor of Germany, in theory this is a very minor issue and should not reach this level. However, in Heydrich's case, the cabinet had to deal with this decision on three separate occasions. This makes this situation more unique than others. If I am not mistaken, you will find similar situations in post war German court rulings, the German post war judicial system also granted the widow of Roland Freisler full pension while the widows of the "perpetrators" of July 20 plot received little to nothing as they were still (for a long time) considered legitimately convicted. MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:54, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Berlin burial
The article states that Heydrich's grave coulnd't be located due to "a temporary wooden marker that disappeared when the Red Army overran the city in 1945 was never replaced". But if you look at the original grave site, you'll see it was already a monument with a real wall and bust on it, cf. here. This page claims that Hitler wanted to errect "a more elaborate monument" and that the grave was destroyed by the occupying Soviets. Now which version is true? Could someone with expertise maybe add some explaining information – ideally with reliable reference – to light up the room a bit? I'd be glad about any feedback. Thanks in advance.--Hubon (talk) 04:13, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "Temporary wooden marker" is sourced to Wannsee House and the Holocaust. I will have to bring it in on inter-library loan to find out more. Here is a photo of the wooden marker. I don't know whose memorial that is in the photo; it may be Heydrich, maybe not. I have never seen that photo before. Find-A-Grave is not considered a reliable source. Hitler's Hangman: The Life of Heydrich has 16 pages of plates; I will look at it tomorrow when I get to work and see if there's images of the grave. -- Diannaa (talk) 05:10, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Your great! Thanks a lot already!--Hubon (talk) 05:23, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately Hubon that photo caption is wrong. The memorial shown with the honor guard and bust is at the place where the assassination attempt on Heydrich occurred in Prague; I have read it was destroyed after the Nazis fled near the end of the war and the bust is said to be in a private collection now. I have seen that photo many times. Kierzek (talk) 12:48, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * See this page for a copy of the photo which shows the memorial with Heydrich's brother and family there.
 * Kierzek (talk) 12:59, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot for the profound research! So the article's version seems to be right, doesn't it? They really don't know where exactly the grave was. Still hard to imagine, though, considering Heydrich's status and the fact that he got a state funderal... Yet, it now still remains unclear whether the Soviets did really destroy the grave knowing that it was Heydrich's! I'm looking foreward for Diannaa's explanations... Thank you, Diannaa, once again for making the effort of using inter-library loan!!! ♥ --Hubon (talk) 23:37, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I had a look at Hitler's Hangman today, and while he mentions there were plans for a grandiose tomb, he does not say why it was never built. We will have to wait a while for the other book, which may have more details. It's over at the U of A, which usually only takes a week or two. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:49, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Wannsee House and the Holocaust does not have much more than was already present in the article. The tomb was not built as the structure was no longer a priority as Germany began to lose the war. The book has the same photo of the temporary wooden marker as the one we see on Find-A-Grave so I can confirm that that image is legit. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:43, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot, Dianaa!!! One last question: The source also doesn't say anything about the destruction by the Soviets?--Hubon (talk) 13:16, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The source says "The marker disappeared at the end of World War II" on page 87, and this is already cited in the article. The article does not say it was destroyed by the Soviets, and neither does the source. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:13, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Rank terms
The rank terms should be given correctly, e.g.: It's not SS-Obergruppenführer and General der Polizei, but SS-Obergruppenführer und General der Polizei – this forms one single rank, not two combined ranks. Thus, the English version is incorrect. Moreover, as stated in the article history, the "SS" prefix belongs to the rank terms and therefore also has to be written in italics. Yet, according edits have constantly been reverted.--Hubon (talk) 11:35, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree with the use of "und" but remember the use of italics is for phrases in other languages and for isolated foreign words that are not currently used in English, per WP:MOS. As for the rank terms, the prefix SS in italics is not needed when writing a rank such as Obergruppenführer in and of itself as SS is not an isolated foreign term in English and given the article on this rank is not presented that way, nor is the rank one of only the SS, but the SA and NSKK, as well. The clear indication of which service is still shown with SS in front of the given rank presented (which is in italics). Your change of the name of the RSHA back to the German name (Reichssicherheitshauptamt) was undone because the RSHA article name, by consensus, was changed to Reich Main Security Office; given this is English Wikipedia and per WP:COMMONNAME. Other recent edits on this article page have been tweaked copy edit work which is done for readability and concision reasons or for grammar and over-linking reasons; one should not take it personally. This is a community project put together for general readers; we all have had edits changed and even some reverted overtime. Kierzek (talk) 13:00, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Kierzek that SS should not be italicized. It needs to be consistent as well within this article and ideally across the whole suite of articles on Nazi Germany. Over-use of German language is not a good thing, and only serves to confuse the reader, the majority of which are English-language high school students. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:27, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Data on Einsatzgruppen
The source for the higher number is the Rhodes book, which gets the data from Hilberg. Hilberg trumps Shirer, as more data came out later, once the Iron Curtain came down. — Diannaa (talk) 14:58, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Film portrayals
The military history wikiproject suggests at WP:MILPOP not including pop culture sections on military topics unless the subject has had a notable impact on culture. So I am posting here to see if there's any consensus to include the material user:OberRanks‎ added. Personally my feeling is that, per the MILHIST guideline, we should not include it in this article. There's no sources been added, and no assertion that Heydrich has had a significant impact on popular culture. -- Diannaa (talk) 16:28, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * KEEP: Given that he's been portrayed consistently in films and television for over 70 years, and also by some very famous actors and in at least one ground breaking mini-series ("Holocaust"), there is more than enough to justify this inclusion as a significant cultural impact. Also, as stated in the article, Heydrich was one of only a handful of German Nazis (you could literally count them on one hand) who were portrayed in film while the Second World War was still on-going.  There's also a 1940s era journal article about Heydrich being one of only a few Nazis to be dramatically portrayed during WWII and there is an article in "Der Spiegel" from 1979 which speaks of Warner's performance in this role and its impact on television history.  Those sources can be added in the next few days once I can do the research.  This notice was posted very quickly, within less than 20 minutes of this material being placed in the article; perhaps a "citation needed" tag would be good in the grey areas rather than a removal. -O.R.Comms 16:39, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * OberRanks, I must agree with Diannaa since this is a GA rated article. It should be removed from the main body of the article for the reasons stated above. The film articles linked would cover Heydrich's film and T.V. portrayals for any interested readers. In the alternative, they could be listed in the "See also" section herein (like I did in the GA rated article: Death of Adolf Hitler). Kierzek (talk) 18:05, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * A new article on "Dramatic portrayals of Reinhard Heydrich" might also be a solution. When you say "the film articles linked", are they already covered in the body of the text? -O.R.Comms 18:52, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You could do such an article. When I wrote, "the film articles linked", I meant that I assume they must discuss Heydrich in said articles' themselves. Kierzek (talk) 19:08, 11 December 2015 (UTC)


 * REMOVE -- for reasons stated by Kierzek and Diannaa. PS -- A separate new article may be a good idea. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:13, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The removed section is here. I don't understand the MILHIST grounds for taking it out.  Also, there are several Czech films about him.  Atentát is apparently a well known one. 50.0.121.79 (talk) 22:35, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * See Dramatic portrayals of Reinhard Heydrich -O.R.Comms 23:30, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. There are a few more listed in the "related films" section of Atentát. 50.0.121.79 (talk) 03:51, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Awards in infobox
I find the exhaustive listing of awards, including extremely minor, such as the SS ring, to be excessive intricate detail. Would there be any objections to moving these to Service record of Reinhard Heydrich? Please let me know. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:07, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to the material being moved/removed. We could offer a link to Service record of Reinhard Heydrich in lieu of the list. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:59, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Since there is a separate article for his career history/service record, I don't object; otherwise as I have stated in the past for the top tier members bios, the awards section should be complete. There are times when "intricate detail" is called for. Kierzek (talk) 17:10, 22 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm generally not opposed to listing relevant awards in the articles. In this case, they were included in the infobox, which made the already very long infobox even longer. I believe that the infobox is generally reserved for the highest awards.


 * In any case, I inserted a link to the Service record article, and added the moved awards to the Talk page, since the target article already lists them. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:52, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Where are the Poles? All dead?
No mention of Poles in the lede? The man was as dedicated to elimination Poles as he was to Jews, and the Nazis were very successful indeed at murdering Poles. I shall add this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.65.215.149 (talk) 16:25, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Inaccuracy re Lidice
I know it's not the subject of this article, but all the same, the following sentence from the third paragraph is incorrect: " Lidice was razed to the ground; all men and boys over the age of 16 were shot, and all but a handful of its women and children were deported and killed in Nazi concentration camps." The article on the Lidice Massacre reports that 17 children and 153 women (which appears to be about 70% of the women) survived the war. Certainly more than a handful. Moioci (talk) 01:09, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Religion
This article does not identify Heydrich's religion. This is an omission. FreeFlow99 (talk) 18:23, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It is not omitted. It states he left the Catholic church in 1936 and is cited. Kierzek (talk) 13:31, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Reinhard Heydrich. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160704093600/https://www.ushmm.org/information/exhibitions/online-features/special-focus/kristallnacht/historical-overview/role-of-the-police/document-page-3 to http://www.ushmm.org/information/exhibitions/online-features/special-focus/kristallnacht/historical-overview/role-of-the-police/document-page-3
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304090853/http://www.ghwk.de/wannsee-conference/documents.html?lang=gb to http://www.ghwk.de/wannsee-conference/documents.html?lang=gb

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:11, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Liquidated
I suggest replacing the word 'liquidated' in the section 'Crushing the SA'. It is an informal use of the word which nominally means to wind down a business and sell off its assets. Better options may include annihilated, eradicated, extirpated, exterminated or just simply, killed. I understand that 'liquidated' has an informal meaning that suits its use here but in an encyclopaedia I feel one should be using a more formal language. Thoughts?Corleadad (talk) 17:41, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * While I have never thought there was a problem with the use of the term, "liquidated", herein; I changed it to the simple term of "killed". Kierzek (talk) 18:29, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That's a good edit - it's best to use plain, direct language. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:32, 12 January 2018 (UTC)