Talk:Reinhard Heydrich/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

RSHA

The article should mention the Reischssicherheitshauptamt (RSHA). Later the SD was only a department of the RSHA.Andries 31 Jan 2004

It should, especially since Gestapo tells that Heydrich was the "head of Gestapo" (which, if I understand things correctly, had already ceased to be its formal name, so perhaps that article should be clarified on the point as well). -- Jao 00:12, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Gestapo became a part of the RSHA but kept its name. Heydrich was initially the head of the SD but later was head of the RSHA that he helped to develop. In 1944 the RSHA consisted of the following departments 'Personal, Ausbildung, Organistation' (led by Ehrlinger), 'Haushalt & Wirtschaft' (led by Spacil), the SD (led by Ohlendorf for German areas and Schellenberg for abroad), 'Verbrechersbekaempfung/Kripo' (led by Nebe), 'Gegnererforschofung/GEheime STaats POlizei' (by Mueller) and 'Weltanschauliche Forschung' (by Dittel). Gestapo and Kripo both form the Sicherheitspolizie (Sipo). The 'Einsatzgruppen' were directly placed under the head of the RSHA (first Heydrich and later Kaltenbrunner). Source: Der Orden unter dem Totenkopf - Die Geschichte der SS by Heinze Hoehne.Andries 19:15, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

This article is very incomplete. It doesn't even mention the Einsatzgruppen that fell directly under Heydrich. Andries 21:36, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. The Wikipedia article on the Einsatzgruppen states that Heydrich FORMED the Einsatzgruppen. As his 2nd worst offense after the Wannsee Conference, it would be nice if someone with more expertise than I would cover his command of these mobile killing squads.Don (talk) 06:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Added new separate paragraph on the Einsatzgruppen that was indeed missing from Heydrich's encyclopedia page. Add to it guys if you wish. Most all is from the Einsatzgruppen page that lays it out well, overall.Kierzek (talk) 23:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Was Heydrich the second in command of the SS? As head of the RSHA he would certainly have been very powerful, but who was Himmler's official deputy?

Yes, he would have been considered "second in command" but this was due in part to the understanding and relationship Heydrich had forged with Himmler in the SS (and even within the Nazi Party) leadership; also because of the power Heydrich held. Up until his death, Heydrich was not only the real driving force in the SS but Himmler's true "right hand man." As said below there was no "official deputy." Wolff would have been considered third in line, at least until Himmler dismissed him as his Chief of Staff.Kierzek (talk) 23:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

There was nothing like an official "deputy". Karl Wolff (1900-1984), chief of staff "Reichsführer SS" sometimes was regarded as Himmler's "right hand". --charlandes 18:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Another source denotes Hermann Fegelein, connecting officer of Himmler to Hitler ("Verbindungsoffizier") as Himmler's Vize.--charlandes 15:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Fegelein became Himmler's SS liaison officer to Hitler and the Fuhrer HQ on Jan. 1, 1944 but did not have much real power. He did marry Eva Braun's sister but it did not save him in the end. See his Wikipedia page.Kierzek (talk) 00:43, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

---

The article is unbalanced with too much space for Heydrich's assassination and too little about his character, activities and achievements. Andries 17:47, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

Speaking as the person who originally edited the article to make it more substantive, please, if you feel you can improve it in anyway, edit away. I'm not a scholar in this particular field, and only felt that the article would benefit from what modest improvement I could give it. Vincent-D

I note that one of the plotters, Major-General Rudolf Krzak, died today at the age of ninety. The obit is at Daily Telegraph The world needs more like him.[[PaulinSaudi 15:38, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)]]

Deleted text from this place (which is interesting) is from this URL: [1]

Jewish ancestry?

The Jewish ancestor myth is bogus. --ori.livneh

Sorry you feel that way. its actually confirmed from quite a few sources. The memories of Walter Schellenberg is the biggest source of the theory and also there are some document's from Himmler's files which attest to it also. -Husnock 00:27, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

He did NOT have a Jewish ancestor. Remove your head from your Jewish propaganda books and you will see. His step-grandfather's name was Süss, but he was NOT Jewish. -Posted by Yodacows on 26 Jul 2005

"He did NOT have a Jewish ancestor. Remove your head from your Jewish propaganda books and you will see. His step-grandfather's name was Süss, but he was NOT Jewish." What are these 'Jewish propaganda books' you refer to, Yodacows? Why is it so important to you that Heydrich not have a Jewish ancestor..? oldcitycat 22:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the article in its present form covers both sides of the argument fairly well. -Husnock 14:20, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

It is not open for debate. Heydrich was NOT a Jew. Accept it, and stop reverting my corrections. -unsigned anon user

I'm glad you feel you own the article, but thats not how this place works. As you can see, numerous editors are reverting your changes and will continue to do so. If you continue this edit warring, the page will probably be protected from editing and then noone, including you, will be able to make changes. -Husnock 20:13, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

More on alleged Jewish ancestry

Not having lived in the Third Reich and not having known the man and his family personally (thank God!) that is the conclusion I draw from my extensive reading on the subject. I am both a native English and German speaker and have read a good deal on the subject in German books. The Germans are usually extremely conscientious and comitted about presenting the facts on anything concerning the Third Reich - therefore I generally tend to believe what I read in German history books on this era. Historians seem to generally agree that a rumour that Heydrich had Jewish ancestors was created by enemies of his (he had rather a lot of those... ) trying to damage his career. Although I recognise that this should be mentioned in the article, it does seem rather odd to devote a whole section to a rumour worthy of only a short sentence. After all this is an ENCYCLOPEDIA and not a discussion of Nazi-trivia! There are many other places in the Internet for that sort of thing. I would therefore strongly suggest to all involved to get rid of the 'Jewish ancestry' section and reduce the information contained therein to a sentence or two. So long. -unsigned anon user

The sources of the statement are mentioned in the article and both sides of the debate are covered. "Reducing the information to a sentence or two" sounds a lot to me like revisionism. I have been a World War II historian for over fifteen years and have seen this mentioned in several textbooks, among them the Encyclopedia of the Third Reich. I feel the section is justified and should stay. -Husnock 04:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

The Encyclopedia of the Third Reich is hardly a good source of information for an encyclopedia. Disregarding the fact that the authors are biased, it has too many errors. It is just the type of publication that would include a section on Heydrich possibly having Jewish ancestors.--TL36 (talk) 17:03, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Let me put it this way Mr. Husnock: there are two sentences in this article on the fact that Reinhard Heydrich was one of the chief perpetrators of one of the greatest crimes against humanity of all history. On the other hand there are four paragraphs covering a rumour that he might have had a Jewish ancestor! Why do we bother writing an article about some Nazi called Heydrich for an encyclopedia? Because he was one of the major criminals of 20th century history or because he had a Jewish ancestor? Come ooon! As I said: I'm well aware of this rumour surrounding Heydrich, but it seems to me to have been blown out of proportion in this article. As for revisionism: I believe Heydrich's criminal career has been massively understated in this article and ought to be stressed more - my position can therefore hardly be called revisionist! To do so (as you seem to be doing) is thus not only annoying but also insulting! As for 15 years of experience as a historian (sorry to have to say this): experience does not make up for intellectual insight. Finally: have a read through the German Wikipedia-article on Heydrich - there's a whole section there on Heydrich's criminal personality. This seems (to me at least) to be the appropriate way of tackling the subject.

See above for the major discussion that already happened about this matter. A good compromise was reached. I was not saying you personally are a rivisionist, only that we've already had a user purge the article of Jewish ancestry references and it was seen as revisionism by a large number of users. Lets be frank, if an anon ip user came in and took out all the stuff about possible jewish ancestry, there are plenty of users who would see it (at face value) as vandalism (even if it wasnt) and revert it. Thats all I was trying to say. I encourage you to establish an account and expand on the criminal activities that are mentioned above. As far as the jewish part, I worked with another user to get it in in a way that presented both points of view. I think it reads rather well. -Husnock 14:31, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Heydrich's Jewish grandparent

SB Jan 22 2005: Heydrich's actual Ahnenliste (family tree)compiled by SS Geneologist Dr. Gesecke is at www.reinhardheydrich.org, Dokumente 59 & 60. By reviewing the ahnenliste it is obvious that Heydrich could not prove his German roots back to 1750. Numerous blocks were blank. Being a German back to 1750 was the requirement for an SS officer. For example, Heydrich's paternal great-great grandmother, Mrs. Koehler, had no religion listed and no ancestors listed. Heydrich's maternal great great grandmothers are not listed either? Who were they? One was married to Joseph Mautsch from Bautzen (Sachsen). The Staat archiv in Bautzen has a Mautsch file. This file may have some information on Mautsch's, and ultimately Heydrich's, origins, if anyone has an interest in looking. Furthermore, Gustav Robert Suess who was Bruno Heydrich's step-father only had his origin's checked. I suspect his ancestors had converted to Christianity. Heydrich also had a great-great-grand grandparent named Roch. Due to his name, he or his ancestors, may have been converts to Christianity. Furthermore, Heydrich's ancestors being both Catholic and Lutheran, shows the degree of intermarrying going on in Germany prior to the Third Reich. The blank blocks might be the "third" religion!

---

Heinze Hohn in Order of the Death's Head cites the memorandum of Dr. Achim Gereke, the party's leading geneologist who explains in detail the origin of the rumor. "Lieutenant Heydrich's grandmother, Ernestine Wilhelmina Heydrich, had been married twice, her second husband being a locksmith's assistant named Gustav Robert Suss. Already having a large family, she referred to herself as Suss-Heydrich. In this connection it should be noted that the second husband, Suss, was equally not of Jewish origin."

At the request of the Heydrich family, the note was expunged from the Musiker-Lexikon.

Furthermore, considering Himmler's "dossiers" on leading party member were filled with insane allegations, such as a Hitler with syphillis, etc. kept for the sole purpose of having leverage on rival party members, it's really shocking that people editting this thread so vehemently to keep this rumor in would even cite it with a serious face. -unsigned anon user 19Jul05

I highly doubt the Party geneologist would accuse the head of the Secret Police of being Jewish but would rather find some reason to explain why he was not. See the note above for the Schellenberg memoris which are considered one of the leading sources of the statement. Also, in the mid 30s, there was an effort to destroy tombstones in towns where Heydrich's family came from, on Heydrich's personal orders and under a viel of secrecy. P.S., please sign your posts with four ~s. -Husnock 11:14, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

FOLLOWUP: I placed all the info on this subject in one section and restored the point of view mentioned above. -Husnock 13:47, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I wrote the above post and I hope I'm doing this correctly. I think that you lumping Richard Rhodes, Heinz Holne, and every other("most" as you said, but who else could this mean?) major work with or about Heydrich into a heap of revivisionist historians is absolutely baseless and juvenile and claiming that a secret meeting related by the 2nd in command of the Gestapo has more weight among "serious" historians, as most of these works, by those who most certainly are not revisionists, conclude that the Jewish story is a rumor. I hope you know that using words like "revisionist" is apt to frighten away or smear other dissenting viewpoints under the pain of being labelled an anti-semite or Nazi revisionist. You have no basis to call the predominate theory among Heydrich's biographers a revisionist one.

Now, if you wish to continue the debate about the matter, let's do one in a civil tone without second guessing already prominent historians just because their own research disagrees with our views. I am not a revisionist and the statement I editted on the main page was not one as you claimed when you took the liberty of deleting a chunk of my own evidence about Suss-Heydrich without refuting any of Gereke's finding. A dissenting view on a VERY circumstantial charge is not revisionism, not at least in the sense you mean it.

Also, when you say that you doubt that a geneologist would accuse the head of the secret police of being Jewish, you need to realize that the investigation happened in the Summer of 1932. Heydrich was a Sturmbahnnfuhrer in the SS and head over a very small, fledgling SD. He was NOT head of the secret police in Germany yet. I hope I did this right. I can be reached at homf@mailcity.com --68.218.31.128 16:27, 19 July 2005 (UTC)Atnuzo

You did fine, though I'd recommend getting an account, even if you don't intend to use it much (it's free, no spam, etc.) as it makes discussions slightly easier, in a way. Anyway, I think the article is certainly improving, and I'm glad to see sources on both sides rather than the "yes he is"/"no he isn't" reversions we were getting before. I added the note on ancestry originally, based on Joachim Fest's book. While I don't intend to take it as god's law, until now no one had offered a contradicting source. Coincidentally, I started reading Order of the Death's Head a while ago, but have been working through it quite slowly as I read other things and spend too much time in wikipedia (and it's a huge book). I haven't got up to Heydrich yet, but I'm curious to examine what Hohn says. I think it's best for the article to show both sides, as it does, and probably the term "revisionism" should be avoided. Overall the article is looking much better, though now I'm thinking perhaps too much is proportionately spent on his ancestry. Though the best solution to that is expansion of the rest of the article. -R. fiend 17:00, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Debating is what its all about because thats how thing simprove. I did, however, restore the link to revisionist historians. Despite how folks feel, it is a fact that the revisionist community states Heydrich was not a jew and that the holocauast never happened. And, as stated in the article, this is still today much debated. -Husnock 17:54, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

The article is looking better, I agree. And I also agree too much time is being spent on Heydrich's ancestry while his most notable atrocities are scarcely mentioned. However, your assertion that most moderate historians is false. Invariably, you're right in that nearly all revisionists(Holocaust deniers and Naziphiles alike) would like to take this chink out of Heydrich armor. But the consensus from every work on Heydrich is that it was simply a rumor that rose in prominence alongside his career. Therefore, I left in the statement about revisionists but removed the comment about moderate historians.--24.197.161.81 19:11, 19 July 2005 (UTC)Atnuzo

The wording of it all does look considerably better. -Husnock 19:53, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

While the claims that Heydich's paternal grand father was Jewish are clearly false their have been allegations that his maternal grandmother was at least partly jewish. If, alas, there is to be such an extensive debate on Heydrich's alleged Jewish ancestry, why not adress that aspect, rather than dwell on schellenberg's propaganda tht is clearly aimed at scapegoating the Jews for their own destruction, by presenting it as the work of one self-hating part-jew?

Wondering that in the English version nobody refers to Lina Heydrich's memoirs: 'Verheiratet mit einem Kriegsverbrecher' ('Married with a War Criminal'), Edition Ludwig, Pfaffenhofen, 1976. Of course she lies a lot in self-apologizing and always refused to read books about War crimes and the Holocaust after 1945 but in this case she might be right: "Ernestine Heydrich, born Lindner was married after her husband's death a second time with Mr. Süss, a blacksmith. He was much younger, a nice man and baptized in the Lutheran tradition" (p. 31f.).

This does not exclude at all he was Jewish but there is less probability: Süss was a common name among Germans. --Charlandes 16:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

"I'm a Zionist" quote deleted

Szalas deleted the quote from Heydrich I inserted:

As a National Socialist I'm a Zionist

— Reinhard Heydrich, Zionism

Szalas, if you doubt that he said that, you should discuss that here and not simply delete the quote.

As I said in the article history, the source for that quote is the book Die SS by Guido Knopp.

I'm gonna reinsert it now, since I can't accept that someone just removes a part of an article without discussing it. 129.13.186.1 12:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I've never heard of that quote either. Adolf Eichmann said something similar, but I have never heard of Heydrich saying anything like that. As this appears to be disputed by at least three editors, it should be removed from the article for the time being. -Husnock 13:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

What three editors are you talking about? And what are you actually disputing? That this quote is in the book I mentioned above? Nevertheless just because you never heard that quote doesn't mean anything. We cannot expect from you that you know everything Heydrich has said.129.13.186.1 14:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

If some anonymous user adds a thing, that looks like this - it really looks like vandalism. Befor deleting your text I´ve searched the Net for it and ...........no-result. And if you expect, that after anonymous user adds a "citation" - everybody will run to the library, you are wrong. So, maybe you should discuss it befor adding it. szalas 14:08, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it is a difference whether I'm "anonymous" or not. I gave a source for the quote and if some thinks this quote is wrong he either has to show that the quote is not in the source or that the source is not trustworthy.129.13.186.1 14:18, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The three editors that appear to be disputing this are you, me, and User:Szalas. I'm sure there would be others if we let that quote stay in. As far as leaving in a disputed fact, Wikipedia policy is very much against that as is referenced in the guideline on resolving a factual dispute section. -Husnock 14:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Alright. Some third party should get the book Die SS: Eine Warnung der Geschichte, ISBN 3570006212, read the part about Heydrich and tell us, whether the quote is in there or not.129.13.186.1 14:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I've been studying Heydrich for a while now and I can say that for certain he referred to himself as a zionist- its in an article he wrote, that can be read in the second volume of Noakes' and Pridham's documentary history. (Bainbridge)

In the article I didn't see a single citation ( did I just miss them). Heydrich's quote about being a Zionist is both funny, true and logical. The entire Nazi program was to expell Jews from Europe - ditto the Zionists. Odd how a quote betrays so much.159.105.80.141 12:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

This Heydrich documentary on you-tube discusses Heydrich saying mockingly that he was a Zionist - he was supporting Jewish emigration. Heydrich "I am a Zionist". Starting after 5:30. It says he initially supported emigration to Palestine, and set up offices for Jews to pay to go there. He said "As a Nazi, I'm a Zionist". Jimhoward72 (talk) 18:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Page protection

As many have noticed, the article is under a slight attack by a revisionist writer who is removing references to Heydrich's Jewish ancestry and putting in Holocaust denial statements. The issue about Heydrich's heritage was discussed above and a very good compromise was reached (I think) which now shows both sides of the issue in a non-POV fashion. In all frankness, the new user who is making the recent changes seems not to be interested in discussion and has been edit warring for three days straight, has violated the 3 revert rule, and has been blocked twice. A page protection might be in order, for a few weeks, until this person goes away. Thoughts? -Husnock 20:42, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I guess it's been protected, which is fine with me. However, as the article can still use some expansion I'd like to hope the protection will not last too long (not that I necessarily expect to add anything, but it looks like some might be interested). What are the chances of the vandal getting a permanent ban if he keeps returning? I notice he's been editing via IP address too, which is more problematic. -R. fiend 22:40, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I would give it two or three weeks. By then, that very annoying user will hopefully have lost interest and moved on to other things. I agree, though, if the user returns after the page is unblocked, then it would be an issue for attacks on the article and long term blocks. A bann would be difficult at this point, as no high level crimes have been committed such as making death threats (although I was waiting for that to happen). I also found it of interest to look at the edit history of Holocaust denial. Those poor guys over there have to deal with alot more. Its a surprise that page isn'y blocked for protection more often. -Husnock 07:25, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Death toll of German retaliation

There seems to be some discrepancy in the quoted death toll for all victims to avenge the death of Heydrich. This page mentions It has been reported that over 15,000 Czechs were killed in reprisals.. But on Lidice it is mentioned The death toll for all victims in the effort to avenge the death of Heydrich is estimated at 1,300. I think an internal inconsistency by a factor of more than 10 is too much. Do we have a referrable number here? -unsigned anon user

I think the large figure is for Czechs killed nation wide as a result of Heydrich's death. The Lidice figure is just for the town when it was destroyed. -Husnock 07:20, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

The 15,000 number is unfounded. Dozens and dozens of people (those already inprisoned) were shot almost immediatelly, villages Lidice and Lezaky destroyed and collaborators with partisans plus their families hunted down and often sentenced to death. Pavel Vozenilek 14:14, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Why is it unfounded if all those people were killed as you said? I've read accounts of daily executions in Prague and Hitler had told Kurt Daluege to "wade through blood" to find Heydrich's killers. -Husnock 16:10, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I think the direct number of victims was over thousand. From what I read Hitler initially demanded mass executions and liquidation of 50 villages but got talked into "just" one (the reason was attempt to keep the industrial area without disturbances). The executions were targetted mainly on intelligensia and leaders of the nation, it wasn't random shooting of random people, AFAIK. Pavel Vozenilek 21:26, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Problems with the article

From the opening paragraph: "He was nicknamed The Butcher of Prague, The Blond Beast and Der Henker (German for the hangman)." Why and how did he get those nicknames? The article doesn't say a word - though it does say that "Although Heydrich was a shy boy, he excelled physically and grew up to be handsome and fit. He was an impressive athlete, excelling in fencing and swimming." What kind of source is this..? (Heydrich himself?) oldcitycat 22:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

To answer the points you made 1)The nicknames were primarly a product of British and Allied propaganda. The Blond Beast and Hangman ones were started in Time magazine (offically) although they had been around since the 30s. Political enemies in Germany also used to call Heydrich nasty names (they never let poor Heydrich play in any Nazi games!) Sorry, couldn't resist. 2)Sporting abilities are well documented as he was in the Olympics. 3)I wrote the summary, its not a fan page. Its a listing of dates of rank and awards in a concise format. I eventually plan to have that same format on a lot of the SS officer pages on Wikipedia. -Husnock 19:47, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, all that is fine by itself... Details are always useful. But, as I said, the problem is mainly what the article doesn't say. Propaganda? Fine, but then why not say so? The man simply got a bad name, I suppose... GregorB 22:02, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Summary of SS career is very detailed, and - presumably - quite sanitized. As it is, the article veers dangerously close to a fan page... GregorB 19:41, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

I agree.. the summary of his SS career should be deleted.. it is as if someone is idealizing this monster.. it adds nothing to the article about this monster. the only tragedy of his death was all the others who were killed as a result.. He was an example of the vermin that were brought to high positions in the third reich... these were people who could likely ended up in prisons as criminals . The editor should remove this section... It adds nothing to the article except a place to idealize this monster. there is a neo-nazi website that does this while claiming to present history "neutrally" by the web page is an adulation of Heydrich as if he were a tragic hero which he was not..

To quote the person's career, even in an organisation such as the SS, is not a sign of "adulation". In the articles about gangsters, a reader should expect to find the history of the gangster's "career" in his criminal organisation. Detiling without comment the rise of Al Capone, for example, in the ranks of the Chicago Mob is not equal to "sanitizing" his character or adoring him. My suggestion for people who can't bear the need for maximum objectivity and a dispassionate detailing of established facts is to grit their teeth and read up on the Skokie, Illinois incident. The Gnome 21:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the extensive description of Heydrich's career makes this piece sound like a big, long resume. Additionally, the opening paragraph is poorly written since it notes Heydrich's singular role as one of the prime instigators of the Holocuast as if it's some sort of a side issue in the man's life! Solution to both problems: Rewrite the opening statement, then elevate Section 7 to Section 2. It should be made clear that the central story of this man's life has to do with mass murder. Once that's defined, then, the reader can go on and read for hours about the other, far less significant aspects of Heydrich's pathetic life.Don (talk) 05:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Protection

This article has been protected for nearly a month now. Would it be appropriate to unprotect now, and see if the vandal has quit? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 13:06, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. If the vandal returns after this long, that is grounds for as permanent block in my opinion. -Husnock 15:22, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I was going to suggest this last week, but I forgot. -R. fiend 15:25, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I've unprotected it. If the vandal returns, please let me know (preferably on my talk page). Cheers, Talrias (t | e | c) 16:10, 22 August 2005 (UTC)