Jump to content

Talk:Reinhard Heydrich/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 8

Suggestion: sub-page for literature about Heydrich

I suggest to create a sub-page, named e.g. Books about Reinhard Heydrich, to collect information about historical literature about Heydrich and his assasination. There are many sources (I know about half a dozen in Czech language) and a sub-page would allow to add comments to these books. The current text is quite crowded and moving some content away would make it more readable. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 16:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Notable decorations

Why is there a list of decorations? Except for the first two they are totally un-notable and these first two are mentioned in the article. Why list a medal like the Sudetenland Medal that was thrown around 1,162,617 times as notable? I don't think it is notable at all. What is notable about the NSDAP Long Service Ribbon, which was been handed to some million people? There is no encyclopedic value for this - except for those people that keep on admiring the "Butcher of Prague". --noclador (talk) 12:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Please note that going around to all the articles about SS-Generals and blanking the medals sections isn’t going to make you any friends here (I found four where you did this). In fact, it may very well get you blocked from editing. The Nazis were evil terrible men and I appreciate your feelings about this. I work with World War II veterans on a daily basis and have written papers where I interviewed Holocaust survivors, including Rudolf Vrba who was something of a friend of mine. HOWEVER- the medals these men earned are part of their histories and appear in pretty much every military history textbook I ever seen about the SS. Please do not blank the section anymore. Thank you. -OberRanks (talk) 18:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
The title says "Notable" decorations and something like the Cross of Honor with over 8 millions handed out is by no means notable. Or the Sudetenland Medal with Prague Castle Bar was awarded 134,563 times - this is in my eyes in not notable - it would be much better to reduce the list down to the real notable ones. I.e. the Wound Badge with 5 million awarded is in no way notable, but the "Wound Badge of 20 July 1944" is in fact notable. The Luftwaffe Pilot's Badge (Flugzeugführerabzeichen) - is not even a decoration and it is just a insignia for those who have passed the aviation training, so it needs to be removed from the list. Also the NSDAP Long Service Ribbon for 10 years service and Police Service Ribbon for 18 years service should be removed, because they were not decorations - with Reinhard Heydrich the only real notable decorations are the posthumous ones - namely the German Order and the Blood Order. Everything else is not notable - Either remove these or change the title to just "Heydrichs decorations".
I am trying to reduce the decorations to the really notable ones or to put them into the historic context, like with Oskar Dirlewanger who was awarded the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross on September 30th 1944 for his participation in the squashing of the Warsaw Uprising - 200.000 civilian lost their life and Dirlewanger (personally) and his men exhibited such brutality and committed such atrocities that even other SS-leaders like Erich von dem Bach were appalled by it. So, instead of keeping all kinds of insignias, decorations, awards, and so on uncritically in a list we need to put them into perspective and should remove the ones that are not notable at all. --noclador (talk) 18:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
My take on this is that the list indicates how the Nazis ruled with not only fear and terror but by handing out meaningless baubles (along with the meaningful ones). It shows a childish delight with shiny objects. I think losing the list removes this illustration of Nazi ideology. I am going to be bold and to change the heading from notable to as you suggest "Heydrich's decorations." Gillyweed (talk) 22:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree changing the name is an excellent solution. I also re-added the Luftwaffe Pilot's Badge as a decoration since it is referenced in several texts as a military award that one had to qualify for. It was issued in a basic grade, a grade combined with that of observer, and also could be upgraded to include diamonds. On a final note, it is important to note that these decorations being in this article is not becuase User A wants them or User B does not; it is because they are mentioned in the reference material that is used to create these articles. Any serious book about SS leaders, such as "Allgemeine-SS" by Yerger or any of the John Keegan books, gives lists of medals for SS officers to include all decorations they had earned. It is also of interest to historians to see such lists; I for one was surprised to learn that Heydrich had the Social Welfare and Olympic Games decorations and thank this article for providing that knowledge. -OberRanks (talk) 14:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
and do you know what the Social Welfare and Olympic Games decorations really are??? The Olympic Games decoration (Deutsches Olympiaehrenzeichen) was not handed out by the IOC but by the Nazis to "deserving individuals who worked in organising the Olympic Games in Berlin and/or Garmisch-Partenkirchen, 1936." Heydrich as head of the Sicherheitspolizei got his for making sure all opposition was silenced during the games - meaning: concentration camps, murder, torture, disappearances and other very Olympic things.
The Social Welfare decoration (Ehrenzeichen für Deutsche Volkspflege) was given to 4 classes of people: those who did some social welfare jobs (caring for the wounded, emergency services), those who donated lots of things for the Winterhilfswerk (which benefited the war effort), to those who helped in the "Pflege des Deutschen Volkstums" i.e. keep the German traditions alive/clean and for those helped the Germans outside the Reich - now as Heydrich got his Ehrenzeichen für Deutsche Volkspflege in 1940 can you guess for what he got??? He got it for what his Einsatzgruppen did to the Poles. So better not be thankful to this article for providing that knowledge, but be ashamed that this article does not mention, for what he got awarded. --noclador (talk) 15:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I am actually fully aware of what those medals were and why Heydrich got them (I have a degree in World War II history and am considered a military decorations expert at the National Archives). On your second point, there is nothing to stop you from adding a section about why he got these medals, putting in the material that you mentioned (it sounds like it would be a fairly good section). Once again, this isnt personal feelings about Heydrich or Nazis, this is referencing source data on military decorations of SS leaders. I have studied World War II, the SS, and the Nazi Party since 1987 and that doesnt make me a bad person (not that you are saying that), it makes me a World War II historian. Thanks for your inputs, but can we say this dispute is closed? Or are there other specific matters about the article you wish to bring up. Thanks. -OberRanks (talk) 16:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
For me it is insofar closed as the "notable" has gone - but we should still write the section about why he got these medals - the question is: give the reason behind the medals - i.e:
  • "German Olympia Honor Badge (First Class) (Deutsches Olympiaehrenzeichen) for his part as head of the Gestapo to silence all dissent during the Olympic Games of 1936."
or should we write a totally new section or put to the appropriate lines in his biography i.e: "The organisation benefitted from close cooperation with the Gestapo, which Heydrich also gained control of in 1936, as part of a combined security police force. With his first task being the suppresssion of all possible dissent prior and during the the Olympic Games of 1936, a task he executed with a cold and systematic brutality that gained him the German Olympia Honor Badge (First Class) (Deutsches Olympiaehrenzeichen)" What would be best? I think the first would be best, as to put the medals in context. Your opinion? --noclador (talk) 22:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I believe that this material can be integrated into the text with suitable references. I have no objection whatsoever to the explanation for these 'awards' being made clear. Gillyweed (talk) 23:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I like where this is going, excellent additions. I also read somewhere the Nazi's "de-antisemtized" Berlin, removing all the "nur fur Aryan" signs and toning down the anti-Jewish measure so visiting athletes and dignitaries would not see what was really going on. I wonder if Heydrich's medal also was part of this attempt at deception. In any event, great work here. Compliments to all. -OberRanks (talk) 14:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
To my knowledge the "de-antisemtizing" was Goebbels idea/order and Görings doing who was at that time Prussian Prime Minister. One thing I know is that Heydrichs men made sure that Helene Mayer (Jewish-German Fencer, who was allowed to participate in the 1936 Olympics to avoid an US boycott of the games) would do as ordered, by putting pressure on her family. The difficult thing with Heydrich is that he gave the orders and others did the dirty deeds - so it is difficult to exactly pinpoint the specific actions, that got him his decoration - unlike i.e. Oskar Dirlewanger, Erich von dem Bach and Heinz Reinefarth who got their Knight Crosses for the butchering of 200.000 civilians in the Warsaw uprising. --noclador (talk) 12:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

Sturmhauptfuhrer vs Hauptsturmfuhrer

This keeps getting changed and it shouldnt. In 1931, Heydrich was a Sturmhauptfuhrer as the rank was used in the SS until the Night of the Long Knives. Hauptsturmfuhrer was invented in July of 1934 along with the rank of Untersturmfuhrer. Thus, in 1931, there WAS NO SUCH RANK as Hauptsturmfuhrer in the SS. Over the past 6 months, this has been changed no less than 4 to 5 times and it is incorrect. If anyone needs even more proof, I can scan a copy of Heydrichs own promotion order to Sturmhauptfuhrer from his file at the National Archives. -OberRanks (talk) 15:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Heydrich's Car

It has recently been moved back from the Prague War Museum to the National Technical Museum. Making the statement with the image on this page incorrect.

A large section restored

I restored a large section of the "Family" chapter which was apparently cut out during December/January time frame by several anon ip edits. The way this section was removed leads me to believe it was done so as not to have others notice it and thus perhaps remove a section someone was personally uncomfortable with. Mainly I am speaking of the entire section regarding claims of his Jewish ancestor; true or not, these claims were made and investigations were conducted by the Nazis so this is historically significant and should be included. Also, for some extra unknown reason, the cutter/cutters axed out the names of Heydrich's children. All of this has been restored; if there are legit reasons to remove the section we can discuss them. Although, I should add, this was beat to death over a year or two ago, the section hammered out, and back then most everyone was happy with it. -OberRanks (talk) 20:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Uncited Bibliographical References

I've worked on this article to a great extent in adding circumstances surrounding his career & assassination. The intention is to strictly make the article Complete. There is no political angle let alone intentions of Fan page. The only intention is to make it to Class A Assessment.

This article as of now has enough material to definitely deserve Class B Assessment Ration. It even has potential to make it to Class A. The only thing I see holding it back is the fact that there are 13 Bibliographical references. But very few of them are actually cited. The article lacks on citations big time. Since I don't have access to those references, I politely request someone to please add citations.

Whatever information I've added from external sources, are not qualified enough to be used as Reference.perseus71 (talk) 16:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup Tag

I'm going to add a cleanup tag to the article for the main rason that several sections are duplicating eachother, espeically about his family background, and tend to be long drawn out explanations with several uncited statements. I also plan to take his service record summary and actually create an entire article on his service record. -OberRanks (talk) 17:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The image Image:Lidice massacred men.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --02:28, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Reichsprotektor 2: Motivations of the Masses

Actually, Joachim Fest claims that Heydrich was murdered on England orders because he was becoming too popular with the Czech masses. I guess Fest's opinion is one we have to respect. 201.19.219.54 11:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Only Fest has put forward this claim, which, moreover, comes wholly unsupported. It is also somewhat illogical. One could accept that Heydrich would be popular among Nazi sympathizers among the Czechs - but "the masses"?! Czech nationalists would not sympathize with the Nazi cause, since it openly included the subjugation of Czechoslovakia to the Reich.The Gnome 19:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe "the masses" were more concerned with food rations and social insurance benefits than they were with Czech nationalism. Heydrich supposedly drove around much of the time in an open car, which suggests that there wasn't much of a Czech resistance. Could be, much like the case of France, that "the resistance" was largely a product of the appearance of the Allied armies.Falange (talk) 17:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Jewish Ancestry Part III

He was Jewish, at least partly. I don't want to sound like an anti-semite but please look at his nose. This kind of nose is Semitic, not German. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.153.207.47 (talk) 20:49, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah..."look at his nose"....that doesnt sound at all like something an anti-semite would say. -OberRanks (talk) 21:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Depends. In my case it is not anti-semitic. The "curved" nose is a VERY common Semitic trait among Arabs and Jews. This is a fact! And Heydrich's nose is Semitic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.153.207.47 (talk) 09:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Check out the semitic nose on the woman on the left in this drawing: http://www.ushmm.org/propaganda/assets/images/500x/poster-women-voters.jpg This particular influence on German propaganda has never before been fully explored. It's hard to say how the Jewish nose arrived in Germany, but http://www.creationism.org/books/TaylorInMindsMen/TaylorIMMaiMartinLutherM.jpg http://imspeakingtruth.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/martin-luther.jpg http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Martin-Luther-1526-1.jpg it clearly arrived before the Protestant Reformation.--CharlesHenryLeaFan (talk) 22:49, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

It's worse, far worse, than I ever imagined. Look at the Jewish nose on Emperor Frederick II on this coin: http://www.superstock.com/stock-photos-images/1443-799 Brobdingnagian, is it not? Now see the non-Jewish nose on the victorious Pope Alexander III: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:B-Alexander_III1.jpg Does this not show that, but for invidious Jewish influence on the family of the Holy Roman Emperor, the Inquisition would not have occurred?--CharlesHenryLeaFan (talk) 23:20, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Strategic Analysis Needed

I would like to get away from all this tactical description and see a strategic analysis of the assasination. Were there any strategic objectives and were they fulfilled? It may be in some future conflict there will be a similar individual - what lessons were learned, should they be assasinated or not? Is assasination ever an effective strategic tool?

I suspect that the assisination of Heydrich delivered no strategic objectives whatever - he was simply replaced by someone only slightly less unpleasant, no Nazi leaders were deterred, the war progressed unaffected, no allied lives were saved and the war was not shortened. Leaving asside the cost in reprisals, which could not have been predicted, should so much have been expended on what was essentially pointless revenge, however heroic?

86.155.231.155 (talk) 23:10, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

That would be too close to editorial opinion. You would need to find a couple of notable sources, and make reference to them (e.g "Writing in 1998, historian X argued that Heydrich's death had served no strategic purpose, stating that "quote quote quote" (reference). However, historian Y has also argued that "quote quote quote" (reference)"). I want you to find these sources and report back on this page when you have done so. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 10:58, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Heydrich's grave

Because the grave is unmarked, no one is certain where it is in the Invalidenfriedhof. It probably was not in the death strip, which was at the back of the cemetery. Both section A and section C, the most likely locations, are at the front of the cemetery close to the Scharnhorststraße entrance. A famous grave in the death strip was the Red Baron of World War I, Manfred von Richtofen, but Richtofen was exhumed and reburied in Wiesbaden in 1975.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Schmausschmaus (talk • contribs) 09:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

neopagan

there is no evidence, that Heydrich was a pagan.Are there any certain sources? If not I will remove him from the category.--Samon93 (talk) 13:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

See the main page article. I cited where first his wife and then (a year later) Heydrich left the church. However, that doesn't make him a pagan. Himmler was the one pushing German paganism but most SS men did not take it seriously. Kierzek (talk) 21:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Should be removed until any evidence is presented. Lt.Specht (talk) 20:38, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

POV TAG, wording

The Cambridge Dictionary defines the noun "assassination" as "the murder of someone famous or important" (emphasis added). The same dictionary defines "murder" as "the crime of intentionally killing a person". Thus, it can be safely assumed that "assassination" implies a crime. Therefore, the article section title "Assassination in Prague" suggests that Heydrich's killing was a crime, which coincidentally was the nazi POV about the incident, arguably an opinion not widely shared now and then. In the same vein, the (mis)use of the word "reprisal" to describe the bloody avenge inflicted upon Lidice, coincides again with the nazi POV, as it is out of question that the Lidice massacre can, under any circumstances, be fairly described simply as a "reprisal", and much less a "legal" one, as nazi leaders claimed in each and every case when they massacred scores of people in order to avenge their men killed by the Resistance during World War II. The same applies to the wording of Operation Anthropoid, of course, where among many possible definitions, such as "Czech patriots", "Czech agents", "Czech partisans", and "assassins", the latter is the definition of choice. --Piero Montesacro (talk) 07:56, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

What wording are you suggesting in lieu of those you consider POV?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 13:18, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I tend to think that killing would be far better than assassination, and that context needs to be added to "reprisal" in order to make clear that it actually was a disproportionate, cruel massacre, which had nothing to do with the very notion of reprisal as described within the frame of the International Law at the time it occurred, and I suspect, also within the German Law. As for the "assassins" I have already suggested several alternatives, such as "Czech patriots", "Czech agents", "Czech partisans". --Piero Montesacro (talk) 23:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Curious, why would you label them "Czech patriots", "Czech agents", "Czech partisans"? They were trained by the British and were part of the British Special Operations Executive. They were not "partisans" or "patriots". If anything, the correct label would be "British agents". Lt.Specht (talk) 00:39, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
First, most historians use the term "assassination". The term is used for Heydrich was an important Nazi official in the former Czechoslovakia land incorporated into the Reich at that dark time in history. He was also, as you know, an important high ranking SS officer. With all due respect, the definition put forth above is not the only one for use of the term. Wikipedia, itself, sets it out as follows: "An assassination is the targeted killing of a public figure, usually for political purposes. Assassinations may be prompted by religious, ideological, political, or military reasons. Additionally, assassins may be motivated by financial gain, revenge, or personal public recognition. Assassination may also refer to the government-sanctioned killing of opponents or to targeted attacks on high-profile enemy combatants." For Heydrich I would therefore argue it was a ..."targeted killing of a public figure,...for political purposes" and "...government-sanctioned killing of (a) opponent." Therefore, no POV tag is needed and the wording does not have to be changed. Kierzek (talk) 01:13, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. Lt.Specht (talk) 07:39, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Also agreed. I find the Cambridge dictionary to be quite lame on definitions. Their definition of homicide is flat wrong as they fail to mention executions or manslaughter (both of which earn the technical title of "homicide" on a death certificate). See the Wiki article on homicide.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 19:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
I think the POV TAG removal was too hasty. The "targeted killing of a public figure" is the third definition given for the term, and it's defined - IMHO quite accurately - as a controversial one within the assassination article. The main and common definitions do imply a crime. Thus, it does not seem the best choice as a NPOV term. Also, the attackers were Czech citizens enrolled as SOE agents, sure, but there is little doubt that they cannot also be defined as Czech patriots (and I doubt they are commonly referred as "assassins", at least in their Country): refer to them, and repeatedly, as assassins does not seem very adherent to the POV Policy, and that there are other appropriate and less charged or ambiguous terms that can be used instead - such as "attackers" - seems to me out of question. Therefore, I am reverting the TAG removal, since I feel that further discussion is needed. --Piero Montesacro (talk) 00:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
I think it is fair to say that most historians treat the killing of Heydrich as an event of political rather than legal significance, and our treatment of the subject should reflect that. From this perspective (of political history and/or political science), "assassination", "assassinate", and "assassin" are neutral and descriptive terms when they refer to the deliberate killing of a particular public figure. I see nothing wrong with substituing "attackers" for "assassins" in order to minimize repetition, but a wholesale replacement of the terms is, in my opinion, unwarranted. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:25, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Don't you think that we are at risk of losing focus on our main audience when we do copy verbatim the language used by specialized sources? I think that Wikipedia is intended as a "popular medium": using specialistic language - and an ambiguous one, such as possibly the one in question - when there are valid alternatives doesn't seem to help much to this end. --Piero Montesacro (talk) 22:59, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
The word "assassination" is hardly specialists' language, and I do not think that its meaning in the context of the killing of a high-profile figure is at all ambiguous. Consider, for example, the use of the term in this BBC news article: "Somali Islamist al-Shabab commander assassinated". al-Shabab opposes the Transitional Federal Government of Somalia, which is the de jure government of Somalia, and its members are therefore "outside the law" (in a manner of speaking), yet the deliberate targeting for death of a senior commander of the group earns the label. This is common usage, and I doubt that our audience will have any difficulty understanding what is meant or implied by "Assassination in Prague".
I oppose the replacement of "assassination" with "killing" in this case because it would involve substituting a precise and descriptive term with one that is less precise. -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Black Falcon, it seems to me that, in fact, the descriptive term implies, in this case, a judgement, which is something we should avoid. We should stick to facts and describe them in the most neutral way. This is something Britannica seems to have done: Please take a look at the Britannica wording:

on May 27, 1942, two Free Czech agents bombed and shot him while he was riding in his car without an armed escort. He died June 4 in a Prague hospital. Gestapo officials retaliated for his death by executing hundreds of Czechs and wiping out the entire village of Lidice.

Note:

  • Britannica says that he was "bombed" and "shot", which is entirely accurate. Even though the aim of his attackers was undoubtedly his death (intention), what actually happened (fact) was that he was "bombed, shot at and wounded", but at least, the actual assassins, so to speak, were some kind of bacteria: as our article says, "The autopsy states that he died of septicemia", which is still today a hospitalization-related killer. Think about the most famous political figure victim of assassination: as Heydrich, Kennedy was shot at and wounded while riding his car and was officially pronounced dead short after his arrival at the hospital. But the autopsy states that he died directly from the wounds and almost immediately. Which is absolutely not the case of Heydrich. So, I do think that Britannica wording, as opposed as ours, is both accurate and neutral.
  • Britannica calls his passing away as "his death", not his "assassination".
  • Britannica calls his attackers "Free Czech agents", not assassins: no further comment is needed.
  • Britannica says that "Gestapo officials retaliated": it doesn't use the term "reprisal" which is entirely inappropriate in the case, but still is used, even in a title, in Operation Anthropoid. --Piero Montesacro (talk) 09:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Negative. You are barking up the wrong tree and forming synthesis for your argument. The fact is that this event is so-widely known as an assassination that it is in current understood usage. Just look at the number of published books that refer to it as this. It is standard usage...you're not going to be able to change that. As editors, we are not free to rationalize against this.
Besides, what is the problem? Most guys would be happy to be known as the assassin of Heydrich. I don't know of anybody in the military that would object to such language usage. They'd be happy that they whacked the bastard. If I had done it, I wouldn't have a problem with being called an assassin.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 13:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Montesacro, Britannica is not the best of sources as far as weight on any subject. Again, MOST historians on the subject at hand use the word assassination. Ian Kershaw states: "One of Hitler's most important henchmen, Heydrich...had been fatally wounded in an assassination attempt...Hitler always favoured brutal reprisals..." "Hitler A Biography", Kershaw, page 713. Peter Padfield states: "Heydrich had been too successful...the Czech government in exile...needed to build up...(its)...declining bargaining position...Heydrich's assassination was to be the means." "Himmler", Padfield, page 378. Further, as I said above, Wikipedia itself by its stated definitions would favor our position herein. The tag should therefore be removed and wording NOT changed. Kierzek (talk) 14:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
'Assassination' and 'assassins' are the terms normally used for this kind of attack on a high-profile figure, and they don't carry the very negative connotations as 'murder' and 'murderers' would - which seems to be your objection. There is also no problem with 'reprisal' - the OED gives one definition as 'An act of retaliation for injury or attack; [specifically] in war, the inflicting of a similar or more severe injury or punishment on an enemy.' This is entirely apt for describing the action against Lidice. I'll leave it to someone else to remove the POV tag, but there seems to be a consensus on this. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 14:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


Certainly I agree that, at the moment, the consensus is in favour to justify the use of "assassination" etc., even thought it should, at least, more accurately called an "assassination attempt", as Ian Kershaw does. Berean Hunter, I can't disagree on the sources argument as such you put forward, but it sounds you are "forming synthesis" as well with the rest of your message...

However, I can't see why "Free Czech agents" could be vetoed in replacement to "assassins", at least to avoid repetitions. Really, I can't. By the way, Kierzek, based on your argument, I feel free to add, citing the source, of course, that Heydrich was "One of Hitler's most important henchmen", and I assume I am going to get your support. It would be really curious if the sources could be used to brand a patriot an assassin and couldn't be used to brand an henchmen as such. Right? Also, Kierzek, it should be noted that "Britannica is not the best of sources as far as weight on any subject" does not seem a very smart argument, since, as you know, many scholars say the same about Wikipedia itself.

As for "reprisal", it is out of question that Wikipedia should not misuse reprisal to refer to a blatant atrocity such as Lidice. Squiddy, you should first of all give proof that Lidice victims were "the enemy" or were, at least, hostages taken as such before the so called "reprisal". Please check the Geneva Conventions on the matter: a "reprisal" which is not under the cover of the International laws is not a reprisal, but a crime more accurately called atrocity. --Piero Montesacro (talk) 15:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC) <--—Preceding unsigned comment added by Piero Montesacro (talk • contribs) 15:48, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Montesacro, in reply to:
"By the way, Kierzek, based on your argument, I feel free to add, citing the source, of course, that Heydrich was "One of Hitler's most important henchmen", and I assume I am going to get your support...Right?"
Go ahead, although I think the article makes that clear already.
"Also, Kierzek, it should be noted that "Britannica is not the best of sources as far as weight on any subject" does not seem a very smart argument, since, as you know, many scholars say the same about Wikipedia itself."
Not at all; the use of Britannica is what you used as a main argument basis (which using your words "does not seem very smart"); however, let us stick to the facts of the matter. I was basing my argument first and foremost on what most all historians agree upon and used two with cited text to make my point. That is the main comparison to be made. The second point was that the medium in question (Wikipedia) has its own definitions as to the terms in question already and those do deserve some consideration herein. Kierzek (talk) 17:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
I think the problem is that you are trying to find out the precise meaning of words from legal sources. This would be appropriate if you were drafting a legal document but is not appropriate for writing an encyclopedia. I gave the OED definition of 'reprisal', which fits, and you reply with arguments about proving whether hostages were taken, which aren't really to the point. (The example of use from the OED is, FWIW, "Shooting up... villages as reprisals for ambushes" which is as appropriate as it gets.)
In any case, it's hardly worth getting into an argument over that, the word doesn't appear in the article and as far as I can see hasn't in the recent past.
I've removed the POV tag. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 16:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Just a small bit from the traditional Czech point of view: The term assassination (in Czech atentát) is normally used in connection to the killing of Heydrich. See Google test (atentát=assassination × zabití=killing), the movie about the event was simply named Atentát (IMDB), several Czech relevant books have the word in the title (see the catalogue of the National Library of Prague). Regarding the Czech description of the soldiers that made the assassination, it would need more research and I am sure, that the description changed after 1989, when the official view of the event has changed (as has the view of the Britain-settled exile government). Okino (talk) 10:55, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Reinhard_Heydrich/Archive_3&oldid=1078002649"