Talk:Reinhard Heydrich

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:



Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] A note on "Revisionism"

The term "revisionism" is used throughout this discussion pejoratively, if not as an outright despicable act. I recall such a use during the heated political debates of the 1960s amongst Left groups in Western Europe, particularly of Maoist tendencies. A "revisionist" to them was anyone who followed the official, Moscow line, and, hence, was in accord with the 1956 denunciation of Stalinist practices by Kruchev; i.e. a revisionist. (A "reformer" was mostly anyone who tended towards the purely parliamentarian, legitimate course of action, instead of the "armed class struggle". "Cosmopolitan deviationists" were the Trotskyites, and so on.) Well, since this is supposed to be an encyclopaedia, we, the contributors, should reclaim the term for what it truly is. Every serious researcher in matters of science, history, art and most human disciplines, should strive to learn more and seek more perspectives. And if this brings him to a different outlook on things, one based on new findings, revelations, etc, then, by all means, revising his ideas is not just an option but a duty to oneself. The Gnome 15:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The debate about the veracity of the Holocaust (or the accuracy of the claims about it) has lowered even further the status of the terms "Revisionist". This is quite unfortunate -- for both freedom of ideas in general, and for historic research in particular. Imagine if a historian was to ignore the plethora of information contained in the recently opened Soviet archives! Imagine if we were ordered to protect "official History" from the revelations contained therein! In sum, one should be quite ready to revise one's ideas when justified for doing so; in fact, one should feel honor bound to do so. The Gnome 15:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
We are active contributors to an encyclopaedia which is constantly revised, and we accuse other contributors of being revisionist. I hope everyone can see how silly this is... The Gnome 15:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

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?

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)

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]

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)
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)

[edit] 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)


[edit] "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)


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Numbers

"which laid out the plans for the extermination of 11,000,000 European Jews" is incorrect according to our own Holocaust article. 6 millions Jews murdered, 11 million Holocaust victims (including communists, homosexuals, and others). Thus, the anonymous editor was correct when changing the number. Rl 14:48, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Do you have a source? Talrias (t | e | c) 15:03, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
I cited the source: Holocaust (besides the fact that those are the numbers most people learn at school). Do you have a better one? Are you confident enough to change the Holocaust article as well? Rl 15:05, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
I actually agree that the 11 million figure is incorrect. 11 million was the total number anticipated for the FInal Solution. 6 million was the figure that actually died. Now, Heydrich also killed non-Jews as well due to his policies. Adding them in, if probably would be 11-12 million people, but only 6 million jews. -Husnock 16:20, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
By source, I mean an external source. I am not saying the current number is correct, I am saying that there is no way of verifying the number you are suggesting without a source. Talrias (t | e | c) 16:22, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
They had plans to exterminate all 11,000,000 European Jews. They only managed to kill 6,000,000 by the end of the war. Thus the 11,000,000 figure is correct, as this article discusses the plans, not the actual outcome. See Wannsee conference. Jayjg (talk) 16:25, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
I see. That makes sense. Is it possible to rephrase that part of the intro to make it less ambiguous? Maybe it's just me, but to me "the plans for the extermination" doesn't sound like they were only partially executed. It is just me, huh!? Ah well. :-) Rl 16:46, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
The Nazis had plans for a "Thousand Year Reich" as well. Those, too, did not come to fruition. I don't think an article which mentioned Nazi plans for a Thousand Year Reich would mislead people into believing the Reich actually lasted 1000 years. Jayjg (talk) 17:07, 26 August 2005 (UTC)


It has been reported that over 15,000 Czechs were killed in reprisals.: this number isn't sourced and looks suspiciously high. The terror after R. H. death (and before) was targetted and selective (the two villages being exception). Specifically, approving the attentate (schvalování atentátu) was punishable with death and after few publicly announced executions people learned to keep quiet. Large part of executions were already imprisoned people (typically members of political and cultural elite). Pavel Vozenilek 13:41, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Btw, the section about his death has high overlap with other article and should be pruned down.

[edit] Heydrich's Death

I have reverted the implication in the article that Heydrich died from secret bioweapons implanted in his assassian's grenades. While I do not doubt the SOE probably did "doctor" certian weapons with gas/bio agents, there is very little evidence this is what caused Heydrich to die. For one, the Czech partisans who killed him made their own bombs when they arrived inCzecoslovakia and the only items the SOE provided were collapable sten guns and a radio. Secondly, Heydrich died of a massive lvier and spleen infection when the blast belw out his car seat and sent metal springs and chairs stuffing into his side. Maybe a line about there being a theroy that Heydrich's bomb might have been laced would be acceptable, but simply saying "years later is was discovered that his death was due to bioagents secretly implanted by the SOE" is very far fetched. -Husnock 17:31, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

There is no evidence to suggest biotoxin grenades were used here; therefore the article should deal with absolute facts - although references can be made to such theories- however misplaced. The fact that the assassination was planned to have been carried out by Gabchick using the Sten Gun seems to discount much of the the 'bio-grenade' theory- why go to all the trouble of such a weapon if a simple machine gun burst was going to be the primary tool to be used? In addition , a grenade (of whatever design) is a notoriously imprecise weapon; far surer to shoot Heydrich at close range ( as was intended) than rely on an indescriminate and inaccurate means of assassination.Harryurz 15:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
In the article:"Lina Heydrich later stated that she believed Heydrich had expected an early death, saying that she saw his frequent unnecessary risk-taking (such as his valiant adventures in his Luftwaffe Me 109) as an attempt to ensure that, should he die, his would be a dramatic death." Source? Lina Heydrich also said she suspected the Czech partisans had Nazi help. (in other words..that Heydrich was 'set-up'. I think she was quite right. Anyone here agree? oldcitycat 23:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Lina Heydrich in her memoirs speaks about "expected early death", here I agree. Not in the second point: There is no evidence of Nazi help for the partizans. The Nazi conspiration is a rumour and probably comes from the apologizing memoirs of Walter Schellenberg, chief of Foreign Secret Service of the RSHA and assistant to Heydrich.--charlandes 15:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Heydrich and Canaris' Abwehr

I read that Canaris, the head of the Abwehr that competed with the SD, was a personal friend of Heydrich and that Canaris' wife used her children to spy on Heydrich. It would be nice to have a source for this so that this interesting anecdote can go into the article. Andries 19:04, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

The Heydrich's and the Canaris' were two times neighbours and friends. Canaris himself is described as a 'difficult character', the marriage with Erika Waag was not lucky, the both daughters Eva (born 16. Dec. 1923 at Kiel) and Brigitte (b 16. Jan. 1926 Berlin) were mentally ill.
Heydrich and Canaris met first in the navy, their friendship stems from there. In 1934 when Heydrich moved to Berlin they lived close in flats in the same street without knowing from each other simply meeting during walk. In 1937 both couples moved to Schlachtensee (district of Berlin) where they were neighbours again by chance.
It is true one of the girls, 13 at this time, was found in Heydrich's room raking up a drawer of his writing desk. Unexpectedly Heydrich came back and said: "Do not do that". No more, as everyone knew that the girl was not normal.
A servant of Canaris named "Mohamed" from Arabia was once found persecuting Reinhard Heydrich. When Heydrich noticed that he called Canaris immediately on phone asking him "not to play with me childish games". Source: Lina Heydrich, Verheiratet mit einem Kriegsverbrecher, p. 62ff. Commentary by Werner Maser, p. 176f.
She also speculates about rumors Mrs. Canaris after 1945 had taken "gold" from the "Abwehr" for personal purpose to Spain but without any proof (p. 66).
There are much more anecdotes and better ones: How Reinhard Heydrich and Walter Schellenberg founded the spy brothel "Salon Kitty"; how Mrs. Heydrich sees the Wannsee conference after the war, how she was not persecuted and got a nice pension (salary like a prime minister!) from a Court in Schleswig Holstein in 1956, how she nourished old SS comrades in her inn... if you like I can contribute.--charlandes 13:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Interesting anecdotes, but they don't seem too relevant or necessary for the article. And about the Arab who was allegedly "persecuting" Heydrich. What exactly was this "persecution"  ? The Gnome 21:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mythology about RH's death

I had deleted section on myths (created after war) about un-natural causes of his death. While I never heard about "chair of Rabbi Loew" I read about similar event involing Czech crown jewels.

An easy-to-digest legend for obviously propaganda reason, created after the war, is neither important nor relevant. Wikipedia is not collection of quips and irrelevancies, I hope. Pavel Vozenilek 02:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Heydrich and Stalin's purge

The article states: He is believed to be the creator of the forged documents of Russian correspondence with the German high command that sparked the Great Purge.

I believe this has been proved a tall tale spun by a mid-ranking German intelligence officer post-war to impress his western Allied interrogators. At least no serious historian I know of pays any credence to this allegation that Stalin's purges of Red Army officer corps was started by these German forgeries (if they ever esisted).

- Mikko H. 09:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article on the Great Purge states that the claim that the purge was instigated by Nazi forged documents is not supported by evidence.

"The claim is, however, unsupported by facts, since by the time the documents were supposedly created, two people from the eight in the Tukhachevsky group were already imprisoned, and, by the time, the document was said to reach Stalin, the purging process was already going. However the actual evidence introduced at trial was obtained from forced confessions.

I think this section needs to say that there is considerable doubt amongst historians as to whether Heydrich and the Nazis were responsible for instigating the purge

However, the former Czechoslovak Prime Minister, Benes, claimed in his post-war memoirs to have received the documents from his intelligence agencies and to have forwarded them to Stalin. That corresponds with the post-war claims made by former SD officers that Benes was used as the conduit for forged incriminating documents.Michael mills (talk) 03:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This article used to be better

Now the part of Heydrich and the Nazi Party and the SD is missing. That part is, I believe, the most important part. Can somebody please go through the history and try to cherrypick from the old versions and combine them in a new version? Andries 20:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

I've added the cleanup tag to this article as a significant amount of text is fairly ungrammatical; however, since I feel my own grammar isn't quite up to scratch I'd like someone else to take a look. I also think that some of the text isn't written in a terribly encyclopaedic manner, for example the 3rd paragraph of "Early life" seems terribly dramatic.

-- Chris (blather • contribs) 21:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, seems it's gone again. Oh well, I'm not getting into a revert war over it.
-- Chris (blather • contribs) 17:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Can the Bezeq International user who keeps changing "bizarre" to the incorrectly spelt "bizzare" kindly desist? Thanks.
—Chris (blather • contribs • e) 03:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Part "Early Life" (what I call "Calic-theory"). Please also clean up:

There is no doubt that Lina Mathilde von Osten (born 1911) was an enthusiastic follower of Hitler. When she was 16 (1927) she first time listened to a speech of Hitler. Heydrich met Lina in 1930, no contact to the Nazis is known before Lina came into his life. At that time (1930) he was desperate about his dismissal from the navy and looked for a job sending out lot of letters. He intended to become a sailor-teacher in Hamburg for 380 Reichsmark, but Lina recommended to send one letter to the NSDAP headquarters to Munich to Heinrich Himmler. A relative of her and staff member to Himmler, Karl von Eberstein was responsible for that contact. So Heydrich came uninvited to see Himmler at Munich on June 14th., 1931, performed the legendary twenty minute test and was engaged for 180 Reichsmark to set up the 'Sicherheitsdienst'. So with that income he was able to marry Lina in December 1931. Source: Lina Heydrich's memoirs. For me it makes therefore no sense that Heydrich "was spying on the navy in the service of the Nazis" and I ask for correction.--charlandes 19:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reichsprotektor

The one obvious gap in this account of Heydrich's life concerns his role as Reichsprotektor of Bohemia and Moravia. As an administrator he proved to be highly competent; and while there was terror there was also some attempt to win over the Czech workers, thus ensuring maximum armaments productivity. Amongst other things he introduced comprehensive social insurance policies previously lacking. There was more to Heydrich than Wansee and the Holocaust. White Guard 00:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Deputy Reichsprotektor, please. Str1977 (smile back) 22:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
We seem to be chasing each other all over the place! Technically you are correct; but he is generally just knows as Reichsprotektor.White Guard 23:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I admit that I saw this on your contributions list, but I have no intention of stalking you. The article should be accurate and not perpetuate popular misconception. On the talk page, we can all be lenient. Str1977 (smile back) 23:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
In full agreement, of course.White Guard 23:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

[edit] Self-hating part Jew

Some of the wording in the section on Heydrich's alleged Jewish history seems to me to be far too impassioned for encyclopedic purposes. I note that an attempt was made to edit it out, but its was edited back in shortly after. It really should be removed, having no bearing whatsoever on Heydrich's career.White Guard 00:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

If you are refering to my observation that attempts to identify a Jewish forebeare of Heydrich like similiar and far more absurd attempts to invent jewish forebearer for Adolf Hitler must be suspected as attempts to reduce the holocaust to the rampage of certain self-hating part-jews, then I must admit puzzlement as to what you regard as "too impassioned". it is necessary to bear in mind this suspicion when evaluating the credibility of the various claims that major antisemitic predators had Jewish forebearers, and it is relavent to Heydrich's career and life in so far as his supposed Jewish ancestry holds such relavence.
It would help if you signed your remarks. This is an issue over which you clearly feel strongly, and I have no wish to cause you any offence. These theories, a la Hans Frank and others, may indeed be absurd and a form of latent anti-semitism; but the use here does not correspond properly to intellectual detachment, and could invite an equally emotive counter-response. I am sorry but expressions like "far mor absurd" and "rampaging of self-hating part Jew" are dangerously out of place: it makes it read like a manifesto.White Guard 02:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
A "manifesto" no less. You truely and honestly feel you have not inflated the matter beyond all reason. Oh well, I beg the difference.
You are far too close to this issue, and have clearly not understood what I am trying to say to you. It's also obvious that English is not your native language; so I think there is little more to be gained by this exchange. I have only one final point to make: stand back a little and try to think rationally. Hysteria only breeds hysteria. Best wishes.White Guard 22:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
From a peddler of internet manifestos I have further declined in this world into a hysteric, but can at least seek solace in having been favoured with your best wishes. I propose that you at least try to practice what you preach and cool down a touch to say 99 centigrade. As for my impoverished English. If I have failed to fully fathom "what you were trying to say" it may be you have failed to convey it. While I am inclined to agree with you that this is fast becoming a poignantly pointless exchange, albeit for a reason opposite to yours, I wish to offer ypu one last piece of very friendly advice. Take greater care to insure that what you say is indeed what you meant to say and, that it would not be something that, having said it, you than be embaressed by it. best wishes all around and goodbye!

[edit] Biowarfare Angle

It would be worth noting that there have been reports over the years that the assassins' hand grenades were filled with anthrax or some other biowarfare agent at the British Porton Down facility which would, it is said, explain Heydrich's rapid deteroration after his seeming initial survival. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Basesurge (talk • contribs) 15:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Slayer

Why does the reference to the Slayer song (SS-3) about Heydrich keep getting removed? It is both fact and relevant.

WTF is Slayer BTW??? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.19.208.184 (talk) 19:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC).
A thrash metal band. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.186.172.75 (talk) 20:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

If you don´t know THAT, give a quick look to their Wikipedia article. Where do you live? 195.46.254.85 13:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Interpol

There is no mention of Heydrich serving as the President of Interpol. I would add it myself but I really don't know much about it other then he was president from 1940-42. LCpl 15:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Reinhardt Heydrich speech excerpt.ogg

Image:Reinhardt Heydrich speech excerpt.ogg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Heider Heydrich

Though reluctant of offending the privacy of the children (i.e., the son) of the person this article is about, Reinhard Heydrichs son Heider seems to be well alive.
[2]
here is an open brief from Dipl. Ing. Heider Heydrich, dated as of September 18. 2007:
[3]
I therefore delete the remark that he "died in july 2007".--84.163.122.230 (talk) 03:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

  • Not at the time the picture was taken, so it's rather irrelevant. Funkynusayri (talk) 21:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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)