Talk:Reinhard Heydrich/Archive 7

Dies Irae

Reinhard Heydrich appears as a primary antagonist in the visual novel and anime Dies Irae. Perhaps that should be added somewhere in a trivia section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.3.71.186 (talk) 22:34, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:MILPOP, trivial pop culture material does not belong in military history articles. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:25, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Red Army purges and Wilhelm Canaris?

Under the subsection "Red Army purges" the author writes: "Sensing an opportunity to strike a blow at both the Soviet Army and Admiral Canaris of Germany's Abwehr, Heydrich decided that the Russian officers should be "unmasked", citing Max Williams' book. However, the Heinz Höhne's bio on Canaris and Peter Padfield's bio on Himmler both detail Heydrich's very close relationship with Canaris. If Williams has evidence to the contrary, it should be stated here, or else mention of Canaris and the Abwehr should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:252:D02:110:4DFB:37B1:69B:159D (talk) 02:57, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

If you have access to these books perhaps you could provide citations and if possible quotations from the source books that support your suggested edit? Your citations should at minimum contain the book title, author, publication date, and the page number(s) where the material is found. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:07, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

NSDAP number, SS number

The NSDAP membership number in particular is an important piece of information, because the lower the number, the earlier the person joined the party. Having a low membership number was a status symbol within the party. The Alter Kämpfer were considered as the hard-core supporters who were members during the initial period of struggle and before the party became popular or won any seats in the Reichstag. Having party number 544,916 meant Heydrich joined relatively late. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:54, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

As I said in my edit summary, it gives information to the reader as to when he joined the organizations and the timeline of events. In addition, the numbers carry significance within the Nazi Party as mentioned by Diannaa above. They should be included. Kierzek (talk) 15:12, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

While I have no doubt that's all true, normal readers have no way of knowing (a) that numbers were assigned sequentially, (b) what magnitude of number signaled early joining, or (c) that somehow others knew these numbers and were thereby awed – because the article doesn't say any of this. So I guess we could extend the article to explain, but still, what more would that tell the reader than would simply giving the dates themselves, perhaps explaining where they fit in the overall Nazi timeline. The fact that people can infer the date from the numbers, and be thereby subtly impressed, might be an interesting fact about daily life in the Nazi Party and German military, but it really tells us nothing about Heydrich.

On top of this, it now obtains that he had high numbers which did not confer status. Geesh! Drop the numbers, give the dates (there's only one right now, and for some reason it's in a footnote), and explain that these dates suggest he was not an early adherent but a later one, or whatever sources say. The numbers themselves are about as helpful as his home address – which might have been in a high-status area, but readers won't know that unless you tell them, in which case you may as well just name the area and explain the status, but drop the address itself. EEng 17:56, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I did recently look in the source books for the date he joined the party, and found nothing. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:10, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Fine, but we can't leave the reader puzzling over these bare numbers. I understood they signaled something about time of his joining, but assumed the opposite of what turns out to be the truth -- I figured they signaled early joining. So you see how inappropriate they are as currently presented. EEng 18:14, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

First, I will check my RS books as to when he joined the Party, later when I am done with real world commitments of this day. Second, EEng, you are speculating and surmising, which I don't agree with. With that said, we could add a sentence as to the fact he was considered "not an early adherent", to use your words. Kierzek (talk) 19:20, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Peter Padfield's biography of Himmler states that Edouard Calic in his biography of Heydrich gives 31 May 1931 -- "the day after his discharge from the Navy became legally binding" -- as the date that Heydrich joined the Nazi Party. (p.110) The cite to Calic gives pp.58-59 as the source. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:54, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I've adjusted the text accordingly. Since I don't have Calic, I've had to cite Padfield, but if anyone does have Calic, they should replace the cite to Padfield with a cite to Calic and remove Padfield from the bibliography. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:15, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, BMK for checking and tweaking, accordingly. I will still look when I get home, but right now I am chained to my desk at the office, so to speak. Kierzek (talk) 20:45, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

And thanks to you for cleaning up my typos. Fat fingers today. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:47, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

EEng, you are speculating and surmising – what are you talking about? EEng 22:47, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

EEng, if you really don't know, I am not wasting my time to comment further on it. As to the main queries, I checked Gerwarth first: on page 48 it states that Heydrich joined the Nazi Party on 1 June 1931, "...as a precondition for his new job". "His membership number, 544,916 did not exactly make him an 'Old Fighter' of the Nazi movement, but he joined early enough to avoid the suspicion of careerism with which post-1933 members" faced. On page 53, he states Heydrich joined the SS in "mid-July, 1931". Mario R. Dederichs's book "Heydrich: The Face of Evil" (2006) [2005], I checked second. He also states the same as Gerwarth, that Heydrich had to join the Nazi Party as a precondition for his new job. He joined on 1 June 1931; number 544916. p. 45. He go on to state that Heydrich then joined the SS in Hamburg on 14 July, as a Untersturmführer, number 10120. p. 48 (note: p. 12 also has this info as part of a short bio summary of ranks, dates and positions). So there you have it. Now, I am going to bed. Kierzek (talk) 04:08, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

I've again updated the text to present this information, which I think is useful to the non-specialist reader. Please look it over and make any changes necessary. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:43, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

• EEng, if you really don't know, I am not wasting my time to comment further on it{[snd}}that is, you'll only answer my question if I already know the answer. That's good logic, that is. I'm afraid I really must insist that you explain what speculating and surmising you're talking about.
• Thanks to BMK's fine editing, the article now reads

  On 30 May 1931, Heydrich's discharge from the navy became legally binding, and either the following day or on 1 June he joined the Nazi Party in Hamburg. Six weeks later, on 14 July, he joined the SS with the rank of Untersturmführer. His Party number was 544,916 and his SS number was 10,120. Those who joined the Party after Hitler's "seizure of power" in January 1933 faced suspicions from the "Old Fighters" of the Party that they had joined for reasons of career advancement, and not from a true commitment to the National Socialist program. Heydrich's date of enlistment in 1931 was early enough to avoid the charge of careerism, but was not early enough for him to be considered an Old Fighter himself.

We were told that the reason the "numbers" were needed was that they give information to the reader as to when he joined the organizations and the timeline of events. [1]. Well, we've got a fine presentation of that now. So I ask again: what purpose do these two numbers serve?

EEng 08:00, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

"Heydrichiada"

In Czech and sometimes in English [2] [3] [4] [5] and even in Spanish [6], the reign of terror after Heydrich's assassination is referred to as the "Heydrichiáda." (Sometimes the first martial law is called the first Heydrichiáda, the reprisals are the second Heydrichiáda.) I think this is worth mentioning in the article. The terror was so bad that the Czechs coined a new word to describe it. Catrìona (talk) 05:34, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

As long as it is WP:RS cited, it could be very briefly mentioned that the reprisals are referred to by Czechs as "Heydrichiáda". Kierzek (talk) 13:36, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I have added the suggested material, using yet another source. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:21, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

In popular culture?

Maybe we could include portrayals of Heydrich in popular culture. An example is that he appears in “The Man in The High Castle” (show) Hossman42!! (talk) 07:54, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry but listing trivial pop culture mentions is not appropriate for military history articles. See WP:MILPOP for further information. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:23, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Already been done. See Dramatic portrayals of Reinhard Heydrich. -O.R.^Comms 03:42, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

incomplete

this article makes no mention of the 1942 paper Heydrich wrote "The Reich and the Domination of Europe", which formed the basis of the Treaty of Rome. 2.59.114.197 (talk) 09:59, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

An Internet search suggests that no paper named "The Reich and the Domination of Europe" by Heydrich formed the basis of the Treaty of Rome. Lklundin (talk) 10:29, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

I looked too, and found nothing no paper by that title (or the potential title in German "Das Reich und die Herrschaft Europas") online or at the German Wikipedia. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:31, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Newzild prefers to refer to Holocaust victims as "killed" instead of "murdered"

User:Newzild has made the change of "murdered" to "killie" in both this article [7], [8], and on the article Heinrich Himmler. [9] and [10]. Newzild claims pedantic legal reason for this attempot to witewash the reputations of these two Nazis -- but refers to "Murder" as being a "pejorative" in one of his edit summaries, so there might be other reasons.

I will be posting numerous citations for the appropriateness of "murdered" shortly. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:27, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Citations confirming the apprpirate use of "murdered" in relation to the millions of people who died in the Holocaust:

• "The Start of the Mass Murder"
• "15,000 murders a day: August-October 1942 were the Holocaust's deadliest months"
• "Operation Reinhard, known as the single largest murder campaign during the Holocaust, was worse than historians imagined...."
• "Operation Reinhard (1942–1943) was the largest single murder campaign of the Holocaust, during which some 1.7 million Jews from German-occupied Poland were murdered by the Nazis."
• "Murder of Hungarian Jewry"
• "Israeli study: 1/4 of Jews killed in Holocaust murdered in 100 days in 1942"
• "Murder by bullets: the Einsatzgruppen and their fellow mobile killers"
• "The Mass Murders"
• "The Holocaust was the systematic persecution and murder of approximately six million Jews by the Nazi regime and its collaborators between 1933 and 1945."
• "During the Holocaust, the Nazis murdered an estimated six million Jews...."
• "The Practice of Murder"
• "Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe with exhibition at the Information Centre"
• "By the 1950s, the English term Holocaust came to be employed as the term for the murder of the Jews in Europe by the Nazis...."
• "What evidence exists that murdering of Jews was official Nazi policy and not the acts of rogue individuals? How do we know that gas chambers were used for mass murder?..."
• "At the Peak of the Holocaust, Nazis murdered more than 14,000 Jews ......"
• "Einsatzgruppen, mobile SS killing squads, murdered one and a half million Jews in eastern Poland, Belorussia, Ukraine, and Russia."

The list could go on and on and on and on. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:48, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support "murder" (Wikipedia makes you say some weird things sometimes) – the sources use the word "murder", and "murder" is the correct term per its common definition of an extrajudicial killing. Also, changing "murdered" to "killed" is a bold edit under theWP:BRD cycle; when that change was reverted, it should have led to a post here, rather than edit warring. The WP:ONUS should be on the editor wanting to change "murder" to "kill" to get consensus on the talk page, not on the editor who is seeking to maintain the status quo. Thx to BMK for collecting the sources even though he shouldn't have had to take the time to do that. – Levivich 16:15, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

  I just wanted to nip the thing in the bud. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:56, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

  Levivich, with T&S on the prowl recently, I suggest you clarify what you mean when you say you support murder. EEng 03:23, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

  Good point. Support "murder" (in full compliance with the TOU). – Levivich 04:11, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

  Within policies and guidelines, of course. EEng 05:30, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

• I support use of the word "murder", because it shows intent. Thanks BMK for digging up plenty of sources that also use the word. The way reliable sources frame these acts is the wording we too should use. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:00, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
• I also support the use of the word murder to describe the intent and actions of the Nazis and their like-minded cohorts and minions. Killed is too vague a term to use here. Kierzek (talk) 22:10, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

  I know, let's just say these people "died". You know, like it just happened somehow. EEng 03:23, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

  Hmm... Better, but still too active. How about "living ceased". (I sometimes wonder how Holocaust denialists deal with the cognitive dissonance inherent in their world view. What do they think happened to almost the entire Jewish populations of Germany and Poland? Did they spontaneously combust? Did they wander off into the Baltic Sea like lemmings? Did they all leave to visit Aunt Sophie and get lost along the way? What do these people think? - if one can call it "thinking".)Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:39, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

• I support murder, but don't take the the wrong way. Even organized state-sanctioned murder is murder. EEng 03:23, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Jewish question or Jewish Question?

@Beyond My Ken: is there a reason why this article uses inconsistent capitalization for this phrase? --- Coffeeandcrumbs 09:01, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

N one's gotten around to making the usage consistent, I imagine. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:18, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I think it should be capitalized as a proper noun, but I’ve seen sources go both ways and there’s the argument about distinguishing the concept (q) from the book (Q). This should be consistent across the site; might be worth bringing up at a WikiProject or MOS. – Levivich 13:55, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I first I believed it should not be. But I have changed my mind since. It should indeed be capitalized. But we need some consistency across several articles: Final Solution, Adolf Hitler, and Hermann Göring. The worst offender is the article on the Jewish question which you will note is decapped in the article title. When updating the OTD for today, I had difficulty deciding whether of not to capitalize "Question". The problem is that the version in German is "Endlösung der Judenfrage" (Final Solution of the Jewish [Q/q]uestion). If you think about it hard it is clear the Solution should be capitalized but I can't be as sure about [Q/q]uestion because it is not clear why Judenfrage was capitalized. Was because Jude is always capitalized? Or would frage be capitalized when translated? FYI, here is the 2006 discussion where capitalization of Final Solution was decided: Talk:Final Solution/Archive 1#Requested move. I think the best solution is to have a move discussion at Talk:Jewish question. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 17:04, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

In German, all nouns are capitalized, not just proper nouns. So don't go by what you see on de.wiki. We have to make our own decision for this wiki. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:54, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Diannaa is correct. German language nouns, even common nouns, are always capitalized. Kierzek (talk) 23:42, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

• Obviously having an RM discussion at Jewish question would be best, but I do think that the during the late 19th and early 20th century, the subject had been so thoroughtly reified that it was usual for it to be capitalized. It wasn't as if people were saying "I have a question about the Jews", it was "What are we going to do about the Jewish Question?", meaning "What are we going to do about the Jews?" -- and later "How are we going to get rid of the Jews?" The very act of asking the "What are we gong to do about the Jewish Question?" assumed the existence of a problem that had to be solved. I have no doubt that German-speakers having been a large component of that discussion influenced that capitalization, but, still, the thing is the Jewish Question, not "the Jewish question". Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:42, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

• Since no one else seems inclined to, I've started an RM here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:55, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Error in SS rank chronology

The article says he was appointed Untersturmführer on 14 July 1931. The Wikipedia Untersturmführer article states that the was first created in 1934. (It is described as "the first commissioned SS officer rank, equivalent to a second lieutenant in other military organizations".) Either that article or this article is incorrect, as he couldn't have had the rank in 1931 if it wasn't established until 1934.

I know nothing about Nazi paramilitary, which is why I am hesitant to research and resolve this inconsistency myself. Someone should, as it has bearing on the content that follows, about whether subject's induction to the SS was pre- or post-1933. Pre-1933 induction was apparently considered an indicator of Nazi true believer authenticity.--FeralOink (talk) 05:07, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

The rank does not appear in the cited source, so I have removed it. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:31, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Good catch, FeralOink; it was not correct and as Diannaa said, not in the RS cited source. The fact is, Heydrich was promoted in Dec. 1931 to Sturmbannführer (major) as a wedding present by Himmler. Gerwarth, p. 58.

Removal of alternative viewpoint, for discussion here

I deleted this passage:

Historian Donald Bloxham avows that for all the discussion over perpetrators in the Final Solution, Heydrich "barely spared a hateful thought for the Jews" and instead concentrated his efforts on the scale of his "supranational task".{{sfn|Bloxham|2009|p=228}}

Donald Bloxham is apparently a professor of modern history and has a BLP of his own. The statement about Heydrich, particularly given the vast preponderance of evidence presented in this article alone, indicates that Heydrich had many, many hateful thoughts for the Jews. Is it a misquote of Bloxham? If not, hmmm, well, I guess we could return it to the article. It speaks most eloquently about why scholars do not necessarily draw correct conclusions, without any editorializing needed.

Please replace the passage if you (editors who read this) are certain of the accuracy of the quote, and believe it belongs in the article as an "alternative viewpoint".--FeralOink (talk) 00:16, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I would prefer that my removal of the passage above never be returned to the article.--FeralOink (talk) 05:38, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

New Infobox Image

@Antique Rose: I am starting this section to propose that the present infobox image be replaced with the following picture. As mentioned during my previous attempt to edit replace the picture, Heydrich was a mid-level bureaucrat in the Nazi regime, not a head of state or internationally renowned political thinker. Therefore, I see no reason why his infobox picture has to be nearly as large as the one used for FDR's main page. Its vastly disproportionate to his historical significance. Emiya1980 (talk) 06:20, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Proposed new image for Heydrich article.

First, there is no rule as to making a main photograph of an article’s subject different sizes based on some subjective scale. The original photograph is better resolution. I will not get into his role in the Nazi regime as it’s not relevant here, but he certainly was more than a mid-level bureaucrat. I do not see a good reason for it to be changed. Kierzek (talk) 13:58, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

@Kierzek: The size of an image is relevant when considered within the context of how it is likely to be used in an encyclopedic context. As noted in Wikipedia's guidelines for using images in the lead, "Lead images should be natural and appropriate representations of the topic....[which] should not only illustrate the topic specifically, but also be the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works.” Whether it be in an encyclopedia or another well-regarded historical work, the size of an image used for a historical figure can and does convey to readers the importance of their role in the events they took part (for good or ill). Towards this end, it does not make sense for a man who played a supporting role in the Nazi regime to have a significantly larger image than the one used for Hitler himself. To otherwise do so would compromise its effectiveness as a visual aid to readers. Furthermore, aside from the cropping, the new image is virtually identical to the previous one. How can its resolution be characterized as better or worse? Emiya1980 (talk) 18:40, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

The images get automatically resized, for example in the desktop to 220px width, while keeping the aspect ratio. By cropping you are not changing the displayed size significantly, but just removing information from the image (in this case, a couple of condecorations). There are methods to change the image size within an infobox, rather than cropping an image or adding text to the caption. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.191.80.136 (talk) 07:32, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• The current images is perfectly fine, it has no defects, and none have been described here. The proposed replacement image is not superior to the current image in any way. There is no reason to make a change. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:13, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Heydrichmarke.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:29, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Some anonymous account edited the page saying "Jewish Historians" consider Heydrich to be the darkest figure of the Nazis

on october 30 2021. an anonymous user by the name of User talk:85.131.123.7, edited the page saying that "Jewish Historians" ( instead of many historians) considered Heydrich to be the darkest figure, and that seems to be not true, cause I was investigating about them and they are by no means Jewish, so I undid the edit. Common_man_86 (talk) 22:16, 1 November 2021 (UTC)