Talk:Assassination of Reinhard Heydrich

older comments

Gosh, this poor thing has gone downhill. Orphaned editing marks, mysterious links. Let me do some technical corrections, I hope I do not modify the content. Paul, in Saudi 16:05, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I made lot of work on this article since your comment - it just need some clean up (as Im not an english-master;). PS.Reading new and new information about this operation was more exciting than any film I´ve seen in last years (and I´ve seen lot of films:) Szalas

Holy Mary, this thing is in bad shape. I've read this article before, I don't remember it being this broken! I started doing a section edit but quickly realized I was trying to rescue something that probably bears a rewrite. Rhombus 02:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I just did a rewrite, adding some stuff from the page on Jan Kusic. Hopefully this helps a bit. Tiger Khan 19:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

It would be interesting to see a citation supporting this article's statement that there has been "much speculation by historians" regarding the role of Himmler's physicians in Heydrich's treatment.--PLB 22:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Sten Gun Jamming?

As Heydrich's open-topped Mercedes-Benz neared the pair, Gabčík is said to have stepped in front of the vehicle, trying to open fire, but his Sten gun jammed.

There has recently been a drama-documentary on the UK History channel about Operation Anthropoid which included actual Nazi photographs of the real "crime scene". One of the pictures clearly shows Gabčík's Mark II Sten gun lying on the road where he threw it away, minus its butt-stock. This raises the intriguing possibility that rather than jamming the real reason for Gabčík being unable to open fire was that perhaps due to an error in timing (or Heydrich's car arriving early) he was still assembling the knocked-down gun when Heydrich's car came round the corner. You can fire a Sten Mark II without the butt-stock fitted but it's very awkward, as there's no pistol grip like on the later Mark IV and V and it's unlikely anyone would want to try to do so in circumstances such as an attack on Heydrich. It's also unlikely that Gabčík would have attempted to dismantle a useless weapon afterwards before throwing it away, as the two SOE agents were being attacked by both a wounded Heydrich (who subsequently collapsed) and Klein, his driver, who pursued Gabčík some distance before Gabčík shot and killed him with a pistol. Ian Dunster 14:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

A small correction: Klein was shot but not killed. --Jvs.cz (talk) 14:05, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Probably Gabčík had not brought the butt-stock with him as it would not fit in his briefcase. --Jvs.cz (talk) 18:59, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

In that case if the gun mis-fired all he needed to do was re-cock the gun while tipping the gun on its side for the stopped cartridge to fall out. It would then have fired normally. This would have taken around a second to do.[1]

Sten guns are often accused of 'jamming' but all that usually happens is what's called a 'stoppage' where a cartridge might mis-feed. His SOE training would have taught him this.

For such an important operation if the butt-stock wouldn't fit in his briefcase he should have obtained a bigger briefcase. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.100.255 (talk) 10:06, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Bohemian crown myth

This was excised from the article on May 27, 2007. I was actually seeking more information on the particular subject.

A Czech legend exists that states that if one who is not a true Czech King puts the Czech royal crown on his head, he will die in one year and a day. Before his death, Heydrich had put the royal crown on his head. Some say that the day of his assassination was exactly one year and one day from that date.

Group29 13:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

A user copied this to my discussion page:

-Its true. Its mentioned for example there: [2] or there[3]. Redy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.176.55.136 (talk) 10:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Group29 (talk) 17:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

These sources don't support the claim, and they contradict each other. One link says he put the crown on while visiting the crown jewels and died "shortly after", the other says he put it on at his inauguration and died "within [≠ exactly after] a year and a day". Heydrich was Reichsprotektor for only 8 months, not one year.--92.78.102.204 (talk) 15:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Calling an anti-czechslovakian anglo-saxon bloodshed conspiracy "heroes"? That is NPOV.

> To commemorate the heroes of the Czech and Slovak resistance <

This is NPOV, because those assassin guys brought only misery to the population due to extremely massive german reprisals. If they fought soldier-like (e.g. russian partisans blowing up german military trains) they could be rightly called heroes, but targeted assasinations are inherently morally low and repulsive and create respone in kind. Just like a ninja is never a samurai, there can be no honour or heroism in being an assassin. 91.83.15.197 (talk) 22:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• they were heroes. Big heroes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.39.70.197 (talk) 12:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

• • I'm thinking that the people who conducted the reprisals would be the ones responsible for causing the reprisals. If we are to assign ultimate responsibility for the reprisals, I would think that would go to Hitler - the man who ordered them. Rklawton (talk) 17:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

"While in several other countries defeated in open combat (e.g. Poland, Yugoslavia, Greece) the resistance was active from the very beginning of occupation"

Can you understand that you can't conduct a large-scale partisan movement in a densely populated area without appropriate natural conditions? The Czechoslovak government in Britain obviously didn't have any clue about the situation in the Protectorate either. Furthermore, the country was infiltrated by Czech-speaking German agents recruited from Sudeten Germans. The average survival time of a parachutist sent from Britain was not much longer than 6 months. Centrum99 (talk) 20:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't the purpose of "Anthropoid" to provoke widespread reprisals against the general Czech population? Under Heydrich's rule the resident Czech underground had been largely destroyed and his "carrot and stick" approach had resulted in increased productivity -- to the benefit of the German war economy. Assassinating Heydrich destroyed all that he had accomplished by provoking widespread reprisals against the Czech people. Tough luck for the Czech people, but evidently the English and the Czech government-in-exile considered them expendable in the larger scheme of things. (66.162.249.170 (talk) 08:22, 16 May 2011 (UTC))

And your Reliable Source(s) for this are?HammerFilmFan (talk) 08:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

IIRC, Anthropoid was requested by the Czech Government-in-Exile because the British had discovered via Ultra that Heydrich was soon to order the deportation of all of Czechoslovakia's jews.

Reverted

Perseus71, I reverted your edit because it contained weasel words, but more importantly because it resulted in a disjointed, nonsensical article. You didn't spellcheck, and your edit did not mesh with the older one. The earlier version was superior. It would have been too much work for me to fix it. I suggest you try again, more carefully. Happy editing, Rodney420 (talk) 14:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Merger of Out Distance

I don't see why the group needs its own article, when the only operation they carried out is this one. All the info from that article could easily be merged into this one. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 23:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

|Just because this group only carried out one mission doesn't mean that it should automatically be merged. Plus, they did not carry out only one operation, read under operations. Kb3mlmsk (talk) 21:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Category:1942 crimes

The subject is "Operation Anthropoid". The category is crimes. Was this assassination a crime? Obviously to the Nazis, this would have been a crime - but was it a crime under international law, the laws of war, or the laws of Britain at the time? If not, then describing this operation as a crime constitutes writing from the Nazi point of view. Since the article presents no evidence that this was a crime from the allies or world (neutral) point of view, I think we should remove this category from this article and from the biographical articles of the two assassins. Rklawton (talk) 17:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

From a neutral point of view killing another human is murder and murder is a crime. If we are observing the Wikipedia ideal of neutrality and objectivity then killing Heydrich was a crime. "We" can justify killing Heydrich (from the Allied perspective), just as the Nazis justified killing the people they killed, but if we are maintaining the Wikipedia ideal of neutrality the assassination of Heydrich was a crime -- just as the assassination of Churchill or Roosevelt or Stalin or Eisenhower or Montgomery would have been a crime. (66.162.249.170 (talk) 08:09, 16 May 2011 (UTC))

" From a neutral point of view killing another human is murder and murder is a crime. " - no - murder is the unlawful killing of another human being for personal gain or passion. Many democratic states have had the death penalty as part of their laws for various crimes, and those executed are not "murdered." In war, especially in a defensive war resulting from aggression waged against peaceful states without provocation by a warlike power, armies fighting against the aggressor kill enemy soldiers out of necessity - that's hardly "murder." The targeting for assassination of a ruthless butcher like Heydrich, who was placed in a position of authority by an evil regime like Nazi Germany, was for the greater good and was not murder. There was a right and a wrong here, and Nazi Germany was clearly in the wrong. Had Heydrich survived the war and been captured by the Allies, he would have been tried as a war criminal, convicted on at least two of the four counts that the other major defenders were charged with at Nuremberg, and executed. Trying to spin Wiki's policy on neutrality to counter this is pointless and silly.HammerFilmFan (talk) 08:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Heydrich was a serving member of German forces in uniform during time of war - the Czech Government-in-Exile was at war with Germany - and he was also carrying a pistol when he was killed. That means he was neither a civilian nor was he unarmed and/or trying to surrender.

Generally an act is only a 'war crime' when the victim(s) is/are defenceless and the perpetrator is in no imminent personal danger from the victim(s), i.e., the perpetrator(s) is/are not committing the act in self-defence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.127 (talk) 09:34, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Britain and the Czechoslovak government-in-exile were at war with Germany, and Heydrich was a military target, not a civilian. Further, Heydrich did not surrender, instead attempting to shoot the assassins. With this understanding, I believe it is inappropriate to classify Anthropoid as murderous, like the short description and categories for the page currently do. CJ-Moki (talk) 09:31, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories

First of all, this section contains two theories - so it's not appropriate to name this section after only one. Next, we don't usually entertain fringe theories, so this section really should go away. Why, as noted by the source, there is no evidence. Second, no allegations have been made - just a fringe theory, so calling this section an "allegation" gives it credibility that it doesn't deserve. Rklawton (talk) 20:47, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Since the theory did get mention in a scientific journal, I'd settle for a brief mention of the theory and that no evidence was found to support it. Rklawton (talk) 21:31, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

CURDA

Just a small point, Curda wasn't arrested he voluntarily went to the Gestapo and offered information. The Germans knew he was genuine as he could identify the briefcase used in the attack as opposed to other cases the germans had hidden it in.

His main motivation was the money, As after the war when he had been arrested he was asked why he betrayed his colleagues and he replied "Wouldn't you for a million marks".

He was hung in 1946 completely unrepentant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.86.71.241 (talk) 13:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

"BTX poisoning"?

Hello all, I've just noticed that there's one passage in the article that goes something like this: "Heydrich's sudden collapse...matches the symptoms of BTX poisoning", while all the rest of that section talks about botulinum poisoning. This is potentially confusing, because BTX generally refers not to botulinum toxin, but to a mixture of benzene, toluene and xylene (which is also toxic, but generally incapable of causing such delayed symptoms upon one-time acute exposure). So which is it? 67.170.215.166 (talk) 02:09, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Image of car in which assassination attempt took place

The caption reads "The restored car in which Heydrich was mortally wounded" but on the biography page for Heydrich the same picture is captioned "A similar car to the one in which Heydrich was mortally wounded". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.119.151 (talk) 20:12, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Reward

This article states Curda got 1 million Reichsmark whereas his individual article states 0.5 million. Which is correct?

Most sources agree on 0.5 million for Čurda. Corrected. --Jvs.cz (talk) 12:04, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Killing X Assassination

Google books:

• assassination of Reinhard Heydrich - 4,670 results
• killing of Reinhard Heydrich - 10,600 results

So, "killing" is most used in literature.

Difference is, according to Professor Solis: "Assassinations and targeted killings are very different acts". The law of armed conflict: international humanitarian law in war and former Legal Advisor to the State Department Judge Sofaer wrote on the subject:"When people call a targeted killing an "assassination", they are attempting to preclude debate on the merits of the action. Assassination is widely defined as murder,.."

Of course, extermination of RH was decided by sovereign government, in case of war, against legitimate target and was done by soldiers. It was not assassination, but targeted killing.--Yopie (talk) 21:46, 31 May 2011 (UTC)--Yopie (talk) 21:46, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

In reply, traditionally historians used the term "assassination". Sir 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, p. 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, p. 378.

Your term, as you have defined it, is a newer more PC term that really is not needed (the book you cited only came out in 2010). The term assassination can be used for Heydrich was an important public political 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 but a case can be made that it was more in his political capacity he was acting and a threat. 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, one can say it was a ..."targeted killing of a public figure,...for political purposes" and "...government-sanctioned killing of (a) opponent (in other words)...an assassination". So I believe your definition is narrow for the reasons above. Kierzek (talk) 02:24, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

File:The place where Reinhard Heydrich was killed.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:The place where Reinhard Heydrich was killed.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests June 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:07, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Then and now...the assassination location

• 1943
• 2010

18:36, 11 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.191.157 (talk)

Shrapnel is shrapnel, no matter how many there are

"Shrapnels" is incorrect; "shrapnel" is one of those English words like "moose" that is the same in both singular and plural. "Pieces of shrapnel" would be correct. Julietdeltalima (talk) 22:11, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

"Na Bulovce Hospital"

I'm assuming that "Na Bulovce Hospital" = "cs:Nemocnice Na Bulovce" = Bulovka Hospital and editing the article accordingly. -- The Anome (talk) 17:22, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

This seems to confirm that they are one and the same. -- The Anome (talk) 17:49, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

The myth of Valčík's and Opálka's presence

Neither Valčík nor Opálka were present to the assassination. This is only a myth. Some time before the assassination gestapo shot and killed a member the resistance group Three Kings Václav Morávek and gained a picture of Valčík from his jacket. Even though Valčík's identity was unknown he was intensively wanted by the gestapo. --94.112.58.39 (talk) 09:09, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Moved to the proper place on the TP. Do you have a reliable source and page number for your claim? 50.111.63.109 (talk) 23:37, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

this article needs more references

There are several paragraphs scattered throughout the article that have no citations whatsoever. Specifically, in the following sections:

• The attack in Prague
• Reprisals
• Investigation and manhunt
• Political consequence and aftermath
• Memorials

Furthermore, the "Portrayals in literature and popular culture" section has only one reference. —howcheng {chat} 08:22, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Why not just add "{{cn}}" to each of these sections? Most editors are not going to look at the talk page. WolfmanSF (talk) 15:44, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Having the big orange maintenance tag makes it easier for me when selecting articles for WP:Selected anniversaries. I leave the talk page message so that article watchers will understand what the problem areas are. Thanks. —howcheng {chat} 16:40, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

References/Literature Can someone add the book "Seven Men at Daybreak" by Alan Burgess (©1960) republished ISBN 0553235087 9780553235081 AFAIK the first mass-market non-fiction account of the assassination and it's aftermath. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:59C8:2128:5F00:12F:EFE3:113E:6364 (talk) 17:49, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Anton Diffring (Operation Daybreak, 1975) wounded Heydrich.jpg

Hi, Honzula. I don't know why File:Anton Diffring (Operation Daybreak, 1975) wounded Heydrich.jpg, a film screenshot of an actor portraying Reinhard Heydrich in the film Operation Daybreak, is used in the article about the actual event, Operation Anthropoid. The usage in the article is invalid because the article is not about a film. I'm unsure whether it belongs in the other article about the film, but the DVD cover of the film is adequate enough, isn't it? --George Ho (talk) 22:36, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

It use in this article was improper. The user acted in good faith, but by the user's own admission, they are very unfamiliar with fair use rules for images. I think the image was placed in this article to "save it" from being deleted as an orphaned image. Sadly, doesn't work that way. -O.R.^Comms 13:26, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

It is exactly as O.R. wrote. As this image is not my favorite, I'll make no more attempt to save it. --Honzula (talk) 11:01, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

That means, Honzula, that you don't mind having it deleted, right? If so, may you or I add the {{db-g7}} manually or via Twinkle? --George Ho (talk) 21:59, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for late reply, but yes, it is right that you did it. --Honzula (talk) 05:03, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Operation Anthropoid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071026034423/http://www.praguemonitor.com/en/183/czech_national_news/12882/ to http://www.praguemonitor.com/en/183/czech_national_news/12882/

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:54, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Heydrich's efficiency

If you doubt his general reputation for efficiency, you might try a Google search of "Heydrich efficient" and peruse the results. For a specific source, look at this one; within it, you will find the statement, "So ruthless and efficient were his methods that he earned nicknames like ‘The Butcher of Prague, The Hangman, and the Blond Beast." I honestly don't see the need to provide a citation for his efficiency in the article. WolfmanSF (talk) 01:15, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Moravec family

The section on the Moravec family needs some clarification regarding who is related to whom in what way. For example, how are any of them related to Frantisek Moravec? Ishboyfay (talk) 23:30, 2 October 2018 (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) 01:28, 23 December 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) 04:24, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Quote from lidovky.cz

@Ondřej Vaňásek: The sentence "Jsme Češi! Nikdy se nevzdáme se, slyšíte? Nikdy!" is a direct quote from the reference below at https://www.lidovky.cz/relax/lide/jsme-cesi-nikdy-se-nevzdame-volali-parasutiste-pred-smrti.A120525_183216_lide_mc . The phrase "Jsme Češi! Nikdy se nevzdáme, slyšíte? Nikdy!" does not appear in the source. I don't speak Czech, so I don't know if that's good grammar, but we can't change a quotation. What am I missing? SchreiberBike | ⌨  21:29, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

The Annihilation of Lidice and Ležáky

I seem to recall that the erasure of the towns Lidice and Ležáky was previously mentioned in this but is not mentioned at all, except in very vague terms. Wikipedia has a separate article on Lidice and there should be a link here. 184.63.25.57 (talk) 13:46, 23 February 2022 (UTC)John Cork

New material

Hello, I have some photos about the assassination (a 1942 German police investigation file with amazing photos of the car and site) and if a wikipedia editor can have a look and maybe enrich the page with those interesting photos. Please contact me. Dorit agmon (talk) 09:05, 23 September 2022 (UTC)