Talk:Reich Security Main Office

Numbering of departments

"Amt V, the Gestapo, and Amt 6, the Kripo, together constituted the Security Police (Sicherheitspolizei — SIPO)."

But the preceding list has the Gestapo as Amt IV and the Kripo as Amt V.

I don't know which is right, or whether the departments were renumbered at some point. But it's inconsistent as it stands.

--JamesWim (talk) 21:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Presumably a typo from someone getting tired (look at the Roman and Arabic numerals!). Amt IV: the Gestapo. Amt V: the Kripo. Together they form the Sipo. The Sipo are the (generally) plain-clothes police, as opposed to: the Orpo: this is another generic, for most of the 'uniformed' police. It is a good presentation of a very complex organisation.Protozoon (talk) 12:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Rename to "Reichssicherheitshauptamt"

Who is to know what RSHA means if she's not deeply immersed into the matter or familiar with the acronyme anyway? "Reichssicherheitshauptamt" is a quite understandable word, and while you won't exactly know what it did from the name, you'll get an idea. Then, even such a very common acronyme as OHL that most people WILL recognize is not chosen as name of the article. So why use an unfamiliar name such as RSHA? I'd propose to rename it. G Purevdorj (talk) 20:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for stalking, but I assume you mean OKW, not OHL? Otherwise support. Yaan (talk) 12:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The prevailing standard is Wikipedia:MOS#Article_titles which points us at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) (there doesn't seem to be a specific naming convention that applies), which says "the most commonly used English version of the name of the subject as the title of the article, as you would find it in verifiable reliable sources". So we should, in general, do what other reference works do. Britannica says "Reichssicherheitshauptamt", FAS says "Reich's Main Security Office", Encarta doesn't seem to have an article at all (even its article on Heydrich is dismal). A bunch of the holocaust research/info sites, including Wiesenthal, stick with RSHA (link). So it's not immediately clear to me which of these three options (RSHA/Reichssicherheitshauptamt/Reich's Main Security Office) enjoys the most common use; if we can't find better evidence that one name predominates over the others, we shouldn't do anything. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 12:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I meant OHL, one war earlier ... If there were three terms of equally frequent use, one being the German term, one being its abbreviation and one being its translation, it is save to count the abbreviation as usage of the German term and thus conclude that it is used more frequently. Then, it's not that conventional to use abbreviations as titles. "DP (linguistics)", for example, would according to your argument be the appropriate name for the article on determiner phrase, as the abbreviation is far more common than the long form, but it isn't used there. The same holds for Central Intelligence Agency. Other instances like this point to a statistical dispreference for abbreviations as title names which are, after all, not immediately interlegible as well. G Purevdorj (talk) 08:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The current two translations for the german term are supported by the two cited books and authors; They are standard accepted English translations used in many books. The fact is, like other German terms (such as "Waffen-SS"), "Reichssicherheitshauptamt" can be translated several ways. Here two common translated meanings were picked and used for continuity. It should be noted that even the Nuremberg Trial Proceedings uses different translated meanings at times. With that said, added another translation (third used) with cite as compromise, per request. Kierzek (talk) 04:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Slight edits re organization

For all the Byzantine nature of the Third Reich's corridors of power, and the Nazis' energetic efforts to merge Party and State, they never succeeded to the extent the Soviets did- the line, while very blurred, remained. The RSHA was a hybrid organization, resulting from Himmler wearing two hats: his Party position as SS boss, and his government position as Chief of Police (very nominally subordinate to Interior Minister Frick until 1943). The Kripo and Gestapo had been State police organizations, with the power of arrest; the SD had been the Party's intelligence branch, without such power. Even after the merger into RSHA the distinction between Ämte IV and V, and III and VI, remained: SD men were by definition SS, of which the SD was an organic branch, whereas SiPo men were not, at least not qua policemen: they were encouraged to and often did join the SS, but did not have to. Of course Himmler made sure that the top RSHA and SiPo jobs were filled by SD men like Heydrich and Müller. But the distinction or at least a nod to hermaphroditic nature was maintained; the full rank of a dual-organization officer was, e.g., SS-Obergruppenführer und General der Polizei.

Confusion was exacerbated, probably deliberately, by the decision in 1940 to issue (grey) SD uniforms to all SiPo men operating in occupied territories even if they weren't SS members. Ostensibly this was because plainclothes SiPo had been arrested and even shot by the Army, who took them for armed partisans (odd, because they would have been carrying police ID).Solicitr (talk) 16:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Main article picture

Why is it that Reinhard Heydrich's picture is put up here as the "main" picture. Personally since this is an organization, I don't see why it even has a picture of anyone up on there. If anyone's pic is up, it should be Himmler's and that's it. --Bastian (talk) 00:31, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

No, Heydrich was the first Chief of the RSHA (until June 1942) and the one all major books identify with the organization. Himmler appointed Heydrich chief in Sept. 1939 and then stayed out of the way of its running until Heydrich's death. Himmler then basically left the dept. heads alone until appointing Ernst Kaltenbrunner in January 1943. Kierzek (talk) 01:47, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

He is also generally regarded as the mastermind behind the creation and operation of the RSHA, per several academic sources. -OberRanks (talk) 02:16, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Good answers here. Heydrich had ran the SIPO since 1936 and the SD since 1931. The Reich Security Main Office married the SD ideology to the administrative and police powers of the Kripo and Gestapo. Once accomplished, Heydrich was not only the logical choice but the only one. Himmler, who was not necessarily a benign figure, had sought someone to fill the role of a security and intelligence agency when he first hired Heydrich, [Heydrich took what little he knew from his Naval career and spy novels and basically pieced together a chart of fiction and simply bamboozled the Reichsfuehrer into hiring him!) who then set about with his card index files, nearly perfect memory, unlimited ambition and intimidating presence (whatever the responsibility of Himmer, he scarcely could pull off looking anything more than petulant!) and made the RSHA an *inevitability*. Thus, it really was Heydrich who formed the apparatus, with Himmler simply applying the moniker of "official" as per his position. Himmler was scared of Heydrich, and with good reason, so much so it was Himmler himself who attempted to submarine Heydrich out of his career via the Jewish lineage Heydrich was reputed to have. Interestingly, Adolf Hitler himself spoke with Heydrich for 45 minutes alone - and afterward stated flatly to Himmler that whatever his background, Heydrich by no means should be let go from the Nazi State but that he was dangerous - and besides would do whatever was asked of him due to Heydrichs assured gratitude for having been retained. 73.2.80.19 (talk) 05:34, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 2 June 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved by Bishonen. BMK (talk) 14:56, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

---

SS-Reichssicherheitshauptamt → Reich Main Security Office – Per WP:COMMONNAME, articles should be located at their common English-language names if one is available. That is the case here, where "Reich Main Securty Office" is the standard name of this organization in English, and the German name is highly obscure, known only to afficiandos of this subject. BMK (talk) 11:51, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support - as nom. BMK (talk) 11:52, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support - the German name can be switched to be one of the redirects. As this article is for common English language readers, who we write for, I have to agree as to this one that the proposed title change is acceptable to me. There are many articles concerning the Nazi Party and Nazi Germany which should NOT be changed as to their article titles and they should be looked at one-by-one (if and when it comes up) with a critical eye and with discussion, accordingly. Thereby allowing consensus be reached. Kierzek (talk) 12:35, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support per WP:ENGLISH, and because the proposed title is more natural to an Anglophone. RGloucester — ☎ 01:05, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support it is a common name in English. Sources I have (including Stein, McNab and Lumsden) don't include the prefix "SS-", and there should be a redirect from RHSA. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 02:22, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support enough said. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 13:50, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support This is one of the few cases where English academic texts commonly refer to this office by its English name, so no real problem with this move. -OberRanks (talk) 14:27, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

• Again, just to make the point that academic usage is not the controlling standard, but our policy of WP:COMMONNAME. BMK (talk) 17:00, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support As per WP:COMMONNAME Thanks. Nishadhi (talk) 17:20, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support You can never underestimate the ability of Germans to make 18 syllable words. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 17:24, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support, although Donaudampfschifffahrtsgesellschaftskapitan is available. --Lineagegeek (talk) 23:09, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Relevance of Gallery images?

As a reader—and as an editor as well, I suppose—I don't find (direct/distinct) relevance in the three images, #1#2#3, in the Gallery to the overall topic of the article Reich Main Security Office. Their captions in the article do not make mention of the RSHA. Neither the images themselves nor their descriptions provided on the images' file pages focus on the RSHA. In fact the description of the first image, #1, states,

"... the soldiers ... are not Germans, but Romanians ..."

... which seems to further bring into question the relevance of the image to this particular article. While the images may well have something to offer other articles with different focus, as presented their placement seems forced and/or gratuitous.

--Kevjonesin (talk) 07:02, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• I merged the 'Gallery' section with the 'Role in the Holocaust' section so as to offer some context (as all three images were presented with a Jewish Holocaust focus). Also reordered sections for a more logical progression of the topic. I'm still unsure as to whether all (or any) of the images from the previous 'Gallery' are particularly apt to this article (which is ostensibly about an administrative entity, right?). ... I think #1 with the Romanian soldiers should be removed as not well representative of the German RSHA and visually redundant to #2. I suggest reworking the captions of the remaining two so as to explicitly tie them in to the RSHA somehow. And/or find more relevant replacements.

--Kevjonesin (talk) 08:31, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and remove image #1. --Kevjonesin (talk) 08:03, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Also adapted captions. --Kevjonesin (talk) 08:59, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Agree with your edits. Kierzek (talk) 14:21, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Tnx. And thanks for replacing the quote in the image caption with a briefer summary (remember to take your time and be cognizant of surrounding context though). I kinda' thought summarizing would be preferable even when I placed it but wasn't feeling up to it at the time. Went with verbose RSHA elaboration as preferable to none at all. Again, thanks for following through. --Kevjonesin (talk) 14:43, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Expansion of article

Hi fellow Wikipedians!! I plan to expand the article over the next year or so. It has a whole bunch of stuff missing, like the Mil. Amt, the intercept organisation, operations of stay-behind agents, line-crossers and their uses, Sabotage operations that included Amt VI S, the SS Jaegerbattalion 502, SS Jagdverbaende, 150 Panzer Brigade, Mil. D. FAK and FAT, and the Amt VLS. All of them possibly in their own articles. scope_creep (talk) 19:23, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Ok, as long as what is there now and well WP:RS cited is not removed and what you add is directly relevant and well RS cited. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 12:39, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

mistranslation

Reich Main Security Office would be Reichshauptsicherheitsamt, not Reichssicherheitshauptamt. the haupt/main is the prefix of Amt/office not of security. the correct translation would be Reich Security Main Office, tho translating such things in general is a bit senseless in my opinion Norschweden (talk) 17:15, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

If you know anything about translations, you realize that verbatim renderings do not always make sense. Case in point for German, we say "Drücken wir die Daumen" which gets translated into English as "We'll keep our fingers crossed" when in actuality it literally means, "press down we our thumbs". For an English speaker, this would seem nonsensical and not correspond to well-wishing for something. Translations should be about equivalent meaning, so I am trying to understand what your point is precisely?--Obenritter (talk) 20:19, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Its like Oberitter states, the standard to use is a common usage-translation into English for article naming, since this is English Wikipedia. As the linked footnote states at the beginning of the article there are actually several different translations used by mainstream historians (WP:RS sources). The two used most are Reich Main Security Office and Reich Security Main Office. If one looks higher on this talk page you will see where changing the article name from German to English was agreed upon by consensus and discussed previously on the page above/before that. Remember, it is a translation and few, if any will ever be exact from one language to another (and make sense). With that said, I personally would not object to seeing it changed to Reich Security Main Office, but consensus would be needed to do so; akin to what was done above in 2015. Kierzek (talk) 02:12, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Name

When did Reich Security Main office become Reich Main Security office?

There was never such thing. Though the name should never - like many so many others - have been anglified since the ahbbrevation RSHA (Reich Sicherheits Haupt Amt) is offen used (not RSMO even less RMSO) there has always been consensus about the anglification Reich Security Main Office.

Which follows the German verbal komposition of the title and in no less are an understandable translation than Reich Main Security Office.

All German translations of tourist information in English uses this name. Changing it for whatever reason only adds to the confusion.

I move for an immediate reversal !

Actually the arguments for changing it from the original RSHA are totally ridiculos !

Not to mention inconsistant.

Everybody with even a superficial knowledge the nazi state uses that name.

It is common like SS which is not translated to Security Police, even less Police Security - and consequently not PS.

Confusion is total when taking another common expression like Waffen-SS. You don’t say Armed-SS nor Armed-PS.

The title RSHA is well known and for those who don’t...the purpose of Wikipedia is to educate.

Since there apparently is so little discussion about the subject and the name has just been changed anyway, I sincerly consider changing it back myself.

The stupid term Reich Security Main Office which mixes German and English can added in a parentesis in the following line. Reich Main Security Office left out in oblivion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henrikoersted (talk • contribs) 00:21, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Br Henrikoersted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henrikoersted (talk • contribs) 00:00, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

This is English Wikipedia and the fact is: The Reichssicherheitshauptamt is variously translated as "Reich Main Security Office", "Reich Security Main Office", "Reich Central Security Main Office", "Reich Security Central Office", "Reich Head Security Office", or "Reich Security Head Office". There are WP:RS sources that cite to each and support each one. The two most common used are "Reich Security Main Office" and "Reich Main Security Office". Kierzek (talk) 00:08, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

You will be reverted per WP:BRD, if you just change it back to German without consensus. Kierzek (talk) 00:24, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Kierzek, the current title is a mistake. The business of the head office (Hauptamt) was Reich security (Reichssicherheit). So this should be called Reich Security Head Office or Reich Security Main Office. I started gathering examples some time ago, then couldn't be bothered with it, so I'll leave you here what I'd collected. I know there are sources that repeat Reich Main Security Office, but that doesn't mean it's not an error. Links below with the term highlighted.

• Reich Security Head Office: Peter Longerich (Oxford University Press), [1] Richard J. Evans (Penguin), [2] Martin Broszat (Routledge). [3]
• Reich Security Main Office: Nuremberg Trials, [4] Peter Longerich (Oxford University Press), [5] Randolph L. Braham (Wayne State University Press). [6]
• Head office of Reich Security: Christian Gerlach (Cambridge University Press).

SarahSV ^(talk) 00:28, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Its not a mistake, it is one of the RS translations. You state a matter of opinion, as your examples show and the fact is verbatim renderings are not always possible. I certainly know all your sources cited, already and what they said. That is why the Explanatory note was added by BMK. But with that said, I would in agreement for it to be changed to "Reich Security Main Office"; it actually is something I had thought of in the past, but have been too busy to come back to it. Kierzek (talk) 00:37, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

"Reich Security Main Office" seems to be the translation used in the Nuremberg Trials, so it would make sense for us to do likewise. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:42, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't believe what was used there is the end all and be all source, for example, some of their information is very dated and they did not have all the knowledge to draw from that we have now; but in the end, I believe, based on the RS sources, it is the best translation from German. And since you are an admin., if consensus is reached, then you could do a mass change to all articles so there it consistency in use. That would be a big help in the matter, in the end. Kierzek (talk) 00:50, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Any editor could make those changes. As for the best translation, in my view it's Reich Security Head Office. Head office is more common than main office. Or headquarters. But I don't want to quibble about that. The important thing is to keep the words "Reich security" together. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:07, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

The main reason why I suggested you do it (if consensus is reached) is because I have found that when an editor makes a mass change it can, at times, come under much greater scrutiny then when an admin does it. The main thing is for consensus to be reached. Kierzek (talk) 01:37, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

(talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henrikoersted (talk • contribs) 02:10, 23 October 2020 (UTC) First:

(the following is written while the debate now goes on. To some level alterations reflect that - to some level not)

Plz excuse that I am unfamiliar with Wikipedia using the same interface for debate as articles. I have long been hoping for Wikipedia to use a more modern interface like Facebook etc where you should not consider formatting codes.

Second:

I like to react to Wikipedia’s call to everybody to add.

However I have found it difficult because of the risk of being waged flame war upon by someone who turned out to be some Wikipedia big shot (in lack of a better word and looking at it from the outside) - and afterwards having it blamed on me.

So before I get further into this considering the fact that there is little debate here - or at least that was the case when I started this draft but apparently that is changing is I am adjusting my piece accordingly - I gather someone has strong feelings for this article and considers the above mentioned a risk.

However….

The arguments considering other titling and what is factual outside encyclopedias is inconsistent in every possible way. Even in the title itself.

Considering the argument about this being an English article:

1) Reich??? What is reich? It is not an English term. Why not use “national”? To what level is German lingo accepted in general?

2) The English articles about both the SS and Sipo - which is the normal term used by historians - is titled Schutztaffel and Sicherheitspolizei. Same with the article about SD - Sicherheitsdienst.

3) When we get to the article about Waffen-SS it gets worse seen from that perspective. There the abbreviation SS is not even spelled out as Schutztaffel (as Waffen-Schutztaffel) - and it is certainly not titled Armed-PS (considering the premise about changing the order of the wording)

4) Same with Gestapo. The article is not titled SeStaPo nor Secret State Police. And considering the premise of changing to order in the wording, certainly not Police State Secret.

I have travelled in Germany/Poland/Chech Republic for 25 years and visited places/concentration camps like Auschwitz, Birkenau, Flossenburg, Bergen-Belsen, Neuengamme, Dachau, Buchenwald (which name also could be changed to Beech Wood (or Wood Beech) so we are REAL sure every anglo saxon soul were on the same page).

I have read hundreds of tourist signs involving RSHA ….and never once have I met the name Reich Main Security Office.

Not once.

It even took some time before I realized that the usually written Reich Security Main Office ment ReichsSicherheitsHauptAmt ~RSHA

So no matter the arguments...forget about Reich Main Security Office!!

Furthermore This may be an article in English but Anglosaxons obfuscate the meaning for themselves and ruin the very premise of the understanding that we claim to desire.

Florence is not Florence - it is Firenze. Wouldn’t you like to be able to find the famous renaissance city on a map in Italy?

Naples is not Naples - it is Napoli. Wouldn’t you like to be able to comprehend the deeply historical roots in name reflecting it is originally a Greek city in Magna Grecia? Neapolis - meaning new city.

Considering that we use the name Gestapo…not Geheime Staats Polizei….and we should make a limit to what level we trivialize while still be able to consider us educated.

And demonstrate some consistency. Maintaining the word “Reich” and for some obscure reason changing the sequence of the wording which obfuscates the semantic meaning - actually Reich Main Security Office semantically means something else than Reich Security Main Office. Not to mention that Amt does not even mean “office”. It means “main office” in itself.

Soooo considering the premise of the logic the wording should be

National Main Security Head Office - literally.

Considering that nobody in their right mind wants to alter the name Gestapo…..and everybody into the subject immediately recognizes the RSHA for what it is, since authors used to applicate both names all the time.

I strongly move for the total reversal to

Title: RSHA Undertitle: ReichSicherheitsHauptAmt

Followed by the parentheses (Reich Security Main Office) - leaving Reich Main Security Office to oblivion.

(even encyclopedias get wordings wrong)

Otherwise I suggest that we change the articles Gestapo and Waffen-SS following the same premise. Not to mention using the English wording for

Schutztaffel Sicherheitspolizei Sicherheitsdienst

PS: Glad that the article in my natural language (Danish) maintains the same premise as the titling for the Gestapo article and simply uses RSHA - ReichSicherheitsHauptAmt. And instead of using a translation explains that it was a head organization

BR Henrik Ørsted

(Sorry for not being familiar with the signature standards)

Concur with Kierzek entirely here. At most the translation could be changed to Reich Security Main Office. Why quibble about "Head" versus "Main" when in this case "Head" (Haupt) in fact means "main" or "central" in terms of English equivalency. The Encyclopedia Britannica translation of Reichssicherheitshauptamt or the RSHA is Reich Security Central Office. In the introduction of Hitler's Hangman, Robert Gerwarth uses Reich Security Main Office. On page 394 of Peter Longerich's biography on Himmler, he uses Reich Security Main Office (RSHA), so sourcing Longerich's other book on this adds nothing to the discussion. In the Oxford University study Nazi Germany, edited by Jane Caplan, they translate RSHA to Reich Central Security Office on p. xvi, where acronyms are defined. This last version is also the one given by William Shirer in his landmark work, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. These are just a few of the many samples where the name is not perfectly translated. In the aforementioned Longerich works, he is not even consistent. I could go on and on about this as I have seen all of these variations in one form or another. In the the following work: Baranowski, Shelley, Armin Nolzen, and Claus-Christian Szejnmann, eds. A Companion to Nazi Germany. Malden, MD: Wiley-Blackwell, 2018 -- the authors use Reich Main Security Office on pages 55, 375, 520; this includes the scholars Benjamin Ziemann, Frank Becker, and Marc Buggeln, respectively. That being said, this debate is silly and the change is not necessary from Reich Main Security Office --Obenritter (talk) 02:18, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Revisiting this matter, certainly the current name is a legitimate choice, but I do believe that Reich Security Main Office is a little better translation. I’d like to change it, but want to obtain consensus. Kierzek (talk) 19:08, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Kierzek Pretty sure your proposal to change it to Reich Security Main Office would align with consensus. It does make more sense as verbatim translation, but it's really a minor semantics issue. Just remember that means changing it on a lot of other pages too. --Obenritter (talk) 19:57, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm good with either, but Reich Security Main Office seems both semantically better and a more direct translation. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:10, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@Diannaa: what say you? Kierzek (talk) 18:31, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

"Reich Security Main Office" seems a good choice. — Diannaa (talk) 19:57, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I have moved the page to "Reich Security Main Office", as there are no further comments for a few days. There are 553 wikilinks in other articles use "Reich Main Security Office". Changing these could be done quickly using AutoWikiBrowser. Does anybody have that installed? I can't do it on the Chromebook - a Windows-based machine is required to run AWB.— Diannaa (talk) 12:57, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Diannaa; I could not remember how to delete the re-direct page to make way for the move. I do not have that auto-browser, but will look into it. Kierzek (talk) 13:32, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I try to avoid most automated or semi-automated programs, so I've always shied away from installing AWB. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:23, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I put in for permission to obtain the bot program needed to make the mass change, but it seems there is a delay for review of said requests on that page. I have done a few name changes, manually, as to several articles, so far. Kierzek (talk) 02:34, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

We are over halfway done, doing them manually. I am doing 10 per day— Diannaa (talk) 03:12, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Rosenstrasse protest

I think there is a problem, role in the Holocaust (with many different events) has a little more content than one event as it is Rosenstrasse protest. Whole that content can be removed and just linked under see also as it cant be compared to weight of the Holocaust. As there are no whole sections here about Einsatzgruppen or RSHA IV B4 for example what are more important or connected with this organisation. I will remove it and link it under see also as an event. And lets talk here, did that event has really so big infulence about this organisation or general infulence on the Holocaust or policies, or affected this organisation anyhow. 109.93.15.196 (talk) 01:16, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

The Rosenstrasse Protest is an example where the RSHA tried to evacuate Jews, but when met with resistance from German wives, they were forced to yield. Examples like this demonstrate that had German citizens stood up to the regime in force, there would have possibly been less murdered—despite organizations like the RSHA, whose members were determined to remove them from German society. This event does not reflect positively on the RSHA in any way. It also shows that regular German citizens could have done more if determined to do so. Not sure what your hangup is exactly as the organization's role in the Holocaust is clearly stressed. --Obenritter (talk) 13:42, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

That is specialacion and big what if, what we know is to the same organisation didn't have problems about murdering milions in Europe. And maybe it shows to they wasn't interested about deporting mixed marriage couple members. Maybe in german resistance it can be but in article about this org. with whole stand alone section nop. Note in history section, link in see also, yeap. But whole stand alone section little shorter than role in the Holocaust where milions died with numerous events, what can be stand alone sections, nop. There are varying perspectives taken by historians about event and how really and if important it was.109.93.15.196 (talk) 16:31, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Carefully read the section again and you'll see that sinister things planned and worked by the RSHA are part and parcel to this segment and overlap with this incident. To insinuate that the section's inclusion detracts from their culpability in the Holocaust is a huge leap that no other editor has made. Take a deep breath and reread the section, especially the part about IG Farben, Auschwitz, and how the RSHA targeted these people, acting under der Führer's wishes. In essence, the RSHA's actions caused this protest. Wholesale deletion does not seem warranted. If you can establish editorial consensus to this end, no problem. Right now, I oppose it. --Obenritter (talk) 16:43, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I saw that article and I saw to your argument is IF german people was more to resist maybe the Holocaust won't happen. Well I have to tell you two things. 1.They didn't and 2. the Holocaust happened. So please get careful with what if, and alternative history and keep in mind to there are varying perspectives taken by historians about that event in question. 109.93.15.196 (talk) 16:50, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

• I'm here after a note on my talk page from the 109 IP.
  I've reverted the article to its condition before all the changes by IP 109 were introduced and the edit warring which followed. I agree with Obenritter that the material on the Rosentrasse protests is not UNDUE, and also that it does not in any way whitewash the RSHA's significant role in the Holocaust.
  In general there is a lot more information about the RSHA available which could be added to the article, including more about its role in the Holocaust, and I feel that editors should concentrate on adding that information and not on removing verifiable and relevant material. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:52, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I am sorry, when I saw that I acted in emotional way. Still think to that event is not important for stand alone section here at this article, (as a note yeap, but whole section nop) and also varying perspectives are taken by historians about that event in question. Please editors keep in mind to this org. killed millions and we know on what way they stopped not cuz of some protests or so. 109.93.15.196 (talk) 16:59, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

The RSHA was not an independent organization, and was subject to both Himmler's and Hitler's control. It may well be that one of them -- most likely Hitler, who was sensitive to these things -- decided that the Reich didn't need the kind of adverse international publicity that a full crackdown on non-Jewish and partly-Jewish Germans would provoke, and told the RSHA to back off. There were numerous times that something like that happened in Nazi Germany, especially during the period when Hitler was attempting to counter negative publicity and establish Germany as a "normal" country. Also, bear in mind that the Holocaust didn't really take off until after the invasion of Poland and even more after the start of Operation Barbarossa, and then the mass killings took place outside of Germany in Poland, Ukraine, and the Baltic countries. Before then, German Jews were handled somewhat more judiciously, via increasingly regressive and punitive laws and putting offenders into concentration (not killing) camps. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:11, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I understand but lets say in some alter.scenario, if the Holocaust stopped or there came change in policy different than to lose the ww2, then we can talk about "maybe that event was crucial about change of policy". I am again sorry about acted in one emotional way. 109.93.15.196 (talk) 17:16, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't think anyone needs to be forgiven for getting emotional when the Holocaust is involved. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:20, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for understanding me. I acted without bad faith not in a way to make some edit wars or something like that. 109.93.15.196 (talk) 17:30, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Copy edits

Recently, there has been some edit warring going on and per WP:BRD, any discussion is to be brought here by the one making or seeking bold changes. Since that has not been done by the party in interest, I am staring this thread for any general discussion for improvements. It is not that the article is in need of major work, but some copy edits could be helpful.

As for the query as to the cited sentence to Shirer, I did not add it, but it makes a valid point that the RSHA was in a central position (being the main security and police department of the government) necessary to the power and control of the Nazi government and points out the positions of authority held by Himmler and his subordinate, Heydrich. I removed the quote of Jon Stokes because it is not a good fit for this particular article. Anyway, as always in Wikipedia, constructive copy edits are welcome, as is discussion and reaching consensus. Kierzek (talk) 23:56, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

I am finding the "Formation and development" section confusing and difficult to understand. — Diannaa (talk) 15:38, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

I have real life stuff I have to give my attention at present, but will try to have a look at it, later on tonight before I go to bed. Thanks, Kierzek (talk) 20:29, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

See what you think now. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 17:50, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

That's better. Simpler and more direct. Thanks. — Diannaa (talk) 20:20, 13 November 2022 (UTC)