Was the Assassination of Reinhard Heydrich Worth It?

Attentat 1942: Obergruppenführer Reinhard Heydrich, governor of the Nazi-occupied Czech Republic, was attacked on May 27 1942 in a British operation. Two squads of Czechoslovak-exile commandos had been inserted into the occupied zone by parachute in late 1941, to link up with local resistance. Months of planning culminated in the partly-successful attack: though Heydrich survived initially, he later died of his injuries. Every one of the participants on the ground was uncovered and killed by the Germans. Civilian deaths due to prompt reprisals numbered in the thousands.

Quote:

---

Upon learning of the nature of the mission, resistance leaders begged the Czechoslovak government-in-exile to call off the attack, saying that "An attempt against Heydrich's life.. would be of no use to the Allies and its consequences for our people would be immeasurable."

---

What did the assassination accomplish? Was it worth it, militarily or strategically? Was it ethically justified?

Hit and run thread -- I offer no further input.

Hit and miss was the operation to be fair - Heydrich was taken out of the equation but the reprisals and subsequent betrayal by the Resistance movement member destroyed 2 entire villages and created many other massacres.

By 1942 the war was on the edge, going for Heydrich when they knew how many people would be assaulted by the Nazis was a disaster of the idea.

Militarily? No. Anything post Barbarossa is a ripple in that wider ocean. Heydichs death or life does not change the carnage or material expenditure in the Pale.

Ethically? I mean it depends how you look at it. If you feel like he would have been more adept at implementing his final solution than those that came after him, ethically justified. If you feel like those lives were lost years before they managed to corner him, not justified. If your God or your universe demands a (legitimate) blood debt, consequences be damned, justified.

Over a 1000 innocent people were killed as a direct result of his death. Were more than a 1000 people saved because he was not there to see his vision through? That is an unknowable.

From the military viewpoint though this would take resources away from the fighting fronts to conduct extra anti-partisan patrols. Other military governors of occupied lands would take note and step up their security measures at the expense of any working relations with the locals. Reinforce the viewpoint among the German soldiers that they can't trust any Czechs creating a 'siege' mentality that separates them from the populace and makes them even more heavy handed in day to day life (aside from the actual reprisals). The Czech resistance would probably find more recruits and help in the long run as the reprisals spread the fear and hatred of the German occupation and spur more fence sitters into action against the Germans.

Perhaps no outcome on the length of the war in the big picture but having Bohemia and Moravia with their arms industries hosting any sort of resistance be it in outward fighting or sabotage of the production works all adds to the final victory over the Germans. Keep in mind that 'Total War' doesn't just blur but usually erases the care toward civilians in that they are too the means of production for the enemies war effort.

Dunno, but criminally underrated film.

In some ways, I suspect that whacking Heydrich was of substantial value in furthering partisan efforts throughout Europe.

Setting aside his demonstrable evil, Heydrich was intelligent, pragmatic, and an able administrator. His carrot and stick approach was quite far along in suppressing resistance efforts in Bohemia/Moravia. Had he survived, he had the clout to spread this approach more broadly and to make strides against partisan activities throughout the Nazi occupation zone. This would have diminished the partisan effort and put more German troops into the field.

His death, and the classic SS thug lash out and destroy response, set exactly the kind of tone that appealed to the cunning but less intelligent cadre that was the norm for Nazi leadership and which also ended up furthering the resistance efforts through its very harshness.

Heydrich was an able administrator and that's why he had such a high ranking in the army, notwithstanding his political affiliation. Nevertheless, Operation Anthropoid went a bit awry despite his lack of sustained protection (quite surprising), it wasn't carried out exceptionally well which also probably added to the anger since Heydrich almost survived.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by edyzmedieval

Heydrich was an able administrator and that's why he had such a high ranking in the army, notwithstanding his political affiliation. Nevertheless, Operation Anthropoid went a bit awry despite his lack of sustained protection (quite surprising), it wasn't carried out exceptionally well which also probably added to the anger since Heydrich almost survived.

---

He was not army. He was cashiered navy. He joined the SS and founded (more or less) the SD within it. He passed pilot training and flew combat with the Luftwaffe in 1940 and 1941. He was not a particularly skilled pilot and was eventually forbidden to fly combat because of the info in his head should he have been captured. Physical courage? Certainly. But not a soldier and no more than adequate as a pilot.

But he was pacifying Czechoslovakia and was being considered for the top post in occupied France. The Maquis would have faced a much tougher opponent in RH than they did.

Heydrich living may have spared a few thousand men and a few dozen man hours from anti partisan activity. The ability of one man to affect institutions are overblown in this thread.

Mers-El-Kebir , Dontiz being denied his U boats, and repulsion from Moscow are the watershed moments in the second World War. I suppose you could add midway but probably not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

Heydrich living may have spared a few thousand men and a few dozen man hours from anti partisan activity. The ability of one man to affect institutions are overblown in this thread.

---

You are correct. Had Heydrich lived he would likely have gone on to cause fits for The Maquis after pacifying Czechoslovakia...but could not have materially changed the outcome of the war, nor even delayed the conclusion significantly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

Mers-El-Kebir , Dontiz being denied his U boats, and repulsion from Moscow are the watershed moments in the second World War. I suppose you could add midway but probably not.

---

You have identified less "obvious" turning points than those typically cited (Battle of Britain, El Alamein, Stalingrad. D-Day) and I like the tone you set with that. Each of the decisions/actions you cite lead to or embodied a watershed moment when something that had truly war-changing results attached to it.

For the Pacific, Midway would not fit. Even before Midway, there was no possibility of the Japanese winning the war. I'd note Pearl Harbor as the crux event. Surprise attack character led to remorselessness on USA (thus undercutting the hope of winning via war weariness) and AH declared war thus completing the Anglo-US alliance effort of which Mers-el-Kebir had been an important component.

Thread's probably done, so slight change of subject:

Didn't the Nazis bring the same techniques to occupied France and Central Europe as the European colonizers brought to Africa and Asia? :thinking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Thread's probably done, so slight change of subject:

Didn't the Nazis bring the same techniques to occupied France and Central Europe as the European colonizers brought to Africa and Asia? :thinking:

---

I mean, not really? When talking about colonization it is important to remember that the entirety of the colony was set up for extraction of wealth and resources. The infrastructure and economy are completely geared for that. Germany did extract material wealth (rather crudley) from its conquered places in the west but they never really bothered to set up these polities as subservient states.

This is partly due to the infancy of NAZI administration in these places, partly due to a more "gentlemanly" war in the west, and partly due to the fact it was simply easier just to use existing infrastructure.

It is better to see Central/Eastern Europe as a scorched earth demographic catastrophe. The area was not so much colonized as it was remade with new peoples.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

I mean, not really? When talking about colonization it is important to remember that the entirety of the colony was set up for extraction of wealth and resources. The infrastructure and economy are completely geared for that. Germany did extract material wealth (rather crudley) from its conquered places in the west but they never really bothered to set up these polities as subservient states.

This is partly due to the infancy of NAZI administration in these places, partly due to a more "gentlemanly" war in the west, and partly due to the fact it was simply easier just to use existing infrastructure.

It is better to see Central/Eastern Europe as a scorched earth demographic catastrophe. The area was not so much colonized as it was remade with new peoples.

---

I'm interested in the mechanical similarities between the imposition of occupation within Europe, to the European colonial imposition of order abroad. What about social and administrative structures of control? For Western Europe.

Nazi plans for Eastern Europe apparently drew inspiration from Italian ones for North Africa (what the French had accomplished in the 19th c.?). Eastern Europe is much easier to interpret in a colonial framework, so I'm not emphasizing it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

I'm interested in the mechanical similarities between the imposition of occupation within Europe, to the European colonial imposition of order abroad. What about social and administrative structures of control? For Western Europe.

---

So the similarities are pretty obvious. The NAZIs extracted wealth from the conquered territories andThe Nazis imposed themselves as the top strata on an existing social structure. I think it really ends there.

The NAZIs wanted a closed trading system that much more closely resembled mercantilism or Bonapartes contential system rather than the cutthroat capitalism that went hand in hand with late stage imperialism. Western resources and treasure went directly toward a German war machine and not on the open markets.

While the NAZIs oppressed the French people. It was not the same kind oppression that was in the colonies. That should probably go without saying.

I would actually take your question a step further. The world wars are essentially the terminus of "total war" thinking. That is, total mobilization for total domination.

The real question is how the French Revolution tied the individual to the nation state as an extension of himself. Doing this, hes allowing himself to be total used by the state apparatus in order to further military goals. Until the individual fully submits to the nation, the nation cannot fully extract his labors.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

So the similarities are pretty obvious. The NAZIs extracted wealth from the conquered territories andThe Nazis imposed themselves as the top strata on an existing social structure. I think it really ends there.

The NAZIs wanted a closed trading system that much more closely resembled mercantilism or Bonapartes contential system rather than the cutthroat capitalism that went hand in hand with late stage imperialism. Western resources and treasure went directly toward a German war machine and not on the open markets.

While the NAZIs oppressed the French people. It was not the same kind oppression that was in the colonies. That should probably go without saying.

---

I believe the underlying question is one that deserves more attention, although it may after all be unfair to ask here if it's more a research project than a stone soup opportunity.

That is, what if any correspondences were there between how colonizers imposed power and order in Algeria, South Africa, India, Indochina versus France, Netherlands, Denmark, Norway? What hierarchies and authority relations? What roles and controls for common folk? Were colonial techniques transplanted or reproduced, were new ones invented, or was it something else entirely?

Quote:

---

I would actually take your question a step further. The world wars are essentially the terminus of "total war" thinking. That is, total mobilization for total domination.

The real question is how the French Revolution tied the individual to the nation state as an extension of himself. Doing this, hes allowing himself to be total used by the state apparatus in order to further military goals. Until the individual fully submits to the nation, the nation cannot fully extract his labors.

---

I'm sure geographic and societal differences between European and African/Asian territories will have to be interrogated for their influence as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

Heydrich living may have spared a few thousand men and a few dozen man hours from anti partisan activity. The ability of one man to affect institutions are overblown in this thread.

Mers-El-Kebir , Dontiz being denied his U boats, and repulsion from Moscow are the watershed moments in the second World War. I suppose you could add midway but probably not.

---

The appointment of Churchill as PM is probably the UK's equivalent of the repulsion from Moscow; stiffened the country's resolve sufficiently to drag out the war and allow the US to get properly involved. Churchill the individual was also more conducive to making the UK-US alliance work than probably any other UK politician. Any other leader may not have managed to get US public opinion sufficiently onside to allow Roosevelt to wholeheartedly throw the US behind a Germany-first strategy.

Thinking about it, the early stages of WW2 may have been one of those rare periods in modern history where the personalities of the national leaders may have had a genuine effect on how events unfolded. Without Hitler, would there have been war? Without Stalin, would the USSR have been so ruthlessly efficient in its war direction? Without Churchill, would the UK have managed to hold out for and hang on to their allies? Perhaps only the US, separated by an ocean, had the luxury of choosing its course. That said, were there any other candidates for the presidency who were remotely as Anglophilic as Roosevelt? Among the chiefs of staff, only Marshall could be described as so; every other chief ranged from disdainful of to utterly hating the British. Choosing to fight the Germans wasn't a foregone conclusion.