Was the Assassination of Reinhard Heydrich Worth It?

[spmetla]

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.

[AE Bravo]

Dunno, but criminally underrated film.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

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.

[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.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

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.

[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.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

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.

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.

[Pannonian]

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.