Wow. I can't believe you just said that.

Here's my response from WIKI, which i normally would not source.

"Assassination of Heydrich
Main article: Operation Anthropoid

Heydrich's car at the scene of the attack.
From 27 September 1941, SS-Obergruppenführer and General of Police Reinhard Heydrich had been Acting Reichsprotektor of the Nazi Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia.[4] This area of the former Czechoslovakia had been occupied by Nazi Germany since 5 April 1939.[4]

On the morning of 27 May 1942, Heydrich was being driven from his country villa at Panenské Břežany to his office at Prague Castle. When he reached the Kobylisy area of Prague, his car was attacked (on behalf of the Czechoslovak government-in-exile) by the Slovak and Czech soldiers Jozef Gabčík and Jan Kubiš.[2] These men, who had been part of a team trained in Great Britain, had parachuted into Bohemia in December 1941 as part of Operation Anthropoid. After Gabčík's Sten gun jammed, Heydrich ordered his driver, SS-Oberscharführer Klein, to stop the car. When Heydrich stood up to shoot Gabčík, Kubiš threw a modified anti-tank grenade at Heydrich's car.[5] The explosion wounded Heydrich and Kubiš.[6] Heydrich sent his driver, Klein, to chase Gabčík on foot and in an exchange of fire, Gabčík shot Klein in the leg, below the knee. Kubiš and Gabčík managed to escape the scene.[7] On 4 June Heydrich, having refused to be operated on by non-Germans, died in Bulovka Hospital in Prague from septicaemia caused by pieces of upholstery and his clothing entering his body when the bomb exploded.[8]

Reprisals
Late in the afternoon of 27 May, SS-Gruppenführer Karl Hermann Frank proclaimed a state of emergency and a curfew in Prague.[9] Anyone who helped the attackers was to be executed along with their family.[9] A search involving 21,000 men began and 36,000 houses were checked.[9] By 4 June, 157 people had been executed as a result of the reprisals but the assassins had not been found and no information was forthcoming.[9]

The mourning speeches at Heydrich's funeral in Berlin were not yet over, when on 9 June, the decision was made to "make up for his death". Karl Hermann Frank, Secretary of State for the Nazi Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, reported from Berlin that the Führer had commanded the following concerning any village found to have harboured Heydrich's killers:[10]

Execute all adult men
Transport all women to a concentration camp
Gather the children suitable for Germanisation, then place them in SS families in the Reich and bring the rest of the children up in other ways
Burn down the village and level it entirely"

Did you catch the part where 21,000 SS men were looking for two guys, Mr. English is my first language sir? The bottom line is that you don't know what you're talking about. Hang on...let me guess... 21,000 out of 13 million is pretty insignificant, right?

[QUOTE=WhiteOak;53598358
Did you catch the part where 21,000 SS men were looking for two guys, Mr. English is my first language sir? The bottom line is that you don't know what you're talking about. Hang on...let me guess... 21,000 out of 13 million is pretty insignificant, right?[/QUOTE]


21,000 out of 13 million is 0.0016% That is completely insignificant. For comparison, the Axis lost 627,899 in the battle of Stalingrad alone.

Now if you could adress all those links I posted above that would be good. It would also be good if you could post something to support your own argument.

I looked at one of these sources of yours and almost fell over laughing. SFgate, the guardian, etc. All opinion pieces in a world of fake news where journalism does not even adhere to its own standards of two verifiable sources. You expect me to take you and these articles seriously? Why don't we get something peer reviewed. At least i sourced wikipedia, which even to me is still a joke but its at least an online encyclopedia. You're not as smart as you play it off, Husker.

You do realise that the Guardian article wasn't an opinion piece it was a quote from a book? Not sure why this is so difficult for you to understand.

I've already asked you to list your sources supporting your point of view here but you still haven't and have claimed mine are 'fake news' which is pretty weird and not really the standard of discussion I expect on this sub forum. You mentioned peer reviewed articles, and fail to post any, and then say you sourced wikipedia (lol). I've sourced various books and could add quite a few more if need be. For some reason you seem to be taking this very personally and seem unable to take a step back and try to provide evidence to support your argument (other than a wiki article about an incident that had no impact whatsoever on the war effort). I may be wrong but I can only conclude it's because you're from a country that failed to rise up against Nazi occupation during WW2.

Husker, the problem here is that you've laid a claim that AGAIN states that resistance, specifically the French resistance is over-stated and rather insignificant to the end result of WWII? Correct? You then sourced 4 newspaper articles and a history article that claim that it was exaggerated based off a new history book. I don't find this to be hard evidence since there are many rogue historians and always will be that always find a way to counter the true course of accepted history based on their own feelings and ideas. The further we move away from history, the harder it is to get the real story.(For example, right now, Israel as a nation has laid claims that "Polish death camps" existed and were run/operated by Polish nationals at the time, which as intelligent people know is utter nonsense. The psychological reasoning behind these accusations is reparation money. This led to new Polish legislation in 2018 that bans the term "Polish death camps") This shows that news articles/unilateral historical books are not evidence of history. There is a lot of bad information out ther. Read up on the french resistance in Wikipedia and you will see what kind of a disservice and disrespect to the resistance fighters that died during the war, you are creating.

My argument to you is that you are wrong in your perspective regarding the resistance, not only in France, but all over the world. It is very important and every individual that took the righteous initiative to fight, whether their actions were significant or not, was an integral part of the war effort. I don't understand how you can't understand that. The burden of proof is not on me to prove the french resistance was insignificant, it's on you. History says they were important.... You and a couple of other people say they were not. Four opinion pieces and a historian are not good enough evidence. I'm sorry.

For the record, I'm Italian with relatives that fought and died during the war, so I have a strong passion and conviction in what I say.

Let me ask you this question too before I go to bed. If operation anthropoid was insignificant in the war effort as you claim. I mean Reinhard Heydrich was only the creator of the holocaust at the Wansee conference (not Hitler as I'm sure you know, because you're a history buff), and Anthropoid was the the only time in the war a member of the Hitler's inner circle was assassinated. If that was insignificant, then what defines significance in your mind?

I'll add Max Hastings book 'The Secret War' to the list that supports my point of view. You have still failed to post anything to support your view despite me asking on more than one occasion.

Not sure what you're trying to say here with this weird tangent about Polish death camps that has nothing to do with the resistance. I have however underlined the part where you massively contradict yourself. Apparently articles and historical books are not evidence of history but wikipedia is! Most educated people would disagree.


In order to prove that 'history' says they are important you need to provide evidence that 'history' can back this up. What you are really saying here though is that they are important and are claiming your opinion is 'history', however, when faced with evidence to the contrary from historians this isn't evidence but opinion pieces from them. I think you need to look at the extensive research those historians have done in order to write their books etc and compare it to your own opinion which seems to have been formed by reading a wikipedia article (which doesn't back up your assertion anyway)

Having a strong passion and conviction in what you say is meaningless if it isn't based on historical fact. I'll be honest here and admit that I'd be surprised if there was any sort of Italian pride in their role in WW2. If there is, I can't understand it.

The holocaust was Hitler's idea from the outset. Heydrich was involved in the operational planning but the idea of eliminating Jews was Hitlers. If you claim that it was Heydrich's idea and his assasination was significant then I'm not sure how you can explain the fact that millions of Jews (and others) were murdered after his death. Clearly his assasination had no impact on that at all.

Just your take on the holocaust shows how little you know about WWII. Here are some facts for you. Which now i am convinced you know nothing of. Hitler co-wrote Mein-Kampf with Rudolf Hess in jail. Hitler wanted the jews removed from Germany, not eliminated. Hitler was a politician and understood that selling the idea of genocide was not a bright one and he would not garner the support of the public by pushing this. Goebbels through his mass media control really pushed the hatred of the jews onto the public stage. What arose was callled the concept of the "Jewish Question" which was essentially a problem as the higher up officials refered to it as. No one dared say that Jews were being killed because again, this was political suicide. Once the Eastern front opened, the Wehrmacht/Einsatzgruppen were given through carefully selected words free reign to do as they pleased in order to resolve the Jewish/Bolshevik problem. Each commander interpreted these orders differently, but most understood what was being asked. After morale issues pertaining to mass shootings, Goering asked Heydrich to develop a Final Solution to the Jewish Question. What Heydrich, personally came up with at the Wansee Conference in January of 1942, was the systematic mechanized gassing and genocide of all Jews in Europe. The Holocaust was Heydrich's plan and not Hitler's. I know that SFGate and the two British websites(who hate the french) and the left leaning Guardian(lol) may not include such a history lesson, so i provided it for you. Enjoy. Find the facts on your own BTW. These are not assertions or opinions that I am presenting.

Also, don't conveniently skip out on that important question there at the end, which asks what do you define as significance?

Still no evidence for anything other than your own incorrect opinions and claims that every part of evidence presented is biased. And to claim Hitler didn't want the Jews eliminated just adds to it all.

There's no point engaging with cranks so I'm out.

*Happy to discuss with anyone else in the thread though*

Still no answer to what defines significance. Convenient of you. You should be out. You bring nothing intelligent to the table.

There are two main historical views on the holocaust The one you are referring to is called intentionalism which basically says it was the intentions of Hitler and the Nazis from day one to exterminate all the Jews. The other one is called functionalism and is the view that extermination wasn't the widespread aim at the beginning, but became that over time due to myriad reasons. The intentionalist view has some indirect support in Hitler's vicious antisemitic remarks and other prewar writings of prominent nazis. The functionalist view has direct evidence such as the planned deportation to Madagascar, incentives for Jews to emigrate from Germany before the war etc. To claim the intentionalist view is the only correct one let alone the only plausible one is false. In fact the functionalist view is the one best supported by the evidence.

There remains no evidence whatsoever of Hitler or anyone else in the Nazi leadership ordering or otherwise making plans for intended extermination until January 1942.

Was that his point or was it a criticism of the suggestion that it was more Heydrich's responsibilty than Hitler's? Of course Hitler wasn't the first person to think of exterminating all the Jews. Proudhon wrote about it in 1847.

I would say this is historically uncertain. Just because Hitler was the dictator of Germany doesn't mean that every action taken out under his regime was his idea. It's totally plausible that Hitler delegated to Himmler on the 'solving of the Jewish question' and Himmler planned the entire thing without Hitler's direct approval. There is no historical evidence either way.

Some revisionism going on in here

It's not revisionism. No one is saying the holocaust didn't happen or that fewer Jews were murdered than is historically accepted. There is no evidence that Hitler knew about it, that's a fact!

Personally I think he did know about it and did order it. From a historical perspective though, it remains uncertain.

Now you're speculating about whether or not he even knew about it?

Here we go. Welcome to the mind of microbet.

There is no evidence whatsoever tying Hitler to the death camps. Does that mean he didn't order it, didnt plan it, and knew nothing about it (revisionists would say this)? No.

Does it mean he ordered it, planned it, and knew about it? No.

It means there is no evidence on which to establish a historical certainty. That's it.

One could make a pretty good probabilistic argument that all three of the above are true (though the planning was probably delegated to a large degree, he was too busy playing tin soldiers). That's why I believe he did know and did order it.

Why the personal attack? Why not just answer "yes"?

It wasn't a personal attack sweetie. Im just very familiar with your posting style and what your intentions were. If you think my answer was 'yes' you need to read my post again (for the first time).

I think you're not very good at judging such things.

I think youre not good at reading and understanding posts, because you've misrepresented what I said twice.

He has a habit of misrepresting posters actually. Witness:

Quote:

Originally Posted by adios

The Nazi’s had collaborators in France, Holland, Austria, etc. who were more than willing to sell out their native countries.

Quote:

Originally Posted by microbet

Not really fair to lump Holland (which had Rotterdam flattened) in with Austria (which welcomed the Nazis).

Of course I did no such thing.

Yes I'm well aware. I debated with him countless times on the politics forum last year and almost every post is a blatant misrepresentation of what his opponents said. It's very dishonest.

Wow. How is that not lumping Holland in with Austria and how were you not speculating about whether Hitler knew about the holocaust?

You're also both really thin skinned. Adios taking offense there is insane and, while I can imagine why dodn would be whining here, he shouldn't be.