Talk:SS-Reichssicherheitshauptamt

Copy from talk page Reinhard Heydrich Andries 07:21, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Gestapo became a part of the RSHA but kept its name. Heydrich was initially the head of the SD but later was head of the RSHA that he helped to develop. In 1944 the RSHA consisted of the following departments 'Personal, Ausbildung, Organistation' (led by Ehrlinger), 'Haushalt & Wirtschaft' (led by Spacil), the SD (led by Ohlendorf for German areas and Schellenberg for abroad), 'Verbrechersbekaempfung/Kripo' (led by Nebe), 'Gegnererforschofung/GEheime STaats POlizei' (by Mueller) and 'Weltanschauliche Forschung' (by Dittel). Gestapo and Kripo both form the Sicherheitspolizie (Sipo). The 'Einsatzgruppen' were directly placed under the head of the RSHA (first Heydrich and later Kaltenbrunner). Source: Der Orden unter dem Totenkopf - Die Geschichte der SS by Heinze Hoehne. Andries 19:15, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Amt IVE was responsible for counterespionage. Trekphiler 21:10, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

According to aish.com, the initials of this organisation form the Hebrew word Rasha, or wicked person. Should this be added?

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)