Talk:Konrad Henlein

A criminal

He could not ran from his deeds of the past. He was a criminal. He was an alcoholic and committed suicided like a coward for what he had did. WestBohemiaTruthTeller (talk) 21:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

If Henlein was a British agent, he was very brave, not a coward. And what is a "conspirative contact"? Inventing words doesn't exactly clarify what Henlein did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 20:11, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Assessment

I have removed this passage from Sudetenland:

"It has been frequently suggested that Henlein was a sinister schemer and his SdP nothing more than a subversive Nazi organization bent on the destruction of Czechoslovak independence. It is easy to understand how these notions arose, yet neither Henlein at the outset of his political career nor the SdP for many years of its development had anything to do with the National Socialist movement in Germany. [...] Hitler of course, more than welcomed the opportunity of making the Sudeten case his own and did not hesitate to misuse the principle of self-determination as a weapon to further his own Lebensraum policy." de Zayas, Alfred-Maurice. Nemesis at Potsdam. Routledge & Kegan Paul, London 1977 ISBN 0-7100-8468-4, pp. 28f.

I don't know whether this is a representative view so I have not placed it in the Henlein article. Anyway, much the same is already said here: "In the first half of the 1930s, Henlein held a pro-Czechoslovak and overtly anti-Nazi view in his public speeches and did not become a follower of Adolf Hitler until 1937 ... " Marshall46 (talk) 09:11, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

A scholarly friend of mine who is self-admittedly "wiki-challenged" said this after reading this page: "I just read the wiki article on Konrad Henlein, Nazi and war criminal. The article is blatantly propagandistic and full of dog-whistles. One clue, the use of German place names for places in Czechoslovakia AFTER 1918. A slash would be ok, but the method used legitimizes the racist nationaism of Henlein. All kinds of apologia for this fascist. I was revolted." blu (talk) 18:16, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

References

Isn't there a rather misleading typo in this sentence: "Heinleinists" are a looming presence throughout Martha Gellhorn's novel "A Stricken Field" (1940)."? I'm referring to "Heinleinists". Shouldn't this be "Henleinists"? I have not read Gellhorn's book and know nothing about it but "Heinleinists" suggests American SF writer Robert A. Heinlein, not Konrad Henlein, the Czech-German politician.

184.175.48.100 (talk)

You are correct. I found the spelling in the novel: [1] William Alan Ritch (talk) 17:20, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

German Occupation

What is a "milder Nazi"? Is there anyone with more knowledge of Henlein who can flesh this out with specifics? Otherwise, it just sounds like empty excuse making. Dogface (talk) 15:40, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

@Dogface: I removed this. Yes, I know it's years later; it took that long for me to see it. Elinruby (talk) 05:26, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Name change

"Dvořáček to the more German spelling of Dworatschek" This is just a transliteration of the very same name, also given that "řáč" are not in the standard German character set. Just like Tchaikovsky is Tschaikowski is Chaikovski is Tchaïkovski is Tchaïkovsky, each European nation has its own standard transliteration. You can expect that this women was spelled in all sorts of ways in official documents. I would propose to entirely remove the "name change" assumption that I understand is there to illustrate controversial germanization policies. The name is clearly recognisable as of Czech origin, regardless how it is spelled out. --Arebenti (talk) 10:38, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Konrad Henlein v Karlových Varech 1937.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:36, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Missing references

I have marked two references on this page as missing: Overy & Wheatcroft 1989, and Crampton 1997. It looks like the person who might know where they came from is A.S. Brown, who is currently blocked. If any other page watchers can supply these full references, that would be great. Please ping me if you understand the sources but need help with putting the right code into the article. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:20, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Jonesey95, if you google them, you'll find the full citations, if that's what you mean (I didn't check the page numbers.) SarahSV ^(talk) 19:30, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I do not feel comfortable implying that I validated a claim based on a source that I have not seen. I fixed the errors that I was able to fix, and I could guess at what the sources are, but I am more of a gnome than a researcher. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:48, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll try to find time later to look them up, and if I can see the pages, I'll add the full citation. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:58, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

It isn't very clear to read this page

I understand that we are trying to give much information about background events but the whole page is too confusing to read. I asked myself several times whether I read Konrad Henlein's biography or an assessment of pre-war Czechoslovakia's international diplomacy stance? and it's too detailed ı don't need to know that British foreign office talked to Hungarians on Czechoslovakia etc. Nedim Sancar (talk) 23:32, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Posted at NPOVN

1. Should we delete the parts about what a nice guy he was for a Nazi? 2. Is the long speculation about the homo-erotic aspects of his gymnastics program DUE for this article? Elinruby (talk) 06:02, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Rm some of this; needs more, but awaiting further input at NPOV noticeboard Elinruby (talk) 05:21, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Cutting some UNDUE

Not getting a lot of response at NPOVN. Trimming out some details about his early life. I also removed the remark about the homo-erotic concept, even though it appeared to be cited; it simply is not as important as his role in the Nazi invasion and subsequent deportations. All of this is discussable and other input and especially sources are invited Elinruby (talk) 07:57, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to encourage you to be bold here because I think you're doing the right thing. The article as it stands has so much detail that goes above and beyond describing this person's life. We can always refer back to the article before you started changing it, and compare the two, and say "you know, actually, I think this bit should stay". Denaar (talk) 17:06, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

removing Rutha—the best man at Henlein's 1926 wedding—was accused during the occupation of running a sex ring during this period. To maintain his grasp on power, Henlein denounced Rutha as a "pervert" and distanced himself from him. because it's still uncited, and may be undue Elinruby (talk) 05:02, 18 February 2024 (UTC)