Why does the CIA report on the assassination of Reinhard Heydrich refer to it as “Operation Salmon” rather than “Operation Anthropoid”?

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
6
down vote

favorite
1












enter image description here
SS-Gruppenführer Reinhard Heydrich. Source: National Archives


I have been researching Operation Anthropoid (the assassination of SS-Gruppenführer Reinhard Heydrich on 27 May 1942 in Prague, Czechoslovakia by Czech operatives Jozef Gabčík and Jan Kubiš with British assistance from SOE). All of the reference material I have found to date (some listed below) indicate the Czech's mission was called Operation Anthropoid (as I would expect) - except one.



The CIA's Secret report (declassified September 1993) on The Assassination of Reinhard Heydrich refers to this as Operation Salmon (both in the sub-title and in one footnote). In no place in this report is the name Anthropoid found.



Was Anthropoid part of a larger operation (Salmon), or vice-versa? I have not found any references to this effect anywhere. Neither have I been able to find any other source calling this mission Operation Salmon. Why does the CIA report indicate Salmon as this operation's name?



The only reference I can find to an operation called Salmon within the context of WWII is this codename reference to a 1943 British and US operation against U-boats operating in the North Atlantic. Additional Google searches have yielded no other Operation Salmon (during WWII).



Sources searched:

- Wikipedia: Operation Anthropoid;

- Holocaust Research Project: The Assassination of Reinhard Heydrich - Operation Anthropoid;

- War History Online: The Assassination of The Butcher of Prague – Reinhard Heydrich;

- Warfare History Network: Operation Anthropoid: Killing Reinhard Heydrich;

- The National Interest: Operation Anthropoid: How Czech Commandos Assassinated Hitler's Most Ruthless Henchman;

- Jewish Virtual Library: Operation Anthropoid;

- Private Prague Guide: The Assassination of Reinhard Heydrich;

- Wikipedia: List of WWII Military Operations (Anthropoid is listed under Partisan operations, Salmon is not listed anywhere);

- Wikipedia: Category: Battles and operations of WWII involving Czechoslovakia (Anthropoid is listed, Salmon is not);

- Czech Radio Praha: 70TH Anniversary Special - The Czech Resistance During World War II (Anthropoid is very prominent in this special Czech Radio Praha report, no mention of Salmon);

- Interesting Histories [Medium]: Interesting Histories: Operation Anthropoid;

- WWII Database: List of Allied Operations (neither Anthropoid nor Salmon appear, probably because it was a Partisan operation)










share|improve this question



























    up vote
    6
    down vote

    favorite
    1












    enter image description here
    SS-Gruppenführer Reinhard Heydrich. Source: National Archives


    I have been researching Operation Anthropoid (the assassination of SS-Gruppenführer Reinhard Heydrich on 27 May 1942 in Prague, Czechoslovakia by Czech operatives Jozef Gabčík and Jan Kubiš with British assistance from SOE). All of the reference material I have found to date (some listed below) indicate the Czech's mission was called Operation Anthropoid (as I would expect) - except one.



    The CIA's Secret report (declassified September 1993) on The Assassination of Reinhard Heydrich refers to this as Operation Salmon (both in the sub-title and in one footnote). In no place in this report is the name Anthropoid found.



    Was Anthropoid part of a larger operation (Salmon), or vice-versa? I have not found any references to this effect anywhere. Neither have I been able to find any other source calling this mission Operation Salmon. Why does the CIA report indicate Salmon as this operation's name?



    The only reference I can find to an operation called Salmon within the context of WWII is this codename reference to a 1943 British and US operation against U-boats operating in the North Atlantic. Additional Google searches have yielded no other Operation Salmon (during WWII).



    Sources searched:

    - Wikipedia: Operation Anthropoid;

    - Holocaust Research Project: The Assassination of Reinhard Heydrich - Operation Anthropoid;

    - War History Online: The Assassination of The Butcher of Prague – Reinhard Heydrich;

    - Warfare History Network: Operation Anthropoid: Killing Reinhard Heydrich;

    - The National Interest: Operation Anthropoid: How Czech Commandos Assassinated Hitler's Most Ruthless Henchman;

    - Jewish Virtual Library: Operation Anthropoid;

    - Private Prague Guide: The Assassination of Reinhard Heydrich;

    - Wikipedia: List of WWII Military Operations (Anthropoid is listed under Partisan operations, Salmon is not listed anywhere);

    - Wikipedia: Category: Battles and operations of WWII involving Czechoslovakia (Anthropoid is listed, Salmon is not);

    - Czech Radio Praha: 70TH Anniversary Special - The Czech Resistance During World War II (Anthropoid is very prominent in this special Czech Radio Praha report, no mention of Salmon);

    - Interesting Histories [Medium]: Interesting Histories: Operation Anthropoid;

    - WWII Database: List of Allied Operations (neither Anthropoid nor Salmon appear, probably because it was a Partisan operation)










    share|improve this question

























      up vote
      6
      down vote

      favorite
      1









      up vote
      6
      down vote

      favorite
      1






      1





      enter image description here
      SS-Gruppenführer Reinhard Heydrich. Source: National Archives


      I have been researching Operation Anthropoid (the assassination of SS-Gruppenführer Reinhard Heydrich on 27 May 1942 in Prague, Czechoslovakia by Czech operatives Jozef Gabčík and Jan Kubiš with British assistance from SOE). All of the reference material I have found to date (some listed below) indicate the Czech's mission was called Operation Anthropoid (as I would expect) - except one.



      The CIA's Secret report (declassified September 1993) on The Assassination of Reinhard Heydrich refers to this as Operation Salmon (both in the sub-title and in one footnote). In no place in this report is the name Anthropoid found.



      Was Anthropoid part of a larger operation (Salmon), or vice-versa? I have not found any references to this effect anywhere. Neither have I been able to find any other source calling this mission Operation Salmon. Why does the CIA report indicate Salmon as this operation's name?



      The only reference I can find to an operation called Salmon within the context of WWII is this codename reference to a 1943 British and US operation against U-boats operating in the North Atlantic. Additional Google searches have yielded no other Operation Salmon (during WWII).



      Sources searched:

      - Wikipedia: Operation Anthropoid;

      - Holocaust Research Project: The Assassination of Reinhard Heydrich - Operation Anthropoid;

      - War History Online: The Assassination of The Butcher of Prague – Reinhard Heydrich;

      - Warfare History Network: Operation Anthropoid: Killing Reinhard Heydrich;

      - The National Interest: Operation Anthropoid: How Czech Commandos Assassinated Hitler's Most Ruthless Henchman;

      - Jewish Virtual Library: Operation Anthropoid;

      - Private Prague Guide: The Assassination of Reinhard Heydrich;

      - Wikipedia: List of WWII Military Operations (Anthropoid is listed under Partisan operations, Salmon is not listed anywhere);

      - Wikipedia: Category: Battles and operations of WWII involving Czechoslovakia (Anthropoid is listed, Salmon is not);

      - Czech Radio Praha: 70TH Anniversary Special - The Czech Resistance During World War II (Anthropoid is very prominent in this special Czech Radio Praha report, no mention of Salmon);

      - Interesting Histories [Medium]: Interesting Histories: Operation Anthropoid;

      - WWII Database: List of Allied Operations (neither Anthropoid nor Salmon appear, probably because it was a Partisan operation)










      share|improve this question















      enter image description here
      SS-Gruppenführer Reinhard Heydrich. Source: National Archives


      I have been researching Operation Anthropoid (the assassination of SS-Gruppenführer Reinhard Heydrich on 27 May 1942 in Prague, Czechoslovakia by Czech operatives Jozef Gabčík and Jan Kubiš with British assistance from SOE). All of the reference material I have found to date (some listed below) indicate the Czech's mission was called Operation Anthropoid (as I would expect) - except one.



      The CIA's Secret report (declassified September 1993) on The Assassination of Reinhard Heydrich refers to this as Operation Salmon (both in the sub-title and in one footnote). In no place in this report is the name Anthropoid found.



      Was Anthropoid part of a larger operation (Salmon), or vice-versa? I have not found any references to this effect anywhere. Neither have I been able to find any other source calling this mission Operation Salmon. Why does the CIA report indicate Salmon as this operation's name?



      The only reference I can find to an operation called Salmon within the context of WWII is this codename reference to a 1943 British and US operation against U-boats operating in the North Atlantic. Additional Google searches have yielded no other Operation Salmon (during WWII).



      Sources searched:

      - Wikipedia: Operation Anthropoid;

      - Holocaust Research Project: The Assassination of Reinhard Heydrich - Operation Anthropoid;

      - War History Online: The Assassination of The Butcher of Prague – Reinhard Heydrich;

      - Warfare History Network: Operation Anthropoid: Killing Reinhard Heydrich;

      - The National Interest: Operation Anthropoid: How Czech Commandos Assassinated Hitler's Most Ruthless Henchman;

      - Jewish Virtual Library: Operation Anthropoid;

      - Private Prague Guide: The Assassination of Reinhard Heydrich;

      - Wikipedia: List of WWII Military Operations (Anthropoid is listed under Partisan operations, Salmon is not listed anywhere);

      - Wikipedia: Category: Battles and operations of WWII involving Czechoslovakia (Anthropoid is listed, Salmon is not);

      - Czech Radio Praha: 70TH Anniversary Special - The Czech Resistance During World War II (Anthropoid is very prominent in this special Czech Radio Praha report, no mention of Salmon);

      - Interesting Histories [Medium]: Interesting Histories: Operation Anthropoid;

      - WWII Database: List of Allied Operations (neither Anthropoid nor Salmon appear, probably because it was a Partisan operation)







      world-war-two espionage assassination czechoslovakia cia






      share|improve this question















      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question








      edited 7 hours ago

























      asked 12 hours ago









      Kerry L

      2,091433




      2,091433




















          3 Answers
          3






          active

          oldest

          votes

















          up vote
          3
          down vote













          As the author of the CIA article, R. C. Jaggers, does not cite any sources, and as 'Salmon' is not used elsewhere, it is probably impossible to establish exactly why he uses the name 'Operation Salmon'. The most likely reasons are (1) bad or misleading sources or (2) artistic licence or ignorance.



          Bad or misleading sources



          On the first point, Marakai's answer has already noted the numerous and obvious errors made by Jaggers. Whether these came from Frantisek Moravec is, though, unclear at best. Moravec's book, Master of Spies, was not published until 1975 while Jaggers' article is dated 1960. The book was in progress when Moravec died, and was completed by his son. Also, some of Jaggers' biggest errors (date of Heydrich's death, the ages of Gabcik and Kubis) are not in the book.



          According to the son (in the foreword to the book), Moravec (who was deeply involved in Operation Anthropoid) started making notes on his experiences (in Czech) shortly after he arrived in the US in 1948; he also made recordings and wrote various articles during his time working at the Pentagon. These were used to complete the book.



          It is therefore possible that Jaggers somehow had access to Moravec or to something he had written in the 1950s. If Jaggers knew that Moravec was at the Penatgon, it would have been natural to try to consult him given the subject material. Moravec's son might have edited out errors in his father's material before publishing the book, and this could explain why some of the errors in Jaggers' article do not appear in Moravec's book.




          Artistic licence or ignorance



          The other possibility is that Jaggers, for one reason or another, simply made up the name 'Salmon', just as he made up the dialogues. At this point, it is worth taking a look at where Jaggers' artcle apeared, namely Studies in Intelligence: The IC’s Journal for the Intelligence Professional (vol 4).



          This journal contains a number of articles where authors seem intent on displaying literary pretensions by using a writing style clearly not suited for a straightforward report. One article in volume 4 (The Defections of Dr. John) begins with:




          Rain streaked the streets of Berlin, splashed on darkened houses,
          glistened in the light from an east-west border check point. A sedan
          rolled up, its tires singing on the wet pavement.




          Clearly, imagined situations were OK with the editorial board. Perhaps this was because of the $500 prize on offer for the best article, one of the two criteria being "literary qualities". Thus, it is possible that, not knowing the official name 'Operation Anthropoid', Jaggers simply made it up (as he did the dialogues, though these may also have come from or been inspired by conversations with Moravec - assuming Jaggers even met him). It is worth noting that some details on Operation Anthropoid were still classified until around 1995; if Jaggers was junior at the CIA, he may not have had access to such classified material.



          Interestingly, Moravec does not reveal the name 'Operation Anthropoid' in his 1975 book (though he must have known it given his role in selecting and instructing Kubis and Gabcek).






          share|improve this answer





























            up vote
            2
            down vote













            The "CIA's secret report" by R. C. Jaggers reads like a "as told by" version of some primary document originating outside the CIA. The CIA of course did not exist in 1942, and its predecessor, the OSS, had nothing to do with the operation. So this report might be a version of an account appearing in the Czech press, or a memoir by a Czech official of some sort.



            The quotations of direct dialog such as




            They glanced at each other. "No," said Gabcik. "We want to do it." Kubis just nodded.




            seem consistent with something written for the popular press; the absence of detail about the SOE seems consistent with a Czech audience.



            So, I suppose, it was written by a Czech, who probably didn't know or care what codename SOE used for the operation. Possibly "Operation Salmon" is what the Czechs called it?






            share|improve this answer




















            • Yes the CIA has lots of analysts who research topics and compile reports from several sources. Since Anthropoid was a Czech operation from its inception, planned by the Czech government in exile in London, carried out by Czech agents, paid for with Czech blood on Czech soil, I don't imagine all the history reports would change the name of the operation from a Czech choice (Salmon) to some other (British?) choice. If we are going to suppose (but that's not why I'm here on History:SE) then I might suppose the CIA may have altered the operation name in the report for some policy reason
              – Kerry L
              7 hours ago


















            up vote
            2
            down vote













            Curiously, after a bit of research I found this - a comment on the Amazon Kindle entry for the "book" The Assassination of Reinhard Heydrich Kindle Edition



            Make of it what you will, but possibly it is simply a CIA screw up, or at the very least by its author R.C.Jaggers.



            The commenter goes by the handle of Kallisto and writes:




            First of all, you can get this document free of charge on the C.I.A. website. But why bother?
            It is a mind-boggling puzzle why this mess of false information was even written, let alone published.



            Nothing in it - not even the DATES of the assassination and Heydrich's
            death! - are correct. It says the assassination took place on the 29th
            of May and that Heydrich died on the 6th of June. Wrong: the correct
            dates are May 27th and June 4th. (Mind you, this was written cca 1960,
            so the dates were available in any encyclopedia.)



            The same goes for the date of the parachute drop (it happened in
            December 1941, not in April 1942), the personal details of the
            assassins - and so on and so forth.



            Admittedly, some of the data are hilarious (the operation is called
            "Salmon" instead of "Anthropoid"
            ) [emphasis mine], but one can find worthier types of
            amusement.



            The document seems to rely heavily on Moravec's book Master of Spies
            (or the material included in the latter, anyway), witness some of the
            mistakes, which replicate exactly those in Moravec's book, going as
            far as relating private conversations that the author clearly could
            not have witnessed. It is all incredibly childish and amateurish,
            especially considering it was made for the C.I.A.



            The most alluring thing about this puzzling document is wondering
            about its purpose (this was supposedly a "secret" document up to 1993
            when it was released) - and about the quality of C.I.A.'s
            "intelligence" in general if it employed personnel like the author of
            this oddity.



            Zero stars for content, eleven stars for entertainment value - but
            only if you're familiar with the actual story.



            P.S. If you want a good laugh, be sure to read the same author's
            review of Burgess' book "Seven Men at Daybreak".
            https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/kent-csi/vol5no3/html/v05i3a06p_0001.htm



            If you are familiar with the actual story, Jaggers' badmouthing of
            Burgess' book will have you in stitches.




            It goes without saying that simply because of the source my answer has huge disclaimers and caveats - but in light of what you found, namely that there simply is nothing else that links the name "Salmon" with the assassination of Heydrich, it seems we're talking about a case of bad intelligence and historical research on the side of the CIA.



            EDIT: I just looked the CIA review of the mentioned book Seven Men at Daybreak, which indeed the same R.C.Jaggers savages. Seeing as that book is otherwise reviewed and rated as an excellent account of the Heydrich assassination, it adds fodder to the thesis that this "Jaggers" may simply be a vindictive, clueless hack, yet one employed by the CIA.






            share|improve this answer




















              Your Answer








              StackExchange.ready(function()
              var channelOptions =
              tags: "".split(" "),
              id: "324"
              ;
              initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

              StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
              // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
              if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
              StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
              createEditor();
              );

              else
              createEditor();

              );

              function createEditor()
              StackExchange.prepareEditor(
              heartbeatType: 'answer',
              convertImagesToLinks: false,
              noModals: true,
              showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
              reputationToPostImages: null,
              bindNavPrevention: true,
              postfix: "",
              imageUploader:
              brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
              contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
              allowUrls: true
              ,
              noCode: true, onDemand: true,
              discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
              ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
              );



              );













               

              draft saved


              draft discarded


















              StackExchange.ready(
              function ()
              StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fhistory.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f49164%2fwhy-does-the-cia-report-on-the-assassination-of-reinhard-heydrich-refer-to-it-as%23new-answer', 'question_page');

              );

              Post as a guest






























              3 Answers
              3






              active

              oldest

              votes








              3 Answers
              3






              active

              oldest

              votes









              active

              oldest

              votes






              active

              oldest

              votes








              up vote
              3
              down vote













              As the author of the CIA article, R. C. Jaggers, does not cite any sources, and as 'Salmon' is not used elsewhere, it is probably impossible to establish exactly why he uses the name 'Operation Salmon'. The most likely reasons are (1) bad or misleading sources or (2) artistic licence or ignorance.



              Bad or misleading sources



              On the first point, Marakai's answer has already noted the numerous and obvious errors made by Jaggers. Whether these came from Frantisek Moravec is, though, unclear at best. Moravec's book, Master of Spies, was not published until 1975 while Jaggers' article is dated 1960. The book was in progress when Moravec died, and was completed by his son. Also, some of Jaggers' biggest errors (date of Heydrich's death, the ages of Gabcik and Kubis) are not in the book.



              According to the son (in the foreword to the book), Moravec (who was deeply involved in Operation Anthropoid) started making notes on his experiences (in Czech) shortly after he arrived in the US in 1948; he also made recordings and wrote various articles during his time working at the Pentagon. These were used to complete the book.



              It is therefore possible that Jaggers somehow had access to Moravec or to something he had written in the 1950s. If Jaggers knew that Moravec was at the Penatgon, it would have been natural to try to consult him given the subject material. Moravec's son might have edited out errors in his father's material before publishing the book, and this could explain why some of the errors in Jaggers' article do not appear in Moravec's book.




              Artistic licence or ignorance



              The other possibility is that Jaggers, for one reason or another, simply made up the name 'Salmon', just as he made up the dialogues. At this point, it is worth taking a look at where Jaggers' artcle apeared, namely Studies in Intelligence: The IC’s Journal for the Intelligence Professional (vol 4).



              This journal contains a number of articles where authors seem intent on displaying literary pretensions by using a writing style clearly not suited for a straightforward report. One article in volume 4 (The Defections of Dr. John) begins with:




              Rain streaked the streets of Berlin, splashed on darkened houses,
              glistened in the light from an east-west border check point. A sedan
              rolled up, its tires singing on the wet pavement.




              Clearly, imagined situations were OK with the editorial board. Perhaps this was because of the $500 prize on offer for the best article, one of the two criteria being "literary qualities". Thus, it is possible that, not knowing the official name 'Operation Anthropoid', Jaggers simply made it up (as he did the dialogues, though these may also have come from or been inspired by conversations with Moravec - assuming Jaggers even met him). It is worth noting that some details on Operation Anthropoid were still classified until around 1995; if Jaggers was junior at the CIA, he may not have had access to such classified material.



              Interestingly, Moravec does not reveal the name 'Operation Anthropoid' in his 1975 book (though he must have known it given his role in selecting and instructing Kubis and Gabcek).






              share|improve this answer


























                up vote
                3
                down vote













                As the author of the CIA article, R. C. Jaggers, does not cite any sources, and as 'Salmon' is not used elsewhere, it is probably impossible to establish exactly why he uses the name 'Operation Salmon'. The most likely reasons are (1) bad or misleading sources or (2) artistic licence or ignorance.



                Bad or misleading sources



                On the first point, Marakai's answer has already noted the numerous and obvious errors made by Jaggers. Whether these came from Frantisek Moravec is, though, unclear at best. Moravec's book, Master of Spies, was not published until 1975 while Jaggers' article is dated 1960. The book was in progress when Moravec died, and was completed by his son. Also, some of Jaggers' biggest errors (date of Heydrich's death, the ages of Gabcik and Kubis) are not in the book.



                According to the son (in the foreword to the book), Moravec (who was deeply involved in Operation Anthropoid) started making notes on his experiences (in Czech) shortly after he arrived in the US in 1948; he also made recordings and wrote various articles during his time working at the Pentagon. These were used to complete the book.



                It is therefore possible that Jaggers somehow had access to Moravec or to something he had written in the 1950s. If Jaggers knew that Moravec was at the Penatgon, it would have been natural to try to consult him given the subject material. Moravec's son might have edited out errors in his father's material before publishing the book, and this could explain why some of the errors in Jaggers' article do not appear in Moravec's book.




                Artistic licence or ignorance



                The other possibility is that Jaggers, for one reason or another, simply made up the name 'Salmon', just as he made up the dialogues. At this point, it is worth taking a look at where Jaggers' artcle apeared, namely Studies in Intelligence: The IC’s Journal for the Intelligence Professional (vol 4).



                This journal contains a number of articles where authors seem intent on displaying literary pretensions by using a writing style clearly not suited for a straightforward report. One article in volume 4 (The Defections of Dr. John) begins with:




                Rain streaked the streets of Berlin, splashed on darkened houses,
                glistened in the light from an east-west border check point. A sedan
                rolled up, its tires singing on the wet pavement.




                Clearly, imagined situations were OK with the editorial board. Perhaps this was because of the $500 prize on offer for the best article, one of the two criteria being "literary qualities". Thus, it is possible that, not knowing the official name 'Operation Anthropoid', Jaggers simply made it up (as he did the dialogues, though these may also have come from or been inspired by conversations with Moravec - assuming Jaggers even met him). It is worth noting that some details on Operation Anthropoid were still classified until around 1995; if Jaggers was junior at the CIA, he may not have had access to such classified material.



                Interestingly, Moravec does not reveal the name 'Operation Anthropoid' in his 1975 book (though he must have known it given his role in selecting and instructing Kubis and Gabcek).






                share|improve this answer
























                  up vote
                  3
                  down vote










                  up vote
                  3
                  down vote









                  As the author of the CIA article, R. C. Jaggers, does not cite any sources, and as 'Salmon' is not used elsewhere, it is probably impossible to establish exactly why he uses the name 'Operation Salmon'. The most likely reasons are (1) bad or misleading sources or (2) artistic licence or ignorance.



                  Bad or misleading sources



                  On the first point, Marakai's answer has already noted the numerous and obvious errors made by Jaggers. Whether these came from Frantisek Moravec is, though, unclear at best. Moravec's book, Master of Spies, was not published until 1975 while Jaggers' article is dated 1960. The book was in progress when Moravec died, and was completed by his son. Also, some of Jaggers' biggest errors (date of Heydrich's death, the ages of Gabcik and Kubis) are not in the book.



                  According to the son (in the foreword to the book), Moravec (who was deeply involved in Operation Anthropoid) started making notes on his experiences (in Czech) shortly after he arrived in the US in 1948; he also made recordings and wrote various articles during his time working at the Pentagon. These were used to complete the book.



                  It is therefore possible that Jaggers somehow had access to Moravec or to something he had written in the 1950s. If Jaggers knew that Moravec was at the Penatgon, it would have been natural to try to consult him given the subject material. Moravec's son might have edited out errors in his father's material before publishing the book, and this could explain why some of the errors in Jaggers' article do not appear in Moravec's book.




                  Artistic licence or ignorance



                  The other possibility is that Jaggers, for one reason or another, simply made up the name 'Salmon', just as he made up the dialogues. At this point, it is worth taking a look at where Jaggers' artcle apeared, namely Studies in Intelligence: The IC’s Journal for the Intelligence Professional (vol 4).



                  This journal contains a number of articles where authors seem intent on displaying literary pretensions by using a writing style clearly not suited for a straightforward report. One article in volume 4 (The Defections of Dr. John) begins with:




                  Rain streaked the streets of Berlin, splashed on darkened houses,
                  glistened in the light from an east-west border check point. A sedan
                  rolled up, its tires singing on the wet pavement.




                  Clearly, imagined situations were OK with the editorial board. Perhaps this was because of the $500 prize on offer for the best article, one of the two criteria being "literary qualities". Thus, it is possible that, not knowing the official name 'Operation Anthropoid', Jaggers simply made it up (as he did the dialogues, though these may also have come from or been inspired by conversations with Moravec - assuming Jaggers even met him). It is worth noting that some details on Operation Anthropoid were still classified until around 1995; if Jaggers was junior at the CIA, he may not have had access to such classified material.



                  Interestingly, Moravec does not reveal the name 'Operation Anthropoid' in his 1975 book (though he must have known it given his role in selecting and instructing Kubis and Gabcek).






                  share|improve this answer














                  As the author of the CIA article, R. C. Jaggers, does not cite any sources, and as 'Salmon' is not used elsewhere, it is probably impossible to establish exactly why he uses the name 'Operation Salmon'. The most likely reasons are (1) bad or misleading sources or (2) artistic licence or ignorance.



                  Bad or misleading sources



                  On the first point, Marakai's answer has already noted the numerous and obvious errors made by Jaggers. Whether these came from Frantisek Moravec is, though, unclear at best. Moravec's book, Master of Spies, was not published until 1975 while Jaggers' article is dated 1960. The book was in progress when Moravec died, and was completed by his son. Also, some of Jaggers' biggest errors (date of Heydrich's death, the ages of Gabcik and Kubis) are not in the book.



                  According to the son (in the foreword to the book), Moravec (who was deeply involved in Operation Anthropoid) started making notes on his experiences (in Czech) shortly after he arrived in the US in 1948; he also made recordings and wrote various articles during his time working at the Pentagon. These were used to complete the book.



                  It is therefore possible that Jaggers somehow had access to Moravec or to something he had written in the 1950s. If Jaggers knew that Moravec was at the Penatgon, it would have been natural to try to consult him given the subject material. Moravec's son might have edited out errors in his father's material before publishing the book, and this could explain why some of the errors in Jaggers' article do not appear in Moravec's book.




                  Artistic licence or ignorance



                  The other possibility is that Jaggers, for one reason or another, simply made up the name 'Salmon', just as he made up the dialogues. At this point, it is worth taking a look at where Jaggers' artcle apeared, namely Studies in Intelligence: The IC’s Journal for the Intelligence Professional (vol 4).



                  This journal contains a number of articles where authors seem intent on displaying literary pretensions by using a writing style clearly not suited for a straightforward report. One article in volume 4 (The Defections of Dr. John) begins with:




                  Rain streaked the streets of Berlin, splashed on darkened houses,
                  glistened in the light from an east-west border check point. A sedan
                  rolled up, its tires singing on the wet pavement.




                  Clearly, imagined situations were OK with the editorial board. Perhaps this was because of the $500 prize on offer for the best article, one of the two criteria being "literary qualities". Thus, it is possible that, not knowing the official name 'Operation Anthropoid', Jaggers simply made it up (as he did the dialogues, though these may also have come from or been inspired by conversations with Moravec - assuming Jaggers even met him). It is worth noting that some details on Operation Anthropoid were still classified until around 1995; if Jaggers was junior at the CIA, he may not have had access to such classified material.



                  Interestingly, Moravec does not reveal the name 'Operation Anthropoid' in his 1975 book (though he must have known it given his role in selecting and instructing Kubis and Gabcek).







                  share|improve this answer














                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer








                  edited 4 hours ago

























                  answered 4 hours ago









                  Lars Bosteen

                  32.7k8159218




                  32.7k8159218




















                      up vote
                      2
                      down vote













                      The "CIA's secret report" by R. C. Jaggers reads like a "as told by" version of some primary document originating outside the CIA. The CIA of course did not exist in 1942, and its predecessor, the OSS, had nothing to do with the operation. So this report might be a version of an account appearing in the Czech press, or a memoir by a Czech official of some sort.



                      The quotations of direct dialog such as




                      They glanced at each other. "No," said Gabcik. "We want to do it." Kubis just nodded.




                      seem consistent with something written for the popular press; the absence of detail about the SOE seems consistent with a Czech audience.



                      So, I suppose, it was written by a Czech, who probably didn't know or care what codename SOE used for the operation. Possibly "Operation Salmon" is what the Czechs called it?






                      share|improve this answer




















                      • Yes the CIA has lots of analysts who research topics and compile reports from several sources. Since Anthropoid was a Czech operation from its inception, planned by the Czech government in exile in London, carried out by Czech agents, paid for with Czech blood on Czech soil, I don't imagine all the history reports would change the name of the operation from a Czech choice (Salmon) to some other (British?) choice. If we are going to suppose (but that's not why I'm here on History:SE) then I might suppose the CIA may have altered the operation name in the report for some policy reason
                        – Kerry L
                        7 hours ago















                      up vote
                      2
                      down vote













                      The "CIA's secret report" by R. C. Jaggers reads like a "as told by" version of some primary document originating outside the CIA. The CIA of course did not exist in 1942, and its predecessor, the OSS, had nothing to do with the operation. So this report might be a version of an account appearing in the Czech press, or a memoir by a Czech official of some sort.



                      The quotations of direct dialog such as




                      They glanced at each other. "No," said Gabcik. "We want to do it." Kubis just nodded.




                      seem consistent with something written for the popular press; the absence of detail about the SOE seems consistent with a Czech audience.



                      So, I suppose, it was written by a Czech, who probably didn't know or care what codename SOE used for the operation. Possibly "Operation Salmon" is what the Czechs called it?






                      share|improve this answer




















                      • Yes the CIA has lots of analysts who research topics and compile reports from several sources. Since Anthropoid was a Czech operation from its inception, planned by the Czech government in exile in London, carried out by Czech agents, paid for with Czech blood on Czech soil, I don't imagine all the history reports would change the name of the operation from a Czech choice (Salmon) to some other (British?) choice. If we are going to suppose (but that's not why I'm here on History:SE) then I might suppose the CIA may have altered the operation name in the report for some policy reason
                        – Kerry L
                        7 hours ago













                      up vote
                      2
                      down vote










                      up vote
                      2
                      down vote









                      The "CIA's secret report" by R. C. Jaggers reads like a "as told by" version of some primary document originating outside the CIA. The CIA of course did not exist in 1942, and its predecessor, the OSS, had nothing to do with the operation. So this report might be a version of an account appearing in the Czech press, or a memoir by a Czech official of some sort.



                      The quotations of direct dialog such as




                      They glanced at each other. "No," said Gabcik. "We want to do it." Kubis just nodded.




                      seem consistent with something written for the popular press; the absence of detail about the SOE seems consistent with a Czech audience.



                      So, I suppose, it was written by a Czech, who probably didn't know or care what codename SOE used for the operation. Possibly "Operation Salmon" is what the Czechs called it?






                      share|improve this answer












                      The "CIA's secret report" by R. C. Jaggers reads like a "as told by" version of some primary document originating outside the CIA. The CIA of course did not exist in 1942, and its predecessor, the OSS, had nothing to do with the operation. So this report might be a version of an account appearing in the Czech press, or a memoir by a Czech official of some sort.



                      The quotations of direct dialog such as




                      They glanced at each other. "No," said Gabcik. "We want to do it." Kubis just nodded.




                      seem consistent with something written for the popular press; the absence of detail about the SOE seems consistent with a Czech audience.



                      So, I suppose, it was written by a Czech, who probably didn't know or care what codename SOE used for the operation. Possibly "Operation Salmon" is what the Czechs called it?







                      share|improve this answer












                      share|improve this answer



                      share|improve this answer










                      answered 11 hours ago









                      kimchi lover

                      1,2321414




                      1,2321414











                      • Yes the CIA has lots of analysts who research topics and compile reports from several sources. Since Anthropoid was a Czech operation from its inception, planned by the Czech government in exile in London, carried out by Czech agents, paid for with Czech blood on Czech soil, I don't imagine all the history reports would change the name of the operation from a Czech choice (Salmon) to some other (British?) choice. If we are going to suppose (but that's not why I'm here on History:SE) then I might suppose the CIA may have altered the operation name in the report for some policy reason
                        – Kerry L
                        7 hours ago

















                      • Yes the CIA has lots of analysts who research topics and compile reports from several sources. Since Anthropoid was a Czech operation from its inception, planned by the Czech government in exile in London, carried out by Czech agents, paid for with Czech blood on Czech soil, I don't imagine all the history reports would change the name of the operation from a Czech choice (Salmon) to some other (British?) choice. If we are going to suppose (but that's not why I'm here on History:SE) then I might suppose the CIA may have altered the operation name in the report for some policy reason
                        – Kerry L
                        7 hours ago
















                      Yes the CIA has lots of analysts who research topics and compile reports from several sources. Since Anthropoid was a Czech operation from its inception, planned by the Czech government in exile in London, carried out by Czech agents, paid for with Czech blood on Czech soil, I don't imagine all the history reports would change the name of the operation from a Czech choice (Salmon) to some other (British?) choice. If we are going to suppose (but that's not why I'm here on History:SE) then I might suppose the CIA may have altered the operation name in the report for some policy reason
                      – Kerry L
                      7 hours ago





                      Yes the CIA has lots of analysts who research topics and compile reports from several sources. Since Anthropoid was a Czech operation from its inception, planned by the Czech government in exile in London, carried out by Czech agents, paid for with Czech blood on Czech soil, I don't imagine all the history reports would change the name of the operation from a Czech choice (Salmon) to some other (British?) choice. If we are going to suppose (but that's not why I'm here on History:SE) then I might suppose the CIA may have altered the operation name in the report for some policy reason
                      – Kerry L
                      7 hours ago











                      up vote
                      2
                      down vote













                      Curiously, after a bit of research I found this - a comment on the Amazon Kindle entry for the "book" The Assassination of Reinhard Heydrich Kindle Edition



                      Make of it what you will, but possibly it is simply a CIA screw up, or at the very least by its author R.C.Jaggers.



                      The commenter goes by the handle of Kallisto and writes:




                      First of all, you can get this document free of charge on the C.I.A. website. But why bother?
                      It is a mind-boggling puzzle why this mess of false information was even written, let alone published.



                      Nothing in it - not even the DATES of the assassination and Heydrich's
                      death! - are correct. It says the assassination took place on the 29th
                      of May and that Heydrich died on the 6th of June. Wrong: the correct
                      dates are May 27th and June 4th. (Mind you, this was written cca 1960,
                      so the dates were available in any encyclopedia.)



                      The same goes for the date of the parachute drop (it happened in
                      December 1941, not in April 1942), the personal details of the
                      assassins - and so on and so forth.



                      Admittedly, some of the data are hilarious (the operation is called
                      "Salmon" instead of "Anthropoid"
                      ) [emphasis mine], but one can find worthier types of
                      amusement.



                      The document seems to rely heavily on Moravec's book Master of Spies
                      (or the material included in the latter, anyway), witness some of the
                      mistakes, which replicate exactly those in Moravec's book, going as
                      far as relating private conversations that the author clearly could
                      not have witnessed. It is all incredibly childish and amateurish,
                      especially considering it was made for the C.I.A.



                      The most alluring thing about this puzzling document is wondering
                      about its purpose (this was supposedly a "secret" document up to 1993
                      when it was released) - and about the quality of C.I.A.'s
                      "intelligence" in general if it employed personnel like the author of
                      this oddity.



                      Zero stars for content, eleven stars for entertainment value - but
                      only if you're familiar with the actual story.



                      P.S. If you want a good laugh, be sure to read the same author's
                      review of Burgess' book "Seven Men at Daybreak".
                      https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/kent-csi/vol5no3/html/v05i3a06p_0001.htm



                      If you are familiar with the actual story, Jaggers' badmouthing of
                      Burgess' book will have you in stitches.




                      It goes without saying that simply because of the source my answer has huge disclaimers and caveats - but in light of what you found, namely that there simply is nothing else that links the name "Salmon" with the assassination of Heydrich, it seems we're talking about a case of bad intelligence and historical research on the side of the CIA.



                      EDIT: I just looked the CIA review of the mentioned book Seven Men at Daybreak, which indeed the same R.C.Jaggers savages. Seeing as that book is otherwise reviewed and rated as an excellent account of the Heydrich assassination, it adds fodder to the thesis that this "Jaggers" may simply be a vindictive, clueless hack, yet one employed by the CIA.






                      share|improve this answer
























                        up vote
                        2
                        down vote













                        Curiously, after a bit of research I found this - a comment on the Amazon Kindle entry for the "book" The Assassination of Reinhard Heydrich Kindle Edition



                        Make of it what you will, but possibly it is simply a CIA screw up, or at the very least by its author R.C.Jaggers.



                        The commenter goes by the handle of Kallisto and writes:




                        First of all, you can get this document free of charge on the C.I.A. website. But why bother?
                        It is a mind-boggling puzzle why this mess of false information was even written, let alone published.



                        Nothing in it - not even the DATES of the assassination and Heydrich's
                        death! - are correct. It says the assassination took place on the 29th
                        of May and that Heydrich died on the 6th of June. Wrong: the correct
                        dates are May 27th and June 4th. (Mind you, this was written cca 1960,
                        so the dates were available in any encyclopedia.)



                        The same goes for the date of the parachute drop (it happened in
                        December 1941, not in April 1942), the personal details of the
                        assassins - and so on and so forth.



                        Admittedly, some of the data are hilarious (the operation is called
                        "Salmon" instead of "Anthropoid"
                        ) [emphasis mine], but one can find worthier types of
                        amusement.



                        The document seems to rely heavily on Moravec's book Master of Spies
                        (or the material included in the latter, anyway), witness some of the
                        mistakes, which replicate exactly those in Moravec's book, going as
                        far as relating private conversations that the author clearly could
                        not have witnessed. It is all incredibly childish and amateurish,
                        especially considering it was made for the C.I.A.



                        The most alluring thing about this puzzling document is wondering
                        about its purpose (this was supposedly a "secret" document up to 1993
                        when it was released) - and about the quality of C.I.A.'s
                        "intelligence" in general if it employed personnel like the author of
                        this oddity.



                        Zero stars for content, eleven stars for entertainment value - but
                        only if you're familiar with the actual story.



                        P.S. If you want a good laugh, be sure to read the same author's
                        review of Burgess' book "Seven Men at Daybreak".
                        https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/kent-csi/vol5no3/html/v05i3a06p_0001.htm



                        If you are familiar with the actual story, Jaggers' badmouthing of
                        Burgess' book will have you in stitches.




                        It goes without saying that simply because of the source my answer has huge disclaimers and caveats - but in light of what you found, namely that there simply is nothing else that links the name "Salmon" with the assassination of Heydrich, it seems we're talking about a case of bad intelligence and historical research on the side of the CIA.



                        EDIT: I just looked the CIA review of the mentioned book Seven Men at Daybreak, which indeed the same R.C.Jaggers savages. Seeing as that book is otherwise reviewed and rated as an excellent account of the Heydrich assassination, it adds fodder to the thesis that this "Jaggers" may simply be a vindictive, clueless hack, yet one employed by the CIA.






                        share|improve this answer






















                          up vote
                          2
                          down vote










                          up vote
                          2
                          down vote









                          Curiously, after a bit of research I found this - a comment on the Amazon Kindle entry for the "book" The Assassination of Reinhard Heydrich Kindle Edition



                          Make of it what you will, but possibly it is simply a CIA screw up, or at the very least by its author R.C.Jaggers.



                          The commenter goes by the handle of Kallisto and writes:




                          First of all, you can get this document free of charge on the C.I.A. website. But why bother?
                          It is a mind-boggling puzzle why this mess of false information was even written, let alone published.



                          Nothing in it - not even the DATES of the assassination and Heydrich's
                          death! - are correct. It says the assassination took place on the 29th
                          of May and that Heydrich died on the 6th of June. Wrong: the correct
                          dates are May 27th and June 4th. (Mind you, this was written cca 1960,
                          so the dates were available in any encyclopedia.)



                          The same goes for the date of the parachute drop (it happened in
                          December 1941, not in April 1942), the personal details of the
                          assassins - and so on and so forth.



                          Admittedly, some of the data are hilarious (the operation is called
                          "Salmon" instead of "Anthropoid"
                          ) [emphasis mine], but one can find worthier types of
                          amusement.



                          The document seems to rely heavily on Moravec's book Master of Spies
                          (or the material included in the latter, anyway), witness some of the
                          mistakes, which replicate exactly those in Moravec's book, going as
                          far as relating private conversations that the author clearly could
                          not have witnessed. It is all incredibly childish and amateurish,
                          especially considering it was made for the C.I.A.



                          The most alluring thing about this puzzling document is wondering
                          about its purpose (this was supposedly a "secret" document up to 1993
                          when it was released) - and about the quality of C.I.A.'s
                          "intelligence" in general if it employed personnel like the author of
                          this oddity.



                          Zero stars for content, eleven stars for entertainment value - but
                          only if you're familiar with the actual story.



                          P.S. If you want a good laugh, be sure to read the same author's
                          review of Burgess' book "Seven Men at Daybreak".
                          https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/kent-csi/vol5no3/html/v05i3a06p_0001.htm



                          If you are familiar with the actual story, Jaggers' badmouthing of
                          Burgess' book will have you in stitches.




                          It goes without saying that simply because of the source my answer has huge disclaimers and caveats - but in light of what you found, namely that there simply is nothing else that links the name "Salmon" with the assassination of Heydrich, it seems we're talking about a case of bad intelligence and historical research on the side of the CIA.



                          EDIT: I just looked the CIA review of the mentioned book Seven Men at Daybreak, which indeed the same R.C.Jaggers savages. Seeing as that book is otherwise reviewed and rated as an excellent account of the Heydrich assassination, it adds fodder to the thesis that this "Jaggers" may simply be a vindictive, clueless hack, yet one employed by the CIA.






                          share|improve this answer












                          Curiously, after a bit of research I found this - a comment on the Amazon Kindle entry for the "book" The Assassination of Reinhard Heydrich Kindle Edition



                          Make of it what you will, but possibly it is simply a CIA screw up, or at the very least by its author R.C.Jaggers.



                          The commenter goes by the handle of Kallisto and writes:




                          First of all, you can get this document free of charge on the C.I.A. website. But why bother?
                          It is a mind-boggling puzzle why this mess of false information was even written, let alone published.



                          Nothing in it - not even the DATES of the assassination and Heydrich's
                          death! - are correct. It says the assassination took place on the 29th
                          of May and that Heydrich died on the 6th of June. Wrong: the correct
                          dates are May 27th and June 4th. (Mind you, this was written cca 1960,
                          so the dates were available in any encyclopedia.)



                          The same goes for the date of the parachute drop (it happened in
                          December 1941, not in April 1942), the personal details of the
                          assassins - and so on and so forth.



                          Admittedly, some of the data are hilarious (the operation is called
                          "Salmon" instead of "Anthropoid"
                          ) [emphasis mine], but one can find worthier types of
                          amusement.



                          The document seems to rely heavily on Moravec's book Master of Spies
                          (or the material included in the latter, anyway), witness some of the
                          mistakes, which replicate exactly those in Moravec's book, going as
                          far as relating private conversations that the author clearly could
                          not have witnessed. It is all incredibly childish and amateurish,
                          especially considering it was made for the C.I.A.



                          The most alluring thing about this puzzling document is wondering
                          about its purpose (this was supposedly a "secret" document up to 1993
                          when it was released) - and about the quality of C.I.A.'s
                          "intelligence" in general if it employed personnel like the author of
                          this oddity.



                          Zero stars for content, eleven stars for entertainment value - but
                          only if you're familiar with the actual story.



                          P.S. If you want a good laugh, be sure to read the same author's
                          review of Burgess' book "Seven Men at Daybreak".
                          https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/kent-csi/vol5no3/html/v05i3a06p_0001.htm



                          If you are familiar with the actual story, Jaggers' badmouthing of
                          Burgess' book will have you in stitches.




                          It goes without saying that simply because of the source my answer has huge disclaimers and caveats - but in light of what you found, namely that there simply is nothing else that links the name "Salmon" with the assassination of Heydrich, it seems we're talking about a case of bad intelligence and historical research on the side of the CIA.



                          EDIT: I just looked the CIA review of the mentioned book Seven Men at Daybreak, which indeed the same R.C.Jaggers savages. Seeing as that book is otherwise reviewed and rated as an excellent account of the Heydrich assassination, it adds fodder to the thesis that this "Jaggers" may simply be a vindictive, clueless hack, yet one employed by the CIA.







                          share|improve this answer












                          share|improve this answer



                          share|improve this answer










                          answered 6 hours ago









                          Marakai

                          1,806825




                          1,806825



























                               

                              draft saved


                              draft discarded















































                               


                              draft saved


                              draft discarded














                              StackExchange.ready(
                              function ()
                              StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fhistory.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f49164%2fwhy-does-the-cia-report-on-the-assassination-of-reinhard-heydrich-refer-to-it-as%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                              );

                              Post as a guest













































































                              Comments

                              Popular posts from this blog

                              What does second last employer means? [closed]

                              List of Gilmore Girls characters

                              Confectionery