![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
The skull fragment collected by SMERSH is not Hitler's. It is of a 20-40 year old female. The sex was confirmed with allosomal DNA. It appears that all or most of the information we have accepted as fact since April 30th 1945 has been innaccurate and unreliable.
Here is the source: [1]: it´s true: A DNA test of the skull fragment previously believed to be Hitler's has revealed it is actually a woman's! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.180.32.46 ( talk) 12:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
This in The Guardian and written by Uki Goñi looks like a pretty good source to use, it goes into quite a lot of detail. I'll let someone with more knowledge of this add it. Smartse ( talk) 13:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
You will want to add this story from CNN. --Stepshep 174.102.83.126 ( talk) 09:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I think this article would content, at least only like many others under a "conspiranoic theories", the possibility that Hitler did not suicide in the bunker. It is not question about the reability or credibility, but if many other articles take account on absurd theories this one too, I think. A couple of lines giving information of such theories and with opinions (if exist) of mainstream investigators is needed in my opinion. The fact that the Federal Republic of Germany declared Hitler officially dead as later as 1956 and other details in the way deserve commentaries in the article. 213.60.28.109 ( talk) 17:49, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I have edited my mistake out of this thread. Wm5200 ( talk) 06:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I am not a scholar, I read Wiki but would not think of editing it. But I was disappointed in this article, and many points in the discussion, so I am asking some questions. Perhaps someone else will read and address them.
I have just deleted a lot of my ignorance from this comment, you may see ghosts of my mistakes. Wm5200 ( talk) 06:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
The idea of “shot in the mouth” has been discredited, correct? Awkward and “unmilitary”, would a soldier put the weapon in his mouth, rather than at his temple or possibly under his chin? The “Russian” skull fragment has been DNAed as female, correct? That doesn’t rule the mouth shot out, but it doesn’t support it, either.
There was no prussic acid ingested while alive, correct? No smell was detected , correct? Possibly the capsule was in his mouth when he was shot, that seems plausible, but I wouldn’t think that makes the level of “probable”.
Does anyone think the idea of two different pistols, one in each hand and at each temple, sounds even remotely plausible? Where did that idea even come from?
99.41.251.5 ( talk) 01:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC) As to sources, the last books I have read are The Murder of Adolph Hitler by Hugh Thomas (sort of shaky) and The Last Days of Hitler by Anton Joachimsthaler (English translation, I buy much of this). They are both over five years old. I enjoy the History Channel, but would never use it as a source, I can find errors myself in most of their programs.
I would like to direct people to the work of Ian Kershaw Hitler, 1939-1945: Nemesis ISBN 0393322521. Chapter 17 and the epilogue relate to this article. Please pay attention to his notes and sources. Be warned, his book Hitler: a Biography is a kind of digest which does not include these resources.
In view of this information, I propose edits similar to the following:
1. Adolf Hitler’s cause of death appears to be a single, self-inflected gunshot wound to the right temple, using his personal Walther PP or PPK 7.65mm pistol. Reference Joachimsthaller Chap 4 Linge 9feb1956 p154-5, Gunsche 20feb1956 p155-6, Axmann 1dec1953 p156 & 2Sep55 p157, text 163-5.
2. Alternate theories have included variations on a gunshot wound, poisoning by cyanide capsule, strangulation, a combination of methods, and even escape. Although he certainly had the opportunity to use a cyanide capsule, there appears to be no credible evidence or testimony that supports that or any other alternate theory. Reference Joach p173-5, Kershaw Nemesis Chap 17 note 156 p1037-8.
3. Witnesses say the body was placed outside a bunker exit, soaked in gasoline, and set on fire around 1600. It is likely that more gasoline was put on the body, which continued to burn for some time. Around 1800 the remains were probably kicked and possibly later spread or buried, by 1830 it was reported that they had been disposed of. (I'm uncomfortable with "kicked", it sort of implies contempt which may not have been intended. Karnau shoved some remains with his foot). Reference Joach Chap 6 Karnau 13Nov1953 p213, Gunsche 21jun1956 p 198, 20jun1956 p 217.
4. It appears that between May 9 and July, 1945, the Soviets may have been in possession of a jaw, some teeth, and some dental work which was consistent with and tentatively identified as belonging to Hitler and his wife Eva nee Braun. When seen on May 11 these items were in a cigar box. Since July 1945, there has been no verifiable evidence of the existence of these items. Reference Joach Chap 6 Heusermann 27Apr1956 p231-3, Echtmann 10Jul1954 p233-5, 27Apr1953 p238.
5. Some blood stains assumed to belong to Hitler remained in the bunker for some time. Other than these stains, and the dental material, it appears that there has been no verifiable evidence of any Hitler biology after 1830 local time 30 April 1945. Reference Joach picture "The bloodstains on...", Kershaw Nemesis Epilogue note 1 p1038-9.
The source Joachimsthaler is basically an English translation of a German's analysis of 1950's post-Soviet interviews of bunker survivors. The original transcripts must be available somewhere. There are many other bunker interviews, some with questionable intent, and not all agree. Wm5200 ( talk) 16:36, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
For sometime now I have been of the opinion that this article is a perfect example of what a Wikipedia article should not be. However since this statement is "sourced", "Around 1800 the remains were probably kicked and possibly later spread or buried, by 1830 it was reported that they had been disposed of", should be prominently added somewhere into the article. Perhaps even the lead? It would certainly "somewhat match" the tenor of the rest of the article. Dr. Dan ( talk) 02:34, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
(OD) Gwen, allow me to change tabloids, to Sunday newspaper articles and other "websites". Hopefully you remember one of your first comments at these talk pages, where you certainly have made an inordinate number of contributions. I believe it was on George Washington's birthday in 2007 (same as VenetianPrincess') when you said, [4] "The recounting of myths and other pop culture codswallop have nothing to do with neutrality or scholarship". I certainly do agree with you there. And Wm5200, didn't understand your last comment's meaning. Dr. Dan ( talk) 14:35, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I offer these five paragraphs as a place for people to start, should they so choose.
1. Adolf Hitler’s cause of death appears to be a single, self-inflected gunshot wound to the right temple, using his personal Walther PP or PPK 7.65mm pistol. Reference Joachimsthaller Chap 4 Linge 9feb1956 p154-5, Gunsche 20feb1956 p155-6, Axmann 1dec1953 p156 & 2Sep55 p157, text 163-5.
2. Alternate theories have included variations on a gunshot wound, poisoning by cyanide capsule, strangulation, a combination of methods, and even escape. Although he certainly had the opportunity to use a cyanide capsule, there appears to be no credible evidence or testimony that supports that or any other alternate theory. Reference Joach p173-5, Kershaw Nemesis Chap 17 note 156 p1037-8.
3. Witnesses say the body was placed outside a bunker exit, soaked in gasoline, and set on fire around 1600. It is likely that more gasoline was put on the body, which continued to burn for some time. Around 1800 the remains were probably kicked and possibly later spread or buried, by 1830 it was reported that they had been disposed of. (I'm uncomfortable with "kicked", it sort of implies contempt which may not have been intended. Karnau shoved some remains with his foot). Reference Joach Chap 6 Karnau 13Nov1953 p213, Gunsche 21jun1956 p 198, 20jun1956 p 217.
4. It appears that between May 9 and July, 1945, the Soviets may have been in possession of a jaw, some teeth, and some dental work which was consistent with and tentatively identified as belonging to Hitler and his wife Eva nee Braun. When seen on May 11 these items were in a cigar box. Since July 1945, there has been no verifiable evidence of the existence of these items. Reference Joach Chap 6 Heusermann 27Apr1956 p231-3, Echtmann 10Jul1954 p233-5, 27Apr1953 p238.
5. Some blood stains assumed to belong to Hitler remained in the bunker for some time. Other than these stains, and the dental material, it appears that there has been no verifiable evidence of any Hitler biology after 1830 local time 30 April 1945. Reference Joach picture "The bloodstains on...", Kershaw Nemesis Epilogue note 1 p1038-9.
Ian Kershaw Hitler, 1939-1945: Nemesis ISBN 0393322521. Chapter 17 and the epilogue relate to this article. Please pay attention to his notes and sources. Be warned, his book Hitler: a Biography is a kind of digest which does not include these resources.
Anton Joachimsthaler The Last Days of Hitler ISBN 9781407221335 is basically an English translation of a German's analysis of 1950's post-Soviet interviews of bunker survivors. The original transcripts must be available somewhere. There are many other bunker interviews, some with questionable intent, and not all agree. Wm5200 ( talk) 21:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Thomas, Trevor-Roper, Beevor, Shirer, Ryan, Toland, Eberle/Uhl, Lehmann/Carroll, O’Donnell, Victor. I am not a scholar. As a layman, I have reviewed some material by each of these authors relating to the actual death of Hitler, and immediate aftermath. I use Kershaw as a baseline, and measure from there. I have not yet seen Vinogradov, but plan to and will follow up. Wm5200 ( talk) 18:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
I DO NOT refer to the Goebbels gang, which I consider separate, altho possibly overlapping. Wm5200 ( talk) 18:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Now I’m really confused. Is (was) this section some type of political device (either inside or outside Wiki), OR someone who really wants to help, but sounds strange (to me)? Since I know the latter position, I’m going to assume good faith.
Conspiracy theories are certainly out there, maybe the article should address them. I recently made a post about them, but it embarrassed me, and I deleted it in the name of P.O.V. Now this section is also gone (possibly with reason), but the conspiracies are still out there.
As I recall this section related a fringe theory in detail, with no analysis of the theory. Maybe if the theory was treated in less detail, with more analysis or other references, the post might sound more rational (to me)? Are we discussing the credibility of fringe theories in general, or trying to sell one specific theory?
My section would say “there are a lot of fringe theories, they’re all stupid”. Clearly my judgment and tact are not Wiki standard, that’s why I stay in discussion. But maybe someone else can knock out something which is more soothing, yet addresses the point? I thought this may fit under “Stalin was wary”, maybe somewhere else?
P.O.V. I’m glad that section is gone, I didn’t care for it. But the idea behind it may lead somewhere. Or maybe this (my) section should also be deleted, throw away all three and start over? Hopefully within Wiki rules, and with some credibility. That works, too. This article needs as little trash as possible, it’s already pushing it in places.
Thank you. Feel free to delete this, if appropriate. Wm5200 ( talk) 13:08, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
I’m always confused, I guess. Then I bump into “O.R.” Are we talking about people who have written books, or the credibility of those books? Nobody thinks Hitler is alive, we are talking about myths (fiction?) that have grown up after him, correct? Nobody is disputing that he died, correct?
Assuming we are discussing Hitler “culture” rather than the actual death, is this the proper place? His death appears pretty grim, and the article is trying to be serious. Should “Hitler myth culture” start at the Hitler sight, then maybe evolve it’s own article? There is certainly a lot of information about false trails, hoaxes, fiction, even real spies get involved, but do you want to hook it up with an article about the actual death? We already have “bullet hole skull” and “one testicle” to deal with, “Antarctic Adolf” is a touch of a strain.
If this “myth” stuff is pursued, might I suggest analyzing Bezymenski, he and his book have caused many ripples. P.O.V., this is sounding like an interesting idea, but I would hate to get involved in anything which lessens the evil of Hitler. Thank you. Wm5200 ( talk) 02:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Its too bad the Russian's admit they only have the body of eva braun because Hitler's body was completly decomposed in the fire. Harsh for the american fantasists and conspiracists don't you think\? Earhart lost at sea due to fuel loss or no landing zone and simply wrong calculations. BTW buildings do fall when planes hit them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.42.105 ( talk) 03:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
This article is spreading untruths. The “dual method” has NO basis in fact, yet this article, and it’s other Wiki cousins, spread these lies as fact throughout the internet. Any real historian would be embarrassed to present this article as accurate. Wm5200 ( talk) 05:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Gwen, I'm asking you this question mainly because of your frequent participation at this article and its talk page. Would you consider material presented from this source acceptable and helpful if used in a proper context? Thanks. Dr. Dan ( talk) 01:49, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
I lost you, but I’m confused myself. It appears as though the person with the least information available is most influential on the article.
The U.S. is big on free press, and it works. My very low budget suburb is in a system which serves 225,000 people with 4 MILLION titles (numbers approximate, thanks Carol). That’s on the next shuttle van. Most of the rest of the assets of a state with 12 million people are a couple of days away by mail. The specialty stuff on AE from Radcliffe took maybe a week. And I am an amateur. Dan, you are over three million people higher in the food chain, you must be “world class”. Kierzek has clearly read and analyzed everything, reviewed most of it, and as far as I can tell, every word he says is accurate and informed.
Kershaw, Joachimsthaler, Thomas, Trevor-Roper, Beevor, Shirer, Ryan, Toland, Eberle/Uhl, Lehmann/Carroll, O’Donnell, Victor, Petrova/Watson. (Vinogradov hit a snag, reordered). These are books which I have had in my possession and read parts of since Aug 2010. I can understand if others do not have access to the same resources, but I think that should be addressed. If someone does not have access to two footnotes which are critical in a discussion, that also should be addressed.
I think maybe that “using information that they have read and can understand” means that if you only read and have access to the “Sun”, that is all you should use as a source. But I think you should get them right. And I don’t think that you should dispute or ignore works beyond the "Sun", they are outside your understanding.
I know that this is P.O.V., and that I am personally involved. But I can not help but believe that this article has problems with it’s process. Wm5200 ( talk) 18:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Let's be careful and not put too much superfluous information into the lead. An example of what I mean is shot in the "right temple" or it happened at 15:30 hours. I have argued over this point at the Lincoln assassination (terrible lead) in the past. Mainspace, yes. Lead no. A little less prosaic writing wouldn't hurt either. I'll try to put something together for you all to consider. Need a day or two. Dr. Dan ( talk) 02:52, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Based on the arguments in the above section, I fully concur that the leade needs amendment. Rather than joining the above debate, I propose the following as an alternative:
In the article (as is already the case), we can then present the alternative schools of thought on the controversies regarding:
Farawayman ( talk) 09:00, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
I think we are getting there! However:
So, my edited version looks like this:
Farawayman ( talk) 06:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
If Dr K is referring to my 1436 3 Nov 2010 post as OR, I’ve dealt with that before, and it’s sometimes accurate. Kierzek knows that I have posted a ton of stuff with references, I don’t think anyone wants it back, but if you will be selective in what you ask for, I will try to respond.
1. What is required to discredit Bezymenski? If Joach and Kershaw (who backs and expands on Joach) are not enough, how many others are required? I have a bunch.
2. What beyond Joach is required to discredit Axmann’s impression? Joach and reason are not enough?
3. I own Kershaw’s Nemesis, but possibly it is a mental block: where is the line "Cigar box with skull fragment containing bullet hole taken to Moscow"? Is it used in the correct context? Are we taking the notes (#155 page 1037 and Epilogue page 1038) into account? How about Vinog page 24 saying the bullet hole skull was found in 1946?
4. Do not newer works, with more information and analysis, supersede older, more limited works? I understand that you want witnesses to be fresh, but we only have a few, and they have been questioned repeatedly. Is not Kershaw of more value than Trevor-Roper, despite the fact that Trevor-Roper was there much sooner?
5. Is there any account of any identification other than Heusermann and Echtmann, who only identified the teeth? Beevor uses Rzhevskaya, but it sounds to me like she only actually confirms teeth. Is her original work available in English, and is it credible? I would like to find her somewhere, I believe that her story would be good reading, if in any way believable.
6. We are ASSUMING that Adolf’s remains, whatever the volume, hook up with Goebbels, which seems reasonable to me, but not proven.
7. Are “lede” vs “lead” and “duel” vs “dual” a matter of which side of the Atlantic one is on, or are they typos? I have no entry for “lede”, and over here “duel” implies two people arranging a pistol or sword fight under controlled circumstances.
Finally, POV. I regret naming a section “Deceiving the Public”, I was emotional. If someone else renames it, I wouldn’t be insulted. Thanx.
Wm5200 (
talk)
13:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Conclusion: If you think, as experts, that a theory is notable enough to be included in the lede then I am not here to doubt your judgment. IMO cutting down a bit on weasel words and presenting the more notable scholars in the lede would improve the lede. But I am not here to impede your consensus as experts. Just to improve the lede on the WP:WEASEL, WP:UNDUE, WP:SYNTH, WP:FRINGE departments, if at all possible. Thank you again. Dr.K. λogos πraxis
I'm glad this discussion is taking place here and sensible alternatives are being offered for the lead. The lead (lede) is only one facet that needs to be looked at. As I've long argued, the entire article definitely lacks an encyclopedic quality to it and has too much "pop culture" interspersed within it. "Smoking of cigarettes", "burning the boss", "pooling of blood", etc. I hope to add some historical perspective to it soon. Meanwhile there is the question of links in the lead. On the whole I find wlinks useful, but I'm not sure cyanide needs to be linked in the lead anymore than gunshot does. Cyanide is linked in the main space and that should be enough. Dr. Dan ( talk) 17:59, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Please edit freely! And, there are no experts, only Wiki Editors with a common interest in matters military! Farawayman ( talk) 19:37, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Considering all of the above, lets try to clearly state the problems we are facing:
Other less controversial facts which require citation are marked Cite X in the version below.
Assuming we can come up with credible citations for the above, lets try the following:
Adolf Hitler committed suicide by gunshot on 30 April 1945 in his Führerbunker in Berlin.[A][B] His wife Eva (nee Braun), committed suicide with him by ingesting poison.[X1] In accordance with Hitler's prior instructions, their remains were removed from the bunker, doused in petrol and set alight in the Reich Chancellery gardens outside of the bunker.[X2] The Soviet archives record that their burnt remains were recovered and interned in successive locations[X3] until 1970 when they were again exhumed, cremated and the ashes scattered.[X4]
There have been different accounts citing the cause of his death; one that he died by poison only[X5] and another that he died by a self-inflicted gunshot, while biting down on a cyanide capsule of poison.[X6] Contemporary historians have rejected these accounts as being either Soviet propaganda or an attempted compromise in order to reconcile the different conclusions.[C][D] There was also an eye-witness account that recorded the body showing signs of having been shot through the mouth but this has been proven unlikely.[E] There is also controversy regarding the authenticity of skull and jaw fragments which were recovered.[F] Further, the exact location of where Hitler's ashes were scattered also differs, depending on the historical source consulted.[X7][X8]
Citations:
A1: Beevor (2002) p.359 ["Nobody seems to have heard the shot that Hitler fired into his own head."
A2: Fischer (2008) p.47 ["Günsche stated he entered the study to inspect the bodies, and observed Hitler '...sat...sunken over, with blood dripping out of his right temple. He had shot himself with his own pistol, a PPK 7.65'."
B: Kershaw (2008) p.955 ["Blood dripped from a bullet hole in his right temple..."]
X1: Beevor (2002) p.359 ["... her lips puckered from the poison"
X2: Kershaw (2008) p.956
X3: Kershaw (2008) p.958 ["[the bodies] were deposited initially in an unmarked grave in a forest far to the west of Berlin, reburied in 1946 in a plot of land in Magdeberg"
X4: Beevor (2002) p.431 ["In 1970 the Kremlin finally decided to dispose of the body in absolute secrecy... body... was exhumed and burned"
X5: Erickson (1983) p.606 ["... both committing suicide by biting their cyanide ampoules"
X6: Re-use citation D.
C: Fest (1974) p.779 and Note 76 p.847 ["...most Soviet accounts have held that Hitler also [Hitler and Eva Braun] ended his life by poison... there are contradictions in the Soviet story.. these contradictions tend to indicate that the Soviet version of Hitler’s suicide has a political colouration"
D: O'Donnell (1978, 2001) pp. 322-323 ["... we have a fair answer...to the version of ...Russian author Lev Bezymenski...Hitler did shoot himself and did bite into the cyanide capsule, just as Professor Haase had clearly and repeatedly instructed..."
E1: Joachimsthaler (1996) p.157 ["Axmann elaborated on his testimony when questioned about his "assumption" that Hitler had shot himself through the mouth"]
E2: Joachimsthaler (1996) p.166 ["... the version involving a "shot in the mouth" with secondary injuries to the temples must be rejected... the majority of witnesses saw an entry wound in the temple.. according to all witnesses there was no injury to the back of the head."
F1: Joachimsthaler (1996) p.225 ["... the only thing to remain of Hitler was a gold bridge with porcelain facets from his upper jaw and the lower jawbone with some teeth and two bridges."
F2: Beevor (2002) p.431 ["Hitler's jaws.... had been retained by SMERSH, while the NKVD kept the cranium."
F3: CNN:
but the [skull] remains were that of a female aged between 20 and 40 years old."]
F4: The Guardian:
Tests on skull fragment cast doubt on Adolf Hitler suicide story
F5: Sunday Times:
"Deep in the Lubyanka, headquarters of Russia’s secret police, a fragment of Hitler’s jaw is preserved as a trophy of the Red Army’s victory over Nazi Germany. A fragment of skull with a bullet hole lies in the State Archive."
X7: Beevor (2002) p.431 ["...the ashes were flushed into the town [Magdeberg] sewage system."
X8: CNN:
"The remains were burnt on a bonfire outside the town of Shoenebeck, 11 kilometers away from Magdeburg, then ground into ashes, collected and thrown into the Biederitz River,"
References:
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |trans=
ignored (
help)We are running out of colours!!!! Farawayman ( talk) 06:54, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Whoa! Huh? Does "removed" NOT mean "Deleted"?
Wm5200 (
talk)
20:50, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Are we ready to move the above proposed lead to the article? I propose it is moved with all citations and the associated comments related to the citations. Any further comments or modifications? Farawayman ( talk) 08:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
There are several mentions of the german word "Führer" written as "Fürher" in the article. 80.226.0.1 ( talk) 18:33, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Does the lead-in really have to be so matter-of-fact?.I'm not convinced that it's justified. 70.28.7.229 ( talk) 05:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
I am still trying to put together an alternate draft. Unfortunately a heavy work load is preventing me from getting to the library to review a few books that would help me with my proposition. It definitely is different than the original one. I prefer to go with scholarly books as opposed to the online alternatives. Here's an example of what I mean by on-line alternatives. http://tst.greyfalcon.us/burning3.html That one is interesting though because it gives an insight of what was unknown and what was being presented as " factual information" in the months following Hitler's death. Unfortunately the Soviets who held the key to what happened, did their best to misinform and obfuscate the issue, not only then, but even the current Russian government has not been particularly cooperative with providing more evidence or allowing DNA tests and the like to be performed. That's what makes this subject a hard one to tackle. The article is not going away. There is no need to rush. Dr. Dan ( talk) 16:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
I love how a self-defeating sentence like Nobody seems to have heard the shot that Hitler fired into his own head is actually supposed to support the articles contention. 70.28.7.229 ( talk) 20:20, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
I have to butt in here. Are you actually saying that Bezymenski's autopsy is credible?? Have you read Kershaw yet?? Do you not realize that that Bezym has apparently retracted that GARBAGE??? RUSSIAN AUTOPSY???
Wm5200 (
talk)
01:47, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Looks like she made a mistake, and answered as her "sock" instead of her real name.
Wm5200 (
talk)
00:19, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
This citation can be taken as reliable here (O'Donnell (1978, 2001) pp. 322-323 "... we have a fair answer...to the version of ...Russian author Lev Bezymenski...Hitler did shoot himself and did bite into the cyanide capsule, just as Professor Haase had clearly and repeatedly instructed...") but the text does not echo it. AH most likely did die through a combination of gunshot and cyanide, the "dual method" which Haase told him, more or less, couldn't fail. The sovs "covered up" the gunshot evidence for political/propaganda reasons (suicide by poison could be sold as a "coward's" death) and for decades, sources outside the USSR didn't have even a hint of the autopsy records (not the faked, fudged records which kept mum about the gunshot damage), only accounts by a few witnesses who saw the head wound and the blood. The lead does not steadfastly follow the sources and moreover, the way it is written could mislead readers into thinking that even with the strong assertion made as to the date of his death, the sources may leave some opening for meaningful speculation that AH and EB were alive after that afternoon. After more than six decades, so far, they do not.
I was asked to give my input here. The ongoing lack of AGF, personal attacks and cheap sarcasm, along with all the snarky hints about what an editor should or should not do as to how they post input here, speak louder than. I may be back to this article (and/or this talk page) in a month or two, I don't know, but whether I edit the article again or not, I think it's highly unlikely this new lead will stick in coming months. Sooner or later, consensus and input from other editors will tend, however slowly, to mostly sort out any worries I might have about this article. Gwen Gale ( talk) 10:17, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
I took this article off my watch list last year and have not looked at it since shortly after my last edit to the article.
I think that the current lead is a step backwards from the lead in place this time last year. It makes a definitive statement in the first sentence when AFAICT that the histories are far from definitive. The version that stated "The generally accepted cause of the death of Adolf Hitler ..." was superior because it introduced to the reader the concept that there is no one agreed history.
Why his wife has to be mentioned in the second sentence is not clear to me, as this is an article about the death of Adolph Hitler, not about the Hitler family or the other members of the bunker who chose to kill themselves -- those details can be in the body of the article. It struck me that her death could have been included because there is no doubt how she died so it allows Hitler's choice of suicide to be presented in a similar way.
The sentence "Contemporary historians have rejected these accounts as being either Soviet propaganda or an attempted compromise in order to reconcile the different conclusions." is supported by two citations first published in the 1970s, Those citations are as remote from us as they were from the original deaths, they are not "Contemporary" and any during the soviet period can not be considered as definitive as the cold war meant that there was not free access to Soviet records. Further just because two historians ... does not mean all of them have as is implied by "Contemporary historians" such a statement needs an article that "say most/all historians have rejected" otherwise the words "Contemporary historians" needs to be qualified.
To me this new introduction seems to be trying to prove a point. That Hitler shot himself, all historians agree on this and any other interpretation is now discredited.
The thing which many readers may not realise is just how symbolic the choice of poison and shooting are considered to be in some warped military/parmilitary circles -- Just as Marshal Zhukov was mounted on a white horse at the victory parade in Moscow, and Marshal Ney 140 years earlier was given the honour of shouting fire at his own execution. Therefore to come down definitive one one side of the fence, is to support the view that Hitler chose an honourable or a dishonourable method of suicide. Unless we are sure that historians have done so we should not do so in the lead of this article. --
PBS (
talk)
00:07, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
The skull fragment collected by SMERSH is not Hitler's. It is of a 20-40 year old female. The sex was confirmed with allosomal DNA. It appears that all or most of the information we have accepted as fact since April 30th 1945 has been innaccurate and unreliable.
Here is the source: [1]: it´s true: A DNA test of the skull fragment previously believed to be Hitler's has revealed it is actually a woman's! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.180.32.46 ( talk) 12:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
This in The Guardian and written by Uki Goñi looks like a pretty good source to use, it goes into quite a lot of detail. I'll let someone with more knowledge of this add it. Smartse ( talk) 13:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
You will want to add this story from CNN. --Stepshep 174.102.83.126 ( talk) 09:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I think this article would content, at least only like many others under a "conspiranoic theories", the possibility that Hitler did not suicide in the bunker. It is not question about the reability or credibility, but if many other articles take account on absurd theories this one too, I think. A couple of lines giving information of such theories and with opinions (if exist) of mainstream investigators is needed in my opinion. The fact that the Federal Republic of Germany declared Hitler officially dead as later as 1956 and other details in the way deserve commentaries in the article. 213.60.28.109 ( talk) 17:49, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I have edited my mistake out of this thread. Wm5200 ( talk) 06:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I am not a scholar, I read Wiki but would not think of editing it. But I was disappointed in this article, and many points in the discussion, so I am asking some questions. Perhaps someone else will read and address them.
I have just deleted a lot of my ignorance from this comment, you may see ghosts of my mistakes. Wm5200 ( talk) 06:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
The idea of “shot in the mouth” has been discredited, correct? Awkward and “unmilitary”, would a soldier put the weapon in his mouth, rather than at his temple or possibly under his chin? The “Russian” skull fragment has been DNAed as female, correct? That doesn’t rule the mouth shot out, but it doesn’t support it, either.
There was no prussic acid ingested while alive, correct? No smell was detected , correct? Possibly the capsule was in his mouth when he was shot, that seems plausible, but I wouldn’t think that makes the level of “probable”.
Does anyone think the idea of two different pistols, one in each hand and at each temple, sounds even remotely plausible? Where did that idea even come from?
99.41.251.5 ( talk) 01:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC) As to sources, the last books I have read are The Murder of Adolph Hitler by Hugh Thomas (sort of shaky) and The Last Days of Hitler by Anton Joachimsthaler (English translation, I buy much of this). They are both over five years old. I enjoy the History Channel, but would never use it as a source, I can find errors myself in most of their programs.
I would like to direct people to the work of Ian Kershaw Hitler, 1939-1945: Nemesis ISBN 0393322521. Chapter 17 and the epilogue relate to this article. Please pay attention to his notes and sources. Be warned, his book Hitler: a Biography is a kind of digest which does not include these resources.
In view of this information, I propose edits similar to the following:
1. Adolf Hitler’s cause of death appears to be a single, self-inflected gunshot wound to the right temple, using his personal Walther PP or PPK 7.65mm pistol. Reference Joachimsthaller Chap 4 Linge 9feb1956 p154-5, Gunsche 20feb1956 p155-6, Axmann 1dec1953 p156 & 2Sep55 p157, text 163-5.
2. Alternate theories have included variations on a gunshot wound, poisoning by cyanide capsule, strangulation, a combination of methods, and even escape. Although he certainly had the opportunity to use a cyanide capsule, there appears to be no credible evidence or testimony that supports that or any other alternate theory. Reference Joach p173-5, Kershaw Nemesis Chap 17 note 156 p1037-8.
3. Witnesses say the body was placed outside a bunker exit, soaked in gasoline, and set on fire around 1600. It is likely that more gasoline was put on the body, which continued to burn for some time. Around 1800 the remains were probably kicked and possibly later spread or buried, by 1830 it was reported that they had been disposed of. (I'm uncomfortable with "kicked", it sort of implies contempt which may not have been intended. Karnau shoved some remains with his foot). Reference Joach Chap 6 Karnau 13Nov1953 p213, Gunsche 21jun1956 p 198, 20jun1956 p 217.
4. It appears that between May 9 and July, 1945, the Soviets may have been in possession of a jaw, some teeth, and some dental work which was consistent with and tentatively identified as belonging to Hitler and his wife Eva nee Braun. When seen on May 11 these items were in a cigar box. Since July 1945, there has been no verifiable evidence of the existence of these items. Reference Joach Chap 6 Heusermann 27Apr1956 p231-3, Echtmann 10Jul1954 p233-5, 27Apr1953 p238.
5. Some blood stains assumed to belong to Hitler remained in the bunker for some time. Other than these stains, and the dental material, it appears that there has been no verifiable evidence of any Hitler biology after 1830 local time 30 April 1945. Reference Joach picture "The bloodstains on...", Kershaw Nemesis Epilogue note 1 p1038-9.
The source Joachimsthaler is basically an English translation of a German's analysis of 1950's post-Soviet interviews of bunker survivors. The original transcripts must be available somewhere. There are many other bunker interviews, some with questionable intent, and not all agree. Wm5200 ( talk) 16:36, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
For sometime now I have been of the opinion that this article is a perfect example of what a Wikipedia article should not be. However since this statement is "sourced", "Around 1800 the remains were probably kicked and possibly later spread or buried, by 1830 it was reported that they had been disposed of", should be prominently added somewhere into the article. Perhaps even the lead? It would certainly "somewhat match" the tenor of the rest of the article. Dr. Dan ( talk) 02:34, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
(OD) Gwen, allow me to change tabloids, to Sunday newspaper articles and other "websites". Hopefully you remember one of your first comments at these talk pages, where you certainly have made an inordinate number of contributions. I believe it was on George Washington's birthday in 2007 (same as VenetianPrincess') when you said, [4] "The recounting of myths and other pop culture codswallop have nothing to do with neutrality or scholarship". I certainly do agree with you there. And Wm5200, didn't understand your last comment's meaning. Dr. Dan ( talk) 14:35, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I offer these five paragraphs as a place for people to start, should they so choose.
1. Adolf Hitler’s cause of death appears to be a single, self-inflected gunshot wound to the right temple, using his personal Walther PP or PPK 7.65mm pistol. Reference Joachimsthaller Chap 4 Linge 9feb1956 p154-5, Gunsche 20feb1956 p155-6, Axmann 1dec1953 p156 & 2Sep55 p157, text 163-5.
2. Alternate theories have included variations on a gunshot wound, poisoning by cyanide capsule, strangulation, a combination of methods, and even escape. Although he certainly had the opportunity to use a cyanide capsule, there appears to be no credible evidence or testimony that supports that or any other alternate theory. Reference Joach p173-5, Kershaw Nemesis Chap 17 note 156 p1037-8.
3. Witnesses say the body was placed outside a bunker exit, soaked in gasoline, and set on fire around 1600. It is likely that more gasoline was put on the body, which continued to burn for some time. Around 1800 the remains were probably kicked and possibly later spread or buried, by 1830 it was reported that they had been disposed of. (I'm uncomfortable with "kicked", it sort of implies contempt which may not have been intended. Karnau shoved some remains with his foot). Reference Joach Chap 6 Karnau 13Nov1953 p213, Gunsche 21jun1956 p 198, 20jun1956 p 217.
4. It appears that between May 9 and July, 1945, the Soviets may have been in possession of a jaw, some teeth, and some dental work which was consistent with and tentatively identified as belonging to Hitler and his wife Eva nee Braun. When seen on May 11 these items were in a cigar box. Since July 1945, there has been no verifiable evidence of the existence of these items. Reference Joach Chap 6 Heusermann 27Apr1956 p231-3, Echtmann 10Jul1954 p233-5, 27Apr1953 p238.
5. Some blood stains assumed to belong to Hitler remained in the bunker for some time. Other than these stains, and the dental material, it appears that there has been no verifiable evidence of any Hitler biology after 1830 local time 30 April 1945. Reference Joach picture "The bloodstains on...", Kershaw Nemesis Epilogue note 1 p1038-9.
Ian Kershaw Hitler, 1939-1945: Nemesis ISBN 0393322521. Chapter 17 and the epilogue relate to this article. Please pay attention to his notes and sources. Be warned, his book Hitler: a Biography is a kind of digest which does not include these resources.
Anton Joachimsthaler The Last Days of Hitler ISBN 9781407221335 is basically an English translation of a German's analysis of 1950's post-Soviet interviews of bunker survivors. The original transcripts must be available somewhere. There are many other bunker interviews, some with questionable intent, and not all agree. Wm5200 ( talk) 21:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Thomas, Trevor-Roper, Beevor, Shirer, Ryan, Toland, Eberle/Uhl, Lehmann/Carroll, O’Donnell, Victor. I am not a scholar. As a layman, I have reviewed some material by each of these authors relating to the actual death of Hitler, and immediate aftermath. I use Kershaw as a baseline, and measure from there. I have not yet seen Vinogradov, but plan to and will follow up. Wm5200 ( talk) 18:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
I DO NOT refer to the Goebbels gang, which I consider separate, altho possibly overlapping. Wm5200 ( talk) 18:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Now I’m really confused. Is (was) this section some type of political device (either inside or outside Wiki), OR someone who really wants to help, but sounds strange (to me)? Since I know the latter position, I’m going to assume good faith.
Conspiracy theories are certainly out there, maybe the article should address them. I recently made a post about them, but it embarrassed me, and I deleted it in the name of P.O.V. Now this section is also gone (possibly with reason), but the conspiracies are still out there.
As I recall this section related a fringe theory in detail, with no analysis of the theory. Maybe if the theory was treated in less detail, with more analysis or other references, the post might sound more rational (to me)? Are we discussing the credibility of fringe theories in general, or trying to sell one specific theory?
My section would say “there are a lot of fringe theories, they’re all stupid”. Clearly my judgment and tact are not Wiki standard, that’s why I stay in discussion. But maybe someone else can knock out something which is more soothing, yet addresses the point? I thought this may fit under “Stalin was wary”, maybe somewhere else?
P.O.V. I’m glad that section is gone, I didn’t care for it. But the idea behind it may lead somewhere. Or maybe this (my) section should also be deleted, throw away all three and start over? Hopefully within Wiki rules, and with some credibility. That works, too. This article needs as little trash as possible, it’s already pushing it in places.
Thank you. Feel free to delete this, if appropriate. Wm5200 ( talk) 13:08, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
I’m always confused, I guess. Then I bump into “O.R.” Are we talking about people who have written books, or the credibility of those books? Nobody thinks Hitler is alive, we are talking about myths (fiction?) that have grown up after him, correct? Nobody is disputing that he died, correct?
Assuming we are discussing Hitler “culture” rather than the actual death, is this the proper place? His death appears pretty grim, and the article is trying to be serious. Should “Hitler myth culture” start at the Hitler sight, then maybe evolve it’s own article? There is certainly a lot of information about false trails, hoaxes, fiction, even real spies get involved, but do you want to hook it up with an article about the actual death? We already have “bullet hole skull” and “one testicle” to deal with, “Antarctic Adolf” is a touch of a strain.
If this “myth” stuff is pursued, might I suggest analyzing Bezymenski, he and his book have caused many ripples. P.O.V., this is sounding like an interesting idea, but I would hate to get involved in anything which lessens the evil of Hitler. Thank you. Wm5200 ( talk) 02:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Its too bad the Russian's admit they only have the body of eva braun because Hitler's body was completly decomposed in the fire. Harsh for the american fantasists and conspiracists don't you think\? Earhart lost at sea due to fuel loss or no landing zone and simply wrong calculations. BTW buildings do fall when planes hit them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.42.105 ( talk) 03:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
This article is spreading untruths. The “dual method” has NO basis in fact, yet this article, and it’s other Wiki cousins, spread these lies as fact throughout the internet. Any real historian would be embarrassed to present this article as accurate. Wm5200 ( talk) 05:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Gwen, I'm asking you this question mainly because of your frequent participation at this article and its talk page. Would you consider material presented from this source acceptable and helpful if used in a proper context? Thanks. Dr. Dan ( talk) 01:49, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
I lost you, but I’m confused myself. It appears as though the person with the least information available is most influential on the article.
The U.S. is big on free press, and it works. My very low budget suburb is in a system which serves 225,000 people with 4 MILLION titles (numbers approximate, thanks Carol). That’s on the next shuttle van. Most of the rest of the assets of a state with 12 million people are a couple of days away by mail. The specialty stuff on AE from Radcliffe took maybe a week. And I am an amateur. Dan, you are over three million people higher in the food chain, you must be “world class”. Kierzek has clearly read and analyzed everything, reviewed most of it, and as far as I can tell, every word he says is accurate and informed.
Kershaw, Joachimsthaler, Thomas, Trevor-Roper, Beevor, Shirer, Ryan, Toland, Eberle/Uhl, Lehmann/Carroll, O’Donnell, Victor, Petrova/Watson. (Vinogradov hit a snag, reordered). These are books which I have had in my possession and read parts of since Aug 2010. I can understand if others do not have access to the same resources, but I think that should be addressed. If someone does not have access to two footnotes which are critical in a discussion, that also should be addressed.
I think maybe that “using information that they have read and can understand” means that if you only read and have access to the “Sun”, that is all you should use as a source. But I think you should get them right. And I don’t think that you should dispute or ignore works beyond the "Sun", they are outside your understanding.
I know that this is P.O.V., and that I am personally involved. But I can not help but believe that this article has problems with it’s process. Wm5200 ( talk) 18:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Let's be careful and not put too much superfluous information into the lead. An example of what I mean is shot in the "right temple" or it happened at 15:30 hours. I have argued over this point at the Lincoln assassination (terrible lead) in the past. Mainspace, yes. Lead no. A little less prosaic writing wouldn't hurt either. I'll try to put something together for you all to consider. Need a day or two. Dr. Dan ( talk) 02:52, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Based on the arguments in the above section, I fully concur that the leade needs amendment. Rather than joining the above debate, I propose the following as an alternative:
In the article (as is already the case), we can then present the alternative schools of thought on the controversies regarding:
Farawayman ( talk) 09:00, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
I think we are getting there! However:
So, my edited version looks like this:
Farawayman ( talk) 06:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
If Dr K is referring to my 1436 3 Nov 2010 post as OR, I’ve dealt with that before, and it’s sometimes accurate. Kierzek knows that I have posted a ton of stuff with references, I don’t think anyone wants it back, but if you will be selective in what you ask for, I will try to respond.
1. What is required to discredit Bezymenski? If Joach and Kershaw (who backs and expands on Joach) are not enough, how many others are required? I have a bunch.
2. What beyond Joach is required to discredit Axmann’s impression? Joach and reason are not enough?
3. I own Kershaw’s Nemesis, but possibly it is a mental block: where is the line "Cigar box with skull fragment containing bullet hole taken to Moscow"? Is it used in the correct context? Are we taking the notes (#155 page 1037 and Epilogue page 1038) into account? How about Vinog page 24 saying the bullet hole skull was found in 1946?
4. Do not newer works, with more information and analysis, supersede older, more limited works? I understand that you want witnesses to be fresh, but we only have a few, and they have been questioned repeatedly. Is not Kershaw of more value than Trevor-Roper, despite the fact that Trevor-Roper was there much sooner?
5. Is there any account of any identification other than Heusermann and Echtmann, who only identified the teeth? Beevor uses Rzhevskaya, but it sounds to me like she only actually confirms teeth. Is her original work available in English, and is it credible? I would like to find her somewhere, I believe that her story would be good reading, if in any way believable.
6. We are ASSUMING that Adolf’s remains, whatever the volume, hook up with Goebbels, which seems reasonable to me, but not proven.
7. Are “lede” vs “lead” and “duel” vs “dual” a matter of which side of the Atlantic one is on, or are they typos? I have no entry for “lede”, and over here “duel” implies two people arranging a pistol or sword fight under controlled circumstances.
Finally, POV. I regret naming a section “Deceiving the Public”, I was emotional. If someone else renames it, I wouldn’t be insulted. Thanx.
Wm5200 (
talk)
13:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Conclusion: If you think, as experts, that a theory is notable enough to be included in the lede then I am not here to doubt your judgment. IMO cutting down a bit on weasel words and presenting the more notable scholars in the lede would improve the lede. But I am not here to impede your consensus as experts. Just to improve the lede on the WP:WEASEL, WP:UNDUE, WP:SYNTH, WP:FRINGE departments, if at all possible. Thank you again. Dr.K. λogos πraxis
I'm glad this discussion is taking place here and sensible alternatives are being offered for the lead. The lead (lede) is only one facet that needs to be looked at. As I've long argued, the entire article definitely lacks an encyclopedic quality to it and has too much "pop culture" interspersed within it. "Smoking of cigarettes", "burning the boss", "pooling of blood", etc. I hope to add some historical perspective to it soon. Meanwhile there is the question of links in the lead. On the whole I find wlinks useful, but I'm not sure cyanide needs to be linked in the lead anymore than gunshot does. Cyanide is linked in the main space and that should be enough. Dr. Dan ( talk) 17:59, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Please edit freely! And, there are no experts, only Wiki Editors with a common interest in matters military! Farawayman ( talk) 19:37, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Considering all of the above, lets try to clearly state the problems we are facing:
Other less controversial facts which require citation are marked Cite X in the version below.
Assuming we can come up with credible citations for the above, lets try the following:
Adolf Hitler committed suicide by gunshot on 30 April 1945 in his Führerbunker in Berlin.[A][B] His wife Eva (nee Braun), committed suicide with him by ingesting poison.[X1] In accordance with Hitler's prior instructions, their remains were removed from the bunker, doused in petrol and set alight in the Reich Chancellery gardens outside of the bunker.[X2] The Soviet archives record that their burnt remains were recovered and interned in successive locations[X3] until 1970 when they were again exhumed, cremated and the ashes scattered.[X4]
There have been different accounts citing the cause of his death; one that he died by poison only[X5] and another that he died by a self-inflicted gunshot, while biting down on a cyanide capsule of poison.[X6] Contemporary historians have rejected these accounts as being either Soviet propaganda or an attempted compromise in order to reconcile the different conclusions.[C][D] There was also an eye-witness account that recorded the body showing signs of having been shot through the mouth but this has been proven unlikely.[E] There is also controversy regarding the authenticity of skull and jaw fragments which were recovered.[F] Further, the exact location of where Hitler's ashes were scattered also differs, depending on the historical source consulted.[X7][X8]
Citations:
A1: Beevor (2002) p.359 ["Nobody seems to have heard the shot that Hitler fired into his own head."
A2: Fischer (2008) p.47 ["Günsche stated he entered the study to inspect the bodies, and observed Hitler '...sat...sunken over, with blood dripping out of his right temple. He had shot himself with his own pistol, a PPK 7.65'."
B: Kershaw (2008) p.955 ["Blood dripped from a bullet hole in his right temple..."]
X1: Beevor (2002) p.359 ["... her lips puckered from the poison"
X2: Kershaw (2008) p.956
X3: Kershaw (2008) p.958 ["[the bodies] were deposited initially in an unmarked grave in a forest far to the west of Berlin, reburied in 1946 in a plot of land in Magdeberg"
X4: Beevor (2002) p.431 ["In 1970 the Kremlin finally decided to dispose of the body in absolute secrecy... body... was exhumed and burned"
X5: Erickson (1983) p.606 ["... both committing suicide by biting their cyanide ampoules"
X6: Re-use citation D.
C: Fest (1974) p.779 and Note 76 p.847 ["...most Soviet accounts have held that Hitler also [Hitler and Eva Braun] ended his life by poison... there are contradictions in the Soviet story.. these contradictions tend to indicate that the Soviet version of Hitler’s suicide has a political colouration"
D: O'Donnell (1978, 2001) pp. 322-323 ["... we have a fair answer...to the version of ...Russian author Lev Bezymenski...Hitler did shoot himself and did bite into the cyanide capsule, just as Professor Haase had clearly and repeatedly instructed..."
E1: Joachimsthaler (1996) p.157 ["Axmann elaborated on his testimony when questioned about his "assumption" that Hitler had shot himself through the mouth"]
E2: Joachimsthaler (1996) p.166 ["... the version involving a "shot in the mouth" with secondary injuries to the temples must be rejected... the majority of witnesses saw an entry wound in the temple.. according to all witnesses there was no injury to the back of the head."
F1: Joachimsthaler (1996) p.225 ["... the only thing to remain of Hitler was a gold bridge with porcelain facets from his upper jaw and the lower jawbone with some teeth and two bridges."
F2: Beevor (2002) p.431 ["Hitler's jaws.... had been retained by SMERSH, while the NKVD kept the cranium."
F3: CNN:
but the [skull] remains were that of a female aged between 20 and 40 years old."]
F4: The Guardian:
Tests on skull fragment cast doubt on Adolf Hitler suicide story
F5: Sunday Times:
"Deep in the Lubyanka, headquarters of Russia’s secret police, a fragment of Hitler’s jaw is preserved as a trophy of the Red Army’s victory over Nazi Germany. A fragment of skull with a bullet hole lies in the State Archive."
X7: Beevor (2002) p.431 ["...the ashes were flushed into the town [Magdeberg] sewage system."
X8: CNN:
"The remains were burnt on a bonfire outside the town of Shoenebeck, 11 kilometers away from Magdeburg, then ground into ashes, collected and thrown into the Biederitz River,"
References:
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |trans=
ignored (
help)We are running out of colours!!!! Farawayman ( talk) 06:54, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Whoa! Huh? Does "removed" NOT mean "Deleted"?
Wm5200 (
talk)
20:50, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Are we ready to move the above proposed lead to the article? I propose it is moved with all citations and the associated comments related to the citations. Any further comments or modifications? Farawayman ( talk) 08:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
There are several mentions of the german word "Führer" written as "Fürher" in the article. 80.226.0.1 ( talk) 18:33, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Does the lead-in really have to be so matter-of-fact?.I'm not convinced that it's justified. 70.28.7.229 ( talk) 05:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
I am still trying to put together an alternate draft. Unfortunately a heavy work load is preventing me from getting to the library to review a few books that would help me with my proposition. It definitely is different than the original one. I prefer to go with scholarly books as opposed to the online alternatives. Here's an example of what I mean by on-line alternatives. http://tst.greyfalcon.us/burning3.html That one is interesting though because it gives an insight of what was unknown and what was being presented as " factual information" in the months following Hitler's death. Unfortunately the Soviets who held the key to what happened, did their best to misinform and obfuscate the issue, not only then, but even the current Russian government has not been particularly cooperative with providing more evidence or allowing DNA tests and the like to be performed. That's what makes this subject a hard one to tackle. The article is not going away. There is no need to rush. Dr. Dan ( talk) 16:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
I love how a self-defeating sentence like Nobody seems to have heard the shot that Hitler fired into his own head is actually supposed to support the articles contention. 70.28.7.229 ( talk) 20:20, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
I have to butt in here. Are you actually saying that Bezymenski's autopsy is credible?? Have you read Kershaw yet?? Do you not realize that that Bezym has apparently retracted that GARBAGE??? RUSSIAN AUTOPSY???
Wm5200 (
talk)
01:47, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Looks like she made a mistake, and answered as her "sock" instead of her real name.
Wm5200 (
talk)
00:19, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
This citation can be taken as reliable here (O'Donnell (1978, 2001) pp. 322-323 "... we have a fair answer...to the version of ...Russian author Lev Bezymenski...Hitler did shoot himself and did bite into the cyanide capsule, just as Professor Haase had clearly and repeatedly instructed...") but the text does not echo it. AH most likely did die through a combination of gunshot and cyanide, the "dual method" which Haase told him, more or less, couldn't fail. The sovs "covered up" the gunshot evidence for political/propaganda reasons (suicide by poison could be sold as a "coward's" death) and for decades, sources outside the USSR didn't have even a hint of the autopsy records (not the faked, fudged records which kept mum about the gunshot damage), only accounts by a few witnesses who saw the head wound and the blood. The lead does not steadfastly follow the sources and moreover, the way it is written could mislead readers into thinking that even with the strong assertion made as to the date of his death, the sources may leave some opening for meaningful speculation that AH and EB were alive after that afternoon. After more than six decades, so far, they do not.
I was asked to give my input here. The ongoing lack of AGF, personal attacks and cheap sarcasm, along with all the snarky hints about what an editor should or should not do as to how they post input here, speak louder than. I may be back to this article (and/or this talk page) in a month or two, I don't know, but whether I edit the article again or not, I think it's highly unlikely this new lead will stick in coming months. Sooner or later, consensus and input from other editors will tend, however slowly, to mostly sort out any worries I might have about this article. Gwen Gale ( talk) 10:17, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
I took this article off my watch list last year and have not looked at it since shortly after my last edit to the article.
I think that the current lead is a step backwards from the lead in place this time last year. It makes a definitive statement in the first sentence when AFAICT that the histories are far from definitive. The version that stated "The generally accepted cause of the death of Adolf Hitler ..." was superior because it introduced to the reader the concept that there is no one agreed history.
Why his wife has to be mentioned in the second sentence is not clear to me, as this is an article about the death of Adolph Hitler, not about the Hitler family or the other members of the bunker who chose to kill themselves -- those details can be in the body of the article. It struck me that her death could have been included because there is no doubt how she died so it allows Hitler's choice of suicide to be presented in a similar way.
The sentence "Contemporary historians have rejected these accounts as being either Soviet propaganda or an attempted compromise in order to reconcile the different conclusions." is supported by two citations first published in the 1970s, Those citations are as remote from us as they were from the original deaths, they are not "Contemporary" and any during the soviet period can not be considered as definitive as the cold war meant that there was not free access to Soviet records. Further just because two historians ... does not mean all of them have as is implied by "Contemporary historians" such a statement needs an article that "say most/all historians have rejected" otherwise the words "Contemporary historians" needs to be qualified.
To me this new introduction seems to be trying to prove a point. That Hitler shot himself, all historians agree on this and any other interpretation is now discredited.
The thing which many readers may not realise is just how symbolic the choice of poison and shooting are considered to be in some warped military/parmilitary circles -- Just as Marshal Zhukov was mounted on a white horse at the victory parade in Moscow, and Marshal Ney 140 years earlier was given the honour of shouting fire at his own execution. Therefore to come down definitive one one side of the fence, is to support the view that Hitler chose an honourable or a dishonourable method of suicide. Unless we are sure that historians have done so we should not do so in the lead of this article. --
PBS (
talk)
00:07, 12 March 2011 (UTC)