Talk:Death of Adolf Hitler/Archive 1

Accepted by experts?
Pretty much no experts accept that version, thats why its the "popular" account. Nearly all experts think he's dead, and most by suicide, granted, but they also nearly all disagree about the particulars. The "shot himself in the head while biting a vial of poison" theory was essentially a compromise based on early debate. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 23:18, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, I didn't edit it to say "Expert version", just "Standard version". Popular version is misleading and somewhat POV as it implies that it's widely held but wrong. I'm open to suggests for other substitutes for "popular". Conventional wisdom? Orthodox version?AndyL 00:59, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I donno, if you have another idea go ahead, but "standard version" isn't all that bad. I just wanted to make sure you understand this isn't necesarilly accepted by the experts. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 12:23, 1 December 2004 (UTC)

Erna Flegel
The Guardian newspaper just published this interview (http://www.guardian.co.uk/secondworldwar/story/0,14058,1474705,00.html#article_continue) with a nurse, Erna Flegel, who was in the bunker at the time of Hitler's death. She discusses Hitler's death in the interview and i thought it might be useful to perhaps include a quote in the article but i was not sure how to put in quotes etc. so maybe someone else more confident might want to put it on. Gfad1 13:34, 2 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I've seen an interview w her, and agree it should be discussed. Sam Spade 22:30, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Just took the time to read this link (four years after the above discussion), as I want to get a feel for everything that's been written down here. The most important consideration that I gleaned out of it was her final statement, "Everyone has their own opinion". So did she. I especially found her psycho-analysis of Magda Goebbels' first marriage to be pretty interesting. Should we infer from her comments that MG discussed this subject with Flegel? Seems unlikely. Dr. Dan (talk) 00:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * See WP:V. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:47, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, what's your point? Dr. Dan (talk) 00:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Cite sources. Erna's opinions as carried by reliable sources can be put in the text as Erna's opinions. At most, it's a wording thing. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * A bit more: This article is about the death of AH, not MG. Meanwhile, Erna clearly said she spoke with MG, she's quoted at Magda Goebbels. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, still a wee bit more, my take is very much like Erna's. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:39, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry back. Have I put anything into the article about Erna Flegel? What exactly do you mean by "my take is very much like Erna's"? Dr. Dan (talk) 01:49, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think Magda went more than a little overboard in killing her kids. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:32, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent)I think any normal person would agree with you on the fate of the children. However, I thought my point was in regards to EF's opinion and comment about MG's first and second marriage. "...She was married before and decided one day that it wasn't working, that it had become boring, and so she separated from her first husband. Then came the second marriage. It's hard to say from the outside that it was happier (than the first)." And her her final remark, "Everyone has their own opinion." It's true that opinions are often based on fact, it's also true that sometimes they're just opinions. But I'll agree with you that "sourced" opinions can also take on the aura of "facts", on Wikipedia. Dr. Dan (talk) 03:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * As no more than a handy, tertiary reference source, Wikipedia has aught to do with "truth" or any notion of unswaying "facts," but only with verifiability. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:19, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

New York Times
Rumors started to circulate about a double for Hitler. He was supposed to be a total look-alike, and he was trained to "be" Hitler and was supposedly going to die a martyr’s death on the battlefield so that Hitler could be glorified without dying. - New York Times 19 April 1945.

There were dozens (if not hundreds) of rumours like this floating around in 1945. I've never heard of any German official talking about this one (er, or any allied one either). Wyss 00:07, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm just throwing it out there, not having heard it before myself. Sam Spade 20:24, 12 June 2005 (UTC)

total bust
why is that? I liked it better before the revert, quite alot had occured. Can we discuss and correct the issues one by one, rather than all in one? A scalpel instead of an rpg? I'm not all fired up about it, and we can discuss slowly if you prefer. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 00:49, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I used the rpg because after the article had been settled and quiet for so long, I kinda had the feeling you were using the anon's rash attempt at smothering the article with assertions of "consensus" and "cased closed" to over-react in the other direction, which you did in a flurry... moving the Sov hoax photo up to the top of the article, using the word compromise and so on. Understand I'm not editing from a PoV here. The documented record is plain, AH and EB killed themselves on the afternoon of 30 April 1945, they were ultimately buried in Magdeberg with the Goebbels' and their murdered children, then exhumed with ashes dispersed by the KGB in April 1970. We can put in all sorts of cited references to doubts and conspiracy theories Sam Spade, but I liked what we had before the anon stumbled in and unknowingly (but in good faith) stirred the pot ;) Wyss 00:59, 30 July 2005 (UTC)


 * "I'm not editing from a PoV here. The documented record is plain, AH and EB killed themselves on the afternoon of 30 April 1945..."


 * This is however a POV ;) ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 01:21, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Let's explore that. Please explain. Wyss 01:38, 30 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Everything is a POV, or based on one. Some POV's don't get included in some articles. An article on Human doesn't mention the POV that babies aren't people until their born. An article on the Queen of england doesn't mention that LaRouche thinks she is a drug dealer. But this is not a clear cut case. The evidence is poor, the amount of debate is large, and the "concensus" is really more of a compromise so as to end the debate w/o any historians feeling slighted. Frankly, almost no one who gives it a great deal of thought and research buys the full account as presented on this page. The odds of things having gone essentially as described is very, very slim. It is obvious to me that what we need to do here is to present all verifiable POV's, emphasise those which are most widely accepted amongst the experts, and allow the reader to make up their own mind. Where there is a lack of unanimity amongst the experts, the article should not take a stand. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 02:50, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Following Wikipedia policy, is it PoV to assert that Abraham Lincoln was the 16th president of the United States? Wyss 03:20, 30 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Well no one, and certainly not any respected source, has disputed that in any way (to my knowledge), so certainly not. If some barely signifigant group (lets say a pro-confederate group) claims he isn't, that could be discussed on the Lincoln page, but not on a page making reference to him having been the president in passing (like a page discussing the emancipation proclimation). Thats my understanding of NPOV, anyhow. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 03:42, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, we can cite the fringe theories in the death article and all that but...


 * Would you agree that NPoV derives from citing an historical consensus observed across a range peer reviewed (that is, reliable) secondary sources? Wyss 03:54, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Not really, I think its more a matter of tallying up all the verifiable (cited) POV's and allowing the reader to make up their own mind, IMO a book of reference serves the reader best when they make the fewest claims, and provide the widest variety of verifiable expert opinions. You obviously can't always cite every last opinion, but on a page like this, I think its pretty clear that the evidence for any given POV is pretty lousy. One thing we know is that he hasn't turned up. Another thing is that a couple of eyewitnesses (the least reliable of all forms of evidence) have made claims. Lastly, we have some scraps and shreds which the russians won't let us test. Fairly presenting that to the reader may be tricky, but it does them a better service them simply saying everybody agree's he's dead. of course he's dead, unless they really did save his brain ;) ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 04:02, 30 July 2005 (UTC)


 * (Four years later, and many WP articles later), I think Sam Spade hit the nail on the head with his above remarks. Pity he retired. Hopefully not over being turned off by contentious arguments. Dr. Dan (talk) 02:36, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Down-market pop culture fiction spun to sell tabloid fodder doesn't share the same weight as reliable sources. There is zero evidence Hitler and Braun were alive following the Berlin mid-afternoon of 30 April 1945. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:54, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't recall anyone making a claim that Hitler or Eva Braun were alive after April 30, 1945 in the above discussion. I did like ..."I think its more a matter of tallying up all the verifiable (cited) POV's and allowing the reader to make up their own mind, IMO a book of reference serves the reader best when they make the fewest claims, and provide the widest variety of verifiable expert opinions", though. Dr. Dan (talk) 03:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * What "expert opinions"? Please start citing sources now. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello (echo)? Again, "Don't recall anyone making a claim that Hitler or Eva Braun were alive after April 30, 1945 in the above discussion". Do you? Did I understand you correctly that I need to cite a source that I liked Sam Spade's commentary? And also, just what does "Down-market pop culture fiction spun to sell tabloid fodder doesn't share the same weight as reliable sources", have to do with this thread? While I'm at, it please take the trouble to answer some of my questions posted to you below in the section: Trevor-Roper, because this discussion is not leading to anything productive. Dr. Dan (talk) 04:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposed changes?
Ok, thanks for patiently answering. I think we have a disagreement relating specifically to this article and your assertion, "I think its pretty clear that the evidence for any given POV is pretty lousy." I assert that the historical consensus, based on documented evidence, is overwhelming that AH and EP killed themselves as described in the article. Nonetheless, I have zero problem presenting alternate views so long as the consensus of professional, peer-reviewed historians cited through secondary sources is presented unambiguously and plainly to the reader. I think the article in its present form (your last edit to which I reverted) does this. Meanwhile, let's get to it :) What is it about the article that you would like to change? Wyss 04:28, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Intro
the current version:


 * For fiction about Hitler's death see Hitler in popular culture

The April 1945 death of Adolf Hitler is generally accepted and the most commonly cited cause of his death is that he shot himself in the head while simultaneously biting into an ampule of cyanide. However, due to the chaos and fluidity of circumstances in the Führerbunker at the time, certain details of Hitler's death are unclear and since 1945 there have been various rumours and theories that he survived World War II.

vrs. alternate version:




 * For fiction about Hitler's death see Hitler in popular culture

The generally accepted cause of Hitler's death on April 30, 1945 is suicide by gunshot and cyanide poisoning. The dual method and other circumstances surrounding the event encouraged rumors that Adolf Hitler may have survived the end of World War II along with speculation about the circumstances of his ndeath, and what happened to his remains. Compromise on most of the details was eventually reached among historians, aided by the 1993 opening of records kept by the Russian KGB and FSB.


 * I think the more appropriate word would be consensus.


 * We can add in the opening paragraph, however, something to the effect that this consensus is disputed by a significant minority (never mind that my PoV on that minority :)


 * The bogus Red army shot mustn't be at the top of the article IMO. It's a documented fraud, and putting it at the top will imply to the reader that everything she's about to read can reasonably be considered a fraud, which is not the historical consensus among professional scholars.


 * Maybe we should both find a cite or two each to back up these opening assertions? Wyss 16:56, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

The intro needs an image, same as any other article. If you dislike that particular one, lets see a third version w your proposed changes. As far as concensus... I dislike both the precedent of calling an armistace such as occured in this debate "concensus", as well as the implication that they ever saw eye to eye, or did anything other than comprimise, agreeing to disagree. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 00:56, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Can you point me to a Wikipedia policy that supports your assertion, "The intro needs an image, same as any other article."? Wyss 01:28, 31 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't think there is one, I'm pretty sure thats just my opinion. On the other hand, articles are rarely featured w/o one. I guess a good question is "since we have 2 images, why not put one on top"? ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 15:39, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. The vast majority of WP articles have no photo at all. Even if they did this wouldn't be a reason to put an inappropriate one in the header. Wyss 22:20, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

"Total bust" reversion is a regression
66.167.136.162 20:42, 31 July 2005 (UTC): I am the anonymous contributor whose work provoked the flurry of recent changes, followed by a reversion. I object to the reversion, and hope to reinstate non-controversial parts of my contribution.

I would like to see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hitler%27s_death&oldid=19890332 become the current version; it has the changes I included, and most of the changes from both User:Wyss and User:Sam Spade.

If that's not acceptable, I will fall back on my original minimal goal of including a reference to an article written by Pierre J. Huss about Hilter. I would accomplish that by re-introducing the trivia section, extracting from the rest of the article the items I had put in there before, and adding in the version of the Huss article that User:Wyss created. Resorting to the fallback position loses what I thought was a valuable reorganization, particularly the one that made the article flow more chronologically.

P.S. FWIW, I have absolutely no knowledge or interest in this general topic; my changes were meant to be purely editorial, motivated by a desire to make the article flow better. Any bias or lack of sufficiently NPOV was inadvertent.

As I often do, I took the opportunity to attempt to improve what I found. Making a pass through an article while adding a tidbit of interest to me is something I've done dozens if not hundreds of times. I do it anonymously because working anonymously almost always improves the end result: people judge the contribution on its own, often skeptically since it is anonymous. I've been contributing anonymously since May 2003, and have created and improved hundreds of articles.


 * I liked your additions, and merely tweaked them. You had no idea you were stumbling into something that had achieved such delicate stability. Within hours, Sam Spade had used your changes, which more strongly emphasized the fact that consensus on this has been reached among serious historians... as a new motivation to start busily turning the article into a big question mark about AH's death (I respect Sam Spade as an editor, only we disagree on how to present this article). I reverted back to stop this and get the discussion on the talk page. Now we have to figure out how to get your additions back into the article, make it clear there is an historical consensus on this, and somehow preserve a presentation of the alternate notions on this topic which do exist in popular culture but which are wholly unsupported by any shred of documented evidence and in truth, conflict with the repeated testimony of people who were in the Fuhrerbunker (never mind suicide was the exit strategy for dozens of high ranking Nazis, never mind we never heard from AH or EB again, never mind the Russians still have a piece of his skull). I'll work on this a little later tonight. Wyss 22:32, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Given this  disruptive edit to the Skybridge (Vancouver) article by Sam Spade, along with the vandalism warning he received as a result, I consider this thread about Sam Spade's edits here plainly resolved (talk about putting inappropriate photos in headers). The historical consensus is overwhelming that AH died by suicide in his fuhrerbunker on the afternoon of 30 April 1945. Wyss 00:25, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


 * The above personal attacks do not amount to an acceptable argument regarding the editing of this article. Please review ad hominem and try again. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 21:58, 5 August 2005 (UTC)


 * They're not personal attacks, they're objective reports of your documented disruptive behavior. However, that's the past. We can create a "Nazi myths" section for this article too if you like. Wyss 22:17, 5 August 2005 (UTC)


 * 66.167.252.33 03:21, 1 August 2005 (UTC): Glad to see the changes I made earlier (Huss quote, chronological flow, etc.) weren't lost.

Info on that photograph
While I am not taking sides on the placement of the hoax pic of Hitler's corpse, having just finished the article on The Bunker, I think I found its source:


 * The Russian Lt. Col. Ivan Klimenko, on May 2, found that body in a water tank. It resembled Hitler.
 * In their eagerness, Russian soldiers, on May 3, placed the body on display in the Reichs Chancellery main hall. This is probably where the picture was taken.
 * The body wore "darned socks." I don't know what this means, but appearantly it's an important piece of evidence.
 * Klimenko and another officer found the real body on May 5.

Hope that helps. --L. 20:12, 18 August 2005 (UTC)


 * "Darned socks" is an old way of saying "mended" or "sewn" socks, a classic sign of limited personal resources. Most historians have commented, in effect, that the likelihood of Hitler's corpse being found wearing mended socks approaches 0. Wyss 01:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I have some further information on this picture. I recognize the info of the "darned socks" - I don't remember from where, but probably from a documentary. It means they had been mended (stuffed? - I don't know the correct English term). Because they were mended, it was concluded that it could not be Hitler, as it was believed by a member of the Soviet diplomatic corps who had met Hitler before the war that Hitler would not have been carrying mended socks. Source on the last piece of info: the very detailed magazine After the Battle, No.61 Special Edition, Battle of Britain International Ltd, 1988, London - the magazine can be hard to get by, but it can be done since I myself have it.

Regards, Dennis Nilsson. Dna-Dennis 12:39, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

So that photo is not of Adolf himself? Kaiser matias 00:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * No. --Dna-Dennistalk - contribs 00:54, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The photo is definitely not of Hitler. Wyss 01:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, of course its not going to be Hitler. He was burned and such, and buried, and dug up, etc. Still, there is always the possibilty. Though the question sounds like that of one with no prior knowledge of Adolf, or the likes. But I do know what I'm talking about, and there was no real definitive answer in the article. Kaiser matias 06:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It doesn't even look like him. Wyss 07:41, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Skull fragment
Please source this statement, or the counter statement, so we can end this revert war? "DNA samples have been compared to those of known surviving Hitler relatives and the matching results indicate the fragment is most likely genuine." Thank you! Dominick (ŤαĿĶ) 20:25, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Don't put this in without a source that we can check: DNA testing would not be possible without a specimen for comparison, for which the cooperation of living relatives of Hitler would be needed. None of them show any evidence of wanting to participate in such a test. Thank you for not furthering the edit war. Dominick (ŤαĿĶ) 13:14, 24 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, any unsupported, uncited assertions added to this article will be removed. That said, credible cites regarding DNA testing (or the lack) relating to the skull fragment etc are more than welcome. Wyss 13:24, 24 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I can live with that, I also would probably put back in any cited source statements on both sides. Dominick (ŤαĿĶ) 13:52, 24 October 2005 (UTC)


 * What cited source statements? All I can find so far are mentions of rumours on personal blogs. Truth be told, with the dental ID having been made many times over I'm not sure many folks care about DNA testing. Although one may speculate that the Russians still want to put their spin on things, repeating vague rumours and private guesses would be way unhelpful. Either way, only credible cites will do. Wyss 14:05, 24 October 2005 (UTC)


 * A blog is not a "wiki-fiable" source, niether are statements made from "Russian" officials that are unnamed. I think you have seen where I have asked for sources, and my comments in the edit notes. I don't have a dog in this fight. I don't think it is useful to keep reverting and re-reverting. I was hoping to help provide a standard to the source. Dominick (ŤαĿĶ) 14:36, 24 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Dominick I think you've been nothing but helpful and I utterly agree with you- my comments were more intended for the anon contributor (who was blocked over the weekend by the way). As you say, we need sources for assertions (any assertions) and I only wanted to add that I'll simply remove anything that isn't sourced credibly. I don't care whether or not the fragment has been DNA tested or what the results (if any) would have been, all I'm interested in is building a reliable article that reflects the documented record. Wyss 14:51, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

It's not an "assertion" to say that DNA tests can only identify remains if they are compared to known specimens! That's the very nature of a DNA test. - Nunh-huh 21:38, 24 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Please provide a citation, otherwise it's unsourced or original research (it sounds like the latter to me). Wyss 21:44, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * A citation for what? What sounds "original" about it to you? Do you think there's some biochemical test for "Hitlerness"? Of course there isn't. Identity can only be established by comparison of DNA with either (1) known specimens from the person himself (not extant for Hitler) or (2) known specimens from specific relatives of the person himself. If you don't understand DNA testing, presumably our DNA testing articles will help. - Nunh-huh 21:46, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

You're confusing the topics. Please provide a citation to support your assertions that Hitler's relatives have refused to provide DNA samples for tests. Spurious, unsupported musings about whether or not samples are needed for DNA testing could mislead the reader into thinking there's a question about the identity of the remains: Support your assertions with citations from a reliable secondary source, please. Wyss 22:10, 24 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Spurious unsupported assertions that you can carry out a "DNA match" on teeth without a specimen to "match" it to? It's your deletion of the material that is creating a misleading article, not my addition of it. If you put your evident agenda aside for a moment and actually think rather that revert, you'll see that a "match" necessarily is between TWO or more things. ONE thing isn't a MATCH. As for the unwillingness of Hitler's only living Y-chromosomal expected matches, see "The Last of the Hitlers" by David Gardener. - Nunh-huh 22:29, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the mechanics of DNA testing. Wyss 22:43, 24 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm having some difficulty determining exactly WHAT you are talking about. Could you please be more specific? - Nunh-huh 22:48, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

You added the following:

''DNA testing would not be possible without a specimen for comparison, for which the cooperation of living relatives of Hitler would be needed. None of them show any evidence of wanting to participate in such a test.''

Please support it with a citation from a reliable secondary source. Wyss 22:53, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * As I said, see "The Last of the Hitlers" by David Gardener. - Nunh-huh 22:55, 24 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Could we have a page number please? Wyss 10:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Reconstruction of the bunker(s)
Hi wikipedians! Finally I have added the reconstructions I made in 2004 of the two bunkers. Instead of repeating the information about my reconstruction here, I refer the descriptions I have made on the actual image pages:


 * 1) Fuehrerbunker.png
 * 2) Vorbunker.png
 * 3) BunkerLocations.png

I hope you enjoy the maps. Regards, Dennis Nilsson. Dna-Dennis 13:25, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Stalin quote
There has been a notable quote of Stalin's where he stated that he did not truly believe Hitler ever died in the bunker, even after the autopsy. May be of some importance... 87.80.126.226 08:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Stalin's "notable quotes" are not wontedly given much authority by serious historians, given his pathological affection for disinformation and so on. Wyss 02:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * And the fact that many MANY of those supposed quotes by Stalin are made up or not voiced by Stalin himself.

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.148.56 (talk) 01:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Trivia - Kamato Hongo
I'm removing the "longest living person" bit - it's totally useless. Using the logic in that paragraph, even if Hitler were still alive, anyone born before Hitler would have been the oldest living person today - had he or she been alive.

Such "trivia" can be made up about absolutely anyone. --Bicycle repairman 00:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I think you've misunderstood why it's included. I restored it. It's not made up. Wyss 00:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Until you can give a reliable source stating why it is relevant, I am removing it. While it may be true, it has absolutely no specific relevance to Adolf Hitler. --EricNau 05:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I Removed the fact again. I still cannot see it's relevance. If you wish to post it, you'll have to defend it's placement in this article. Please do not post it again before discussing this matter. EricNau 03:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree to its removal, it was a parlour game back in the 70's. "How old would Hitler be now". But around 1989 it is passed its sell by date, when Hitler would have been 100. This speculation should not be included in an encyclopedia.  --Philip Baird Shearer 08:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Married Eva Braun
At the moment the article reads:
 * Hitler finished drafting his last will and testament at 4 am on April 29. Shortly after midnight on April 30, 1945, Hitler married Eva Braun in a small civil ceremony in a map room within the bunker complex, and dictated his personal will and political testament to secretary Traudl Junge, before finally retiring to bed at around 4:00 am.

He either married Eva Braun before writing his last will and testament or afterwards. The time of signing of the LW&T is correct (it is on the documents), so did the marriage take place before the signing on the night of 28/29 or after it on either during the day of the 29th or the night of the 29/30? --Philip Baird Shearer 12:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

From the history of the page:
 * 15:08, 25 July 2007 Gwen Gale (rv mistaken verb conjugation and misunderstanding of chronology)

The source I provided History: Hitler's Last Days: Hitler's will and marriage orders things LW&T, marriage. So I re-read Beevor and agrees with you. Gwen Gale what is the source that you are using? --Philip Baird Shearer 15:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

If the sequence was marriage and then LW&T, what was the source for "Shortly midnight on April 29, 1945" could it not have been shortly before? --Philip Baird Shearer 15:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the first thing you might do is fix the many glaring grammatical and syntax errors you have introduced (I'm sure in good faith) into this article. Afterwards, I'll be happy to talk about sourced chronologies. Thanks and all the best. Gwen Gale 16:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

So what is you source for the chronology? --Philip Baird Shearer 07:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * First, why are you directing this question at me? Second, are you disputing the content in this article? All the best. Gwen Gale 13:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

1) Because you wrote that LW&T followed by marriage was a "misunderstanding of chronology". (2) I have given two sources that place the events in differing sequences. It would be a good idea to have more sources listed to give weight to one or the other interpretations. --Philip Baird Shearer 14:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No need for interpretations (WP:OR). Cite a verifiable source if you have any true worries about the chronology but it's my understanding most of the more reliable ones put the political testament before the marriage ceremony. Cheers. Gwen Gale 14:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Not our (Wikipedia's) interpretation, the secondary source's interpretation. The two sources cited in the article place the events different ways round. Beevor marrage LW&T. MI5 LW&T marrage. --Philip Baird Shearer 17:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If you dig into the sources I think you'll find much wider support for AH having dictated his political statement to Junge before the marriage ceremony. Either way I see no reason to include two "interpretations" of the chronology. All the best. Gwen Gale 19:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Gwen, neither of the sources I added support your last edits. "In the small hours of 28-29" implies after midnight and hence morning not night, and Beevor places the dictation of the LW&T after the wedding. You say in the edit summary "Standard account of Hitler's death - Trevor Roper is considered the most reliable" but if you are taking the information from the MI5 website it is not as reliable source as Beevor, because Beevor is considered a very good secondary source and web sites are not necessary proof read to the same standard as an academic publication, so may contain small errors. If on the other hand you have taken the information from Trevor Roper directly, then please supply the cited page number. --Philip Baird Shearer 08:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I was referring to Trevor-Roper. My understanding is that it took Junge some time to type up the document, that the marriage ceremony took place while she was doing this, which would likely explain the discrepency between when he dictated it and later signed it. Gwen Gale 19:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

What are the page numbers in his book to which you are referring? --Philip Baird Shearer 07:23, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't have the book handy. Are you truly disputing this article's content? Gwen Gale 23:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Dispute is the wrong word. The information in the sentences in this paragraph should match what is in the cited sources. At the moment they do not. BTW I am confused by your last two postings to this page, how could you be "referring to Trevor-Roper" if you "don't have the book handy"? --Philip Baird Shearer 11:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you have every book you've ever read at your fingertips? Gwen Gale 22:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

No, but if I change text in a Wikipedia article that is based on a reliable source, I would not do it without citing another source, and having that source available to make sure that what I remember is what the author wrote. So in this case if I wished to add to the paragraph citing Trevor-Roper, I would make a trip to the library first. As I said above there is a difference in the two sources provided, but until another reliable source is added we should stay with what those sources say, and not what you think you remember reading in a third source. The order of events is presented in those two sources and vary which is noted in the citations. We can make that explicit in the text if you wish but the wording should remain based on those cited sources until such time as another reliable source is included. --Philip Baird Shearer 06:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think the edit history supports your take on this. All the best. Gwen Gale 08:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I have asked for a Third opinion. As I have repeatedly pointed out I think the chronology of the events should be based on the cited sources. Not on the recollection of an editor who once read a book. If however you re-read Trevor-Roper and cite what he wrote, then that can be used as a basis for the paragraph, but until then in line with WP:V we should go with the cited material. --Philip Baird Shearer 09:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think for now, this should be enough to support AH having dictated the will to Junge before the marriage ceremony. Gwen Gale 09:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Having found it, I had already put that citation, with a note that it contradicts Beevor, but as I commented above "the information from the MI5 website it is not as reliable source as Beevor, because Beevor is considered a very good secondary source and web sites are not necessary proof read to the same standard as an academic publication". --Philip Baird Shearer 09:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I must ask again, are you sincerely disputing this chronology or are you instead misinterpreting WP:V? Cheers, Gwen Gale 09:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps this will help you see my point of view. Here is the wording from Beevor Page 343:
 * ... The proceedings took no more than a couple of minutes under the wartime formula of simple delarations. Then came the signing of the register, with Goebbels and Boremann as witnesses. Eva Braun began to write her usual name, but stopped scratched out the 'B' and corrected the entry to 'Eva Hatler, geb[orene] Braun.' Hitler's signature was totally illegible, his hand was shaking so much.
 * The married couple emerged into the anteroom corridor which served as the bunker conference room. Generals and secretaries congratulated them They then retired to the little sitting room for a wedding breakfast with champagne for the new Frau Hitler, as she now insisted on being called by servants. She had finally been rewarded for her loyalty in a world of betrayal. They were later joined by Bormann, Goebbels and wife, Magda, and the two remaining secretaries, Gerda Christian and Traudl Junge. Hitler took Traudl Junge away to another room, where he dictated his political and personal testaments. She sat there in nervous excitement, expecting to hear at last a profound explanation of ...

--Philip Baird Shearer 12:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Junge by her own, often repeated account indeed anticipated something revelatory until he started talking but I have to say, from all the sources I've read through the years, it's rather much engraved in my memory that the dictation session happened before the marriage ceremony. I'd add, I've never seen anything approaching the notion "as she now insisted on being called by servants" in any other source (never mind his sloppy syntax, I personally wouldn't ever 'bet the book' on Beevor). For starters, "servants" is a misleading term in this context and for seconds, most sources I've seen say it was AH who asked everyone in the bunker to call her Frau Hitler. Anyway it seems to me you're doing this in utter good faith but unless you truly have reason to doubt the chronology I see no reason to go on about it (WP:POINT and so on). Cheers! Gwen Gale 14:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Third opinion - It is important to differentiate between primary and non-primary sources. The time given for the signing of Hitler's will (English and German versions) cannot be disputed. The MI5 article, Beevor and Roper are not primary sources and so must all take a lower priority. From a quick look online, many German-language articles discussing these events place the wedding on the 28th "shortly before midnight", before the signing of the will. But since there is an obvious conflict here, it is unclear to say which is correct without primary sources.


 * Another thing to consider is the difference between the dictating of the will and the signing of it. For example, in the film Downfall the events are displyed thus: the will was dictated, then typed-up during the wedding, logically placing the signing afterwards (ostensibly at 4am). I am not saying that the film is a reliable source (it did contain some factual errors, according to the German wiki entry Der Untergang), but it is based upon two important books, one of which is the memoirs of secretary Traudl Junge: Until the Final Hour. In the absence of signed wedding documents, this book is perhaps the single most reliable source for placing these events, so if you can get your hands on that, it should clear things up. - 52 Pickup 12:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I watched The Bunker (1981 film) recently -- like the Downfall not a reliable source -- and looked out for this sequence. In The Bunker, the sequence is the same as Beevor's. The marriage takes place around midnight (A comment in the film notes that it is close to midnight when the party functionary who can perform marriages arrives). After the wedding there is a small party which Hitler leaves with Junge to dictate his last political testament in another room to her. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 17:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. While Downfall is more or less highly accurate in portraying the overall mood, look and feel of what it was like to be there and its general characterization of AH is by far the closest thing ever done on film to what the sources say about him, aside from these realistic cinemtatic aspects Downfall in no way can be taken as a reliable source for specific facts or chronologies. For example, the whole ending of the movie is metaphorical fiction and there are many little errors of detail about the Goebbels. Moreover, I wouldn't tend to cite a movie's take on history anyway, except in an article about the movie. Junge's written account though, on which much of the movie us based, can be taken as reliable. The only criticism I've ever heard from historians about Taudl is some skepticism about her claims she knew nothing about the industrial scale killings of the Holocaust. I don't have her book though. I think the movie follows her account when it depicts her typing up the will during the ceremony but I can't say I remember what she wrote in her book about the timing of this. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

No one is disputing the time of the signing. The dispute is over the time of the wedding and the order of the wedding and the dictation of the LW&T. But the real dispute is given the current cited sources, I think we should go with those until such time as more reliable sources are cited that say something different. This follows Wikipedia policy (WP:V) and guideline (WP:RS). Today the most reliable source is Beevor, and as Beevor does not give a time for the wedding with MI5 that claims the wedding was in the early hours. --Philip Baird Shearer 14:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It is clear that nobody disputes the signing - I was merely summarising the problem and pointing out that given the conflict here, only primary sources can be seen as totally reliable with everything else coming second. Does Beevor cite his sequence of events? The MI5 site does not source their claim, so their statement also cannot be taken as gospel - especially since I easily found heaps of German-language sites saying the contrary. In the absence of clear primary sources and in the face of the currently-conflicting ideas, it is best to be honest and simply state in the article the sequence of events is unclear, and cite the conflicting statements. Have you looked through any German-language sources? Again, I think that the only clear primary source that could possibly exist to solve this problem is a statement by Junge - hopefully either the book Until the Final Hour or the film Blind Spot (Im toten Winkel) - could have what you need. An eyewitness account in this situation is far more reliable than the work of any historian. If the matter can be solved in this way, it would still be worth stating in the article that this confusion exists - if only to prevent unhelpful edits in the future. - 52 Pickup 15:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

No Beevor does not give citations for his sequencing, but he cites Trevor-Roper on the page before (p.342) for a quote (TR p.152) and page 343 for another quote (TR p.156-7). Please see WP:RS using primary sources can be seen as WP:OR, secondary sources are seen as preferred. Yes we should have more cited sources, that is what I have been saying all along. But the text in the paragraph must reflect the cited sources. As Beevor's book is an academic source, his version of events must be given precedence over the web source. When someone gets around to eye balling Trevor-Roper, then we can adjust the text if it is necessary. But what we can not do is place the sequence of events in the one we think is best because we think we read it somewhere but do not have the source to hand. --Philip Baird Shearer 08:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I think we're partly arguing the same point. Regarding Beevor's precedence over the web page, I agree with you completely. In the absence of any clear sources, you have to go with the most reliable thing that you currently have (which appears to be Beevor) but you have to be prepared to disregard Beevor if a more reliable source (e.g. a first-hand account by Junge) says otherwise. For the moment, this dispute should at least be acknowledged in the article - probably best as a footnote. - 52 Pickup 10:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Nobody has as yet disputed the chronology, so I'd keep WP:POINT in mind. Cheers! Gwen Gale 11:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Altering the text to reflect the currently provided scholarly sources, is not making a point because it is following the advise given in WP:V. As WP:POINT says "This means that an individual who opposes the state of a current rule or policy should not attempt to create proof that the rule does not work in Wikipedia itself." Further Gwen Gale we have two points in dispute: Gwen Gale altered the article to read "On the night of April 28-29 1945 Hitler dictated his ..." No source has been given that it happened before midnight. The MI5 sourcestates "small hours of 28-29 April Hitler dictated his will" Beevor gives it as after the wedding so unless the wedding happened before midnight then the dictation of the LW&T was after midnight. Beevor puts the dictation after the wedding so until a better source is presented we should go with that. I have now altered the text to reflect this with a new sentence in the text to reflect the fact previously mentioned in the footnotes that the soruces disagree --Philip Baird Shearer 16:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I respectfully disagree with your interpretations of both the cited sources and of WP policy. Moreover, since you ever still don't seem to be disputing the chronology (dictation>marriage>signing) I think WP:POINT very much fits here. I think a citation request would have been more helpful. I do understand your assertions but don't think you've cited nearly sufficient evidence to give Beevor's muddled chronology weight in the article. All the best though, to you and everyone who took time to offer input! Thanks. Gwen Gale 16:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Beevor states marriage->dictation->signing (It is in the passage I have quoted above). You may not agree with what you think is "Beevor's muddled chronology" but until other verifiable reliable sources are cited this verifiable reliable source ought not to be dismissed. If you disagree with his chronology then please cite another source that contradicts him (and include it in the article) when making changes that alters the sequence or timing of events in the paragraph. --Philip Baird Shearer 18:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Other reliable sources have been cited but you've misinterpreted WP:V, is all. Moreover since you don't, in truth, dispute the chronology, WP:POINT wholly applies. I don't see how you can characterize Beevor's account as reliable when it contradicts Junge and Trevor-Roper. You can keep repeating over and over that this can be changed when the formal citations appear but since you already know Beevor's account is questionable, this is WP:POINT from first to last. Cheers anyway :) Gwen Gale 19:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

You say "I don't see how you can characterize Beevor's account as reliable when it contradicts Junge and Trevor-Roper." but to date you have not cited those sources. It is a long time since I read Trevor-Roper, and when I did, I would not have noticed this as particularly significant. Beevor has read Trevor-Roper since I did, and as he is a respected military historian, I trust his account over my memory. If you do not trust is account then please re-read Trevor-Roper, place on this page a quote of what Trevor-Roper says and cite him in the text. I can not say that Beevor is right or wrong, but what I would not do is what you are doing and state categorically that he is wrong without rereading Trevor-Roper. --Philip Baird Shearer 19:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I've already thoroughly addressed this, in my humble opinion you have misinterpreted WP:V and highlighted a contradicting and conflicting source in the article text. Moreoever, since you're not asserting this alternate chronology as an editor, but insist on supporting it anyway through (what I believe to be) a mistaken, wholly "procedural" take on the sources available here at the moment, this is nothing but a WP:POINT thing. Meanwhile readers will be misled and needlessly confused on a small chronological detail while a clearly verifiable WP:V source is indeed available. The pith being I don't think that's helpful but mine is but one opinion on this public wiki. All the best to you. Gwen Gale 22:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The bunker: the history of the Reich Chancellery group, Part 757 by James Preston O'Donnell, p. 254 Places the dictation during the reception. "Gertrud Junge was alone Hitler when the Fuehrer dictated his will. Both had left the wedding reception abruptly, around 2:00 A.M., and retired into the smaller study ..." -- PBS (talk) 17:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Hitler's Eye Color
I've heard statements somewhere to the effect that Hitler did not in fact have blue eyes, making him completely non-aryan. When I saw the statement that he DID have blue eyes, it prompted me to go looking for a source as to what the truth was... but google has failed me. Does anyone have a real source for Hitler's eye color? I'm really curious now. Fieari 01:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm unwatching this page now. If anyone comes up with an answer, could you put a message on my talk page please? I'm still curious. Thanks. Fieari 07:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Likewise, I have been watching much footage of Hitler and from the film that I have seen- be it in black & white for the most part- he does appear to have very deep blue eyes. I'd imagine that they were pretty mesmerizing, considering that he seduced nearly everyone who made eye contact with him. (User: Poole, CT 6/2/06)

Yes, Hitler's eyes were blue (very light blue in fact), so the TIME magazine cover is clearly wrong. A historian writes: "The most impressive feature of his otherwise coarse and rather undistinguished face was his eyes. They were extraordinarily light blue in color, with a faint touch of greenish-gray" [(page 6): Robert G. L. Waite. The Psychopathic God: Adolf Hitler. Da Capo Press, 1993. ISBN 0306805146.] I've seen other references to Hitler's blue eyes in other history books too; it's a well known fact amongst Hitler historians, and I'm glad to point out the historical inaccuracy that is found on the TIME magazine cover. --Wassermann 06:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to add this, there is a collection of home-made films shot by Eva Braun that showcase Hitler and co. at their Bavarian retreat. Many are in colour, and while I have not viewed them all personally, I would imagine his eyes would be visible somewhere in them. There is a video on Google which focuses on these and includes some clips of the footage,. --Jjmckool


 * Only so you know, there is no mystery about AH's eye colouring, it was a bright light blue, like his mother's. Gwen Gale 23:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Events agreed upon since 1947

 * ''however, consensus on most of the details was eventually reached among historians, aided by the 1993 opening of records kept by the Russian KGB and FSB.

It what way does the consensus over the death of Hitler differ from that accepted by military historians in the West based on the intelligence report put together by Trevor-Roper shortly after the end of World War II in Europe, and detailed in his book The Last Days of Hitler published in 1947? It seems to me that the only new information to come out after 1993 was what happened to the fragmentary remains, not on the events in the Bunker in 1945. Unless someone can explain any significant discrepancies I suggest we replace this with:
 * however, the 1993 opening of records kept by the Russian KGB and FSB, confirmed the widly accepted version of the death of Hitler as described by Hugh Trevor-Roper in his book The Last Days of Hitler published in 1947. The Russian archives did however shed new light on what happened to the fragmentary remains of the cadavour.

--Philip Baird Shearer 17:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality?
I have deep concerns about the fact that the majority of this article is not only unfounded but based on personal bias and, to be blunt, bollocks. I suggest that it be made far more clear that there is no proof for anything in this article. In addition, while a "commonly accepted" suggestion is offered, there is no alternative. I deem this article misleading and offensively so. --Vincentvivi 21:49, 14 June 2006 (GMT)
 * I somewhat agree. There are not controversies or other options listed here, at least not prominently.
 * Example (although crazy, this type of example needs to be dismissed in the article) Did Barron Adolf Rothschild Hitler flee to Argentina after completing his Zionistic task to construct Israel, then, live till 1980's there, protected by Jewish community? Thmars10 03:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree as well. Though not accepted as factual by as many historians as the "standard" account of Hitler's death, perhaps at least a mention of alternative theories is needed. For example, the official account of Hitler's death by the Nazi government could be included. If I can find that radio-broadcast transcript, I will consider including it into this article if there are no objections? Patrick80639 00:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't agree, the article is vastly improved without the unsupported "alternative theory" stuff from popular culture and is fully supported by overwhelming documented evidence. There is no need to "dismiss" nonsense "theories" about his death (which are most often cooked up to sell books to a gullible public) and doing so only gives them attention they don't deserve.


 * I also dont agree, its supposed to be informative, not the other way around; listing every little speculative theory (of which the next theory is more squizophrenic than the last one) would make the article unnecesarelly longer and bottomline amateurish.


 * I agree with Patrick80639. I think that there should be a section devoted to other theories about the demise of AH.  If Wikipedia can have an article titled Nazi UFOs, a brief mention of these theories should certainly be accepted.  Gozel   talk  00:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed also. I'm sure there are some theories out there --AW 18:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * This has been discussed before. There is zero (and I mean zero) evidence to support any notion either AH or EB were alive after 30 April 1945. The recounting of mass marketing myths and other pop culture codswallop used to sell books and videos to the gullible have nothing to do with neutrality or scholarship. Gwen Gale 13:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with GG -- see WP:NPOV. Before the opening of Soviet archives one could perhaps have argued that "We" [in the West] don't know for sure what happened and ro have argued for such minority views being included, but since the Soviet files are now open there is no reason to "include tiny-minority views at all". --Philip Baird Shearer 16:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Pistol
The article states that he shot himself with a "7.65 mm pistol". Does anyone know specifically which kind of pistol it was? I'm guessing it was a Sauer 38H, but I have no source or anything. κаллэмакс 00:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It was his personal Walther PK, which he had carried since the 1920s. Some sources say a second pistol was also found in the study. Given the context that he discussed his suicide beforehand with several witnesses, I've read speculation that he held two pistols to either side of his head, with the glass cyanide capsule in his mouth, intending to bite the capsule and immediately pull both triggers, but after breaking the cap with his teeth only managed to get one shot off (which does seem reasonable). The testimony of witnesses and the Sov autopsy tend to support death by both cyanide poisoning and a single shot to the right temple, as the article describes.

I am not agianst the person above me, but if you think about it, could he used the Luger, i mean most German Soldiers and Officers carried them. About the two gunsbeing shot, one could have been a Luger and one his Walther Pk, if his guns remained in his hands after death and fall to the ground. That could decide which gun, the bullet went into the right temple, so the gun on the right had to be it. But Since that was at least 60 years ago we will never find out then.

Additional book reference
W. D. Snodgrass wrote a book of poems about the bunker and people who lived in it during this time. Should this be included in the article with other popular works? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.192.236.126 (talk) 14:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

Start scale
I don't think the tag is appropriate. This is a sub-bio page. Gwen Gale 21:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

RFC: On the chronology of the marriage and LW&T
There is currently a dispute over the use of secondary sources to establish the chronology of the events of the night 28/29 April -- Talk:Death of Adolf Hitler. Specifically whether the marriage of Adolph Hitler happened before the dictation of his last will and political testament, or if the events were the other way around. --10:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Removed the template as there have been no recent comments on this issue. --Philip Baird Shearer 19:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Death of Blondi?
In this article it says that the dog was killed in order to test the cyanide caplets Hitler later used on himself, But on the Dog's Page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blondi) it says she was killed "in order to prevent any harm to her by the invading Soviets." do either of these suggestions have any evidence to support them?
 * The Blondi article is mistaken, the dog was killed in a test of a cyanide capsule. AH may have rationalized this as saving the dog from Red Army abuse but then, the dog could have been simply released. Gwen Gale 13:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC) (forgot to sign yesterday)
 * I have read -- but can not remember where -- that when AH discovered that Heinrich Himmler had betrayed him, he was worried that as the poison capsules had come from Himmler's SS they might not be what they purported to be, so he had them tested them on his dog. It is possible that in ordering the dog killed AH had other motives as well, but when ordering the use of the capsules on the dog, the primary motive seems to have been to test the poison. --Philip Baird Shearer 12:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that take is the most widely supported one. AH was not in fit shape by this time and was shocked HH had gone off and tried to negotiate. AH, whose political career had in part depended on both hatching and thwarting myriad political plots, thought there was a chance HH had been scheming for awhile and had distributed ineffective suicide capsules on the off chance he might be able to deliver a living, breathing AH (among others) to the post-war trials they all knew were coming. Unlikely, but again, AH was both a physical and mental wreck by then. Gwen Gale 12:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

On the dog's page it says that Hitler ordered his physician Dr. Stumpfegger to poison Blondi. In this article, however, mentions Dr. Haase instead of Dr. Stumpfegger. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.233.151.103 (talk) 10:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, Haase and Tornow killed the dog whilst AH watched. Thanks for bringing this up, I've fixed the text in the dog's article. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Hitlertime.jpg
Image:Hitlertime.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Work
I am currently working on this article. I wrote a background section, I am sorry but I didn't have time to cite it, so please don't delete what I did. I hope to have this article up to a very high quality in a few months. Mattyness (talk) 18:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I suggest that you take a copy of the article and work on it in your User:Mattyness/sandbox then the article does not have to be altered until you have cited the new information you wish to add to the level you think is required. -- Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 18:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I have mv'd the uncited bg section here pending discussion and citations. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Background
The German army invaded western Poland on September 1 1939, followed by Britain and France declaring war on Germany on September 3. The German forces were successful at first taking control of most of Western Europe, but then invaded Russia on June 22 1941. The German forces were defeated in the Battle of Stalingrad, and gradually pushed back by the Red Army back into Germany. On June 6 1944, the British, American and Canadian armies invaded France, and advanced through Western Europe. By 1944, it was clear the war was lost but Hitler refused to allow Germany to surrender, and ordered a scorched earth policy throughout Germany. In April 1945, the Russian forces under Koniev and Georgi Zhukov's 1st Belorussian Front reached the outskirts of Berlin. Hitler's followers urged him to flee to the mountains of Bavaria to make a last stand in the National Redoubt. But Hitler was determined to either live or die in the capital.

Russian archives: info on cadaver?
The article says: ''However, the Russian archives did show what happened to the cadaver. Contents''

Shouldn't that be: "did not show"?

--71.178.143.15 (talk) 18:59, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Did show. Little or nothing was known about what happened to the remains until the Russian archives were opened up almost a half century later. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Where was he shot?
I was always told that Hitler shot himself in the mouth but now some other sources that I read say that he shot himself in the temple. Which is true? Emperor001 (talk) 02:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Temple. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * How are you so sure? Like I've said, I've heard it both ways from several sources.  Emperor001 (talk) 23:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This page is mostly meant for discussing reliable sources. If you'd like to provide some, we can carry on. All the best, Gwen Gale (talk)
 * Does my college professor count? In one of his lectures, he said mouth.  Emperor001 (talk) 04:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe, depends who he and if he wrote a reliable source. Anyway, Hugh Trevor-Roper, the touted source in the lead of this article, said "mouth" in his book, The Last Days of Hitler published in 1947. Dr. Dan (talk) 05:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

It's my understanding that the later-released Sov autopsy records thoroughly support a gunshot wound to the temple and glass shards (from a cyanide ampule) in the mouth. John Toland interviewed Otto Günsche, who was the first to see the body and said AH had shot himself in the temple. Toland wrote that when Günsche came back out from the study he wordlessly made a hand gesture, his mouth agape in shock, which either Heinz Linge or Erich Kempka (I don't recall which and don't have the book) mistook as meaning AH had shot himself in the mouth. Most of those in the bunker only saw the bodies covered in blankets as they were carried out, hence Toland's take on how the "shot in the mouth" tale got started, Trevor-Roper got it from sincere witnesses who didn't see the wound but had quickly heard the mistaken version. Maybe all of this does need to be more thoroughly sourced, but it's verifiable. Only as an aside, I recall seeing a few sources more lately, which claim two handguns were found near AH, that he had aimed one each at either temple, munched down on the cyanide capsule but only got one shot off. I don't remember these latter sources as seeming overwhelmingly reliable to me, but this nevertheless does fit in with what the sources have to say about his behaviour leading up it. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Gwen, really now, it's your understanding that he "munched" down on the cyanide capsules? Dr. Dan (talk) 02:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Emperor001, I went to the library today on an unrelated bit of research and it seems that your college professor is in better company than I originally thought. Not only does Trevor-Roper state "in the mouth", but so does Allan Bullock, "Hitler, A Study in Tyranny," and William L. Shirer, "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich." Ada Petrova dittos that claim in "'' The Death of Hitler: The Full Story With New Evidence from Secret Russian Archives, 1995, ISBN 0-393-03914-5 pg. 39. Dr. Dan (talk) 23:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, Trevor-Roper was from 1947, Shirer (who was more journalist than historian) was 1960 and Bullock was 1962-so I am not surprised they all say "mouth". All older books with more limited information due to the time of their (Western) works. Petova's 1995 book came up with that conclusion based on trying to match it with the now infamous skull part with the hole in it (and I recall that book said under the chin). Anton Joachimsthaler's book, "The Last Days of Hitler" goes over the statements and evidence in detail and concludes gun shot to the right temple. The majority of witnesses have said the entry wound was the right temple. Also, if it had been the mouth it would have most likely exited through the back of the head. There are no statements that the back of Hitler's head was blown off like JFK. And no statements of blood around the mouth area, either. Otto Günsche tell's author Thomas Fischer in "Soldiers of the Leibstandarte" (2008): "...I opened the double doors...along with Linge and Bormann. He sat...sunken over, with blood dripping out of his right temple. He had shot himself with his own pistol, a PPK 7.65..." (page 47). Kierzek (talk) 01:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Kierzek, a couple of things. I'm not taking a position on whether Hitler shot himself in the mouth or in the temple. I'm only recapitulating what the sources state and by doing so hoping to get to the bottom of the matter. I'm sure you would agree that the goal is to improve the article using reliable sources. I simply brought up the three sources (and a fourth) that do not agree with Joachimsthaler or Thomas Fischer. There are more than four, btw. You seem to feel they've (J&TF) got it right though. Haven't read them yet. I'll get back to you on it after I read those works. But I'll have to admit that the title of his book "The Last Days of Hitler - The Legends - The Evidence - The Truth" especially since the Truth part would give his version more weight than the others, if in fact his version is the truth. As for older versions being less reliable, maybe, maybe not. Certainly this Wikipedia article gives Trevor-Roper "top billing" in the lead of the article. As for your comment " There are no statements that the back of Hitler's head was blown off like JFK." All I can say is that I don't recall anyone ever claiming that JFK shot himself in the mouth either. Nor that shooting yourself in the mouth would necessarily "blow the back of your head off". As you yourself said, ", if it had been the mouth it would have most likely exited through the back of the head". Incidentally Petrova does say the bullet wound was in the back of his head. But that's neither here nor there. There are so many Soviet versions that one would be hard pressed to to view any of them without some skepticism. Check this one out . Frankly with the "skull debacle" (the skull of the unrelated woman) now having been debunked, maybe the earlier versions of Trevor-Roper, Bullock, and Shirer don't seem to be that unworthy. You probably know that Trevor-Roper worked very diligently on his investigation, and I doubt that he pulled his conclusion out of thin air. I do know that several of the eye witnesses have made conflicting statements about the circumstances surrounding Hitler's death. Finally as for statements concerning blood around the mouth, gimme a break. This article has a lack of scholarly substance as it is. "Pooling bood" and "cigarettes being lit up" and so much more. All "referenced" by what? Newspaper and magazine articles or "lectures". I will read Joachimsthaler and Fischer soon and give you my impression. Best Dr. Dan (talk) 04:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I did not say Dan you were taking a position. I was replying to the old sources you listed. Roper has been discussed herein before and so to borrow what I said there below (and in my Amazon book review): Roper deserves credit for being the first to write a detailed western account of Hitler's last days (which countered the Soviet propaganda at the time). However, it does lack important information (and insight) of key inner-circle players who were locked up in the east by the Soviets. Men such as Linge, Gunsche and Mohnke. Trevor-Roper was able to cure that somewhat with the third edition published in 1956 but still he did not have the in depth information that has come out over the course of the many years since then (especially after the fall of the Soviet Union and the archives therein were opened up for western writers).


 * And I totally agree with Gwen who once wrote that "all these writers", whether its Beevor, Trevor-Roper, Joachimsthaler, etc., are "secondary sources". Dan, truth in history is generally a matter of consensus and if available, based on physical evidence. As for Roper being the "top billed", that is because the principle authors of this article used him to write the article. I was not around then. Some have strong feelings for his work which although it has errors (and some POV commentary) seems to get much of the story right. However, some inaccuracies and errors include where he remarks: the "...real causes and circumstances of the execution of Fegelein provide one of the few subjects in this book upon which final certainty seems unattainable". Certainly, Dan, SS General Fegelein's last hours and end are now well known. As for JFK, as you know his was a head shot, so I don't know why you bring up the mouth. As for Petrova, I just sold the book so I can't cite it directly but, I recall the Russian expert who examined the skull fragment, concluded the shot probably came for under the chin. Check that, Dan. Thanks. P.S.: I added a footnote to the article this morning as to the "mouth shot" but someone didn't like it because I did not put in the page number. Hell, I only added it to make others happy. Kierzek (talk) 13:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * All of your comments are well taken and I agree with you more than disagree with you. My chief point remains that in reality the circumstances concerning the suicide are still murky enough to include the different versions that can be reliably sourced. As for Trevor-Roper my views concerning him in the lead of this article are on this very page below (see subsection:Trevor-Roper). Again two very extremely important aspects of Hitler's suicide, namely  dual method (bullet or bullet and cyanide) and location of wound (mouth, temple, under chin) are not agreed upon by Trevor-Roper, and the "Soviet versions" (way too many versions). This is why I took issue with the line in the lead attempting to create the illusion that the earlier information (of T-R's) was corroborated by the later one (Soviet). The agreement in the versions mainly seems to be that he killed himself on April 30, 1945, and he was burned outside the bunker at his request. And that information has hardly ever been in dispute by scholarly sources. JFK? You brought that one up, not me. Incidentally your recollection concerning the Russian expert's conclusion that the shot probably came from under the chin is correct. His conclusion did not mention anything about a temple. Btw, did you ever hear the lame joke about Hitler being shot in the temple? I forgot it myself, but something in the punch line deals with that kind of "temple". Best Dr. Dan (talk) 16:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

EDIT!
Please edit the page, and restore it to it's original content. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.40.144.3 (talk) 02:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Kidney Failure?
I had never heard this before now. Wow! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.214.49.51 (talk) 07:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Fringe theories
I feel that should be considered Fringe theory. Either add more references or mark it as a theory. Inwind (talk) 19:21, 23 November 2008 (UTC).


 * Which part do you consider needing further citations. For example, A Google Book search on "Ivan Churakov" returns lots of books. --PBS (talk) 14:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Cornelius Ryan
Ryan's details are not widely taken as reliable, Undid revision 272187065 by Ferbess. Usually cited information is considered better than non cited information. Gwen Gale why do you think Ryan is not a reliable source? --PBS (talk) 10:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * He was a talented journalist (very fit writer) and built the narrative for The Last Battle (book) on interviews he did sometimes 15+ years after the event. Mostly, the book is only as reliable as the fuzzy long-term memories of folks he talked to and as often happens, many of them had swayed memories and other goals in the telling by then. His account of what happened in the bunker is one of the weakest I've read: Otto Günsche had been in a Sov prison for years by the time Ryan spoke with him. While OG clearly remembered the broad sweep of events, the smaller details of what he told Ryan are sometimes at odds with other, earlier accounts, which is why I undid the edit. The Last Battle is keenly written as popular non-fiction, but it's not reliable in some of its details, which is not startling, given it was written by a journalist (journalists as a whole are not known for their handling of detail). Gwen Gale (talk) 11:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Asking the Question
Recently I asked Gwen Gale how the circumstantial evidence that Hilter used a "dual method" to end his life "encouraged" rumours that he somehow survived the war? Since I asked her at her talk page, she requested that this discussion be moved here. Anyone is welcome to comment. Dr. Dan (talk) 14:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Stalin suppressed the gunshot aspect for propaganda reasons (the notion being that suicide by gunshot took more "bravery" than suicide by cyanide), I see this is no longer in the article. Hence, with the whereabouts of the body wholly unknown for decades afterwards, the sources were in some conflict as to the method and when this happens, rumours can fly, to fill in the gaps. It was only in the 1990s that both the dual method and the fate of the corpse were confirmed by the public release of the old Sov intelligence sources. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * All that is fine information. How did the "dual method" encourage rumours that he survived the war? That is my question. Dr. Dan (talk) 16:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * When there are conflicting tales, folks tend to be unbelieving about them all and some will then be bound to make up their own. It's so understandable, how all those rumours arose for decades, with the Sovs keeping mum about all for nigh on fifty years. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:05, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I have no intention of getting hung up on "pools of blood" or "smoking of cigarettes" (see the discussion below). As I said, even though I personally have no intention of removing that material, I find it to be "unencyclopedic trivia". Just as the fact that Roosevelt pissed his pants, after his massive stroke, would be equally cheap and tawdry, and not be an appropriate encyclopedia entry (even if it came from a "reliable" source). Obviously one could be more delicate about the fact, and euphemistically state that he became incontinent, or lost control of his bladder, but the argument against including it could, and in my opinion should, be successfully defended. My initial entry into the fray of this talk page was and is the sentence..."The dual method and other circumstances surrounding the event encouraged rumours that Hitler may have survived the end of World War II along with speculation about what happened to his remains... " and is my major bone of contention. The reality of the situation is that the rumours and speculation were due to the lack of what has been erroneously called the corpus delicti, i.e., the body, and the obfuscation on the part of the Soviets of what happened to it. For years the "official" version, garnered from whatever material was then available, was that Hitler shot himself in the mouth and was burned to a vitually non-recognizable shell, and that the artillery barrages fired at the Reichschancellery garden scattered what was left of him. We know now that this is not completely the reality of the situation. Despite what we now know, the rumours and speculation, began immediately after the German Rundfunk announced that'"Hitler had fallen fighting Bolshevism to the end". These rumours had nothing to do with the Dual method employed (to this day essentially speculation), and was not even known at the time to have been the method. Yet this nonsensical statement is maintained over any logical objection, and it is in the lead, with an unusual prominence. I do intend to pursue this one, but I will be happy to give any contrary argument the benefit of the doubt, before I make any corrections. Dr. Dan (talk) 01:24, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Immediately afterwards, several people in the bunker began smoking cigarettes
This edit removed "Immediately afterwards, several people in the bunker began smoking cigarettes." is only irrelevant if one does not know that Hitler was anti-smoking. --PBS (talk) 18:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm quite aware that Hitler frowned upon smoking, and that Eva Braun also enjoyed a cigarette now and then (she might have had a few puffs surreptiously in the bunker for all we know), but this is not the point. The statement might make for a quaint cinematographic "touch" in a film, but it is unencyclopedic and irrelevant just the same. "Immediately" when? One minute, five minutes, ten minutes after? "Several people"? Who were they? Three, six, seven people? I'm not trying to be pedantic or cute about the matter, but WP is an encyclopedia, and the entry is very subjective and so trivial that its entry is hardly worth arguing about. Yet it is one of those trivial types of entries that one can find in this encyclopedia from time to time because someone "read" about it "in the past" or "saw it in a movie." Did "several" people "immediately" begin smoking because now they could, or because they they wanted to be disrepectful to Hitler's memory? Is it important because Hitler disliked smoking (incidentally he actually passed out cigarettes to German soldiers when he visited the front on various occasions), that is true, but the article is full of enough "speculative" edits as it is. Whether this actually happened, when it happened, how many people participated, remains trivial and unencyclopedic. Like the redundant... a "light" lunch, with a "light" sauce. Dr. Dan (talk) 02:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It's in many sources, not speculative at all. If you think other items in the text are speculative, please list them here. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:13, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * How's this for starters? "Blood dripping from Adolf's temple and chin had made a large stain on the right arm of the sofa and was pooling on the floor/carpet. " Also quite "encyclopedic", don't you think? Dr. Dan (talk) 16:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It is encyclopedic. Death by gunshot can leave a canny mess. Are you worried this cannot be supported by a reliable source? Gwen Gale (talk) 17:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * However the way given names were handled in the text was a bit off, I've tightened this up and added a parenthetical background on the smoking, I hope it helps. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No not worried, not about that kind of logic anyway. The wonderful thing about it is that we both can come to our own conclusions. You think it's encyclopedic. I think it's vulgar impossible to substantiate drivel. Whether or not you can "reference" it. And it hardly belongs in an encyclopedia. Just as I think putting something like, "The blood, gore and brain fragments dripping from Abe's head soaked several pillows, which had to be replaced throughout the night " in this article. It's true information, and using your logic could be included in the article because it can be sourced. So part of the argument against it, is the information appropriate for this encyclopedia, or does it belong the type of "historical" work like the biography of Napoleon by Emil Ludwig, who the WP article claims "achieved international fame for his popular biographies which combined historical fact and fiction with psychological analysis"? Dr. Dan (talk) 22:25, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * My, however, if necessary can your reliable source really get down to the nitty gritty, and tell us how many centimeters wide the pool of blood was? I think we need to work on this article a little, and find some common ground and consensus on these matters. I hope that helps too. Dr. Dan (talk) 22:33, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * To be sure I am not requesting any sources or citations regarding these matters. Who requested them? Dr. Dan (talk) 23:39, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not fiction. See WP:V. I've added 7 citations. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I did not claim they were fiction. I claimed they were the most trivial, and in the case of "blood pooling", extraordinarily vulgar, and unencyclopedic edits. I'll add cheap and tawdry too boot. And my analogy to the Lincoln assassination, should at least give pause to someone looking at this from the outside in. Gwen, you also added in your edit summary, that you were adding the references in response to someone's request for them. Again, who would that be? Dr. Dan (talk) 02:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm quite sure the revision history of the article in question may give you a clue... Antique Rose (talk) 02:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Rose, a straight answer would be better. "Clue" is fine if one likes games. Even better, a link of the request to Gwen Gale would simply settle the question regarding the matter of her edit summary. Dr. Dan (talk) 03:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep your hair on! I hope this is "straight" enough. Antique Rose (talk) 06:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I missed it. Perhaps if I got the "straight" answer sooner and without the rollercoaster ride getting it, I wouldn't have had to hold on to my hair. Thanks again. I thought there was an implication that I requested it. My bad. Don't think the information is encyclopedic or important enough to be included let alone referenced. Dr. Dan (talk) 15:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

<--Outdent I agree with you. There is no need for that kind of graphic description of Hitler's body after his suicide. Isn't there a way to reword the information and leave out the most gory details? Antique Rose (talk) 23:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That there was a bloody mess is important to note (although I am not hung up on any particular wording), as shooting one's self was perceived as a soldiers/manly way out rather than the more effeminate poisoning (traditionally seen as a woman's weapon), and which method was used has been seen as important by various interested parties and the controversy over the method is mentioned in most (all ?) reliable sources. --PBS (talk) 09:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That there was a "bloody mess" might be considered important to some, but is still unencyclopedic (I'd like to see another reputable encyclopedia include this kind of drivel in its respective article), and speculative to boot. If it belongs anywhere it might be in a book, not an encyclopedia. I'll repeat my analogy with the Lincoln assassination, that although there was a lot of verifiable gore involved, and referenceable, it is unencyclopedic and innappropriate. Including Kennedy's autopsy photos in that article is another example. Dr. Dan (talk) 16:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The details are encyclopedic and helpful, not drivel, in this topic because highly detailed, verifiable recollections of eyewitnesses tend to be sought after by readers looking for confirmation Hitler indeed died by his own hand in that bunker on the afternoon of 30 April 1945. Drawing comparison to public assassinations, when this was a suicide done in deep private, many details of which were long witheld and only reported in bits throughout half a century, is not on. Moreover, this is not about a photo. As an aside, please see also What_Wikipedia_is_not and Other stuff exists. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Not to worry, I have no plans to remove or censor this "important" and "encyclopedic" information (the bloody mess), (the cigarette smoking), any more than I plan to make any major revisions to this or that. Hopefully someone will find a source that will confirm how large the bloody pool actually was (either in centimeters, centimetres, or inches), as more and more information continually develops from the sources being used to bolster various tidbits of important and encyclopedic information being presented in this article. In retrospect, I hadn't realized that the addition of the "bloody pool" and the "cigarette smoking" might be "sought after by readers looking for confirmation Hitler indeed died by his own hand in that bunker on the afternoon of 30 April 1945". But I must say that the fact "this was a suicide done in deep private" does not in anyway change my original contention that these "facts" are unimportant, unencyclopedic, cheap, vulgar, or tawdry. I can get large doses of this stuff in the Enquirer. My drawing comparison to public assassinations is valid if the information is equally of a trivial nature or even worse borderline, drivel. As an aside, please also see WP:Ownership of Articles. Dr. Dan (talk) 22:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Mistake?
Is this sentence supposed to be there? However, the Russian archives did show what happened to the cadaver. It's at the end of the first paragraph but it doesn't make much sense to me. Is there supposed to be a not in there, as in: However, the Russian archives did not show what happened to the cadaver? Smartse (talk) 23:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Try reading it again. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Smartse, you might have to read it again more than once. The lead is quite awkward and confusing as it stands. There is also some contradictory information that needs clarification. Dr. Dan (talk) 18:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Trevor-Roper
Read Trevor-Roper's account of Hitler's death over thirty years ago. Have just recently re-read it. Granted, under the circumstances at the time and the information that was available to him, his initial interpretation was more or less accurate. Since then much more information has come to light on the subject which deviates from his version. Most importantly the post-Soviet version claims the "dual method" of death, i.e., gunshot and cyanide poisoning. Trevor-Roper only writes of the gunshot being employed. Secondly Trevor-Roper stated that Hitler shot himself in the mouth, which was the accepted version for years and years. The post-Soviet version claims he shot himself in the temple. If the post-Soviet version (which this article tends to accept more than T-R's version) is correct, it is nonsensical to place a statement like..."The 1992 opening of records kept by the Soviet KGB and Russian FSB confirmed the widely accepted version of Hitler's death as described by Hugh Trevor-Roper in his book The Last Days of Hitler published in 1947..." in the article's lead, when the two versions are neither in agreement or "confirming" each other. Dr. Dan (talk) 00:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It is many yeas since I read TR, but if you have a copy to hand you can solve a problem for us. Can you look up the page number and the description of the order of Hitler's marriage and reception, and the dictation of his will and testament to Traudl Junge? --PBS (talk)


 * Anton Joachimsthaler's book, "The Last Days of Hitler" has the marriage at close "to midnight" on April 28th. p.128. The "reception" was thereafter; so early on April 29th. Page 128 and 129. "Towards 2 am Hitler dictated his will..." Page 129. But the author does go on to direct quote Junge's German Federal Court testimony from 2/2/54 stating: "...during the night of 28-29 April...the marriage with Eva Braun and the conclusion of the wills took place." page 129. She goes on to state: "...the dictation began shortly before midnight...while transferring the shorthand into typewriting, Hitler came in...to ask about the progress...my work was finished by 5 am." See pages 129-130. I think Joachimsthaler's book is a good compilation and unlike Trevor-Roper, he had access to further information and newer information. For ease sake, to borrow parts from my Amazon review: Roper's was first written after a commission from Dick White of MI5 in Nov. 1945 and published in book form in 1947. Roper deserves credit for being the first to write a detailed western account of Hitler's last days (which countered the Soviet propaganda at the time). However, it does lack important information (and insight) of key inner-circle players who were locked up in the east by the Soviets. Men such as Linge, Gunsche and Mohnke. Trevor-Roper was able to cure that somewhat with the third edition published in 1956 but still he did not have the in depth information that has come out over the course of the many years since then. Footnote: It should be remembered that all these writers, whether its Beevor, Trevor-Roper, Joachimsthaler, etc., are all "secondary sources"; further none are going to be perfect or all agree as to hour by hour and even when quoting the people who were there; those people were going by memories of a hellish, hectic, and even crazy time. And in the Bunker, days flowed into night and back into day without end.Kierzek (talk) 14:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure that "conflicted" is better than "confirmed" as in most important points the two accounts are similar (place of death, time of death and the events surrounding the death). That Roper did not know of the poison is significant but hardly a conflict. so I have changed it back to confirmed but added a qualifier "largely confirmed" perhaps confirmed should be replaced with "supported" or some similar word. --PBS (talk) 07:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Phil, I'm going to assume "good faith" on your part regarding your new reversions of my recent edits and therefore not suggest that you read up on this. However, lets take a closer look at your reversions. First of all one of the major bones of contentions, and one not completely agreed upon by historians, is whether there was a "dual method" of suicide employed by Hitler, and this is why even the WP article uses borderline weasely terminology, like, "the generally accepted cause of the death of Adolf Hitler,..." and its need to "emphasize" this belief is the result of "consensus". By whom, Wikipedians? In any case the two versions (Trevor-Roper's and the Soviet's) are in disagreement about how Hitler killed himself. First the dual method employed by him, and where Hitler anatomically shot himself. So do you believe this is truly insignificant? I don't. Therefore the agreement is only with place of death and time of death, but hardly with "the events surrounding the death". Granted the mouth is closer to the temple than the heart or foot is, but the disparity is significant. Whether he shot himself under the chin or behind the ear, or through the eye (not my contention), is important enough information to be clarified in an Encyclopedia article about the event. And if can't be clarified or verified with certainty, then the opposing viewpoints need to be offered in the article.
 * Next, disputing the idea that there was "speculation" concerning what happened to the body, unless such an entry is sourced, seems almost ludicrous. Honestly, it seems rather difficult for me to understand that any one having even the most peripheral knowledge of the history concerning Hitler's death would question such an assertion. In fact, virtually every earlier "source" dealing with Hitler's death prior to the Soviet revelations acknowledged that there was a tremendous amount of speculation regarding what happened to, and the whereabouts of Hitler's remains. As an aside, Eisenhower, at a press conference in June of 1945, in Paris, publicly stated that he had great reservations that Hitler was even dead. But I'm digressing. If an edit concerning that there was speculation about what happened to Hitler's remains needs to be sourced, then every sentence in the article need to be sourced. Finally the cadaver issue. It is tacky and inappropriate terminology. I repeat... "Cadaver" is normally used as a more formal term for a body being used in medical training or research. . Trust me, I'm neither here to bury Caesar (Hitler), nor to praise him, but it is more than a stretch to use this term in an encyclopedia in the lead or anywhere else in this article other than in reference to his autopsy. Dr. Dan (talk) 22:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * ""the generally accepted cause of the death of Adolf Hitler,..." is not mentioned in two different versions of the article you and I were editing you put in "The 1992 opening of records kept by the Soviet KGB and Russian FSB conflicted with the widely accepted version of Hitler's death as described by Hugh Trevor-Roper " (my bolding) which replaced the former word confirmed. With an explanation on the talk page I changed it to "largely confirmed". It is important to mention that most people thought Hitler had killed himself in the bunker long before the Russian archives were opened (for example The World at War episode "21. Nemesis: Germany (February – May 1945)" and that events were reported in most English language histories as TR described them, and that his escape was by the middle 50's thought to be very unlikely by most people, although a favourite parlour game (which used to be included in this article) was to say "if Hitler had survived he would be insert age". I added the sentence with cadaver to the article back in May 2006, one of the advantages of using the word cadaver was that as a summary of a source I used it removed any possibility that it was plagiarism, and another advantage is it is accurate. However although I prefer the word cadaver in this sentence if there was a consensus to change it to corpse I would not object. PBS (talk) 12:36, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * See WP:OR. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * See: Ownership of articles. Although originally reluctant to call it like it is, and having made a veiled reference to this before, Gwen, do read that link. My comments on this talk page are my own opinions, which I'm entitled to. They are explanations to certain objections that I have concerning this article, and why I believe some changes would benefit the article. My edits at the article have been quite neutral and factual. Would you be so kind as to show any edit to this article made by me that's OR. I think the article has enough of that without any contributions of such a nature by me. Also what "consensus" has been establish with your new wording "mostly matched"? Sounds awful to my ear and weasely. Please re-read my edit and tell me your specific objections. If you think that my edit is original research, please explain why your "mostly matched" is not OR, and better to boot. Specifically: "However, the Russian archives gave detailed information regarding the fate of Hitler's body, which was previously unknown" vs. "However, the Russian archives yielded more detailed autopsy information along with what happened to the cadaver". Dr. Dan (talk) 23:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Because the Russian archives indeed yielded more detailed autopsy information along with what happened to the cadaver. Are you disputing the sources? Gwen Gale (talk) 00:49, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Hardly. What I am disputing is any claim that the information in the article regarding the inappropriate terminology, Cadaver (per definition), that the Russian archives provided, which was quite extensive, should be given extraordinary weight, per WP:Undue. I believe the remains of Kennedy and Lincoln like a plethora of people who were autopsied, are not referred to as cadavers. Were their cadavers, like Hitler's, also buried. Is Hitler a special case? Dr. Dan (talk) 02:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a dead body (or a stiff, or a corpse) to me. Last I heard, Kennedy's and Lincoln's cadavers were also dealt with, as is wonted with cadavers. Mr Hitler's cadaver (such as it was) was burned again and scattered in 1970, along with those of 5 girls, 2 women, a boy (who has been rumoured to be his son, as it happens) and another man. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, "stiff" might be the appropriate solution to the dilemma of whether using cadaver is correct. All we need now is a reliable source for it. I think adding the rumor concerning Helmut Goebbels being Hitler's son, and Hitler having one ball, might also be further explored. It would certainly enhance Wikipedia's reputation in some quarters. Though right now, Gwen, I'd much prefer an answer from you, concerning my question as to why your reverting my edit with the comment in your edit summary stating your version of "mostly matched" is per some kind of "consensus". It's less than a few hours old. It also has a weird ring to it. Dr. Dan (talk) 03:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Until you start citing sources, I don't see anything more to talk about. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:55, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Right now I'd like to see a source for your edit that Trevor-Roper's and the Soviet's version "mostly matched". And the basis for your claim that your edit is based on "consensus". Dr. Dan (talk) 04:11, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * So let's wait for more input. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable, but why don't we reinstate my version, "However, the Russian archives gave detailed information regarding the fate of Hitler's body, which was previously unknown." and wait for more input? Dr. Dan (talk) 04:30, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Your wording is mistaken, the fate of AH's body was indeed known by the Sovs. Please wait for more input. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:36, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Supporting the "fate" of AH's body; as known by Soviets:
 * 1)"Hitler's Death: Russia's Last Great Secret from the Files of the KGB" by V.K. Vinogradov et al; The book is a compilation of the early (and incomplete) SMERSH investigation. The book is written with a Russian bias. But sets forth the fate of AH's body.
 * 2)"The Hitler Book: The Secret Dossier Prepared for Stalin from the Interrogations of Otto Guensche and Heinze Linge, Hitler's Closest Personal Aides" by Henrik Eberle; The Soviet point of view reflected but is the complete full dossier of the USSR's second secret investigation (Operation Myth) done for Stalin. Sets forth fate of AH's body.
 * 3)"The Death of Adolf Hitler" by Ada Petrova and Peter Watson. A book that had access to the Operation Myth files but not the final dossier; still sets forth the fate of AH's body. All three books are in agreement to the bodies fate.Kierzek (talk) 05:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)