Talk:Death of Adolf Hitler/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

skull fragment (more)

The skull fragment collected by SMERSH is not Hitler's. It is of a 20-40 year old female. The sex was confirmed with allosomal DNA. It appears that all or most of the information we have accepted as fact since April 30th 1945 has been innaccurate and unreliable.

The above unsigned IP post is meaningless without sources. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:22, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

It ain't meaningless to anyone paying attention. The skull has been conclusively proven to be a fraud. Can you say "Piltdown Man"? I knew you could.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.236.114 (talk • contribs)

I'm not supporting the point, but as an FYI, this article is likely going to be bombarded on that issue over the coming months. The History Channel just aired a show that sent a doctor to Moscow to obtain bone fragments from the famous skull portion (as well as blood from the couch in the bunker were Hitler and Braun died) for DNA analysis, in an attempt to complete the first DNA analysis of the skull portion. During his brief examination, the doctor thought that the skull fragment thickness and shape resembled those of a female more than a male, though he said that was not conclusive. He also stated the suture lines resembled those of a younger person.

The skull fragment DNA results came back (can't remember which university did them) and they were of a female. As an aside, the couch blood was a male (for whatever reason, U.S. relatives of Hitler refused to provide a blood sample for comparison).

I raise this not as conclusive proof of anything, but the History Channel is probably going to run this program many (as in maybe 50+) times over the next few months. I would imagine that folow up newspaper articles will follow, etc. Mosedschurte (talk) 17:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, the skull could be a hoax or mistake, it needs more sourcing and verification either way. However, whether or not it once belonged to AH, this wouldn't have much sway on all the documentation on witnesses, which has never in any way been drawn from the skull fragment. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

No doubt. The skull portion itself was never conclusive of anything anyway, being in the possession of Stalin, SMERSH and the KGB for decades anyway -- not exactly a clean chain of custody, to put it mildly (maybe only the Gestapo itself and perhaps North Korea would be less trustworthy custodians). And, as one of the maybe five people under 70 that watch the History Channel, I would like to add that the show was quite cheesy, though the doctor and university lab test results were real. Along with overproduced video, overscored clips and dramatic voiceovers, the show included a separate interview with an author trying to explain that the eyewitness testimony was unreliable for a variety of reasons. They also attempted to test some of the soil from the place where SMERSH had originally buried the bodies.Mosedschurte (talk) 18:18, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Mosedschurte, the skull could be a hoax or a mistake, but..."afterwards, several people in the bunker began smoking cigarettes," and that's sourced. Dr. Dan (talk) 01:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, truth be told, I never thought that skull image was helpful. Given this thread, I've removed it. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Here is the source:[1]: it´s true: A DNA test of the skull fragment previously believed to be Hitler's has revealed it is actually a woman's! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.180.32.46 (talk) 12:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The so-called skull info. needs better sourcing and verification. Not enough hard evidence yet from reliable sources. The article should not fall prey to poorly sourced information like a TV show, news report or tabloid entry.Kierzek (talk) 01:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Everything I've ever read/heard about that shred of skull is dodgy. Moreover, it has no sway at all on the many published eyewitness accounts. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

This in The Guardian and written by Uki Goñi looks like a pretty good source to use, it goes into quite a lot of detail. I'll let someone with more knowledge of this add it. Smartse (talk) 13:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Given there is no support for the skull having belonged to AH, I think the only way to handle this would be in a separate section, see also below. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:50, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Cremated

You will want to add this story from CNN. --Stepshep 174.102.83.126 (talk) 09:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Done, thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:07, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Survival?

I think this article would content, at least only like many others under a "conspiranoic theories", the possibility that Hitler did not suicide in the bunker. It is not question about the reability or credibility, but if many other articles take account on absurd theories this one too, I think. A couple of lines giving information of such theories and with opinions (if exist) of mainstream investigators is needed in my opinion. The fact that the Federal Republic of Germany declared Hitler officially dead as later as 1956 and other details in the way deserve commentaries in the article.213.60.28.109 (talk) 17:49, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

There is not a shred of verifiable evidence AH was alive after the late afternoon of 30 April 1945. However, a section which cites popular speculations, myths and rumours about AH's fate would be ok. As the article already notes, however, most of these arose owing to Stalin's wariness about publishing the 1945 autopsy results, along with the combined method used in the suicide. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:45, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

It may be helpful to keep in mind that Hitler's suicide was indeed a conspiracy, foreseen and carefully planned by him with the help of at least his adjutant and a physician working in the bunker complex, with the disposal of the body having been carried out by many others. Likewise, although the body was quickly found and autopsied by the Russians, Stalin, other Sov government officials and the KBG all conspired to withold publishing anything about this for decades. The 1970 burning and dispersal of the ashes, which was not disclosed for another two decades, was also a conspiracy. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I have edited my mistake out of this thread. Wm5200 (talk) 06:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

--random questions--

I am not a scholar, I read Wiki but would not think of editing it. But I was disappointed in this article, and many points in the discussion, so I am asking some questions. Perhaps someone else will read and address them.

I have just deleted a lot of my ignorance from this comment, you may see ghosts of my mistakes.Wm5200 (talk) 06:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The idea of “shot in the mouth” has been discredited, correct? Awkward and “unmilitary”, would a soldier put the weapon in his mouth, rather than at his temple or possibly under his chin? The “Russian” skull fragment has been DNAed as female, correct? That doesn’t rule the mouth shot out, but it doesn’t support it, either.

There was no prussic acid ingested while alive, correct? No smell was detected , correct? Possibly the capsule was in his mouth when he was shot, that seems plausible, but I wouldn’t think that makes the level of “probable”.

Does anyone think the idea of two different pistols, one in each hand and at each temple, sounds even remotely plausible? Where did that idea even come from?

99.41.251.5 (talk) 01:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC) As to sources, the last books I have read are The Murder of Adolph Hitler by Hugh Thomas (sort of shaky) and The Last Days of Hitler by Anton Joachimsthaler (English translation, I buy much of this). They are both over five years old. I enjoy the History Channel, but would never use it as a source, I can find errors myself in most of their programs.

As the article lead says, for many decades there was a lack of public information as to the whereabouts of AH's remains and confused reports stemming from the dual method. There is no evidence he shot himself in the mouth, but a wordless hand gesture by Gunsche seems to have been misunderstood seconds after the suicides. As the article puts forth, the Soviet autopsy showed gunshot damage to his skull and glass shards in his jaw, very strong evidence of a known (and highly effective) suicide method in Berlin during those weeks, of biting down on a cyanide capsule and then pulling the trigger of a pistol aimed at the temple. Owing to reports of a second pistol having been found near the bodies and no known evidence or witness recollections that Braun was shot, there has been some speculation that AH held two pistols to his head but only got one shot off. This said, this talk page isn't a forum for talking about personal views or questions on a topic, it's meant for talking about sources and how to echo them in the text. I say this because the article seems to already cover, with thorough citations, most if not all of what you've brought up. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:45, 5 August 2010 (UTC) By the way, yes, most documentaries carried by the History Channel are produced mostly for entertainment and dramatic effect (using non-fiction topics as hooks) and are often very fast and loose with sources, which can be many, sundry and dodgy. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Gwen and only add that like The History Channel, the Hugh Thomas book you cite should also not be used as a corner stone of fact as to this subject. It has conspiracy theories, speculation, conjecture and as the author states, "surmise". Kierzek (talk) 13:23, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree about Hugh Thomas, "sort of shaky" was meant to be a euphemism for "mostly B.S.". 99.41.251.5 (talk) 14:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for any mistakes or misunderstandings. My intent was not to get personal answers, but to promote discussion by those more knowledgeable than me, hopefully to improve the article, as per policy. The opinions were only meant to clarify, I was not trying to impose them on others.99.41.251.5 (talk) 14:16, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The sources now show that the Sovs indeed manipulated both evidence and witness accounts and hid all the bodies for decades, then burned the bodies and still kept quiet about it for at least another 20 years. This in turn is what stirred up all the muddled accounts and skepticism, beginning in 1945 and one still hears the echoes. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

If I had read Kershaw's Nemesis Chapter 17 note 156 and Epilogue note 1 I wouldn't have wasted your time. You can't get much clearer than that. Should be required reading. Perhaps someone else should read them, and possibly edit the article. Thank you for your time.99.41.251.5 (talk) 17:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I would like to direct people to the work of Ian Kershaw Hitler, 1939-1945: Nemesis ISBN 0393322521. Chapter 17 and the epilogue relate to this article. Please pay attention to his notes and sources. Be warned, his book Hitler: a Biography is a kind of digest which does not include these resources.

In view of this information, I propose edits similar to the following:

1. Adolf Hitler’s cause of death appears to be a single, self-inflected gunshot wound to the right temple, using his personal Walther PP or PPK 7.65mm pistol. Reference Joachimsthaller Chap 4 Linge 9feb1956 p154-5, Gunsche 20feb1956 p155-6, Axmann 1dec1953 p156 & 2Sep55 p157, text 163-5.

2. Alternate theories have included variations on a gunshot wound, poisoning by cyanide capsule, strangulation, a combination of methods, and even escape. Although he certainly had the opportunity to use a cyanide capsule, there appears to be no credible evidence or testimony that supports that or any other alternate theory. Reference Joach p173-5, Kershaw Nemesis Chap 17 note 156 p1037-8.

3. Witnesses say the body was placed outside a bunker exit, soaked in gasoline, and set on fire around 1600. It is likely that more gasoline was put on the body, which continued to burn for some time. Around 1800 the remains were probably kicked and possibly later spread or buried, by 1830 it was reported that they had been disposed of. (I'm uncomfortable with "kicked", it sort of implies contempt which may not have been intended. Karnau shoved some remains with his foot). Reference Joach Chap 6 Karnau 13Nov1953 p213, Gunsche 21jun1956 p 198, 20jun1956 p 217.

4. It appears that between May 9 and July, 1945, the Soviets may have been in possession of a jaw, some teeth, and some dental work which was consistent with and tentatively identified as belonging to Hitler and his wife Eva nee Braun. When seen on May 11 these items were in a cigar box. Since July 1945, there has been no verifiable evidence of the existence of these items. Reference Joach Chap 6 Heusermann 27Apr1956 p231-3, Echtmann 10Jul1954 p233-5, 27Apr1953 p238.

5. Some blood stains assumed to belong to Hitler remained in the bunker for some time. Other than these stains, and the dental material, it appears that there has been no verifiable evidence of any Hitler biology after 1830 local time 30 April 1945. Reference Joach picture "The bloodstains on...", Kershaw Nemesis Epilogue note 1 p1038-9.

The source Joachimsthaler is basically an English translation of a German's analysis of 1950's post-Soviet interviews of bunker survivors. The original transcripts must be available somewhere. There are many other bunker interviews, some with questionable intent, and not all agree. Wm5200 (talk) 16:36, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

--random answer--

For sometime now I have been of the opinion that this article is a perfect example of what a Wikipedia article should not be. However since this statement is "sourced", "Around 1800 the remains were probably kicked and possibly later spread or buried, by 1830 it was reported that they had been disposed of", should be prominently added somewhere into the article. Perhaps even the lead? It would certainly "somewhat match" the tenor of the rest of the article. Dr. Dan (talk) 02:34, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Please disregard anything I wrote before "If I had read Kershaw's". So far I am only sourcing the entire paragraph, not every sentence. I'm uncomfortable with "kicked", it sort of implies contempt which may not have been intended. He shoved some remains with his foot. Wm5200 (talk) 03:32, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I may have missed some irony. I have read a huge amount of Hitler info, most is garbage, and often hateful. Reading is easy, balancing is difficult.

I’m not sympathetic to the Germans involved, I should have hid that. However, I’m also not sympathetic to the Soviets. There wasn’t much moral high ground in 1945 Berlin.

I believe there is an East/West bias here which some people take seriously. My ex-Ukrainian librarian was surprised at the idea that Hitler could have shot himself, as a Soviet child she “knew” that he poisoned himself. Since I can not read Russian I have no idea what her sources are or how biased they are.

I have lived in Germany, and do have some idea how biased they are. I was suspicious of Joach’s bias but believe Kershaw has given me some balance.

Sources. In the real article, first sentence, how can Joach be used to support poisoning? Has the writer actually read the source content?

I have both read and reviewed the book on Amazon.com. I added the Joachimsthaler and Thomas Fischer cites. Someone else, I see has moved where I had the cite for the "gunshot" sentence. I will change it back to how I wrote it. Kierzek (talk) 13:38, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Good. Sorry for any insult. What is the poisoning source?Wm5200 (talk) 15:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

As to Soviet/Russian autopsy report versions, where can they be found, can anyone read and understand them, and do they have any fact whatsoever which can be verified? Please, I would like to give them any chance I can.

I’ll stop now, if I’m being ignorant I’ll have less to delete later.Wm5200 (talk) 11:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

After the war, the Russian public was told Hitler had poisoned himself, but not told he also shot himself. This was for propaganda reasons, since suicide by gunshot was thought to be "soldierly" whilst doing it with poison was thought of as "cowardly." Gwen Gale (talk) 12:11, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Since this article is fraught with so many tid-bits gleaned out of tabloids, I imagine that including the likes of historians like Hugh Trevor-Roper of Hitler Diaries fame, "I am now satisfied that the documents are authentic; that the history of their wanderings since 1945 is true; and that the standard accounts of Hitler's writing habits, of his personality and, even, perhaps, of some public events, may in consequence have to be revised", and Ian Kershaw whose rather interesting "historical fact" was removed by me out of the Paul von Hindenburg article from Wikipedia in 2005 [2], gives this article some respectability. Btw, the Ludendorff "prophesy" has also been removed, by Kershaw, from his book, too [3]. As of today the Ludendorff "prophesy" remains in that article, sourced by none other than "The History Place". Wm5200, like you, I've read a huge amount of information about Hitler, and I agree, most of it is garbage. My point is all articles need to be balanced with a neutral viewpoint. This article especially needs more historically accurate information concerning the event at the time it happened, and less nonsense sourced from magazine articles of a completely trivial nature. Dr. Dan (talk) 13:55, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Could you please list any tabloids cited as sources in the article? Gwen Gale (talk) 14:09, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

(OD) Gwen, allow me to change tabloids, to Sunday newspaper articles and other "websites". Hopefully you remember one of your first comments at these talk pages, where you certainly have made an inordinate number of contributions. I believe it was on George Washington's birthday in 2007 (same as VenetianPrincess') when you said, [4] "The recounting of myths and other pop culture codswallop have nothing to do with neutrality or scholarship". I certainly do agree with you there. And Wm5200, didn't understand your last comment's meaning. Dr. Dan (talk) 14:35, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Are utv, Reader’s Digest, and timesonline all good? The fluff is good when it comes after something good, just not as the primary source? Is Kershaw suspect? "Prophesy" is beyond my scope. I can not edit the main article. If I can give anyone any ideas or content please use it, who ever you are.Wm5200 (talk)99.41.251.5 (talk) 14:53, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

the "big five"

I offer these five paragraphs as a place for people to start, should they so choose.

1. Adolf Hitler’s cause of death appears to be a single, self-inflected gunshot wound to the right temple, using his personal Walther PP or PPK 7.65mm pistol. Reference Joachimsthaller Chap 4 Linge 9feb1956 p154-5, Gunsche 20feb1956 p155-6, Axmann 1dec1953 p156 & 2Sep55 p157, text 163-5.

This is in the article; I put it in there long ago with cites from Joachimsthaler and Fischer's books. So what you are stating is moot; that is why I didn't reply to the above before. Kierzek (talk) 14:44, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed.Wm5200 (talk) 22:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

In view of the sources below, I believe #1 is good.Wm5200 (talk) 18:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

2. Alternate theories have included variations on a gunshot wound, poisoning by cyanide capsule, strangulation, a combination of methods, and even escape. Although he certainly had the opportunity to use a cyanide capsule, there appears to be no credible evidence or testimony that supports that or any other alternate theory. Reference Joach p173-5, Kershaw Nemesis Chap 17 note 156 p1037-8.

Some evidence (and testimony) does exist for the argument of the glass cyanide (Prussic acid) capsule. Not supported in the end by the historian/author's you state, but others. Kierzek (talk) 14:44, 28 August 2010 (UTC):

Anything other than The Hitler Book and Hitler's Death from below?Wm5200 (talk) 22:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

"Hitler: A Study in Tyranny" by Alan Bullock from 1962. His old book states gun and cyanide, together. I generally tend to stay away from the dated books for citing (but will add the Bullock pages for a "cyanide" cite). "Hitler's Death: Russia's Last Great Secret from the Files of the KGB" by V.K. Vinogradov, goes with cyanide. "The Hitler Book" is better but remember both books have a Soviet bias to their text. Kierzek (talk) 13:58, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Bullock seems dated, also, but probably available to me. The other two are on order.Wm5200 (talk) 14:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC) I just realized that the Russians may relate not only to cause of death, but also aftermath.Wm5200 (talk) 03:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Is Kershaw basically good? I will try to be clear. Nemesis impressed me, but I only read two chapters. He seems to address everything prior to him. Can I accept him as the standard of knowledge in 2000, and measure later work (like the Russians) from him? Do I need to go back to Bullock and Trevor-Roper, or can I accept Kershaw as having superceeded them? By the way, I don't mean to time-pressure you. I come and go, but will allow whatever time you want for any answer, and appreciate them. Thank you.Wm5200 (talk) 05:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Kershaw is very good as far as a biographer of Hitler's life. As to Hitler's death, he is not as detailed as others and gives a summary of events. You state you have read Joachimsthaler's book; when you get the two Soviet/russian works you state you have ordered, then read and compare. Kierzek (talk) 16:37, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I have seen no testimony or evidence prior to the cremation which solidly supports cyanide. Opportunity, certainly, actual use, no. I have not yet seen any credible autopsy report which supports cyanide presence or glass remains. I believe #2 is good, but am still looking for a Hitler autopsy.Wm5200 (talk) 18:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

3. Witnesses say the body was placed outside a bunker exit, soaked in gasoline, and set on fire around 1600. It is likely that more gasoline was put on the body, which continued to burn for some time. Around 1800 the remains were probably kicked and possibly later spread or buried, by 1830 it was reported that they had been disposed of. (I'm uncomfortable with "kicked", it sort of implies contempt which may not have been intended. Karnau shoved some remains with his foot). Reference Joach Chap 6 Karnau 13Nov1953 p213, Gunsche 21jun1956 p 198, 20jun1956 p 217.

The problem is their have been conflicting statements which is no suprise when dealing with people going by memory; especially when they were under very chaotic and stressful times. Kierzek (talk) 14:44, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I didn't know this was a problem. Karnau's times?Wm5200 (talk) 22:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

No, the difference in testimony, time of events and even what exactly was said by whom. Kierzek (talk) 13:58, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I tried to be as "average" as I could. I thought "by 1830 it was reported" sounded good from "downstairs" accounts.Wm5200 (talk) 14:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I see no actual dispute here. #3 is only here to stop #2 from bumping into #4, otherwise I withdraw it.Wm5200 (talk) 18:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

4. It appears that between May 9 and July, 1945, the Soviets may have been in possession of a jaw, some teeth, and some dental work which was consistent with and tentatively identified as belonging to Hitler and his wife Eva nee Braun. When seen on May 11 these items were in a cigar box. Since July 1945, there has been no verifiable evidence of the existence of these items. Reference Joach Chap 6 Heusermann 27Apr1956 p231-3, Echtmann 10Jul1954 p233-5, 27Apr1953 p238.

The problem is Joachimsthaler's book was written before both: "Hitler's Death: Russia's Last Great Secret from the Files of the KGB" by V.K. Vinogradov, [which is only made up of the incomplete early SMERSH (Military Counter-Espionage Dept.) investigation of Hitler's death]; and "The Hitler Book" , edited by Eberle and Uhl, put together from the full dossier of the subsequent secret investigation (Operation Myth) by the Soviet NKVD (later known as the MVD, the forerunner of the KGB). A dossier received by Stalin on Dec. 30, 1949. Read those, especially the latter. Kierzek (talk) 14:44, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I've been begging for anything good from Russia.Wm5200 (talk) 22:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Note, see what I state as to the books under No. #2 above. Kierzek (talk) 13:58, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

AgreedWm5200 (talk) 14:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I do believe the teeth themselves are credible, however, I suspect that they have been “expanded” into a “body” for questionable reasons. I would love to disprove “Since July 1945”, maybe some day. I believe #4 is good.Wm5200 (talk) 18:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

IF. If the teeth could be linked to a solid autopsy, they could possibly hook up with Goebbels, and "Since July 1945" could be disproved. If so, #5 and #2 could be "amount of remains" and "cyanide or not?". If, could, possibly, but it's a thought.Wm5200 (talk) 18:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

5. Some blood stains assumed to belong to Hitler remained in the bunker for some time. Other than these stains, and the dental material, it appears that there has been no verifiable evidence of any Hitler biology after 1830 local time 30 April 1945. Reference Joach picture "The bloodstains on...", Kershaw Nemesis Epilogue note 1 p1038-9.

The carpet was ripped out and burned. Kierzek (talk) 14:44, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I was referring to the couch, but if the Russians have anything else, the second sentence is disproved anyway.Wm5200 (talk) 22:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I meant that the blood "pool" on the carpet would have been evidence of the events with Hitler's blood therein but for the fact the carpet was removed and destroyed before the Soviets got there. Kierzek (talk) 13:58, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe we agree on this, also. By the way, thank you. This is all I ever wanted, the static and discord were unproductive. Now that I have reached two people, to me "random questions" and "answers" are moot. The discussion may be less confused without them, but I'm walking on thin ice with my deletions. Help yourself, if that is acceptable.Wm5200 (talk) 14:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I would leave the sections "be". They will be archived at some point, anyway. Kierzek (talk) 18:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe that adding “on a couch” may make “Some blood stains” clearer. I have seen no credible evidence which connects any Hitler remains (excluding the teeth) to any autopsy. I do suspect that the teeth’s fate may relate to the Goebbels gang, but have not gone there. Without something good from the Russians (which I would love to see), I believe #5 is good.Wm5200 (talk) 18:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Ian Kershaw Hitler, 1939-1945: Nemesis ISBN 0393322521. Chapter 17 and the epilogue relate to this article. Please pay attention to his notes and sources. Be warned, his book Hitler: a Biography is a kind of digest which does not include these resources.

Anton Joachimsthaler The Last Days of Hitler ISBN 9781407221335 is basically an English translation of a German's analysis of 1950's post-Soviet interviews of bunker survivors. The original transcripts must be available somewhere. There are many other bunker interviews, some with questionable intent, and not all agree. Wm5200 (talk) 21:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Thomas, Trevor-Roper, Beevor, Shirer, Ryan, Toland, Eberle/Uhl, Lehmann/Carroll, O’Donnell, Victor. I am not a scholar. As a layman, I have reviewed some material by each of these authors relating to the actual death of Hitler, and immediate aftermath. I use Kershaw as a baseline, and measure from there. I have not yet seen Vinogradov, but plan to and will follow up.Wm5200 (talk) 18:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I DO NOT refer to the Goebbels gang, which I consider separate, altho possibly overlapping.Wm5200 (talk) 18:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

"Conspiracy theories" deleted

Now I’m really confused. Is (was) this section some type of political device (either inside or outside Wiki), OR someone who really wants to help, but sounds strange (to me)? Since I know the latter position, I’m going to assume good faith.

Conspiracy theories are certainly out there, maybe the article should address them. I recently made a post about them, but it embarrassed me, and I deleted it in the name of P.O.V. Now this section is also gone (possibly with reason), but the conspiracies are still out there.

As I recall this section related a fringe theory in detail, with no analysis of the theory. Maybe if the theory was treated in less detail, with more analysis or other references, the post might sound more rational (to me)? Are we discussing the credibility of fringe theories in general, or trying to sell one specific theory?

My section would say “there are a lot of fringe theories, they’re all stupid”. Clearly my judgment and tact are not Wiki standard, that’s why I stay in discussion. But maybe someone else can knock out something which is more soothing, yet addresses the point? I thought this may fit under “Stalin was wary”, maybe somewhere else?

P.O.V. I’m glad that section is gone, I didn’t care for it. But the idea behind it may lead somewhere. Or maybe this (my) section should also be deleted, throw away all three and start over? Hopefully within Wiki rules, and with some credibility. That works, too. This article needs as little trash as possible, it’s already pushing it in places.

Thank you. Feel free to delete this, if appropriate. Wm5200 (talk) 13:08, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The source was "Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases", which is not a very good source. It needs a much better source. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

There were both WP:FRINGE and WP:VERIFY problems with the section. Kierzek (talk) 20:59, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Another source which goes into greater detail on the Antarctica conspiracy theories I found is Arktos: the polar myth in science, symbolism, and Nazi survival [5]. It meets all RS guidelines and the material seems to be at least a minority viewpoint. If there's no objections I don't see why at least some of it can't be in the article, especially the Operation Highjump/Byrd stuff, which is rather hard to simply dismiss out of hand. Lt.Specht (talk) 01:12, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I’m always confused, I guess. Then I bump into “O.R.” Are we talking about people who have written books, or the credibility of those books? Nobody thinks Hitler is alive, we are talking about myths (fiction?) that have grown up after him, correct? Nobody is disputing that he died, correct?

Assuming we are discussing Hitler “culture” rather than the actual death, is this the proper place? His death appears pretty grim, and the article is trying to be serious. Should “Hitler myth culture” start at the Hitler sight, then maybe evolve it’s own article? There is certainly a lot of information about false trails, hoaxes, fiction, even real spies get involved, but do you want to hook it up with an article about the actual death? We already have “bullet hole skull” and “one testicle” to deal with, “Antarctic Adolf” is a touch of a strain.

If this “myth” stuff is pursued, might I suggest analyzing Bezymenski, he and his book have caused many ripples. P.O.V., this is sounding like an interesting idea, but I would hate to get involved in anything which lessens the evil of Hitler. Thank you. Wm5200 (talk) 02:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not sure either really. Most of stuff is probably better suited to the Operation Highjump articles and others, there might be a few bits which are more relevant to Hitler's death such as "sightings" and hysteria in Argentina when a U-boat surrendered and the story being repeated in The New York Times, The Chicago Times, and others. Having an article about conspiracies/myths wouldn't be a bad idea. Lt.Specht (talk) 03:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Definitely a good idea. This article needs to focus on the historical facts and not drivel gleaned from newspaper articles. Dr. Dan (talk) 18:17, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Russian conspiracy

Its too bad the Russian's admit they only have the body of eva braun because Hitler's body was completly decomposed in the fire. Harsh for the american fantasists and conspiracists don't you think\? Earhart lost at sea due to fuel loss or no landing zone and simply wrong calculations. BTW buildings do fall when planes hit them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.42.105 (talk) 03:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Deceiving the public

This article is spreading untruths. The “dual method” has NO basis in fact, yet this article, and it’s other Wiki cousins, spread these lies as fact throughout the internet. Any real historian would be embarrassed to present this article as accurate.Wm5200 (talk) 05:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I would not phrase it that way, however, the problem is that there are some historians/authors that have concluded either he committed suicide by the "duel method" or more commonly that it can't be ruled out completely. However, a footnote can be added as to the fact historians/authors disagree on the exact method. Kierzek (talk) 00:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I should not have phrased it that way, either. Sorry. I am clearly frustrated, look how often I have quit and gone away.

The only first person witness who has ever even implied poison is Axmann. His account of a capsule being bitten, and then opening the mouth, placing a pistol in the mouth, and firing, seems to have peen proven as unlikely, at best.

Neither Gunsche nor Linge have ever implied poison. Both survived Berlin and Soviet prison, were released, and have been repeatedly questioned.

Vinogradov does have Soviets finding two burned bodies in the garden. It does not have any identification of these bodies. The only identification we have anywhere is Heusermann and Echtmann, who identified only teeth.

Lev Bezemenski’s autopsy is not credible . The most respected Hitler scholars on the planet have rejected it. So no matter who you are, or how you spin it, it will always be a lie. And you should know that, so if you use it, you are lying (not meant personally, rather, to Thomas type authors).

The “dual method” appears to be a device created to reconcile a minority opinion that poison was used. I have a hard time believing anyone actually believes this compromise. To me it sounds like Nicaea in 325, but I’m crazy. If this is a device, it apparently is being used to accommodate one source, Bezemenski, who is lying and deserves no accommodation.

There is no credible first hand testimony that poison was used. There is no credible evidence that poison was used. There is deliberate Soviet misinformation from 1945. There is Bezemenski’s misinformation from 1968.

You know that I push away from the monitor and read books. I have spent a fair amount of time, effort, and money on this. If “some historians/authors” other than Bezemenski based bozos could be found, I’d read them, too. I have not stumbled upon Soviet translator Yelena, but given her position, the time, and the ghosts of her from others, I doubt that she would change the picture.

Hitler could have taken poison. He could also have been killed by choking on his last meal, there is just as much evidence for the later. Or maybe he escaped to Bezemenski’s drinking buddy Erich von Daniken’s Peruvian UFO landing strips.

I’ve asked it before. Occam’s razor?Wm5200 (talk) 14:36, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

If we use the concept of Occam's razor, one would have to go with the singular method, i.e., shooting himself. The problem with accepting Soviet interpretations is, that in the final analysis, they presented too many conflicting versions of what happened, before, during, and after the the fact. That being said, the article should reflect the singular method in the lead, and all of the other theories (that have scholarly references) can be included within the main space. I suspect we'll never know the specific details of what truly happened, shot in the mouth, shot in the temple, etc. with any more certainty than that of Alarics final resting place. Dr. Dan (talk) 18:44, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Question for Gwen Gale

Gwen, I'm asking you this question mainly because of your frequent participation at this article and its talk page. Would you consider material presented from this source acceptable and helpful if used in a proper context? Thanks. Dr. Dan (talk) 01:49, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

My question was asked in good faith. Perhaps you could find some time to answer it. Thanks. Dr. Dan (talk) 19:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The only answer I can give to an open question like this is, please do see WP:RS (it's where I'd look first if I had a broad question about a source). If you'd like further input on a given citation, lots of editors other than myself watch this page, you might want to post it here and see what that stirs up, that's what article talk pages are all about. You can also try Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, which at least may sometimes give one something akin to a further take on neutrality. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:02, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Gwen, for getting back to me. Obviously others are welcome to give further input concerning the source I asked you about. I was curious as to what your opinion was regarding The Sun as a reliable source. I read an interesting article given by Rochus Misch there. Dr. Dan (talk) 15:45, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Misch himself didn't see everything and recall can get way fuzzy after six and a half decades, but he saw a lot nonetheless. Could you post a link to that article here? I'd be happy to read it. Thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:02, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Gwen, for the delay in getting back to you. I actually was hoping for your opinion about "The Sun" rather than about Misch. If I decide to add the information at some later point we might be able to discuss its relevancy at this talk page. For now, your opinion regarding using The Sun as a source would be appreciated. Dr. Dan (talk) 01:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I had missed this. I would need to see the article itself. That said, I'd be wary of citing anything from the Sun without knowing who wrote it and how it was sourced by them. Moreover, if I found something in the Sun I'd tend to dig deeper and find a source on which one could more steadfastly lean. It's not that tabloids get things wrong (all newspapers botch details, all the time) so much as tabloids tending to over-spin stuff for entertainment, which is their slice of the market, in much the same way the Times and the Guardian spin heavily for politics in some topic areas. It all makes for sloppiness, through which a cite may, say, be ok as to WP:V but then skids into the ditch owing to WP:UNDUE. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:02, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if this relates. I would think it would be wrong to reference, edit, or dispute sources which are not at hand to be checked. Perhaps a person should only use information that they have read and can understand.Wm5200 (talk) 01:35, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Wm, I doubt that only "using information that they have read and can understand" would be the best criterion to use and be the most appropriate and helpful method in referencing an encyclopedia. Being partial to an exopedian version of this project (I do err from time to time myself), I think the inclusion of "quotes" and anecdotal reminiscences gleaned from border line tabloids should be avoided. Dr. Dan (talk) 15:12, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I lost you, but I’m confused myself. It appears as though the person with the least information available is most influential on the article.

The U.S. is big on free press, and it works. My very low budget suburb is in a system which serves 225,000 people with 4 MILLION titles (numbers approximate, thanks Carol). That’s on the next shuttle van. Most of the rest of the assets of a state with 12 million people are a couple of days away by mail. The specialty stuff on AE from Radcliffe took maybe a week. And I am an amateur. Dan, you are over three million people higher in the food chain, you must be “world class”. Kierzek has clearly read and analyzed everything, reviewed most of it, and as far as I can tell, every word he says is accurate and informed.

Kershaw, Joachimsthaler, Thomas, Trevor-Roper, Beevor, Shirer, Ryan, Toland, Eberle/Uhl, Lehmann/Carroll, O’Donnell, Victor, Petrova/Watson. (Vinogradov hit a snag, reordered). These are books which I have had in my possession and read parts of since Aug 2010. I can understand if others do not have access to the same resources, but I think that should be addressed. If someone does not have access to two footnotes which are critical in a discussion, that also should be addressed.

I think maybe that “using information that they have read and can understand” means that if you only read and have access to the “Sun”, that is all you should use as a source. But I think you should get them right. And I don’t think that you should dispute or ignore works beyond the "Sun", they are outside your understanding.

I know that this is P.O.V., and that I am personally involved. But I can not help but believe that this article has problems with it’s process.Wm5200 (talk) 18:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

TMI

Let's be careful and not put too much superfluous information into the lead. An example of what I mean is shot in the "right temple" or it happened at 15:30 hours. I have argued over this point at the Lincoln assassination (terrible lead) in the past. Mainspace, yes. Lead no. A little less prosaic writing wouldn't hurt either. I'll try to put something together for you all to consider. Need a day or two. Dr. Dan (talk) 02:52, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I think our outlooks on this are at least broadly the same and given you foresee writing something up, my take is, it'd be helpful if editors were to wait for that as a next step. As an aside, the drafts I've seen so far, the blue among them, look like they were written by a committee, prosaic (as in middling) being one of the outcomes. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:12, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest, Dan & Gwen, some written contribution from each of you would reap a greater benefit towards the common goal of improving the article at hand; as opposed to sidebar comments, alone. Kierzek (talk) 15:05, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Dr. Dan has already said he hopes to give input by drafting a lead and as I said on my talk page, if I have time, I'll try to say more later. Only so you know, I commented here because I was asked. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Gentlemen, maybe I will see you later, this "little fish" is going to look for another pond. You guys have it under control, thank you for your efforts, good luck!Wm5200 (talk) 13:06, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Lead proposal

First attempt

Based on the arguments in the above section, I fully concur that the leade needs amendment. Rather than joining the above debate, I propose the following as an alternative:

Adolf Hitler died by committing suicide in his Fuhrer Bunker in Berlin on 30 April 1945. His wife Eva (nee Braun), committed suicide with him by ingesting poison. Following Hitler's prior instructions, their remains were removed from the bunker, doused in petrol and set alight in the garden outside of the bunker. Soviet reports record that their burnt remains were recovered and interned in successive locations until 1970 when they were again exhumed, cremated and the ashes scattered into a river.

Most historians accept that his death was caused by a gunshot wound to the head but alternative opinions have been recorded citing death by gunshot and the ingestion of poison. Similarly, controversy still exists as to the exact location of the gunshot wound and whether skull and jaw fragments continue to exist. Different reports also exist as to the river where the ashes were scattered.

In the article (as is already the case), we can then present the alternative schools of thought on the controversies regarding:

1. Single or Dual method of suicide;
2. Location of gunshot;
3. Whether bone fragments (were real and that of Hitler and) still exist;
4. Location of final cremation and disposal of ashes.

Farawayman (talk) 09:00, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Light blue

Seems reasonable and less opinionated. There is also nothing unique about Trevor-Roper's book from 1947 that would warrant its inclusion in the lead. Dr. Dan (talk) 14:05, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Farawayman, sounds good to me, also. Kierzek (talk) 15:08, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

This is how I would write the lede with the cites added to it, of course:

Adolf Hitler died by committing suicide on 30 April 1945, in his Führerbunker in Berlin. His wife Eva (nee Braun), committed suicide with him by ingesting poison. Following Hitler's prior instructions, their remains were removed from the bunker, doused in petrol and set alight in the Reich Chancellery gardens outside of the bunker. The Russian archives record that their burnt remains were recovered and interned in successive locations until 1970 when they were again exhumed, cremated and the ashes scattered into a river. Most historians accept that his death was caused by a gunshot wound to the head, but alternative opinions have been recorded citing a "dual method" of death by gunshot and the ingestion of cyanide poison. Similarly, some controversy still exists as to the exact location of the gunshot wound and whether skull and jaw fragments continue to exist. Different reports also exist as to the river where the ashes were scattered.

Kierzek (talk) 21:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Green

I think we are getting there! However:

• I do not fully agree with the Soviet -> Russian change! The bodies were found by Soviets (we don't know that they were Russians, they could have been Belarusians or Ukrainians etc), and Stalin ordered the subsequent movement and actions related to the remains. The fragments were archived by the Soviets. We discuss the unreliability of Soviet records in the article - so I think we should stay with "Soviet."
• I think a further change is needed to my own text related to the jaw and skull fragments, as we are not 100% certain that those which were found were actually that of Hitler!
• Last sentence (in green box) still needs more polishing.
• Kept the two paragraph structure, but I am flexible on this one!

So, my edited version looks like this:

Adolf Hitler died by committing suicide on 30 April 1945, in his Führerbunker in Berlin. His wife Eva (nee Braun), committed suicide with him by ingesting poison. Following Hitler's prior instructions, their remains were removed from the bunker, doused in petrol and set alight in the Reich Chancellery gardens outside of the bunker. The Soviet archives record that their burnt remains were recovered and interned in successive locations until 1970 when they were again exhumed, cremated and the ashes scattered into a river.

Most historians accept that his death was caused by a gunshot wound to the head, but alternative opinions have been recorded citing a "dual method" of death by gunshot and the ingestion of cyanide poison. Similarly, some controversy still exists as to the exact location of the gunshot wound. There is also controversy regarding the authenticity of skull and jaw fragments and whether these continue to exist. The river where the ashes were scattered also differs, depending on the historical source consulted.

Farawayman (talk) 06:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I am concerned that there is WP:OR regarding these conclusions since we do not have a reliable source doing this literature overview but it is done locally in Wikipedia instead. The locally made overview creates WP:UNDUE concerns. Also use of WP:WEASEL words such as "most" and "some" is problematic. IMO the proposed lede intro needs cleanup. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 07:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Dr K, please take note of the following (and note this is not WP:OR):

• Single suicide method vs Dual method controversy: Bezemensky: "...remains of a glass ampoule in the oral cavity.... death by cyanide compound" O'Donnell and Bahnsen: "...pulled the trigger and at the same instant bit down on the poison ampoule" Joachimsthaler: "Hitler shot himself in the right temple"
• Location of gunshot wound: Kershaw: "Bullet hole in right temple" Joachimsthaler: "Hitler shot himself in the right temple" Axmann: "shot himself through the mouth"
• Continued existence of skull and jaw fragments: Kershaw: "Cigar box with skull fragment containing bullet hole taken to Moscow" Joachimsthaler: "The Russians have never presented the skull" Etchmann: "The lower jaw was presented to me by the Russians in May 1945 in Schwanenbeck" Libération: "skull on display in Moscow in 2000" The Observer: "skull is that of a woman aged between 30 and 40"
• River where ashes were strewn: Service: "Remains brought to Moscow" Kershaw: "Remains re-buried in Magdeburg and then cremated in 1970" Beevor: "Ashes are strewn into the sewers of Magdeberg" CNN: "ashes were thrown into the Biederitz river" SMERSH records: "ashes were scattered in the river Elbe"

So I think that there is consensus, that there is no consensus and these remain controversial issues. Also, please explain your WP:OR allegation? And Dr. K, rather than standing aloof and giving negative comments, roll up your sleeves, do something constructive and give us your version! Farawayman (talk) 09:27, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

If Dr K is referring to my 1436 3 Nov 2010 post as OR, I’ve dealt with that before, and it’s sometimes accurate. Kierzek knows that I have posted a ton of stuff with references, I don’t think anyone wants it back, but if you will be selective in what you ask for, I will try to respond.

1. What is required to discredit Bezymenski? If Joach and Kershaw (who backs and expands on Joach) are not enough, how many others are required? I have a bunch.

2. What beyond Joach is required to discredit Axmann’s impression? Joach and reason are not enough?

3. I own Kershaw’s Nemesis, but possibly it is a mental block: where is the line "Cigar box with skull fragment containing bullet hole taken to Moscow"? Is it used in the correct context? Are we taking the notes (#155 page 1037 and Epilogue page 1038) into account? How about Vinog page 24 saying the bullet hole skull was found in 1946?

4. Do not newer works, with more information and analysis, supersede older, more limited works? I understand that you want witnesses to be fresh, but we only have a few, and they have been questioned repeatedly. Is not Kershaw of more value than Trevor-Roper, despite the fact that Trevor-Roper was there much sooner?

5. Is there any account of any identification other than Heusermann and Echtmann, who only identified the teeth? Beevor uses Rzhevskaya, but it sounds to me like she only actually confirms teeth. Is her original work available in English, and is it credible? I would like to find her somewhere, I believe that her story would be good reading, if in any way believable.

6. We are ASSUMING that Adolf’s remains, whatever the volume, hook up with Goebbels, which seems reasonable to me, but not proven.

7. Are “lede” vs “lead” and “duel” vs “dual” a matter of which side of the Atlantic one is on, or are they typos? I have no entry for “lede”, and over here “duel” implies two people arranging a pistol or sword fight under controlled circumstances.

Finally, POV. I regret naming a section “Deceiving the Public”, I was emotional. If someone else renames it, I wouldn’t be insulted. Thanx.Wm5200 (talk) 13:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Wm5200; My view is as follows:

1. I think Dr. K was referring to the grey, blue and green boxes containing proposed text for the lead. If he was referring to your 1436 3 Nov 2010 post, he would have posted his comments under that section.
2. I created this section, because I think the lead needs improvement.
3. The proposed lead text contains two paragraphs - Para 1 the facts which are not in dispute; Para 2, those which have contradictory sources or evidence.
4. For now, we are not debating which of the contradictory evidence is more plausible, that belongs in the body (provided of course that we do not enter the domain of OR in this evaluation).
5. The various sources I cited for Dr. K - simply provide evidence that there is no "undisputed, factual version" - and that's why we state this in Para 2 of the lead. Para 2 is not based on OR, but on these sources, regardless whether some may they carry more weight than others.
6. Lets get consensus on the lead, then we can tackle the subsequent sections in the body of the article.
7. "Cigar box" issue - See Kershaw (we have different versions, I have both earlier volumes in one volume simply titled "Hitler") chapter titled "Epilogue" last paragraph of Section I. In my version (Kershaw, I. Hitler. Allen Lane, 2008) p. 958.

Rgds. Farawayman (talk) 14:34, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello Farawayman. Yes, I was responding to Dr K, anything I said in the poorly named section, I believe I can reference, if anyone wants.

I am neither Wiki nor any kind of writer. I could not diagram a sentence to save myself from sharks. I am a storyteller, everything I post I have told myself (out loud, yes, I am crazy), you only see a written version of my oral ramblings. I do have a Tripod site, but I doubt if anyone here cares. My intent is to be an asset, not a participant.

Please, if I can recommend anything, make it be Kershaw. The version you have (I have read some of it, also) is a kind of digest, which has far less information than the two originals. Please please please get the Nemesis version, and read the notes #155 page 1037 and Epilogue page 1038, they are a GREAT oversight, and virtually stand on their own. I would post them here, but they are way to long, and I still worry about plagiarism.

Again, I would like to be an asset. If I can help you, I would be honored. I have been trying for months to get someone to hook up with Kierzek and rewrite this article, so at least from me, thank you.Wm5200 (talk) 15:44, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Wm5200, Farawayman please don't take me wrong. I am not here to question your expertise. Wm5200: No, I was not referring to your proposals as OR. As Farawayman pointed out, I was simply pointing out what I perceived to be weaknesses of the proposed lede intro in the blue box. At Farawayman: Please don't get me wrong. If my proposal sounded aloof to you it is precisely because I am not expert on the subject so I could not propose an intro lede of my own. I consider you to be an expert and thus I commented on your version instead of proposing my version. What concerns me is conclusions of this type: Most historians accept that his death was caused by a gunshot wound to the head, but alternative opinions have been recorded citing a "dual method" of death by gunshot and the ingestion of cyanide poison. Is there a citation for this conclusion or you just came up with it from your own experience as experts? If an expert published a source analysis of the literature and concluded the above, we don't have an OR problem. But if not, this is unfortunately WP:SYNTH, i.e. we synthesise sources to come up with novel conclusions. I will come back with more questions once you answer this one. Thank you for your patience. Take care. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 16:01, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Dr K, you have not offended me, I am in a similar position, and have heard the same type of critisism. Some of us just want to help to the best of our ability.

The “gunshot to the head” is easilly referenced, and the “poison” is also accountable (usually a Soviet viewpoint), altho disputed. The “dual method” was said at one time by Axmann, but is also disputed. I do not think that any author has specifically endorsed the “dual method”, I believe it is a device to reconcile gunshot and poison. Nobody here has backed my “device” theory, but nobody has disputed it, either.

Trying to prove something did not happen can be harder than proving something did, especially if “did not” has caused no consequence. The gunshot was clearly fatal, he is just as dead with or without poison. He did absolutly have the ability to use poison, and several second hand witness accounts say so, so we move into the world of “credibility”, clearly a variable.

Avoiding “weasel” words is tough in this case, there is so much dispute over facts. I often use “liar” and “trash”, but they are clearly not Wiki acceptable, so I often weasel around with “not credible” instead. Black and white don’t always work here, we need some grey.

My POV, give it whatever credit you wish.Wm5200 (talk) 17:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Wm200. I agree that it is difficult to avoid weasel words sometimes. In any case if, as you mention, the dual method is not widely accepted I don't think it is notable enough to be in the lede. So we have to evaluate all sources and theories because some may be WP:FRINGE while others may be notable enough to be included in the lede. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 17:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Conclusion: If you think, as experts, that a theory is notable enough to be included in the lede then I am not here to doubt your judgment. IMO cutting down a bit on weasel words and presenting the more notable scholars in the lede would improve the lede. But I am not here to impede your consensus as experts. Just to improve the lede on the WP:WEASEL, WP:UNDUE, WP:SYNTH, WP:FRINGE departments, if at all possible. Thank you again. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis}

I'm glad this discussion is taking place here and sensible alternatives are being offered for the lead. The lead (lede) is only one facet that needs to be looked at. As I've long argued, the entire article definitely lacks an encyclopedic quality to it and has too much "pop culture" interspersed within it. "Smoking of cigarettes", "burning the boss", "pooling of blood", etc. I hope to add some historical perspective to it soon. Meanwhile there is the question of links in the lead. On the whole I find wlinks useful, but I'm not sure cyanide needs to be linked in the lead anymore than gunshot does. Cyanide is linked in the main space and that should be enough. Dr. Dan (talk) 17:59, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Orange

Dr's. K & Dan and WM5200, maybe I was a bit outspoken towards Dr.K' first contribution to this section - it is evident that his comments were truly made in good faith, and I apologise! He raises two very valid points:

1. The issue of "Most historians accept that his death was caused by a gunshot wound to the head, but alternative opinions have been recorded citing a "duel method" of death by gunshot and the ingestion of cyanide poison." and;
2. What is notable enough so as to be a valid inclusion in the lead, without being considered WP:FRINGE. But, also considering WM5200's "need for Grey" statement!

The reason I am trying to structure the lead on this basis is - because I think it will provide us with a roadmap for the article. (A.) We record the undisputed sequence of events; (B.) We record the the areas where there are conflicting records regarding pertinent facts or occurrences in the sequence of events; (C.) We try, without any WP:OR to indicate which of the conflicting records is most appropriate (a type of cited Occam’s razor???).

If there is general consensus on the above "roadmap", then the pertinent questions all relate to what goes in and what stays out of para 2 of the lead?

Having read your recommendations and concerns above, permit me to have another stab at it:

Adolf Hitler died by committing suicide on 30 April 1945, in his Führerbunker in Berlin. His wife Eva (nee Braun), committed suicide with him by ingesting poison. Following Hitler's prior instructions, their remains were removed from the bunker, doused in petrol and set alight in the Reich Chancellery gardens outside of the bunker. The Soviet archives record that their burnt remains were recovered and interned in successive locations until 1970 when they were again exhumed, cremated and the ashes scattered.

His death was caused by a gunshot wound to the head, but alternative opinions have been recorded citing death by poison or death by shooting and the ingestion of poison and similarly, there are records which contest the exact location of the gunshot wound. There is also controversy regarding the authenticity of skull and jaw fragments which were recovered and whether these continue to exist. Further, the exact location of where Hitler's ashes were scattered also differs, depending on the historical source consulted.

Please edit freely! And, there are no experts, only Wiki Editors with a common interest in matters military! Farawayman (talk) 19:37, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

No need for apologies Farawayman. Your initial comments were also in good faith, there was no problem. Thank you for the rewrite. Good job by the way with these colour-coded tables. Great idea. I am good with this version and I trust your judgment regarding FRINGE, UNDUE, and NOTABILITY per WP:LEAD. I would probably add: The mainstream theory is that his death was caused by a gunshot wound to the head, but alternative opinions have been recorded citing or something to that effect. I know it is tough to get rid of weasel words and your current version removed "Most historians" but I think it is too definitive to just claim this as an absolute fact. What a conundrum! That's why I added The mainstream theory is, which, hopefully, may be a little less weaselly IMO not to mention the adjective "mainstream" is also used elsewhere in other articles and article titles such as List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. Also thank you for encouraging participation by all wiki-editors. Take care. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 20:08, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I have not had time to write sooner as other duties prevailed. First, my version for the "lede" (or as the English say, "lead") was only meant as a first draft which would be tweaked along the way. I said citations would, of course, be added; and yes, there are cites for all the main points raised. One must remember that the lede is only the introduction; like an opening statement for the main article to address. You can't put a lot of detail in it but only set forth the main points.

BTW-I changed the words "Soviet reports" to "Russian archives" because that is where are the records are presently kept, in Russia. Now, if one is talking about the early SMERSH investigation of Hitler's death and the subsequent investigation (Operation Myth) by the Soviet NKVD, I would agree; but I was talking about today, and that was the reason for that change.

I do not prefer: "His death was caused by a gunshot wound to the head, but alternative opinions have been recorded citing death by poison or death by shooting and the ingestion of poison and similarly, there are records which contest the exact location of the gunshot wound." The eyewitness testimony overwhelmingly supports the gun shot wound. "Records" don't contest the placement; it really boils down to Axmann’s surmise and the so-called "skull fragment" that was found in the ground and the hole therein. That "fragment" has generally been disproved to be Hitler's but not all would tend to agree with that fact, I am sure. The "poison only" is Soviet propaganda that Bezemensky admitted in 1995. The "dual method" (yes, I fixed the typo), I agree was something put forth as a compromise by certain historians/authors. The rest of the "orange" version is okay for now. I have to go but will ponder on the lede more later. I am glad some more work and interest is coming forth to improve the article. It's all a matter of time. Kierzek (talk) 22:01, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Dark blue

Considering all of the above, lets try to clearly state the problems we are facing:

1. Can we record as an undisputed fact that AH died as a consequence of a gunshot to the right temple? I think yes, we cite Beevor and Kershaw Cite A and B

Footnote: You can also add, Fischer, Thomas. Soldiers of the Leibstandarte, J.J. Fedorowicz Publishing, Inc. 2008, p 47. Kierzek (talk) 20:40, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Probably for Eva, too. Nobody disputes her poison.Wm5200 (talk) 16:53, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

1. Bezemensky says he died by poison only. Can we dispute this? I think yes, we cite Joachimsthaler. Cite C

Fest page 779, with note 76 page 847? Wm5200 (talk) 13:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Footnote: You can also add, Eberle, Henrik and Uhl, Matthias (2005). The Hitler Book: The Secret Dossier Prepared for Stalin. I sold the book but in the Epilogue is where I recall they state that Bezemensky admitted it is not true. Wm5200, do you still have the book? Kierzek (talk) 20:40, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

No, and there weren't a lot of them in the state, took a week. Western bias??? I believe you are right about the Epilogue. It would be nice to find him admitting it.Wm5200 (talk) 22:48, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

• • • If we can find this citation, it will be extremely valuable! *** Farawayman (talk)

1. The "dual method sources recorded poison and gunshot." Can we substantiate that this is an attempt at "compromise" rather than another separate "cause of death" point of view? I don’t know! Cite D

Footnote: One of the main ones to push this "compromise" was O'Donnell. Clearly, it was based on what Dr. Schenck said he heard Dr. Haase say to Hitler; the suicide method used by Hewel and in reply to Bezymenski-see pages 319-323 of The Bunker. Kierzek (talk) 20:52, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

• • • Do you have O'Donnell? Again, this is an important reference! *** Farawayman (talk)

I cite it above, but for detailed quotes: He states specifically on page 322:" The reader should, I believe, be convinced that this is the way Adolf Hitler did it...And here, too, we have a fair answer, I believe, to the version of the Russian author Lev Bezymenski." On page 323 he goes on to state, "as most historians should now agree, Hitler did shoot himself and did bite into the cyanide capsule, just as Professor Haase had clearly and repeatedly instructed (Hitler and Hewel) to do. Pistol and poison, Q.E.D." Kierzek (talk) 01:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

It appears that Kierzek has nailed the dual method down, and I think we agree that O'Donnell has problems. Wm5200 (talk) 03:52, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Axmann initially "assumed" that Hitler shot himself in the mouth (Joachimsthaler, p. 157; of course, Trevor-Roper is most famous for this early conclusion; I don't have his book in my collection to cite) Kierzek (talk) 20:49, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

1. Axmann says he shot himself through the mouth. Can we dispute this? I think yes - WM2500, who can we cite other than Joachimsthaler? Cite E

We are trying to prove something didn't happen. Axmann has also retracted this, I'll look for where. Kershaw and Joach have problems being used together, Kershaw uses Joach as a source. Even with Kershaw's extra analysis and prestige, this is sort of redundant.Wm5200 (talk) 13:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

• • • The Axmann "retraction" is important to support our track! Any ideas where to find this? *** Farawayman (talk)

Probably buried in Joach. I have to read it from the start, in light of the questions. It's not a narrative, so information is spread all over, with little timeline.Wm5200 (talk) 22:48, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

1. Skull and jaw fragments were allegedly found. Can we state that "mainstream historians" have rejected them as false? Who do we cite? Cite F

The teeth look good. Joach Chap 6 Heusermann 27Apr1956 page 231-3, Echtmann 10Jul1954 page 233-5, 27Apr1953 page 238, Vinog Heusmann 19May1945 page 95, 24Jul1947 page 101, Echtmann 24Jul47 page 102, and possibly Beevor Rzhevskaya "Source Note for page 400" on page 462. We haven't seen them since 1945, but if they hooked up with Goebbels, we probably wouldn't recognize them any more. Bullet hole skull: all I have seen is http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/27/adolf-hitler-suicide-skull-fragment), I don’t know if the Guardian is Murdoch or not. The time of finding is addressed in Vinogradov’s Preface page 24.Wm5200 (talk) 13:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Other less controversial facts which require citation are marked Cite X in the version below.

Assuming we can come up with credible citations for the above, lets try the following:

Adolf Hitler committed suicide by gunshot on 30 April 1945 in his Führerbunker in Berlin.[A][B] His wife Eva (nee Braun), committed suicide with him by ingesting poison.[X1] In accordance with Hitler's prior instructions, their remains were removed from the bunker, doused in petrol and set alight in the Reich Chancellery gardens outside of the bunker.[X2] The Soviet archives record that their burnt remains were recovered and interned in successive locations[X3] until 1970 when they were again exhumed, cremated and the ashes scattered.[X4]

There have been different accounts citing the cause of his death; one that he died by poison only[X5] and another that he died by a self-inflicted gunshot, while biting down on a cyanide capsule of poison.[X6] Contemporary historians have rejected these accounts as being either Soviet propaganda or an attempted compromise in order to reconcile the different conclusions.[C][D] There was also an eye-witness account that recorded the body showing signs of having been shot through the mouth but this has been proven unlikely.[E] There is also controversy regarding the authenticity of skull and jaw fragments which were recovered.[F] Further, the exact location of where Hitler's ashes were scattered also differs, depending on the historical source consulted.[X7][X8]

Citations:

A1: Beevor (2002) p.359 ["Nobody seems to have heard the shot that Hitler fired into his own head."]
A2: Fischer (2008) p.47 ["Günsche stated he entered the study to inspect the bodies, and observed Hitler '...sat...sunken over, with blood dripping out of his right temple. He had shot himself with his own pistol, a PPK 7.65'."]
B: Kershaw (2008) p.955 ["Blood dripped from a bullet hole in his right temple..."]
X1: Beevor (2002) p.359 ["... her lips puckered from the poison"]
X2: Kershaw (2008) p.956
X3: Kershaw (2008) p.958 ["[the bodies] were deposited initially in an unmarked grave in a forest far to the west of Berlin, reburied in 1946 in a plot of land in Magdeberg"]
X4: Beevor (2002) p.431 ["In 1970 the Kremlin finally decided to dispose of the body in absolute secrecy... body... was exhumed and burned"]
X5: Erickson (1983) p.606 ["... both committing suicide by biting their cyanide ampoules"]
X6: Re-use citation D.
C: Fest (1974) p.779 and Note 76 p.847 ["...most Soviet accounts have held that Hitler also [Hitler and Eva Braun] ended his life by poison... there are contradictions in the Soviet story.. these contradictions tend to indicate that the Soviet version of Hitler’s suicide has a political colouration"]
D: O'Donnell (1978, 2001) pp. 322-323 ["... we have a fair answer...to the version of ...Russian author Lev Bezymenski...Hitler did shoot himself and did bite into the cyanide capsule, just as Professor Haase had clearly and repeatedly instructed..."
E1: Joachimsthaler (1996) p.157 ["Axmann elaborated on his testimony when questioned about his "assumption" that Hitler had shot himself through the mouth"]
E2: Joachimsthaler (1996) p.166 ["... the version involving a "shot in the mouth" with secondary injuries to the temples must be rejected... the majority of witnesses saw an entry wound in the temple.. according to all witnesses there was no injury to the back of the head."]
F1: Joachimsthaler (1996) p.225 ["... the only thing to remain of Hitler was a gold bridge with porcelain facets from his upper jaw and the lower jawbone with some teeth and two bridges."]
F2: Beevor (2002) p.431 ["Hitler's jaws.... had been retained by SMERSH, while the NKVD kept the cranium."]
F3: CNN: [but the [skull] remains were that of a female aged between 20 and 40 years old."]
F4: The Guardian: Tests on skull fragment cast doubt on Adolf Hitler suicide story
F5: Sunday Times: "Deep in the Lubyanka, headquarters of Russia’s secret police, a fragment of Hitler’s jaw is preserved as a trophy of the Red Army’s victory over Nazi Germany. A fragment of skull with a bullet hole lies in the State Archive."
X7: Beevor (2002) p.431 ["...the ashes were flushed into the town [Magdeberg] sewage system."]
X8: CNN: "The remains were burnt on a bonfire outside the town of Shoenebeck, 11 kilometers away from Magdeburg, then ground into ashes, collected and thrown into the Biederitz River,"

References:

• Beevor, Antony (2002). Berlin: The Downfall 1945. Viking (Penguin). ISBN 0670886955.
• Kershaw, Ian (2008). Hitler, A Biography. W.W. Norton & Co. ISBN 0393067572.
• Joachimsthaler, Anton (1996). The Last Days of Hitler. Arms & Armour. ISBN 1854093800. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |trans= ignored (help)
• Erickson, John (1983). The Road to Berlin: Stalin's War with Germany: Volume 2. Weidenfeld and Nicolson. ISBN 0297772384.
• Fest, Joachim C (1983). Hitler. Weidenfeld and Nicolson. ISBN 0297785400.
• Fischer, Thomas (2008). Soldiers of the Leibstandarte. J.J. Fedorowicz Publishing, Inc. ISBN 978-0921991915.
• Goñi, Uki. "The Guardian". Tests on skull fragment cast doubt on Adolf Hitler suicide story. Retrieved 6 November 2010.
• "CNN World". Russians insist skull fragment is Hitler's. Retrieved 6 November 2010.
• "CNN World". Official: KGB chief ordered Hitler's remains destroyed. Retrieved 6 November 2010.

We are running out of colours!!!! Farawayman (talk) 06:54, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Whoa! Huh? Does "removed" NOT mean "Deleted"?Wm5200 (talk) 20:50, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Check the source text.... I have not deleted anything, simply made it hidden as a comment so that we dont clutter the visible part. Select EDIT and you will see all of your earlier text remarked as *** COMMENT *** Farawayman (talk) 20:56, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. I am not Wiki and misunderstood “removed”. It’s use seems counter intuitive to me. I thought I was losing everything I believed, apparently it’s just a procedure I don’t understand. Never mind.Wm5200 (talk) 22:53, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Are we ready to move the above proposed lead to the article? I propose it is moved with all citations and the associated comments related to the citations. Any further comments or modifications? Farawayman (talk) 08:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Dr. Dan has said he was going to write something; You can ask him the status or move what we have put together and he can always tweak it (as I am sure we will, anyway). Kierzek (talk) 12:11, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Dark Blue version moved to article. Farawayman (talk) 19:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Some typos

There are several mentions of the german word "Führer" written as "Fürher" in the article. 80.226.0.1 (talk) 18:33, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:38, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Lead-in

Does the lead-in really have to be so matter-of-fact?.I'm not convinced that it's justified.70.28.7.229 (talk) 05:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Give us your proposed text! Farawayman (talk) 13:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I am still trying to put together an alternate draft. Unfortunately a heavy work load is preventing me from getting to the library to review a few books that would help me with my proposition. It definitely is different than the original one. I prefer to go with scholarly books as opposed to the online alternatives. Here's an example of what I mean by on-line alternatives. http://tst.greyfalcon.us/burning3.html That one is interesting though because it gives an insight of what was unknown and what was being presented as " factual information" in the months following Hitler's death. Unfortunately the Soviets who held the key to what happened, did their best to misinform and obfuscate the issue, not only then, but even the current Russian government has not been particularly cooperative with providing more evidence or allowing DNA tests and the like to be performed. That's what makes this subject a hard one to tackle. The article is not going away. There is no need to rush. Dr. Dan (talk) 16:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

That greyfalcon source is indeed trash. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Going "with scholarly books" (that are balanced and objective, as far as secondary sources/authors can be) has always been my aim on Wiki; and as to this article, specially; Farawayman, who has worked hard of late, herein, I am sure would agree. "Time" and other duties are something that keeps many of us from more Wiki editing/writing and cross-checking at a more expedient rate. So, present what you will for consensus; there is plenty of "time". Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 19:05, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not offering [6] it as a source, Gwen. Only to demonstrate that a lot is floating out there. There's enough trash being passed off as sources in this article as it stands, without any more needing to be added. What the article especially needs to do is to bring forth that seventy years after the fact, the exact circumstances regarding the event remain uncertain and are contested. Naturally the scholarly "consensus" needs to be presented. The WP article on Hitler deals with the generalities regarding his death. This article needs to also deal with the subject's controversial nature. Not cigarette smoking. Dr. Dan (talk) 20:52, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I love how a self-defeating sentence like Nobody seems to have heard the shot that Hitler fired into his own head is actually supposed to support the articles contention.70.28.7.229 (talk) 20:20, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree, that seems quite odd to me. For half a century, Traudl Junge said she heard the shot and Goebbel's son misunderstood it as an artillary strike. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we are told that nine year old Helmut Goebbels heard the shot and yelled "Bullseye"? That should settle that, except that he wasn't interrogated at Lubyanka. So that can't be confirmed. He was murdered the next day. Dr. Dan (talk) 20:52, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

No, no, not at all. Helmut was murdered by his mother the next day (who seems maybe to have thought, in her unknowable woe, that he might be reincarnated) and nothing is known as to anything he may have said further about it in that short time. I'm only talking about what Junge said, first to intelligence operatives after the war, then to sundry authors, then to the wide world shortly before her death. All along, she said she heard the PPK go off and it's highly verifiable, that's all I'm saying. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok so can anyone corroborate her?.Was there anyone else besides Junge?.70.28.7.229 (talk) 07:11, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

See my post as to Linge, below. Kierzek (talk) 13:37, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes you said he changed his story on that point.You think he's credible?.70.28.7.229 (talk) 16:20, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Not as much as Günsche, and that is the opinion of historians (which is what matters in the end; not my opinion). Kierzek (talk) 18:44, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

He heard nothing, so....What is it that's the opinion of historians?70.28.7.229 (talk) 01:36, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

• My main worry here is that there is utterly zero, aught evidence, that Hitler or Braun were alive after the late afternoon of 30 April 1945, however they died and the lead should steadfastly echo this, one way or another. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:13, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Gwen, maybe I am missing something.... the lead currently says "Adolf Hitler committed suicide by gunshot on 30 April 1945 in his Führerbunker in Berlin..." Surely that "steadfastly echo's" death on the 30th April. Why is it necessary to pertinently state that he was dead by the afternoon? Farawayman (talk) 21:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

For starters, the Russian autopsy bore overwhelming evidence he not only shot himself, but bit down on a cyanide capsule. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I have to butt in here. Are you actually saying that Bezymenski's autopsy is credible?? Have you read Kershaw yet?? Do you not realize that that Bezym has apparently retracted that GARBAGE??? RUSSIAN AUTOPSY???Wm5200 (talk) 01:47, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Slow down, one thing at a time!!!! Above, you insist the lead must "echo" that he was dead by the afternoon of the 30th. Explain? Farawayman (talk) 22:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Can you cite any meaningful sources that he was alive after that afternoon? Gwen Gale (talk) 22:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I removed the Beevor quoted cite; per points stated above; not needed, anyway. With that said, as for hearing the shot, yes, the two you mentioned are on record as having heard it, but Günsche and Linge are on record as NOT hearing anything; although Linge has changed his story on that point. In the famous "The World At War" T.V. series on DVD (originally from the 1970's), Linge stated he heard it; but in his book on page 199, he wrote: "I smelt the gas from a discharged firearm...Hitler had shot himself in the right temple with his 7.65-mm pistol..." As for the evidence of the "Russian autopsy", that bears close scrutiny through the published works. Kierzek (talk) 22:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:OR. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Gwen, I am not talking about "original research"; I am talking cross-checking and putting forth what the published reliable sources state; as I refer to above in my reply to Dr. Dan as to editing on Wiki and this article, in particular. Kierzek (talk) 22:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Whatever you may be talking about, I'm talking about your own original research. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:41, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I am NOT doing OR; I am editing an article to try and improve it; enough said. Kierzek (talk) 22:59, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

So at the very least Gwen the circumstances shouldn't be "steadfastly echoed" as they currently are.correct?.70.28.7.229 (talk) 22:31, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Your rhetoric is lacking, IP. Please cite sources or stop now. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Gwen...... The lead says he was dead by the 30th! No-one is disputing that! Who said he was alive after the late afternoon of the 30th? I recommend a good Brunello, I'm having one too! Set this aside, and lets move to a thorough copy edit of the first section. Farawayman (talk) 22:39, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

All I'm saying is, I think the new lead is not on. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:41, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

That's what I'm saying.Why the hostility?.70.28.7.229 (talk) 22:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Gwen, we had a grey, green, yellow, blue and dark blue (whatever) version of the lead in the above section! I agree its not perfect in terms of prose, but its factually correct! I concur, it needs polishing to make it read better, so why not give us your version - That's much more constructive. Farawayman (talk) 23:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Well for starters, Hitler died on 30 April, 1945.I'm referring to the opening sentence, to be clear.70.28.7.229 (talk) 00:13, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks like she made a mistake, and answered as her "sock" instead of her real name.Wm5200 (talk) 00:19, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

You're mistaken. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:17, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

This citation can be taken as reliable here (O'Donnell (1978, 2001) pp. 322-323 "... we have a fair answer...to the version of ...Russian author Lev Bezymenski...Hitler did shoot himself and did bite into the cyanide capsule, just as Professor Haase had clearly and repeatedly instructed...") but the text does not echo it. AH most likely did die through a combination of gunshot and cyanide, the "dual method" which Haase told him, more or less, couldn't fail. The sovs "covered up" the gunshot evidence for political/propaganda reasons (suicide by poison could be sold as a "coward's" death) and for decades, sources outside the USSR didn't have even a hint of the autopsy records (not the faked, fudged records which kept mum about the gunshot damage), only accounts by a few witnesses who saw the head wound and the blood. The lead does not steadfastly follow the sources and moreover, the way it is written could mislead readers into thinking that even with the strong assertion made as to the date of his death, the sources may leave some opening for meaningful speculation that AH and EB were alive after that afternoon. After more than six decades, so far, they do not.

I was asked to give my input here. The ongoing lack of AGF, personal attacks and cheap sarcasm, along with all the snarky hints about what an editor should or should not do as to how they post input here, speak louder than. I may be back to this article (and/or this talk page) in a month or two, I don't know, but whether I edit the article again or not, I think it's highly unlikely this new lead will stick in coming months. Sooner or later, consensus and input from other editors will tend, however slowly, to mostly sort out any worries I might have about this article. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:17, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I would agree that we will never know with 100% certainty the events and in what exact order they occurred at each specific hour. Based on what the eyewitnesses said and what the main historians have presented in their investigations is what we have to go by for presentation. Does anyone, besides Gwen believe we should do a slight re-edit as to what is put forth on the only other theory with "legs", the old "dual method". As far as, WP:AGF being lacking, overall, I would disagree; any personal attacks posted by others have been removed per Wiki policy. We are all adults here and need to work together with our focus being on improving the article (which clearly has gotten better). The old lead (or lede) was just plain "bad". Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 18:54, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I took this article off my watch list last year and have not looked at it since shortly after my last edit to the article.

I think that the current lead is a step backwards from the lead in place this time last year. It makes a definitive statement in the first sentence when AFAICT that the histories are far from definitive. The version that stated "The generally accepted cause of the death of Adolf Hitler ..." was superior because it introduced to the reader the concept that there is no one agreed history.

Why his wife has to be mentioned in the second sentence is not clear to me, as this is an article about the death of Adolph Hitler, not about the Hitler family or the other members of the bunker who chose to kill themselves -- those details can be in the body of the article. It struck me that her death could have been included because there is no doubt how she died so it allows Hitler's choice of suicide to be presented in a similar way.

The sentence "Contemporary historians have rejected these accounts as being either Soviet propaganda or an attempted compromise in order to reconcile the different conclusions." is supported by two citations first published in the 1970s, Those citations are as remote from us as they were from the original deaths, they are not "Contemporary" and any during the soviet period can not be considered as definitive as the cold war meant that there was not free access to Soviet records. Further just because two historians ... does not mean all of them have as is implied by "Contemporary historians" such a statement needs an article that "say most/all historians have rejected" otherwise the words "Contemporary historians" needs to be qualified.

To me this new introduction seems to be trying to prove a point. That Hitler shot himself, all historians agree on this and any other interpretation is now discredited.

The thing which many readers may not realise is just how symbolic the choice of poison and shooting are considered to be in some warped military/parmilitary circles -- Just as Marshal Zhukov was mounted on a white horse at the victory parade in Moscow, and Marshal Ney 140 years earlier was given the honour of shouting fire at his own execution. Therefore to come down definitive one one side of the fence, is to support the view that Hitler chose an honourable or a dishonourable method of suicide. Unless we are sure that historians have done so we should not do so in the lead of this article. -- PBS (talk) 00:07, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The sources (1990's, forward) do clearly back up the fact that Hitler shot himself. Those historians supporting it, including a favorite of yours PBS, Beevor, along with Kershaw; Joachimsthaler; Fischer; Eberle & Uhl. Most are already listed here above but I can list page cites for the rest if you want, but not till tomorrow late afternoon, when I have more time; other duties call. The only real query is whether Hitler used the "Pistol & Poison" method instead (this is where O'Donnell comes in). I would be okay with that theory being given more credence in the lede wording. BTW, I really don't see why Eva should be dropped out as the event is historically discussed in combination. Kierzek (talk) 04:55, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The point I am making is that if there is doubt over Hitler's methods and that should be made clear, including Braun in the lead (ie coupling the two together) tends to produce through the rhetoric a certainty that does not exist for Hitler. There is some discussion here of why keep Roper in the lead, (BTW the OED spells it lead). The advantage of doing that is it shows that despite cold war propaganda etc, that in reliable sources the story was largely known and that the more extreme fringe stories like Hitler survived, were always seen as exactly that "fringe" and that the opening up of the Soviet/Russian archives did not change the widely accepted story significantly (for example according the MI5 URL Roper (1947) reported that Hitler shot himself). -- PBS (talk) 11:32, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Again the query of the addition of poison for Hitler with gun shot is the other main theory one could argue (although from a weak position-per the historians) not totally agreed upon by said historians. As for the lede (accepted spelling in US dictionaries-see:Merriam-Webster and American Heritage), that section could use a little work as I said last night; what do you specifically suggest for wording, PBS? BTW-I see your point as to why you want Roper's re-inclusion. I should mention, the other section that needs much more attention is "Aftermath". Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 17:29, 12 March 2011 (UTC)