Talk:Death of Adolf Hitler/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Lead in: editing

PBS: if you don't like this quote: 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."

This one could be either added or replace it: "New versions of Hitler's fate were presented by the Soviet Union according to the political needs of the moment." Eberle & Uhl (2005) p. 288. They go on to state: "Lev Besymenski...who published...books on the death of Hitler in 1968 and 1982, excused himself in 1995 for having told 'deliberate lies'. Now he was doing 'penance', the Russian historian wrote..." Eberle & Uhl (2005) p. 288. Kierzek (talk) 18:20, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

When making large edits please be careful with citations

When making large edits please be careful with citations. Here are two examples, where large edits have affected the integrity of the article, IMHO for the detriment of the article because they removed part of the verification of the article.

On 13:08, 17 October 2010. there was a reference: (one of several) to support "He had shot himself with his own pistol, a PPK 7.65" it was: <ref>Joachimsthaler, Anton. ''The Last Days of Hitler - The Legends - The Evidence - The Truth'', pp 160-167.</ref>

By 8 November 2010 this citation was now also being used in the first line of the article. The citation was then removed from the first line by this edit at 18:38, 9 November 2010 Now what should have been done is to fix the citation after the pistol sentence, but instead at Revision as of 18:40, 9 November 2010 instead it was removed.

This edit at 02:15, 10 December 2010 removed the MI5 citation. Why? If it were no longer a working link then a quick look at the web site would have found it, or failing that the wayback machine (WM: History: Hitler's Last Days).

An an edit 10 minutes after left in place the citation stripped of the URL which said Trevor Roper in The Last Days of Hitler records the marriage as taking place after Hitler had dictated the last will and testament. This is a breach of WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT, as there is no indication through page numbers that Roper's book was verified by editors of this article. --PBS (talk) 11:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, there were several editors working on the re-vamping process during that timeframe and the matter really is moot now I believe as to your first examples; certainly redundancy is not needed. As for Roper, I have seen this done on others articles and it is allowed to have a general cite to a book. The MI5 cite and Roper book naturally state the same information; certainly, I agree, it is better to have a page cite and that could have been noted, but there was no need for redundancy. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 17:17, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Unless the content of all the citations used at the end of a sentence are known (to an editor removing one), it is not wise to remove one as the sentence preceding it should be a summary of the sentences supporting the statement, removing one citation may mean that the previous sentence(s) may or may not be covered by the remaining sentence(s). In this case the edit summary does not say that the citation was not removed because it was redundant, rather it seems to have been removed because it was left hanging after immediately preceding edit.

If you have seen the stripping of citations then they need fixing, as it is a breach of the guideline WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. It is most important that this type of removal is not done as it destroys the integrity of in-line citations. -- PBS (talk) 18:14, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

(OD) While I agree with much of what PBS is saying here, I would like to remind him that previously the article had a distinctly "un-encyclopedic" quality to it. And still does a little today. Too much emphasis on pop culture, like a mass igniting of cigarettes (did it happen, at 15:34, 15:40, 15:55, or really ever happen?), quotations about "burning the boss", pooling blood puddles, and the like. This was further complicated by certain editors constantly preventing information that they objected to being placed in the article, which IMO, somewhat bordered on violating the guideline concerning ownership of a Wikipedia article. Rejecting information that was sourced and then demanding "sources" for information that was objectionable to them. Thankfully things have calmed down a bit. The article is still a work in progress, still being improved upon, and despite the subject matter which may be unpleasant for many people to deal with, it needs to have a scholarly, unbiased explanation about the historical events that happened at the time Hitler took his life. Otherwise we might as well hang it up and link the article to YouTube with tidbits like these, about what took place [1] (sorry about the coupons). Dr. Dan (talk) 23:13, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Did Hitler die?

Since around 2009, it is known that the skull found was actually one of a 20-40 year old woman. Hitler was 56, and a man. However, Eva Braunn was a 33 year old woman. Many theories surround his supposed death. Stalin said he escaped to Spain or South America. Another theory suggests he went to Scotland as a fisherman. Yet another one says he holidayed in Slovenia, acheived citizenship and died there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.192.129.221 (talk) 17:58, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't listen to rumor and old Soviet "disinformation"; Hitler has been dead since 15:30 hrs. on 30 April 1945; with his "lifeless body" removed and buried, thereafter. Kierzek (talk) 20:39, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I once read that they performed some dna-research on the skull a few years ago, which revealed that the genetic material was indeed XX... I have to look it up whether I can find the source, and if it is reliable. Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 11:50, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

That has been noted in the article already; the testing you refer to stated the skull was of a woman under age 40. The Russians don't agree (no surprise there). Kierzek (talk) 18:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Everyone knows he's not dead and was really a shapeshifter named Nebor (didn't anyone see that Tomorrow People episode?) -OberRanks (talk) 06:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Skull Fragment Controversy

A little something worth looking into: Recent tests claim that the skull bits recovered by the Soviet team were actually a woman's. This article mentions some alternative theory about Hitler evading capture at the time, but that doesn't have anything to do with the gender results: http://www.dailycampus.com/2.7440/uconn-scientists-say-skull-claimed-to-be-hitler-s-was-not-1.1049859

From the University of Connecticut website: "In addition, Pettinelli conducted tests on the soil samples and Strausbaugh and her team conducted DNA testing on swabs of blood and skull fragments. The results of these tests showed definitively that the skull fragments did not belong to Hitler." quoted from: http://today.uconn.edu/blog/2009/09/premiere-of-new-history-channel-series-features-uconn-faculty/

• note, the first test was inre: a grave were hitler was reported to have been buried, so that part suggests nothing about the recovered skull fragments, but the second test, according to the article, was of the blood and bone fragments reported by the Russian government to have belonged to Hitler.

Definitely no rush to publish it as incontrovertible fact, but it might be worth mentioning at some point in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.235.66.1 (talk) 14:32, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

whoops, already discussed, but here are some relevant sources for the other poster. In re-reading the article, there doesn't appear to be any mention of these tests, though there is a sentence about the idea that the fragments aren't genuine. 70.235.66.1 (talk) 14:35, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Location of where ashes were scattered

I have removed the section from the lede as to the difference as to where the ashes were scattered because all the main sources agree as to the burial, reburial and how the remains were ground into ashes, except only Beevor differs as to where the ashes were thrown. I believe that Beevor's point of a different location-the "sewer" as opposed to the "river" can be noted in a footnote in the section where it is discussed. This tightens up the article and was done earlier in the article as to when the marriage took place in relation to the dictation of Hitler's the will. Kierzek (talk) 01:47, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Shirer

The primary reason I changed the citation is because before, it showed "Shirer (2004) Vol 4. p. 216" as the citation, and the book sourced was Shirer, William L. (1983) [1959]. Volume VI. The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. Folio Society. OCLC 55015150. They don't match.

The article now shows Shirer 1983, page 1131. I doubt the information is on the same page in the 1983 edition as the 1960 edition. I have a copy of the 1960 edition here, and have verified the information is present on page 1131 of that edition, so I am unclear as to why the other, unverifiable and likely incorrect, citation is preferable. Could you please clear this up for me? I just don't understand the reason for your edit. Thanks. --Dianna (talk) 06:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I have reverted my revert as you say you have the book and have checked it and I have checked the history of the article and the citation is all over the place (first edit of 2010, change on 9 November 2010). -- PBS (talk) 08:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

That's a great example of AGF. But just for confirmation, I've got the same (very dog-eared, split spine etc) edition at Dianaa & it checks ok. Off to find some sticky tape ... - Sitush (talk) 08:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

My copy is in nice condition. Someone donated it to the booksale at the library where I work, and I snapped it up. There's treasure everywhere! Inscription: "To my nice. Cheryl. Onkel Ernie!" Note to Sitush: Make sure you use acid-free tape. The one I use at work is from Germany. --Dianna (talk) 11:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I like acid tape. I give it a lick before use and ... woah, my screen is melting ... - Sitush (talk) 16:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The correction to the Shirer citation was reverted by Nikkimaria with this edit. I thought I had consensus for this change. Perhaps I was mistaken? I would appreciate any further discussion. Thank you. -- Dianna (talk) 19:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe you did. The revert by Nikkimaria was the end part of a mass one by Nev1 that has to do with the unsettled question of citation style. Kierzek (talk) 19:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Kierzek's is my impression, also. BTW, I've just dug out my signed copy of Hugh Trevor-Roper's Hitler's Table Talk. He was teaching me when the Hitler Diaries farrago happened up but, alas, he never gave me a signed copy of those! - Sitush (talk) 19:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Gallery improvements were reverted

My gallery imporvements were reverted by Nikkimaria with this edit. I will explain to you the rationale for these improvements.

1. The centre photo, of the Goebbels family, has a caption that is too long. The caption has a vertical scroll bar on my display, it is so long. I clipped the caption so the scroll bar would not occur. No information was lost, as the material I removed appears in the body of the article.
2. Some of the other captions were improved to comply with the Manual of Style. For example, "Heinz Linge: Hitler's valet. One of the first persons into the study after Hitler had committed suicide." became "Heinz Linge, Hitler's valet, was one of the first persons into the study after Hitler had committed suicide." which is a properly punctuated complete sentence.
3. Template:Image gallery is deprecated.

I would really like some input here from Nikkimaria as to why these gallery improvements were reverted. Thank you. --Dianna (talk) 19:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

off topic comment on refactoring
Following a request on my talk page I have moved my comment into the section Citation problems. But rather than do it directly I have moved the intervening section (this one) up above "Citation problems" as I think "Citation problems" will dominate the talk for the next day or so. If anyone objects to my refactoring then please revert this edit. -- PBS (talk) 00:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Citation problems

nb, I improved the refs here. Alarbus (talk) 15:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

No, you changed the citation style, as I noted on your talk page. - Sitush (talk) 16:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I improved them. They're more functional, improve verifiability. Several, however, need further attention:

• Fest 1974
• Linge 2009
• Kershaw 2001

are not defined; ones with other years are… Can anyone sort these out?

Alarbus (talk) 16:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I am not sorting anything out until there is some consensus. In fact, I am tempted to revert your edits. As for the comment in your edit summary for the above message, well, if you had followed TPG and not tacked a tangential note on to a preceding thread then I would not have had the need to create a section break. Feel free to change the title of that break. - Sitush (talk) 16:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I have reverted per WP:CITEVAR which states "citations within a given article should follow a consistent style ... Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, or without first seeking consensus for the change." Nev1 (talk) 16:19, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Great way to unbuild the wiki. Alarbus (talk) 16:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The same guideline notes that "Wikipedia does not have a single house style". If you want to change the style you need to discuss it here. Nev1 (talk) 16:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

There are two major styles Footnotes and Harved notation. Footnotes come in two styles long and short. No one is suggesting changing style. The use of template that complement/distract from a style is not changing the style. -- PBS (talk) 00:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Consensus rules. Look, I am not advocating any particular citation style, merely trying to save you some work and potential disruption. Nev1 quotes WP:CITEVAR; it is also right at the top of WP:CITE. - Sitush (talk) 16:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I prefer the sfn style of the cites BUT I care more about the content. First, it is very important to this article that the explanatory notes of cited text be retained. A group of us worked very hard in 2010/2011 (see archive) to write a good lede and have detailed cites with references for this article which has been contentious in the past. Second, in this article I believe the film portrayals should be retained (and I DON'T mean Youtube type videos, to be clear). Kierzek (talk) 16:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

See this version. Alarbus (talk) 17:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Alarbus seems to think my revert was based on some personal dislike of him/her and is upset about having an edit they spent a lot of time undone. Having converted an article's references myself I know it takes a long time, and I often use reference templates on articles I edit, but WP:CITEVAR says there needs to be consensus to change a citation style. Nev1 (talk) 18:19, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Let's discuss getting consensus for the change. I am in favour of the sfn and harv templates, because when used in conjunction with the script available at User:Ucucha/HarvErrors, citation errors are easily detectable. The kind of errors that can be spotted include citations that do not point to any of the books in the bibliography, and citations that point to different editions than the one shown in the bibliography. Pagination is often not the same between various editions of a book, so it is important, for verifiability, to know which edition was used. The script also detects books listed in the bibliography that are not actually cited. These can be moved to a "further reading" section. Another good reason to use citation templates is because then the material is viewable by bots. Citations not in templates are invisible to bots. Bots can help us in several ways, including adding missing authors, adding DOIs, and adding PMIDs.

The reason Alarbus has used a mix of {sfn} and {harv} is because a ref tag cannot be nested inside another ref tag. Since the template {efn} calls a ref tag, we cannot use an {sfn} inside it. We can, however, use a {harv}, since that template does not call a ref tag.

A further advantage to sfn templates is that the citations then become clickable links down to the books which are referenced. Some people do not like then for this reason as the citations then become blue instead of black. I am not necessarily a fan of blue, but I think the clickable links are of value to the reader. --Dianna (talk) 20:02, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I think we should convert the short citations in this article to use {{sfn}} and {{harvnb}} templates were appropriate. I do not think we shoudl place general references in the References section onto more than one line. -- PBS (talk) 23:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Since I have been involved (and, yes, you will find a few vandalism reverts from me), I'll just say that right now I have no opinion regarding citation style here. Persuade me! - Sitush (talk) 00:39, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

My 2 cents-as I said above, I "prefer" the sfn style; it is short, easy to use and connects to the book cited with a clink on the cite. Diannaa, PBS and Alarbus can tell you much more about it. Kierzek (talk) 00:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Moving forward

I have taken the liberty of restoring the last good version, which was Alarbus on the 7th. This takes care of the Shirer thread above and the galley thread above. I have re-added the film depictions as requested by Kierzek, and squished up the refs, as requested by PBS. We now have a new kind of citation problem to deal with: several of the citations do not actually point to any of the books in the bibliography.

• Fest 1974 (cite #11)
• Linge 2009 (cite #42, 47)
• Kershaw 2001(cite #58)

We have other books by these authors, but the material will have to be located with the proper page numbers and editions. I will help with this later. -- Dianna (talk) 20:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Fixed Linge. The Joachim C. Fest book is "Hitler" (1974), Littlehampton Book Services Ltd. 978-0297767558. Kierzek (talk) 20:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Fest was added on 9 November 2010 by user:Farawayman. The dates were short cite 1974 and general ref 1983 but the general reference was moved from a commented out copy so it is probably the 1983 that is wrong. I will put a note on Farawayman's talk page.
• Kershaw 2008 was added at the same time as Fest 1974, but there was already a ref for Kershaw 2001. I have not checked exactly when it was added but originally it was a long inline citation and present in this version (20 November 2009) -- the ISBN checks out with the google books entry. So I will fix it.

--PBS (talk) 01:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I am currently on a business trip - will add the Fest details when I get back. Problem with Kershaw was that at the time two editors were using two different editions, I now have both of these editions. Give me three days and I will get back with the page references. Farawayman (talk) 05:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Kershaw 2001 (Cite #58 is correct. I updated the correct book [edition] in the references section)

I have Fest: Inside Hitlers Bunker - The last days of the Third Reich. Cite #11 refers to Fest's "Hitler" which I don't have - was referred to and cited in TalkText by a user called "Wheelman"???? who was subsequently blocked - details are available in archived pages. However, I know this book is on a shelf in a second hand bookshop and will go and buy it in the coming days. Farawayman (talk) 00:24, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the cite clean up work. BTW-Farawayman, don't buy the book unless you want to keep it. I used to have Fest's book on Hitler and it has been surpassed by Kershaw. An alternative to consider would be to check the volume, however, while in the store. Up to you, Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 01:19, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Fest citations and book data fixed. Farawayman (talk) 23:53, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Good show, Farawayman. Kierzek (talk) 02:05, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Argentina and Other Theories

I came here after reading this article: http://news.sky.com/home/world-news/article/16090144

I'm not saying this is or is not a credible source on the topic at hand, but I would expect that Wikipedia address these theories. The article starts very matter-of-factly stating how and where hitler died, but as it goes on it get's a bit wobbly about the evidence in areas like this:

In the years immediately following 1945, it maintained Hitler was not dead but had fled and was being shielded by former western allies.[64] This worked for a time to cause western authorities some doubt. The chief of the U.S. trial counsel at Nuremberg, Thomas J. Dodd, said: "No one can say he is dead." When President Truman asked Joseph Stalin at the Potsdam conference in August 1945 whether or not Hitler was dead, Stalin replied bluntly, 'No'. However, by 11 May 1945, the Soviets had already had Hitler's dentist Hugo Blaschke and his dential technician confirm the dential remains found were Hitler's and Eva Braun's.[65]

In the end it left me confused. Is the evidence any good or not? Is there any real evidence? Was Stalin to be trusted on this matter or not? (The article has it both ways, saying that they used Hitler living status for propaganda, but also that they are the ones who proved his death.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quasimodealert (talk • contribs) 08:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place to include tabloid rumors and frankly, gossip. A website can be written by anyone and state anything; see: WP:SPS. Per WP:RS, WP:FRINGE and WP:VERIFY it has problems. Different versions of Hitler's fate in the late 1940's were presented by the Soviet Union according to its political desires. At the time of the Potsdam conference in 1945, it was not conclusively known by the western Allies what was the fate of Hitler. The Soviets knew by then, that is the point. That is why Dick White, then head of counter-intelligence in the British sector of Berlin (and later head of MI5 and MI6 in succession) had their agent Hugh Trevor-Roper investigate the matter to counter the Soviet claims. His findings were written in a report and published in book form in 1947. Trevor-Roper does deserve 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, the book lacked some 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. However, it was the first western book to lay to rest the queries about what happened to Hitler. Kierzek (talk) 14:32, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not a link to a kooky website. The article is about a book, "Grey Wolf - The Escape of Adolf Hitler" which is has been meticulously researched with tons cites and footnotes. Ultimately it cannot be proved entirely but they make a pretty compelling case and at the very least there ought to be a paragraph saying this theory exists and here are some of the salient points behind it. I'm reading the book right now and I don't know if I believe it or not but as I said, it makes a good case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.41.3.40 (talk) 05:21, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Would still have WP:FRINGE and WP:VERIFY problems; and is not accepted by main historians, at this time. Kierzek (talk) 16:00, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Have you not seen http://vault.fbi.gov/adolf-hitler/adolf-hitler-part-01-of-04/view

The FBI spent time researching this very subject, The evidence for Hitlers suicide is shaky at best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.106.173.140 (talk) 01:35, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I have seen it. What was "shaky" was the information which was coming out of the Soviet Union from the late 1940's. The FBI was investigating the rumors at that time. We now know what happened; since the ex-German POW's were released in the 1950s and since the Soviet archives were opened up from 1995-forward. Kierzek (talk) 12:49, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

We don't know anything. The Soviet account is still the official story. This despite the fact that they were liars. The jawbone they had turned out to be a middle aged woman's. That the FBI and CIA took it seriously in the 60s is a clue that the US wasn't convinced of his fate. It isn't fringe when canonical history can be dismissed by deductive reasoning alone. What we have our people solidifying the Soviet lie and that is suspicious. Nobody acts that way in real life. The Soviet liars made up a story so unbelievable that most kids do not understand it. Suicide and burning the body and burying it, etc. The jaw bone. Only a fool believe this BS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.88.32 (talk) 05:51, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I delayed a reply as the facts (and cites) speak for themselves. It is not the disapproved "Soviet account" which this article states but the eyewitness accounts of many Germans; along with the jawbone which was identified as Hitler's; and in the end the conclusions accepted by main historians. It was not the jawbone but the skull fragment which turned out to probably be from a woman. Further, there were many bodies buried in the Reich Chancellery garden. So that does not matter as to the events in question. But please don't take my word for it, read:

• Kershaw, Ian (2001). Hitler, 1936–1945: Nemesis. London: Penguin. pp. 1038–39. ISBN 978-0-14-027239-0.
• Joachimsthaler, Anton (1999) [1995]. The Last Days of Hitler: The Legends, The Evidence, The Truth. Brockhampton Press. ISBN 978-1-86019-902-8.
• Fischer, Thomas (2008). Soldiers of the Leibstandarte. J.J. Fedorowicz Publishing. ISBN 978-0-921991-91-5.
• Linge, Heinz (2009). With Hitler to the End. Frontline Books–Skyhorse Publishing. ISBN 978-1-60239-804-7.

Lastly, please be mindful of WP:CIVIL in your posting of comments. Kierzek (talk) 01:05, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

This page on hitlers death should 'at least' say that the 'facts are disputed'. the photo in the press release of his death looks ABSOLUTELY NOTHING LIKE HIM!!! come on, this is silly... at least put that the facts are disputed. even the daily mail (english newspaper) did a story on this. there have been a couple of TV documentaries which also talk about this fake death and that he had a few 'doubles'. The accepted real story is that he lived out his life in Argentina and died in about 1987. It is unfair to semi-lock this page. its just wrong. especially when it is dealing with something so important. (remember when the CIA admitted they covered-up that british police Woman 'Yvonne Fletcher' so that we would join them against the Libyans). ITS IMPORTANT that we publicise the REAL story and NOT some cover-up story. its important for people to grow up knowing these things and cover-ups. you should NOT ignore this.. or else its like you are also joining in the cover-up. maybe its not true, but there are just so many facts and stories and verifiable facts. The "teeth verification" from Hitler's dentist is NOT credible (because if indeed his death was faked, then of course, the dentist would have corroborated). Easybullet3 (talk) 04:15, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

When you tell me the facts are disputed and then cite the Daily Mail, you've lost my support right there. The Daily Mail is not a reliable source. The facts are not disputed among serious historians, not disputed at all. -- Dianna (talk) 14:55, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I came to this article while watching this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCyfiG7aTB4&feature=related I'm kinda surprised there is nothing addressing this with a little more depth in this wikipedia article, although I completely support the mainstream explanation of how and when he died I would like to hear more as well on alternative theories that others think, as crazy or wrong it might be. (as obviously there is worthwhile sources covering this! That video is from the History Channel for example) Mathmo ^Talk 13:36, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

oohhh.... I just finished watching it to the end, the ending was not what I expected! Hmmm... Mathmo ^Talk 14:02, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I reverted the addition as to "Argentina" based on the problems noted above and consensus herein and as discussed on the talk page of the Adolf Hitler main article, as well; however, there is a discussion going on there now as to making a separate article as to these FRINGE theories. See the Adolf Hitler talk page if interested: [2]. Kierzek (talk) 00:43, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Even the original 'Soviet account' is starting to come apart. Apparently he did not shoot himself: See this recent article from The Telegraph . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikepickard (talk • contribs) 00:07, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Same old, same old. Nothing new there. The glass in the corpse theory has been dealt with by the historians (excluding Linge, ofcourse) which I listed on 24 June 2012, above. Kierzek (talk) 00:14, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Proposed move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No move. Cúchullain ^t/c 15:00, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

---

---

• Death of Adolf Hitler → Suicide of Adolf Hitler
• Death of Antonio Calvo → Suicide of Antonio Calvo
• Death of Kurt Cobain → Suicide of Kurt Cobain

– "Suicide of..." gives more information into the nature of the death. It becomes even more clear that this is the way to go once you delve into the whole "Attempted suicide/murder/assassination of Foo" category. Other articles using this convention: Suicide of... Murder of... Assassination of...

I went ahead and added Cobain because nearly all modern accounts agree Cobain committed suicide. [3] [4] [5] [6] I wasn't even aware there was any debate about it until I read the article. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 13:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Strong Oppose - Death of Adolf Hitler - is more encompassing; the act of "suicide" which occurred was only one part of the total events; the leading up to the death, the act itself and the aftermath. Further, Google hits for "Death of Adolf Hitler" is 12,400,000 results. Google hits for "Suicide of Adolf Hitler" is only: 4,280,000 results; and some of those go to pages entitled "Death of". Also, there is already a redirect for "Suicide of Adolf Hitler" to "Death of Adolf Hitler". As for the other ones you want to change, Calvo and Cobain, I do not care. Kierzek (talk) 15:10, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Well Hitler's death was guaranteed to be pretty much instantaneous so it should really be titled [[Events leading up to the death, the act itself and the aftermath of the death of Adolf Hitler]]. I don't know how "suicide" could be any more un-encompassing than "death". Search engine returns are mostly disregarded in proposed moves. Google isn't manually counting 12,400,000 indexed pages. See WP:SET. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 15:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

One must look at the matter in proper context. Kierzek (talk) 15:57, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Oppose move; this is the title at which most users are looking for the imformation. "Suicide of" has 37 page views in the last 30 days, and "Death of" has 81,057. — Dianna (talk) 19:56, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

And I'm sure all 81,000 of those viewers manually typed "Death of Adolf Hitler" into the search box. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 12:33, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Oppose - "Avoid judgmental and non-neutral words". -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 02:53, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Oppose Farawayman (talk) 04:13, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. [7]Apteva (talk) 04:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Edit request on 8 March 2013 -- SMERSH

SMERSH (four places) should be crosslinked as SMERSH 64.13.95.215 (talk) 23:01, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Not done: The first occurrence is already linked to SMERSH. Per WP:OVERLINK, the rest of the occurrences are left unlinked.  — daranz [ t ] 01:52, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

GA prep

As part of preparation for a Good Article nomination, the unsourced section on film depictions will have to be removed. One idea is to include links to the articles about the various films in the see-also section. Posting here in case anyone wishes to discuss this upcoming change. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:56, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Quotations from sources

I wonder about the inclusion of so many quotations from sources in the article. Surely if trusted editors have added the material, these quotations are not needed, and can be removed. All content and sources will be checked as part of GA prep. -- Diannaa (talk) 03:37, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Normally, I would agree they should not be needed but given the subject matter, I belief some should be kept: 1-3, 9, 10, 12, 13, and 14. Kierzek (talk) 12:30, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I have left them all in, but grouped them separately as notes. See if you think this is good or not. It's the top edit, so it will be easy to undo if you don't think it's appropriate. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:33, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Looks great. Kierzek (talk) 01:21, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Death of Adolf Hitler/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: ColonelHenry (talk · contribs) 16:29, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I look forward to reviewing this article. On first pass, it looks very informative and well-prepared. I'll begin with some initial comments sometime within the next 24-36 hours after a few readings and confirming some of the citations, etc. Thanks! --ColonelHenry (talk) 16:29, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

General comments

• I cannot find any issues (copyediting, revision, fixing, etc.) that need addressing. This article was well-prepared before the GAN.

Image review

• File:Stars & Stripes & Hitler Dead2.jpg - OK - PD as USgovt product.
• File:Battle of Berlin 1945-a.png - OK - properly tagged user-produced image, cc3.0 and others.
• File:Reichskanzlei-Fuehrerbunker.png - OK - properly tagged user-produced image, cc3.0.
• File:Bundesarchiv B 145 Bild-F051673-0059, Adolf Hitler und Eva Braun auf dem Berghof.jpg - OK - German Federal Archive (GFA)
• File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-V04744, Berlin, Garten der zerstörte Reichskanzlei.jpg - OK - GFA
• File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-M1204-319, Berlin, Reichskanzlei, gesprengter Führerbunker.jpg - OK - GFA
• File:Hitlerwithoumoustache0002.jpg - OK - but improperly tagged. should be PD as a USgovt product.
• File:Bundesarchiv Bild 146-1978-086-03, Joseph Goebbels mit Familie.jpg - OK - GFA
• File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-1983-0331-500, Hermann Göring und Adolf Hitler bei Truppenbesuch.jpg - OK - GFA
• File:Bundesarchiv Bild 146-1982-044-11, Heinz Linge.jpg - OK - GFA
• File:Churchill sits on bunker-chair.jpg - OK - PD as UK govt product

Review and criteria analysis

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

This is a tough subject to work on largely because of the emotional response and controversy around the subject. However, the nominator and fellow editors who have worked on this article should be commended for a professional collaboration that has produced an exceptionally informative, objective, and compelling article.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is clear and concise, without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   Article is exceptionally well-written, prose is clear and concise, no grammar or spelling errors, and no indication of any copyright violations/plagiarism.

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   Article sufficiently complies with the MOS guidelines mentioned in Criteria 1b.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   Article has an appropriate reference section compliant with MOS and citation guidlines.

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   Article employs appropriate citations pursuant to WP:V and WP:RS.

   C. No original research:

   There is no evidence or indication of original research.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   Article's scope and coverage sufficiently addresses the major aspects concerning the subject.

   B. Focused:

   Article's content is focused and complies with WP:SUMMARY and WP:LENGTH

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   Article's editors have made a great effort to present the information objectively and without bias.

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   Because this is an article about a controversial figure, I am willing to give significant latitude regarding stability. However, I am surprised that for an article about a controversial historical figure like Hitler, this article is not often vandalized or the subject of editwarring or serious content disputes. The article's contributors have made laudable use of the talk page to discuss difference on presentation, and the occasional interloper who happens to try to vandalize or insert fringe theories or discussion are pointed to consensus. I do not see any evidence of edit-warring in the last year of editing.

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   All images tagged with fair use rationales, although one is using an incorrect tag (easily corrected)

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   All images are relevant to the article subject and have appropriate captions under WP:CAPTION

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Good work on an excellent article.

Cyanide face?

According to Linge, Eva's body had no visible physical wounds, and her face showed how she had died—cyanide poisoning.

Could we include some sort of explanation as to how cyanide poisoning can be diagnosed from someone's face? I have no idea. Marnanel (talk) 08:51, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

It is stated in a footnote quote in the lede (See:Beevor). However, I added a new footnote quote in the "Suicide" sub-section of the article as to same. It is from the page that was already cited to Linge's book. Kierzek (talk) 12:43, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

So might we say "...her blue colored face..." with perhaps a crosslink from the words (blue colored) to wikipedia's Cyanide poisoning? I do not know how to make a link like this where the words do not match the link, but I can sure bet there is a way. Assuming that "blue colored" is what Linge referred. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.13.95.215 (talk) 23:19, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps Braun had dried foam around her mouth from seizing when the cyanide reached her brain? That's a viable explanation. Matthias Alexander Jude Shapiro (talk) 00:21, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 July 2014

If his death and or causes of it are still questioned then shouldn't it be his alleged suicide by gunshot rather than stating it as a fact in the beginning? What I am requesting is that since no one is certain of his death and/or cause don't state it as a definite fact and rather his alleged death by the most proven speculation. Dan9931 (talk) 15:55, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

No. This is not something that is only "alleged"; it is fact and the article is well cited as to the matter with WP:RS sources; not to mention, this has been discussed at length several times on this talk page and consensus each time has been the same. See for example: Talk:Death of Adolf Hitler/Archive 2, and above on this page. Kierzek (talk) 17:01, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Photos of Hitler's body

It might be helpful if at least one of the photos that are alleged to be of the dead Hitler could be posted on this page. Are any of these photos in the public domain? Arrivisto (talk) 12:22, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

No. There are no photos of the body which are authenticated by any RS source. Kierzek (talk) 14:03, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Hitler reportedly committed suicide

Propose that we include word "reportedly" in Hitler allegedly committed suicide, the first sentence of the article. In the same section (2nd paragraph) the DNA test is referred to by an independent and reliable lab in Connecticut, featured on the History Channel, that showed the skull (supposedly Hitler's) to be a woman's because it had 2 X chromosomes (men have XY). We should not mislead the public by stating definitively that Hitler committed suicide. There are plenty of questions about the topic, including books and documentaries about Hitler's life in Argentina and Indonesia - enough for us to be skeptical of the official story. No one claims to have seen Hitler shoot himself, not even his body guards who are the (hardly objective) sources of the story of Hitler shooting himself, then his body being burned and buried. Then there are photos of an unburned dead man looking like Hitler (possibly one of his doubles) with soldiers around him. There are FBI reports following up on Hitler sightings. Stalin publicly said he believed Hitler escaped. So who to believe? There are just too many questions for us not to include "reportedly" until more facts are determined. Wikipedia should only state what we are absolutely sure of. We can say that it was reported. Agree? 2601:A:3B80:ED:71BB:391D:35D8:DEB6 (talk) 15:33, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

No, I don't agree. It's certain he committed suicide. Please see Death of Adolf Hitler for more information and scholarly sources on this topic. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:48, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

All of the above has been discussed and covered before on this article's talk page and what is in the article was reached by consensus of the editors based are WP:RS cited sources. So, I don't agree with any change and agree with Diannaa on this matter. Kierzek (talk) 19:05, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

My report of Simon Dunstan & Gerrard Williams' book "Grey Wolf" about Hitler's alleged escape to Argentina was deleted with: "Sorry but must revert as this is WP:fringe and has been discussed before; please take it to the talk page, if you wish". If this theory were some nutty conspiracy theory, fair enough, but given that the two authors are noted historians who give reasonably convincing evidence for their views, and given that the Russians under Stalin used disinformation and fraud in respect of Hitler's alleged suicide, I feel that this paragraph is an appropriate and bona fide contribution. A previous editor wrote, "We should not mislead the public by stating definitively that Hitler committed suicide', and I propose to restore the paragraph. Please don't do an instant delete; rather, let others have a say. Arrivisto (talk) 11:46, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

It still speculation and conjecture. It does not belong in a well cited GA article. It is "alleged"; anything can be "alleged". The disinformation by Stalin has been explained in the article and cited by main line respected historians. The addition's cited sources, especially the second one, have serious WP:RS and WP: fringe problems. See for example: Argentina and Other Theories in Archive 3 of this talk page for an example of where this subject has been discussed and not allowed before. It should be deleted. Kierzek (talk) 12:24, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

"It still speculation and conjecture". But so is the theory (which many treat as fact) that Hitler & his bride committed suicide together, with their bodies burned and disposed of. The Second World War was the first war to have really extensive photo and cine coverage, and yet, despite the Russians rushing to be the first into Berlin, all evidence of the double suicide remains marginal at best. The new paragraph is not making a massive incursion into the article; rather it is mere a useful postscript to advise readers that there is a serious (as opposed to crazy) alternative to the conventional view. Please do not delete - amend or qualify if appropriate. Arrivisto (talk) 14:30, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

The material has been challenged, so according to the WP:BRD cycle it needs to stay out unless you can get consensus to re-add it. Serious historians do not agree that this theory holds any truth. The book was written to sell books, and the authors are not historians but journalists. It's total speculation that has no place in this article in my opinion. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:35, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll read the book in full and decide whether or not to repost. In the meantime: (i) "(it) has no place in this article". A paragraph on Hitler's death has no place in an article of Hitler's death? Really? --- (ii) "the authors are not historians but journalists." Authors who write history books are not historians? Really?? Arrivisto (talk) 11:57, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

By "historians" I mean people like Ian Kershaw and Peter Longerich - people who make a living studying history and have history degrees from universities such as Cambridge and Oxford. Simon Dunstan is a film maker, photographer, and author; Gerrard Williams is a television and print journalist. The authors of Grey Wolf are in the business of selling books, not studying history. The problem is giving credence to a fringe theory that is not taken seriously by mainstream historians. Does it have a place in the article? my opinion at present is no, it does not. -- Diannaa (talk) 22:14, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Another example to make the point of someone who would not be considered an "historian", but is an author, who also would be identifed as an investigative journalist, would be Bob Woodward. Kierzek (talk) 20:50, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

The publisher says of him: "Simon Dunstan has written more than 50 books on military history, particularly on World War II and Vietnam. He has also directed military history documentaries for the History Channel. An international television journalist for 30 years, Gerrard Williams has worked as foreign duty editor at the BBC, Sky News and APTN." I reject the notion that if you don't have a history degree "from universities such as Cambridge and Oxford" your voice doesn't count. If a person has written 50 history books, that established their bona fides. Wikipedia is not about being snooty about writers; it is about providing verifiable sources for statements on the Wikipage. Arrivisto (talk) 13:13, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Here's a recent article in the Independent by Guy Walters that sums up the controversy: http://www.iol.co.za/scitech/science/discovery/hitler-fled-argentina-and-lived-to-73-1.1600566#.Un5dYXAQYzE He makes the following points:

• A disinformation campaign was undertaken by the Russians that Hitler survived, because it suited their purposes to do so.
• The vast majority of historians accept that Hitler did not escape.
• Hugh Trevor-Roper interviewed many Bunker survivors in 1945 and all said the same thing: Hitler was dead. None of them changed their stories over the years or showed any indication that they were lying.

  So if there's to be material included on this book in this article it has to be made clear that this is a fringe theory only. It might make more sense to create an article about the book or about the authors, if their notability can be established. -- Diannaa (talk) 16:20, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

The disinfromation campaign is mentioned and well cited in the article, as well; further, historian Joachimsthaler interviewed many of the survivors and also is the only one to read and include the testimony given by bunker eyewitnesses from the West German Federal Court proceeding as to Hitler's death that lasted from 1952 to 1956. The recent attempted addition cannot get around WP: fringe problems. I would suggest you may want to write a conspiracy theories article on Hitler; much like there is one for John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories. Kierzek (talk) 18:01, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Hugh Trevor-Roper, a notable historian, nevertheless declared that the fake Hitler Diaries were genuine! I'm not interested in setting up a page on loopy conspiracy theories. I simply think that it's important that readers should be aware of the possibility that Hitler may have survived. The Wikipedia FRINGE guidelines say: "To maintain a neutral point of view, an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea". I agree entirely, and I would not wish this theory of Hitler's alleged survival to be given "undue weight". So I suggest that a short paragraph SHOULD be reinstated on the page, and I am happy for it to be made absolutely clear that it is a minority view. Arrivisto (talk) 12:54, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

As you are aware, you have not obtained WP:consensus to put that paragraph back in at this time. Therefore, I have revert the edit. If you get it, so be it; but for all the reasons stated above, it really should not be in this GA rated article. Kierzek (talk) 14:20, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Diannaa wrote (above)- "So if there's to be material included on this book in this article it has to be made clear that this is a fringe theory only". I thought I'd done precisely that, yet the paragraph was immediately deleted. I'm not interested in an edit war (in fact, I've just signed up to Old Fashioned Wikipedian Values)! But to expunge this short paragraph on the grounds of "no consensus" when this Talk Page reveals some support for my view, and only a couple who are against, begins to smack of censorship. To be clear, I'm not seeking to promote this theory; rather, I'm trying to let readers know that this alternative minority view exists and is held not by conspiracy nut cases, but by perfectly rational people! Arrivisto (talk) 14:43, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Your addition highlights a second problem with the addition of the material to the article: the lack of coverage in reliable third party sources. I did look, and there's a few newspaper articles lately, because Argentine journalist Abel Basti claims they plagiarised his research. The Daily Mail is not considered a reliable source for any purpose on this wiki. What makes this a reliable source? -- Diannaa (talk) 15:20, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

sounds to me that there are a few who will say that the dna lied when in fact it did not lie,dna was from a femlae not a male read the dna point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.62.255.106 (talk) 12:28, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Although I previously wrote, "I'm not interested in setting up a page on loopy conspiracy theories", I have changed my mind after invitations to do so just that. So I have started a page "Death of Adolf Hitler (conspiracy theories)". On the Death of Hitler page, I put a link to the new page under "See also" (which I hope is not "undue" or "fringe"). If you have time, please help to knock the new page into shape. Arrivisto (talk) 18:32, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, it doesn't seem like this conversation has been picked up since the FBI released their documents on the matter: http://vault.fbi.gov/adolf-hitler/adolf-hitler-part-01-of-04/view

Distrbnce (talk) 15:26, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

People love to discuss rumors and to sell books; the FBI documents only contain a number of alleged sightings of Hitler along with conspiracy theories of his escape from Germany. The FBI states that information within those documents pertaining to the escape and sightings of Hitler cannot be verified in any way. Kierzek (talk) 17:01, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Suicide myth

Linked sources show "it is believed they committed suicide" as there is no actual evidence. No bodies were ever found. Recent DNA testing and other evidences indicate Hitler did not commit suicide [1] and may have escaped by ratline with the other party officials towards the end of the war.69.29.212.128 (talk) 08:14, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

The evidence is there without the need of the so-called skull fragment. This has been greatly discussed on the archive talk pages here and is well cited in the article herein. Kierzek (talk) 21:54, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

No body - no evidence.69.29.212.128 (talk) 05:14, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Numerous validated historical sources document that the bodies were burned to ashes (and then somewhat scattered by falling artillery rounds) - testimony is "evidence," especially with so many witnesses and no recants after so much time. He's dead. Move on with something productive in Wikipedia.HammerFilmFan (talk) 15:56, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

This is not a discussion forum. Do you have any specific proposals to improve the article? If possible, with specific sources. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:38, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Without any evidence you are just acting like a propagandist of the established power, but remember that Wikipedia isn't owned or funded by governments but by anonymous donations of people who deserve to know the truth, or the lack of it as in this case. You should be ashamed of yourself 37.133.53.224 (talk) 01:43, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

As has been well noted on these talk pages (now archived) and as very recently stated by @Paul Barlow: on the Hitler talk page in reply to this same ip: "The evidence is overwhelming. It comes from many witnesses who all told the same story. The skull and 'blood from a couch' are just items people in Russia claim came from some archive of left-over bits. Given the history of Russia since the war, we can have absolutely no faith in the veracity of claims about the validity of these relics..." Kierzek (talk) 18:07, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Age at death of skull in intro

The last three sentences of the introduction seem to indicate that age at death was determined via DNA test. The BBC article makes clear that the estimate for age at death is base on bone sutures in the skull. In general, DNA testing is not a reliable way to determine age at death. Perhaps a re-write is in order. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Klaun (talk • contribs) 17:40, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I tweaked it per the sources cited. Kierzek (talk) 17:59, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, its verified that Eva Braun's skull was on display, some british documentaries mention she was shot through the temple. The bullet would protrude out of the back of the skull. The skull is not Hitler's but Eva Brauns. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.27.70 (talk) 02:28, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 December 2015

72.168.146.38 (talk) 19:22, 24 December 2015 (UTC) Recent release of classified documents demonstrate Adolf Hitler did not die in the bunker as previously believed but rather left Germany after 1945 and was seen by many sources in South America. The American Red Cross and United States Government aided him in his escape from Germany. Please correct.

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. /wia🎄/tlk 19:44, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Citation #15

The sentence concerning Göring and his title be changed or add [sic] to the end of sentence, to reflect the correct rank of Reichsmarshall, not Field Marshall. Labtek00 (talk) 03:35, 30 January 2016 (UTC) Labtek00 (talk) 03:35, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I have fixed this, thanks for noticing. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 03:44, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Stalin

I have removed this from the Stalin page following consensus that it was inappropriate there:

Despite the Soviets' possession of Hitler's remains, Stalin refused to believe that his old nemesis was actually dead, a belief that remained with him for years after the war ended.

I'm not sure if it is appropriate here. My understanding is that most historians believe that Stalin was foxing (and fooled Zhukov). I haven't checked the references to see if they are cited accurately, but it seems an interesting interpretation, if unlikely.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:35, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

References

I do not agree or believe the very well RS cited text, which you removed herein should have been done. The fact shown in both cited text and quoted cited text is that the Soviets rolled out different propaganda to meet their political needs as to whether Hitler was dead or still alive and also the manner of suicide.

"The intentionally misleading account of Hitler's death by cyanide poisoning put about by Soviet historians... can be dismissed." Kershaw, p. 1037.

"... New versions of Hitler's fate were presented by the Soviet Union according to the political needs of the moment ..." Eberle & Uhl, 2005, p. 288.

"... most Soviet accounts have held that Hitler... 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." Fest, 1974, p. 749.

Kershaw states that there are "compelling reasons for utmost skepticism" of the Soviets claims of remains of his body and an autopsy on it. BTW - Bezymenski's book and Hugh Thomas's book are both discredited and neither can be considered RS. "They continued to insist, despite consistent testimony from independent witnesses to the contrary, that Hitler was still alive." p. 1038.

Kershaw does go on to state that "Stalin appears persistently in the immediate post-war years—not just for propaganda purposes—to have disbelieved... Hitler's death." p. 1038. This could be added.

The only "remains" the Soviets truly had was: "... a gold bridge with porcelain facets from his upper jaw and the lower jawbone with some teeth and two bridges." Joachimsthaler, 1999, p. 225. Kershaw, in less detail on page 1039, mentions the "jawbone". He states more detail in his 2008 one volume biography.

By 11 May the Soviets confirmed through Blaschke, Heusermann and Echtmann that a dental bridge and lower jaw bone found were Hitler's, and another dental bridge was Braun's. Kershaw, 2008, p. 958, Eberle & Uhl, 2005, p. 282. Kershaw states specifically in 2008: "... one of the two bridges as that of Hitler's, the other as Eva Braun's. The lower jaw-bone, too, was Hitler's." Kershaw, 2008, p. 958. Kierzek (talk) 18:15, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

To be clear: I removed it from the Stalin page, NOT this page. The information you are citing is interesting, but I believe it belongs at this page. I am not disputing any additions to this page (though I did try to change the wording of a sentence). I considered inserting the text here, but decided I should leave it to editors with more knowledge of the topic.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:41, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

You changed a sentence and removed language from it, that is what I meant above. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 21:49, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

OK. The sentence seemed like heavy-handed editorialising, but that's a separate issue.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:01, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Diannaa, tweaked it and it is better now. Kierzek (talk) 22:04, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

New FBI evidence allegedly reveals Hitler and Eva survived

WP:FRINGE O3000 (talk)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
FBI Releases Documents proving Adolf Hitler and Eva Braun fled to Argentina in a Submarine: This article includes citations and links to actual FBI website documentation. This article must be revised to reflect the latest official information. http://topinfopost.com/2014/02/12/historians-lied-hitler-did-not-die-in-germany — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.246.195.223 (talk) 16:25, 9 September 2015 (UTC) Its not "evidence" at all. The linked so-called article misstates the reports. Read the FBI reports closely. As I said above back in April, "...people love to discuss rumors and to sell books; the FBI documents only contain a number of alleged sightings of Hitler along with conspiracy theories of his escape from Germany. The FBI states that information within those documents pertaining to the escape and sightings of Hitler cannot be verified in any way." Kierzek (talk) 16:40, 9 September 2015 (UTC) The "Hunting Hitler" program seems to at least make a plausible argument. http://www.express.co.uk/news/history/611229/Adolf-Hitler-tunnel-freedom. Not a smoking gun, but close. Oaktree b (talk) 03:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC) The Daily Express is hardly a WP:RS on such matters. The report claims to have found a tunnel. All historical sources confirm Hitler's presence in the Bunker to the 30th April. This claims an escape on the 21st? The 70's photo of Hitler and Braun reproduced in the article is quite comic. The only smoking gun here was the Walther PPK that Hitler used to put a bullet through his brain at approximately 3pm, Monday, 30th April 1945. Irondome (talk) 03:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC) what about this? 212.200.65.112 (talk) 16:37, 9 January 2016 (UTC) That's a TV show, not a scholarly resource. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:27, 10 January 2016 (UTC) Agree to previous assertations; the FBI files almost always report unverified information to include as public record. Labtek00 (talk) 03:37, 30 January 2016 (UTC) Labtek00 (talk) 03:37, 30 January 2016 (UTC) Now there is an official US Government release that confirms this https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/HITLER%2C%20ADOLF_0003.pdf. 24.181.175.144 05:27, 31 October 2017 That does not confirm anything; unsubstantiated reports and a photo that cannot be authenticated, do not prove anything new. The CIA report states that neither the contact who reported his conversations, nor the CIA station "is in a position to give an intelligent evaluation of the information". Kierzek (talk) 12:19, 31 October 2017 (UTC) Honestly I think we should still address the possibility that Hitler and Eva did survive in the article. From what I'm understanding the fbi files suggest that it was a reasonable possibility. https://vault.fbi.gov/adolf-hitler/adolf-hitler-part-01-of-04/view — 723ctttt (talk) 01:15, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Nervous Collapse

SEE: Mental breakdown

In his Last Will and Testament Hitler states "Furthermore, I do not want to fall into the hands of enemies who for the delectation of the hate-riddled masses require a new spectacle promoted by the Jews." Knowing this could have cause a mental breakdown. In my opinion, Hitler was a drug addict that was going through withdrawal at the time of his decision and suicide.

The "Preceding events" section says Hitler "suffered a total nervous collapse" when he found out that his orders had not been obeyed. I'm not familiar with this term. Does it refer to what is popularly called a "nervous breakdown?" If so, a nervous breakdown is generally regarded as a stress-induced condition that leaves you unable to function. It doesn't sound like Hitler was unable to function, as he refused to relinquish command, had Göring and Himmler arrested, carefully organised his own death, prepared his last will and testament and married Eva Braun. It sounds like he was enraged, but still functioning, and still in charge. I'm just wondering if "total nervous collapse" is one of those old-fashioned descriptions that doesn't really mean anything, like when we describe despots as "mad."

This article uses British English and the term "total nervous collapse", also is well cited and how the event was described. We are bound to go with what the WP:RS sources state and opinion as you put forth would fall under WP:OR. Our personal opinions do not matter. Kierzek (talk) 14:40, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Claims that JFK docs show CIA heard rumor that Adolf Hitler escaped to South America

conspiracy theories O3000 (talk)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Why is this not mentioned in the article? https://www.cbsnews.com/news/adolf-hitler-escape-nazi-germany-rumor-cia-documents-jfk-assassination/ AHC300 (talk) 21:52, 4 November 2017 (UTC) I’m sure the CIA hears an enormous number of rumors that don’t pan out. Why would we include them in an encyclopedia? O3000 (talk) 22:07, 4 November 2017 (UTC) O3000, I agree. And frankly, AHC300, it has already been discussed above. That does not confirm anything; "heard rumor" is just that; as I said above, unsubstantiated reports and a photo that cannot be authenticated, do not prove anything new. The CIA report states that neither the contact who reported his conversations, nor the CIA station "is in a position to give an intelligent evaluation of the information". Kierzek (talk) 00:38, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Jaw fragments

conspiracy theories O3000 (talk)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Why were the jaw fragments the Soviets claimed belonged to Hitler not tested in 2009? Is it because the Soviets knew they did not actually belong to him? (86.133.85.80 (talk) 00:20, 3 December 2017 (UTC)) Nope. There was not a question about their identity. Kierzek (talk) 00:29, 3 December 2017 (UTC) How do you know the Soviets didn't fake the tests, like the skull fragments? (86.133.85.80 (talk) 01:49, 3 December 2017 (UTC))

Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2018

add link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_will_and_testament_of_Adolf_Hitler under "prior instructions" Line 3 , 4th sentence. SDJMARIAN (talk) 22:33, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

 Done Beyond My Ken (talk)

It was NOT just the written instructions, which the sentence was talking about. Hitler had also given the same verbal instructions (orders) to Otto Günsche and Heinz Linge. Kierzek (talk) 14:46, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

FAQ

I have added a "round in circles" template to this talk page. What would we include in an FAQ section should we decide to create one? Suggestions: Hitler's purported escape to South America; various skull fragments and whose they were. Any further suggestions? — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:19, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I thought it could be done in similar fashion as the FAQ on the Nazi Party talk page. Some thoughts: Historical and present-day academic literature places Hitler's death as occurring in the Berlin Bunker on 30 April 1945. Eye witness testimony and blood spatter found on the couch in Hitler's small bunker study help support the conclusion. The corpses of Hitler and his wife, Eva (Braun) Hitler were taken out to the garden behind the Reich Chancellery, where they were doused with petrol and burned from 16:00 to 18:30. Later on 2 May, the remains of Hitler, Braun, and two dogs (thought to be Blondi and her offspring, Wulf) were discovered in a shell crater by a unit of the Red Army intelligence agency SMERSH tasked with finding Hitler's body. According to Ian Kershaw, the corpses of Braun and Hitler were already thoroughly burned when the Red Army found them, and only a lower jaw with dental work could be identified as Hitler's remains. In fact by 11 May the Soviets confirmed through dental technicians, Heusermann and Echtmann of Hitler's former dentist Blaschke, that a dental bridge and lower jaw bone found were Hitler's, and another dental bridge was Braun's. For politically motivated reasons, the Soviet Union presented various versions of Hitler's fate. In the years immediately following 1945, the Soviets maintained Hitler was not dead, but had fled Berlin. In May 1946, SMERSH agents recovered from the crater where Hitler was buried two burned skull fragments with gunshot damage. In 2009 DNA and forensic tests were performed on the skull fragment, which Soviet officials had long believed to be Hitler's. According to the American researchers, the tests revealed that the skull was actually that of a woman and the examination of the sutures where the skull plates come together placed her age at less than 40 years old. The jaw fragments that had been recovered in May 1945 were not tested. In recent years there have been a number of books and TV shows produced, which have focused on Hitler's purported escape to South America. TV shows are not a scholarly resource. There has also been the release of FBI reports, however, the FBI documents only contain a number of alleged sightings of Hitler along with conspiracy theories of his escape from Germany. The FBI states that information within those documents pertaining to the escape and sightings of Hitler "cannot be verified in any way." Further, the CIA report released stated that neither the agents, nor the CIA station "is in a position to give an intelligent evaluation of the information" as to sightings and reports as to Hitler being in South America. Some thoughts as to a summary of info to consider including. Kierzek (talk) 20:56, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

I have removed an image

I have removed the image File:Hitler_body.png. I am pretty sure this photo is not genuine, as Hitler's body was fairly burned when the Soviets arrived. The body was located at that point outside the bunker, the place where Hitler's staff had burned the body. The YouTube video that UpdateNerd mentions in an edit summary states in the description that "Finally the body was identified as Gustav Weler (Hitler´s double) who was executed with a gunshot to the forehead". Also, we don't have any evidence that the photo is in the public domain as tagged, and I have nominated it for deletion on that basis. Comments welcome. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 10:42, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

@Diannaa: most importantly, ignore the user-created description in the video (which also claims Hitler's body had already been cremated–false!). I only linked to it because the video on History.com won't play due to an overload of ads. You can see from the thumbnail that it's the same video, which is also featured in other documentaries. The video shows the Soviet troops and a body with Hitler's photograph, which matches descriptions of the events. I don't think it's "fake". The body had been burnt once by Germans, but as the article states, it wasn't very thorough due to the open air. It was more severely burnt by the Soviets after possibly digging the body up, then reburying it, then digging it up again, etc. It's a pretty confusing narrative, which is why some written accounts skew the events.

And sorry about not following all the proper protocol when I restored some of my reverted edits. First time through this process and I was assuming my own good faith. :) UpdateNerd (talk) 10:57, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Also worth noting that the bullet entry/exit points in the video match the head wounds described in the article, and the skin deformation shows evidence of partial burning at that point. UpdateNerd (talk) 11:02, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

No. This photo is not of Hitler. It is "probably" Gustav Weler and has been identified as such. See: Petrova, Ada & Watson, Peter (2007) [1995]. The Death of Hitler, p. 52, Illustration 8. Also see page 13, Hitler's Doubles by Peter Fotis Kapnistos, which states the photo is that of a "bad double". It was "reported that the Russians thought they had found the body of Hitler in the Chancellery ruins". But, it was "affirmed the corpse to be that of a look-alike".

UpdateNerd, your belief is WP:OR and goes against known main stream WP:RS sources. Also, the "bullet wound" for your photo is to the middle of the forehead, not matching the description of the witnesses; the entry wound to the right temple. See: Kershaw, p. 955; Joachimsthaler, pp: 160-182; Fischer, p. 47 and Linge, p. 199 (books cited and listed in the article). So, there is no RS evidence this photo is accurate or that it is Hitler. It should be kept out. Kierzek (talk) 13:45, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

@Kierzek: I completely agree that the picture is not really of Hitler, but you can actually see what looks like a smaller entry wound to the right temple. The (more prominent) forehead wound is the exit wound, which also corroborates those interpreting the person as having shot himself through the mouth. It’s good to know that another source matches this with a double. None of this contradicts what is shown in the film itself, a body consistent with eyewitness accounts, thought to be Hitler at the time, and later disproven. It might be OR to say, but the entry/exit wound is very similar to the skull fragment that got separated. There are plenty of corroborating sources, just not ones that have linked the evidence in a consistent narrative. If we throw out fair use images such as this, we’ll be even further from establishing one. UpdateNerd (talk) 14:37, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

In my own roundabout way I realize what I just said contradicts WP:NPOV. My suggestion then would be to at least mention the sources pointed out by Kierzek about the footage being identified as one of his doubles. Although I believe it may corroborate the views I've pointed out, simply mentioning the existence of such a film would allow the reader to decide for themselves without being WP:OR. UpdateNerd (talk) 14:53, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Remember please this is a GA rated article and has been well vetted. A recent moving of text by you gave an incorrect order of events per the RS sources; I moved it back. Secondly, the RS sources agree he was not Hitler and a "look-alike", only. Otherwise, it is debatable. Also, the "skull fragment" discovered later was found not to be Hitler's; see article. Many people were killed and buried in and around the Chancellery in 1945 and the Soviet artillery shelling also had an impact on any bodies and remains in the area. Lastly, I do not believe the photo or mention should be included in this article. Kierzek (talk) 15:55, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that's right. How could the bodies at the Führerbunker all have been buried together when Hitler and Braun's had been moved to Magdeburg? It's not actually that well-sourced, but I agree that we should only make changes we're sure of on any GA. Regarding the lookalike, I still think that might (objectively) be who the eyewitnesses thought was Hitler, but I realize pursuing the line of thought further descends into South America-related conspiracy theories, so I digress. UpdateNerd (talk) 16:24, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

We do have an article Conspiracy theories about Adolf Hitler's death. If you've got some sourced content regarding the video or photo or who the deceased person might be, it would be better placed in that article than here. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:15, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll see if I can do something to beef up that article. UpdateNerd (talk) 19:45, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

The problem is that I know of no connection between the photo of the "look-alike" and a "conspiracy theory" as to Hitler. Now, there is a short article on Gustav Weler, but it is debatable per the sources whether the photo is of him or not. So, that is a problem, as well. Kierzek (talk) 23:29, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I wasn't aware of there being a positive ID on the "double". The last thing I recall reading (in Kershaw?) was that it was a coincidence. I'll see if I can find that cite. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:20, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

New book 2018

Brisard, Jean-Christophe & Parshina, Lana (2018). The Death of Hitler, Da Capo Press. isbn: 978-0306922589. I have obtained and read through this "latest" book on the death of Hitler. It is an easy read. And although my opinion would be considered WP:OR, I can tell you that the part of real interest is the new information as to the work carried out by Dr. Philippe Charlier and his team in 2017. Much of the rest of the book is basically a re-hash of events of 1945 through 1970 that are covered in better detail in certain past books, such as: Joachimsthaler, Kershaw, Eberle & Uhl and Vinogradov, et al. One can tell the book was not written by RS historians. It has no Bibliography and scant footnotes in the chapters to secondary works. So it should be used with caution, but for Dr. Charlier's work. So take this as you wish. Kierzek (talk) 15:57, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Events related to Misch

Misch in the BBC ref recounts: 1) Hitler being wrapped up, 2) someone shouting they're burning the boss, 3) him deciding not to go because he saw Müller earlier, and speaking to Hentschel

In his book, he goes into more detail: 1) Hitler is wrapped up, 2) Misch returns to the switchboard, 3) Retzbach says they're burning the boss, 4) he doesn't go because he saw Müller earlier, staying with Hentschel

Most evidently, it's not controversial that he went back to the switchboard before being alerted that the boss was being burned. But I also suggest not using either quote directly, or using the version from the book, because it sounds like he's referencing the same thing, just emphasizing it differently while being interviewed. UpdateNerd (talk) 11:34, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

After thinking about this and reading your edit summary more carefully I agree that we should not include the quote and reverted my edit. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:56, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

I know this history of events you state, UpdateNerd. He is stating the same announcements two different ways. The recounting in his book, is a little different in wording and has more detail. I find it trivial and that is why I removed it back on July 27, 2018 and you reinserted it stating: "best not to remove anything without consensus". I find that ironic since, frankly, you have been doing just that, especially in recent weeks. I would ask that you stop removing sentences and changing things in this GA article without consensus as to important events. As for the "burning the boss", the wording and statement is trivial and not needed, but if consensus is to keep it, then I would leave it be, without the details of what Unterscharführer Retzbach proclaimed. Kierzek (talk) 13:47, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Since I asked for an explanation of one of your edits, I'll provide one for mine. :) Glad you agree he was referencing the same quote two different ways. I think the version now in the article is better. Sorry about reverting your previous edit; either there was no edit summary or I didn't understand it at the time. As for the one sentence that got removed recently, it didn't have any sources, nor did it seem important — since it doesn't explain who Günsche was making an announcement to. Thanks for taking the time to re-add it with a source. If you think clarifying who the announcement was directed to would be improvement, please feel free (I don't have access to the source). UpdateNerd (talk) 18:28, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Mysterious undo

@Kierzek, you undid my edit with the explanation "redundant - both already covered by much better cited sources". Can you point out where in the article the four segments of information I added are already included? Thanks UpdateNerd (talk) 18:03, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

"General Hans Krebs had given this information to Soviet General Vasily Chuikov when they met at 04:00 on 1 May, when the Germans attempted to negotiate acceptable surrender terms.[51][52] Stalin demanded unconditional surrender" covers the material you added about Krebs. The fact that they shut the door to keep the smoke out is pretty trivial; I recommend leaving it out. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:28, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Who are these "some" who shot themselves in the bunker? As far as I can tell the only others who committed suicide that way in the bunker were Krebs and Burgdorf, and they are already mentioned. However they did not commit suicide until 2 May, so to place it where you did is not the correct sequence (i.e. while the fire was still burning on 30 April, and before Krebs tried to negotiate with the Soviets on 1 May.) — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:37, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! I missed that about Chuikov in the next section, where it definitely belongs. I think it would add context to represent that multiple sources have the Germans discussing negotiations immediately following Hitler's suicide, but it's only a few hours difference.

The shots are those the author heard throughout the bunker also following Hitler's suicide. Since the names aren't given, it's mostly a detail, but gives a sense of the desperation of the remaining Nazis at the time. UpdateNerd (talk) 20:01, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Adding it implies that there were others beyond Hitler, Krebs, and Burgdorf who shot themselves inside the building. So I recommend leaving it out, as saying that shots were ringing out implies that there were more than these three who shot themselves onsite. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:07, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

That's helpful to know, if I find out of any specific names I will definitely bring it to the talk page. On the subject of negotiations, the fact that they re-entered the corridor, closer to the telephone exchange, and discussed negotiations corroborates Misch's account which I added in this edit. With the additional reference, I think that would help add the necessary context, without any of the extraneous details. UpdateNerd (talk) 20:29, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

We've already adequately covered the fact that some people in the bunker wished to surrender to the Soviets and said who they were. Adding a vague statement about consensus is a bad idea. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:57, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

I do see that the Soviets were placed less than 500 metres, which is helpful. But there are two intermediate points I think are missing: 1) Per Rzhevskaya source, while Hitler's body was still burning, Günsche/Bormann determined for small groups to attempt a break out, as per Hitler's orders (also supported by other sources).

2) At the very end of the 'Suicide' section something like, "Goebbels had determined to send a letter of negotiations to the Russians via General Krebs." Per Misch, while Hitler's body was burning, Günsche spoke with Goebbels about negotiating with the Russians. Then, per Rzhevskaya/Ryan, we find out Krebs had already been given orders from Goebbels at that point, hours before the negotiations on the morning of 1 May. UpdateNerd (talk) 21:48, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

I could not reply earlier as I had some urgent real world work I had to do here at the office. First, Rzhevskaya is a low grade source and should not be given weight over historians RS secondary sources as to events. Second, the addition cited to her was not in proper chronological order as Diannaa states. And the main points were already covered as Diannaa also states above, that is what I meant in my original edit summary by being "already covered by much better cited sources" and being "redundant"; (1) the fact is Hitler had already given Weidling permission to "break out" before he shot himself on 30 April; (2) Krebs met with Chuikov on 1 May to attempt to negotiate acceptable surrender terms; (3) the only ones who shot themselves were: Hitler, Krebs, Burgdorf and one cannot count Franz Schädle, as he was in the cellar of the Reich Chancellery, where he had his office at the time. As far as Rzhevskaya's statement that, "some" shot themselves in the bunker, as shown it were only three in the bunker. Rzhevskaya is NOT a reliable source for such information and I object to it being included in this GA rated article. And I agree with Diannaa, that we have already adequately covered the fact that some people in the bunker wished to surrender to the Soviets and said who they were. I further agree that the sentence: "The bunker door was shut to keep the smoke out" is trivial and adds nothing. Lastly, please use caution when relying on Rochus Misch, he was only a sergeant in the Waffen-SS and bunker telephone operator. He was not privy to major conferences or meetings and certainly is not the best source for events outside his direct knowledge. Well, now I will go home for the night. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 23:41, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, real world work always takes priority. :) As you can see in the above thread with Diannaa, I've educated myself re: only three deaths in the bunker and some other matters, so I've taken to suggesting some modified edits (1 & 2) only where they do not conflict with, and to some extent are corroborated by RS. Such supplemental use is the point of primary sources, and in historical cases such as this, there are no better sources for who said what, other than those primary sources. The article only has Weidling getting permission for a breakout, but the later events demonstrate the order Hitler included in his will (e.g. the one Goebbels disobeyed by staying behind). Also, the conversations regarding the Germans deciding to negotiate with the Soviets happened hours before they were actually carried out, but I only see the mention of Himmler's wishes being considered treason by Hitler. The conditions changed significantly after he committed suicide. Cheers, UpdateNerd (talk) 02:02, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Magdeburg exhumation

I hit enter on that edit before finishing the summary. That is per the cited source, boxes were decomposed and not removed. Brackets around dots is to emphasize that quote fragments have been rearranged. UpdateNerd (talk) 14:25, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

You change to the sentence was poor grammatically. I made a compromise edit. Kierzek (talk) 14:35, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, really no need to state anything on the boxes. UpdateNerd (talk) 14:41, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Ok. Kierzek (talk) 14:46, 13 October 2018 (UTC)