Talk:The Death of Adolf Hitler

Alleged autopsies vs. alleged remains

@Kierzek: In every other instance it is that the autopsies are questioned—not the remains themselves. That a skull fragment entered the investigation in 1946 doesn't change the identities of the bodies found in 1945. Petrova & Watson are referring to the same alleged autopsy reports when they point out the failure of a toxicology report. That the Soviets casted doubt on these remains is nothing new... and falls under the category of conspiracy theory. Best, UpdateNerd (talk) 07:13, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

No, you are missing the context, I was writing about what Ada Petrova and Peter Watson opined. They did not believe an autopsy did not take place, only what was seen and done and to a lesser degree, what was found. You are not correct that only the so-called autopsies are "questioned"; they both have very serious problems.

If I was, in the sentence, writing about the evidence and expert main-line opinions of historians such as, Kershaw, Joachimsthaler, Evans, Fest, McKale, Daly-Groves and even, Brisard and Parshina, then I would state that both the remains found (in context, the alleged corpse or “bodies” as you state) of Hitler and Braun and so-called autopsies as to each are seriously "questioned"; given the fact: "... 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." (Joachimsthaler 1999, p. 225, and see Kershaw, p. 958). Another bridge was identified as that of Eva Braun. (see Kershaw, p. 958). There were no "bodies" found, as alleged. Fest and Joachimsthaler argue that Hitler's body was never found, and the autopsy of the corpse was fabricated Soviet propaganda (and they are not the only two that opine that). Evans states Bezymenski's book is "full of inaccuracies" and list some and agrees that is why "Operation Myth" was ordered. (see Evans, p. 168). I have already taken more time that I planned addressing this today. I have serious real life matters I need to deal with at this time. I trust I have answered you query. Kierzek (talk) 13:58, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I think this could be better explained if this truly reflects what Petrova & Watson opined. I think you are patching things together incorrectly. Isn't Joachimsthaler's quotation about the gold bridges in reference to the fact that the bodily remains were cremated, and only the dental remains kept afterwards? I don't have that source on hand, but that should be referenced in the article too if that supports doubt over the identity of the remains.

I understand that the reports are questioned, and therefore the remains they discuss as well to some degree. But that doesn't change the fact that several RS cite them as factually proving that Hitler's remains were found. Petrova & Watson in particular only criticize that a toxicology report never happened. If only the dental remains were discovered, which is a theory I'm unfamiliar with, that wouldn't prove he died at all. In regards to how you use your time, please don't feel rushed. Just come back to explain your edits at your convenience. UpdateNerd (talk) 22:18, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I think the main problem we are having is how we see the word "remains", in context to the events herein as to Hitler. The first alleged autopsy is claimed to have involved corpses' of Hitler and Braun, which is more than "remains". When I write about the "remains", I am writing about what was found and identified, after the cremation. That is what Joachimsthaler and Kershaw and the other RS historians are referring to, as well.

So what was truly left, is not enough to be considered a "body" or corpse. The "corpses" of Hitler and his then wife, Eva (Braun) Hitler were taken out to the garden behind the Reich Chancellery, where, as you know, 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. As I recall, according to Kershaw, the corpses of Braun and Hitler were already thoroughly burned when the Red Army found them, so the only "remains" were lower jaw bone (section) with dental work could be identified as Hitler's remains. I don't have time to look it up at the moment. And as you know, 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. In May 1946, SMERSH 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. So in a nut shell, what translates into "remains", is where we have been in difference of writing herein. Kierzek (talk) 02:44, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

So, based on your change to the article, and your reasoning above, you're saying that after the bodies were burned, they became "alleged remains", except the dental portions, and further that that is the opinion of Petrova & Watson. I would be glad to read some of the other sources you suggested, but this does not jump out to me as being the opinion of Petrova & Watson. And while I agree that the Soviets botched the autopsies, and perhaps engaged in a disinformation campaign, wouldn't they have known which burnt body was once Hitler's because of his dental remains being in them? Petrova & Watson don't jump to conclusions otherwise, and rely on Bezymenski's book as a source, while focusing their criticism on the lack of toxicology examinations. UpdateNerd (talk) 05:39, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Also, according to Trevor-Roper, the SS guard who buried Hitler (Mengershausen) reidentified Hitler's remains when they were taken to Finow—apparently to the extent of recognizing the "facial structure". He said the feet had been "entirely consumed", which is much in agreement with the Soviet account. He also said that "there was a bullethole in one temple." Mengershausen is likely to have seen the body before it was burnt, and knew where to look, while the fire damage may have obscured this to later observers. The autopsy conductors may have been uninformed about how the body was found (accompanied by blood on the sofa and walls), so as to stay neutral in their observations.

Unfortunately, the first investigation was incomplete, failing even to check the internal organs. Further, the second investigation put too much stock in the external skull fragment, so they never re-examined the remains buried in Magdeburg to see if there truly was gun damage or if the skull fragment fit. Perhaps Stalin intended for the confirmation of Hitler's death to remain incomplete so he could convince his subjects that the Allies were sheltering the Nazi leader—fueling Cold War paranoia and Stalin's nuclear arms interests. But according to the bulk of reliable sources, there can be no doubt that these charred remains were Hitler's. UpdateNerd (talk) 08:21, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Mengershausen has been proven not to be a credible witness. Certainly, the other historians conclude that after the bodies were burnt only the dental fragments remained, but that should be no surprise to you because that is clearly what has been written and well RS cited for years in the Death article, which I helped bring up to GA status, years ago; and on which you have edited. The totality of the evidence and statements of credible witnesses does not support anything more than the ”remains” being more than the jaw fragments and bridge fragments after the cremation in the Reich Chancellery gardens behind the emergency exit of the Bunker. I agree that the first investigation was “botched” and the second one has its own problems. When dealing with the Soviet Union one can never discount the political factor that is intertwined with their actions and their writing. The area where the first investigation has credence is the examination of the jaw remains and teeth. I also agree with you that Stalin intended for the confirmation of Hitler’s death to remain unconfirmed for political reasons. And I agree that the jaw fragments and bridge fragments have been confirmed as Hitler’s. That’s not what I was writing about above that is in question. And when I write that “I agree”, I mean based on the RS sources, not my personal opinion. As you know, our personal opinions do not matter as that is WP:OR. With that said, I have to jump off now because I have to attend a conference call which will last a couple hours and then I’m heading out of town for the weekend so, I’ll have to continue this conversation next week. Kierzek (talk) 12:38, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Beyond the scope of the book…

This article, as with other similar articles is to present and discuss a book. Including content, opinions stated and criticism of the book. With some history and postscript.

However, this article keeps expanding further and further out and is basically a content fork and a rewriting from a certain pov of the Death of Adolf Hitler article. The creator and main editor produced a similar article several years ago, which was deleted for the same reason.

This article really should be edited and pruned down to what is supposed to be (focusing on the book) and not what it has become. Kierzek (talk) 14:13, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Some compression is totally possible- as to recent edits, it's a bit complicated when checking sources and they spiral out to very different claims. UpdateNerd (talk) 16:21, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

The focus of the article is supposed to be the book; with a short section on history (for context/background) and at the end after the criticism section of the book, a short section on legacy. It’s not supposed to be so all encompassing, including every minute of different claims or comments made. Remember, just because text may be "sourced", that does not automatically equal notability. And an excessive amount of intricate detail does not lead to a better article; see WP:NOTEVERYTHING and especially the sub-section WP:INDISCRIMINATE. "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." An article is to be an overview of its subject. Readers can go to the reliable source cited, if they wish to read more. You also give too much attention/weight to dubious sources or sources that have been debunked.

For example, Rattenhuber was not present when Hitler killed himself on the afternoon of 30 April in the Führerbunker. He did not see Hitler's body until after it was wrapped in grey blankets and carried out of the office/sitting room where Hitler died. He was not one of those who took the body up the stairs and outside. And as pointed out back in the 2021 thread above, Mengershausen has been proven not to be a credible witness. And to quote, a tabloid magazine from over 50 years ago; that certainly is not considered an RS source.

But going back to the main point, it is supposed to be an article about the book and it goes well beyond that.Kierzek (talk) 17:53, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Menerhausen's claims are of interest because he's cited in the book. We don't include details about what position they were laid in, because the book doesn't discuss that in detail. But it does concern whether or not there were bodies and what state they would have been in. The claims made between 1945 and 1968 are relevant to the book's presentation, as are subsequent arguments about which claims are most plausible. This isn't just a book, it's a book about history with debated or dubious topics specifically under discussion by those reviewing the book, and sometimes those who explain relevant historical facts without mentioning the debunked book. Again, specific data could be compressed but I don't see the article being too long. I don't plan to add anything further other than details from the German 2nd edition once I can get a copy. UpdateNerd (talk) 01:28, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

The claims made between 1945 and 1968 are relevant as I said, but they should be dealt in much more brevity and without spurious claims. They are given undo weight. Therefore, copy edits should be made accordingly in the scope I have suggested above and herein. Kierzek (talk) 02:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC)