Did Hitler survive?

[Wordsworth]

Interesting thread.

Put me in the Hitler Dead camp.

From the people who saw Hitler in the bunker, we know that he had aged quickly, his hand shook, his mood depressed, his body wracked with drugs, his eyes glassy. Per Traudl Junge, he spoke of suicide, he wouldn't risk combat (which would have given him a quick death) because he feared falling into the hands of the Soviets and, after the death of Mussolini, he didn't want his dead body degraded either. If he didn't want to die fighting for fear he would be captured, I feel that he wouldn't risk escaping for the same fear. The chances were likely that he would be captured by someone.

The OSS report on Hitler was certainly flawed. But it was right in several cases. That Hitler couldn't stand not having the adoration of the crowd and would withdraw from his public appearances as the war turned against him was right on the nose. After Stalingrad, he was at Berchtesgaden or the Wolf's Lair, eating lunch with his secretaries and surrounding himself with people who looked up to him. People he could do little favors for to earn their devotion. Staying alive to try to cooperate with the Allies was unrealistic. He and Goebbels recognized what Himmler & Goering didn't. The Allies weren't going to run Germany in cooperation with well-known Nazi figures.

Why he thought that Germans would continue upholding the racial laws or make sure his sisters got their inheritance is beyond me. He'd lost faith in the German people, was willing to let them be knocked back to the Middle Ages. They'd failed him. He wasn't going to share power with anyone, much less over a nation of what he deemed failures.

He was, as the report suggested, the central character of a Wagnerian tragedy. On stage when the curtain fell.

I don't deny that there probably were plans for protecting Hitler or perhaps giving him someplace to hide in Spain or South America. No doubt, there were preparations made in case Hitler wanted to flee. By the end of the war, Hitler was in no condition to make such a decision. A man moving imaginary armies around on a map would not be able to accept eking out a living in Argentina as a nobody. His mental deterioration wouldn't have allowed for it.

Stalin was paranoid. Whether he truly believed Hitler was alive or just used it as a pretext is up in the air. I will not take his word on anything.

By all accounts, Hitler's remains, as well as Eva's, the Goebbels' family, General Krebs and the dogs, were taken to the Soviet Union. I expect they got mixed together over time. The recent special "Hunting Hitler" speculated that the female skull was Eva Braun's and went looking for one of her relatives who refused to cooperate. It never brought up the likelihood that the skull was probably Magda Goebbels', by all reports, shot by her husband. If the bones got mixed up and they didn't know what belonged to who, they might've mistaken hers for Hitler's as there were bullet holes in both skulls.

It's not impossible that Hitler escaped. I just believe it is unlikely given his mental, physical and emotional state, combined with the reality of the situation.

[Mannheim]

I am aware of the Hitler doppelganger and his photo but is there any source for the statement that he was shot by Rattenhuber's men?

[sandeepmukherjee196]

I am aware of the Hitler doppelganger and his photo but is there any source for the statement that he was shot by Rattenhuber's men?

Hi...

Rattenhuber's men were responsible for Hitler's security, in an FBI kind of intelligence / counter intelligence role, and by extension the security of the Bunker-Chancellery area since Hitler was housed there.

The FBK under Schadle and Beermann was responsible for the military protection of Hitler in case of hostile combat or assassination attempts.

Rattenhuber was in Russian captivity for a long time and upon his return kept a low profile and died in less than 2 years (June 1957). So he couldn't be put through the endless round of interviews and story telling sessions that other bunker personalities were subjected to by journalists, authors etc.

The shooting of the Doppelganger and Fegelein remains a matter of intelligent conjecture. Its unlikely that individuals would have done these acts without authorisation..these involved matters of State in both cases. Colonel Schadle shot himself and Beermann has never mentioned any role of the FBK in these shootings. In any case that was not part of the job role of the FBK.

The custody and handling of the Doppelganger were the responsibility of Gen Rattenhuber. In case Hitler's plans and activities required the use of the Doppelganger at any stage, Rattenhuber would have had to organise and make the necessary arrangements.

When Hitler exited the stage and the time for escaping Berlin came, the Doppelganger lost all his utility to Rattenhuber. He became a liability in fact. So.......

Ciao
Sandeep

[michael mills]

That speculation assumes that the corpse found by the Soviets and widely publicised as that of Hitler himself was indeed that of a Hitler double, ie a person officially retained for the purpose of impersonating Hitler on specific occasions.

Is there any hard evidence that such a double or doubles actually existed?

It may well be that the corpse found was that of a person who just happened to have a vague resemblance to Hitler and did not have any official connection to him whatever, just some poor guy who like so many others just had the bad luck to be caught in the crossfire.

[michael mills]

Further to my last message, it appears that Hitler did indeed have a double called Gustav Weler. However, the body photographed was not that of Weler, who actually survived the war and was interrogated by the Americans.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustav_Weler

Gustav Weler was a doppelgänger (or body-double) of Adolf Hitler. He occasionally stood in for Hitler and was used as a political decoy for security reasons.[1][2]

When Berlin was captured at the end of the Second World War in Europe, it was thought that Weler had been executed by a gunshot to the forehead in an attempt to confuse the Allied troops .[3] When "his" corpse was discovered in the Reich Chancellery garden by Soviet troops, it was mistakenly believed to be that of Hitler because of his identical moustache and haircut. The corpse was also photographed and filmed by the Soviets.[4] However, the British surgeon and historical writer W. Hugh Thomas reported in his 1996 book “Doppelgangers” that Gustav Weler was found alive after the war and that Allied troops interviewed Weler following Hitler’s death.[5] One servant from the bunker declared that the dead man was one of Hitler's cooks. The same servant also surmised Weler "had been assassinated because of his startling likeness to Hitler, while the latter had escaped from the ruins of Berlin".[6]

[Wordsworth]

It is my understanding that Hitler's nephew, Leo Raubal, Jr., resembled his uncle and sometimes served as a double, as well.

[Mannheim]

So there is no evidence that the corpse in the photo was killed to give the impression that Hitler was dead? As I suspected: those toothbrush moustaches were de rigeur for some back in the day. Thanks for the input everybody.

[histan]

Had an enjoyable time reading through this thread and I have to say that the analysis by Sandeep (perhaps to his surprise!) is the one that best fits the information contained in the sources available to me.

One important question to ask is what reason did Hitler have to live at the end of April 1945?

In his youth he had searched for something that would give meaning to his life. He had found this in the Army during the First World War and was apparently devastated by its surrender in 1918. He only found meaning again when he was asked to infiltrate the Deutsche Arbeiterpartei in 1919. Instead, he was converted and his life had meaning and grand objectives. By April 1945 it was clear that these grand objectives that he had so nearly achieved were completely gone - the German people had proved unworthy of him. With no more meaning in his life he had nothing to look forward to particularly since he especially feared capture and humiliation. Why would he risk that for a meaningless life in hiding living in constant fear that his hosts might just hand him over to suffer such a fate? After all hadn't almost all of his party colleagues betrayed him at some point?

It doesn't make sense that he would attempt to escape.

But Sandeep has already said this and has produced facts and logical deductions to counter an opposing view. I don't have any additional facts to contribute. If anyone demands sources for my statements I am pretty sure that Sandeep can find and quote them.

Regards

John

[sandeepmukherjee196]

Had an enjoyable time reading through this thread and I have to say that the analysis by Sandeep (perhaps to his surprise!) is the one that best fits the information contained in the sources available to me.

One important question to ask is what reason did Hitler have to live at the end of April 1945?

In his youth he had searched for something that would give meaning to his life. He had found this in the Army during the First World War and was apparently devastated by its surrender in 1918. He only found meaning again when he was asked to infiltrate the Deutsche Arbeiterpartei in 1919. Instead, he was converted and his life had meaning and grand objectives. By April 1945 it was clear that these grand objectives that he had so nearly achieved were completely gone - the German people had proved unworthy of him. With no more meaning in his life he had nothing to look forward to particularly since he especially feared capture and humiliation. Why would he risk that for a meaningless life in hiding living in constant fear that his hosts might just hand him over to suffer such a fate? After all hadn't almost all of his party colleagues betrayed him at some point?

It doesn't make sense that he would attempt to escape.

But Sandeep has already said this and has produced facts and logical deductions to counter an opposing view. I don't have any additional facts to contribute. If anyone demands sources for my statements I am pretty sure that Sandeep can find and quote them.

Regards

John

Hi John....

I have provided and named the principal sources in one of my posts above.

Thanks.

Ciao
Sandeep

[Wordsworth]

So there is no evidence that the corpse in the photo was killed to give the impression that Hitler was dead? As I suspected: those toothbrush moustaches were de rigeur for some back in the day. Thanks for the input everybody.

I've heard many stories about this. One was that the man in the photo was rooting around the Reichschancellory and was shot by Russian troops. I don't think we'll ever really know. It would certainly have been dangerous being in Berlin in those days and, esp., anywhere the Soviets were.

[sandeepmukherjee196]

So there is no evidence that the corpse in the photo was killed to give the impression that Hitler was dead? As I suspected: those toothbrush moustaches were de rigeur for some back in the day. Thanks for the input everybody.

I've heard many stories about this. One was that the man in the photo was rooting around the Reichschancellory and was shot by Russian troops. I don't think we'll ever really know. It would certainly have been dangerous being in Berlin in those days and, esp., anywhere the Soviets were.

Can't possibly be true. The Soviets first thought this doppelganger's body to be Hitler's...before they saw the darned socks. They wouldn't have thought that if they themselves had shot him.

This man was shot neatly in the forehead with a single bullet. A typical deliberate execution. When boisterous marauding soldiers randomly shoot guys ... they usually don't do it this way.

Ciao
Sandeep

[michael mills]

Can't possibly be true.

That is an unwarranted conclusion, since we have no way of knowing the true circumstances under which the images of this corpse were made.

It is dangerous to rely on the statements from Soviet sources, since all such statements were made for a propaganda purpose decided on at the highest levels. The clear propaganda purpose behind the publication of the images of this corpse was to support Stalin's contention that Hitler had escaped, by creating the impression that the corpse had been planted by Hitler's followers in order to throw pursuers off the track. Thus, we do not know for sure where the corpse was found, or how the man came to be killed.

The contention that the corpse was that of a Hitler double shot by Rattenhuber's men rests on a number of assumptions:

- that there was a corps of men officially employed as doubles for Hitler;
- that Rattenbuber was in control of that corps;
- that the corpse was of a man belonging to that corps.

The evidence for all those assumptions is quite simply omnicopulative.

This man was shot neatly in the forehead with a single bullet. A typical deliberate execution.

In fact, a single bullet wound in the forehead is a common cause of death in a situation where bullets are flying around. It is a common result of sticking one's head up to see what the situation is ahead of one.

[michael mills]

This documentary relates the story of the finding of corpse, as given in an interview with Vladimir Gvozd, former head of the reconnaissance unit of the 3rd Shock Army:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJL1P7D2wa0

The reconnaissance unit entered the grounds of the Reich Chancellery on 2 May 1945, accompanied by Admiral Voss, a Hitler confidant now a prisoner of the Red Army. According to the story told in the interview by Gvozd, the Reconnaissance Unit found a large dried-up concrete fountain, filled with bodies. Again according to Gvozd, it was Voss who pointed out one body and said that it was Hitler; however, after studying the body more closely, Voss stated that it was not Hitler.

The interview with Gvozd also appears to be the origin of the detail that the corpse was wearing darned socks.

The question is whether the story told by Gvozd is true. He states that the fountain was full of bodies, of which the corpse alleged to resemble Hitler was only one; so far as know, there is no information on how many bodies there were, who they were, how they came to be killed and dumped in the fountain.

Gvozd's story also does not explain how a film came to be made of the corpse, in such a manner as to emphasise the resemblance to Hitler, including the placing of a photograph of Hitler in the hands of the corpse so as to allow a visual comparison with the face of the corpse. According to Gvozd, the possibility that the corpse was that of Hitler was almost immediately dismissed by Voss, so there was no reason for the Soviets to make a film, except for purposes of disinformation.

[sandeepmukherjee196]

This documentary relates the story of the finding of corpse, as given in an interview with Vladimir Gvozd, former head of the reconnaissance unit of the 3rd Shock Army:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJL1P7D2wa0

The reconnaissance unit entered the grounds of the Reich Chancellery on 2 May 1945, accompanied by Admiral Voss, a Hitler confidant now a prisoner of the Red Army. According to the story told in the interview by Gvozd, the Reconnaissance Unit found a large dried-up concrete fountain, filled with bodies. Again according to Gvozd, it was Voss who pointed out one body and said that it was Hitler; however, after studying the body more closely, Voss stated that it was not Hitler.

The interview with Gvozd also appears to be the origin of the detail that the corpse was wearing darned socks.

The question is whether the story told by Gvozd is true. He states that the fountain was full of bodies, of which the corpse alleged to resemble Hitler was only one; so far as know, there is no information on how many bodies there were, who they were, how they came to be killed and dumped in the fountain.

Gvozd's story also does not explain how a film came to be made of the corpse, in such a manner as to emphasise the resemblance to Hitler, including the placing of a photograph of Hitler in the hands of the corpse so as to allow a visual comparison with the face of the corpse. According to Gvozd, the possibility that the corpse was that of Hitler was almost immediately dismissed by Voss, so there was no reason for the Soviets to make a film, except for purposes of disinformation.

Looks like sensation mongering n the part of the Soviet journos and military photographers? Howsoever unlikely, the Russians were photographing everything in that locale that time.

[garywdyls]

Can't possibly be true.

That is an unwarranted conclusion, since we have no way of knowing the true circumstances under which the images of this corpse were made.

It is dangerous to rely on the statements from Soviet sources, since all such statements were made for a propaganda purpose decided on at the highest levels. The clear propaganda purpose behind the publication of the images of this corpse was to support Stalin's contention that Hitler had escaped, by creating the impression that the corpse had been planted by Hitler's followers in order to throw pursuers off the track. Thus, we do not know for sure where the corpse was found, or how the man came to be killed.

The contention that the corpse was that of a Hitler double shot by Rattenhuber's men rests on a number of assumptions:

- that there was a corps of men officially employed as doubles for Hitler;
- that Rattenbuber was in control of that corps;
- that the corpse was of a man belonging to that corps.

The evidence for all those assumptions is quite simply omnicopulative.

This man was shot neatly in the forehead with a single bullet. A typical deliberate execution.

In fact, a single bullet wound in the forehead is a common cause of death in a situation where bullets are flying around. It is a common result of sticking one's head up to see what the situation is ahead of one.

Wasn't the fragment of his skull that the Soviets had all these years DNA tested and it turned out to be of a woman in her 40's?