One of the luckiest historical arguments, most abused and discussed on the internet, most likely concerns the fate of Adolf Hitler after the Second World War and the collapse of the Reich.
According to the official historiography, in the last phase of the Second World War, Hitler had taken refuge in a Berlin bunker, together with his companion Eva Broun, his beloved dog, some high officers of the Reich Wehrmacht (Wehr =defense, macht 3 ° singular persona of machen, =to do) literally was defense force) and a number of operational and technical agents involved in the maintenance and management of the primary functions of the bunker, thus allowing Hitler and his senior officers to rule the nation and the army, communicate with the outside world, and above all survive, within the limits allowed by a military bunker under Berlin during the Second World War.
Official historiography has been based, for a long time, on two different types of sources, on the one hand military documents and reports of the time, extremely partial, given the confidential and extremely delicate nature of some information contained therein, and in relation to air that "was starting to pull" between the United States and the Soviet Union. The other type of source, on the other hand, consists of oral accounts and direct and in some cases indirect (or second-hand) testimonies of the military and their fellow soldiers, as well as civilians, who at the time, for different reasons and which would be needless to list, they were in Berlin. Then there are personal diaries, correspondence, newspaper articles, and many other documents that for simplicity we will include in direct or second-hand testimonies.
If military documents carry with them the defect of partiality due to censorship and classifications, oral (or written) testimonies, carry another defect, that of error, of partiality linked to distorted memory, in addition to the substantially tendentious nature of the information permeated with personal judgments and observations, not very useful, not to say harmful , to a correct reconstruction.
In any case, starting above all from these types of sources, and referring to the official version communicated by the winning powers of the war, first the chroniclers and then the historians, managed to reconstruct the events, which, in April 45, led to the death by Hitler.
The official historiography, largely agrees with the official version, which would see Hitler and his partner take their own lives in the bunker, subsequently their bodies were set on fire, and when the Red Army broke into the bunker, he found himself having to do the accounts with the charred bodies of a man and a woman. According to the very first documents, made public between 1945 and 1948 thanks to the dental impressions, it was possible to identify the body of Hitler, whose medical record, due to the numerous health problems (I wrote an article in the past on the state of health of Hitler) was full of x-rays, and the dental impression recovered from one of the corpses in the bunker seems to coincide almost perfectly with Hilter's dental impressions in his medical record.
The only partial coincidence of the dental impression, combined with many errors of translation, or rather, of interpretation of the translation, has generated many myths about the "alleged death of Hitler"
A few days ago I wrote a post on Historicaleye's facebook page which, as often happens, I slightly escaped mana, well over 3000 characters (about 600 words). Usually I transport those posts here on the site, leaving only a brief introduction to the facebook page, this time I wanted to publish it directly on facebook, obtaining not a little "luck" the post in fact was very read and above all appreciated. I therefore decided to propose it again to you readers of the blog, for one reason or another you do not follow or cannot follow the facebook page, integrating it in this larger article.
As we can see from the following, there is a slight discrepancy in the meaning of three sentences, which, in the first two cases, can be considered as the same sentence translated / expressed / communicated / differently.
"In the bunker where Hitler is alleged to have committed suicide, also were found the remains of a woman ”
"The remains of a woman were found in the bunker where it is alleged that Hitler committed suicide"
"In the bunker where Hitler is presumed to take his own life, only were found the remains of a woman ”
The three sentences differ from each other only in one word, and that word is crucial to understanding the entire sentence. In the first case, the presence of “ also "Leaves little room for imagination, among the remains of the bunker the remains of a woman were also found, in perfect accordance with the official version that Eva Broun would like to take her own life in the bunker together with Hitler, and the logical consequence of this is that in the bunker, in addition to the remains of Hitler (identified by the dental impression), there were also the remains of a woman (Eva Broun). said for a long time) that “ the remains of a woman were found in the bunker ", The task of interpretation becomes very important, this phrase can mean that" also "the body of a woman was found in the bunker, as it can mean that" only "the body of a woman was found in the bunker, but with a some common sense if there are two bodies, and the woman is one, the other is inevitably a man. However, this logical passage has not always been made, opening infinite and never closed doubts about Hitler's fate.
The third case is finally the result of the absence of that fundamental logical passage to interpret the previous sentence, adding the term " only ", Among other things speaking of the discovery of two bodies, this error, fueled by bad faith and conspiracy, born from an error of interpretation, fueled that error, questioning the official version, but based on an inconsistency.
In reality, to say that "only the body of a woman" was found in the bunker is correct, because the other body was of a man, and the charred woman was actually only one. In any case, that "also" forgotten, not translated, mistranslated, deliberately omitted by someone, and that "only" misinterpreted, by mistake or on purpose, has done more damage than one can imagine, in fact it is at the origin of at least half of the myths about Hitler's flight from Germany during the war.
Many continue to think that Hitler did not commit suicide with Eva Bown in the Berlin Bunker * but he managed to escape from Germany, aided by the CIA, managing to find refuge in Argentina, and " the clear proof "Of the successful escape lies in the fact that, in the bunker, among the remains and rubble, they found the remains of a charred woman.
Now, you certainly don't need the acumen of Sherlock Holmes to deduce that, if in a bunker there are a man (Hitler) and a woman (Eva Broun) and they take their own lives, in the bunker there will be the remains of a woman. But for a moment let's pretend we're stupid and ask ourselves a few questions about the brilliant and absolutely unsuspected escape plan of the two. For what absurd reason, to "mask his escape" Hitler would have had to hide the body of a woman in a bunker, and to mask the corpses identifiable by the dental impression, he did not order to destroy the dental impression, instead setting it on fire to bodies, useful for destroying DNA, but at the time DNA was not used to identify a body, this "technique" has spread especially in the last 20 years, and is used starting from the 80s at the latest. It therefore made no sense for Hitler to destroy the DNA (as many claim) but not the dental impression (the only element capable of allowing the identification of a charred body). So, wasn't it easier, if not logical, to destroy that bunker and leave no trace behind? But no, but of course not, why simplify things, why look for a credible cover for your escape, when you can make everything more complicated, protecting yourself from recognition techniques that do not yet exist, but not from existing ones, and then build , as a good strategist, a cover that leaks from all sides, with so many flaws, inconsistencies and logical forcing, as to seem ridiculous even to the most stupid of investigators of the time. After all, Hitler was only at the top of the Nazi hierarchy, worshiped as a sort of divinity in much of the nation, and above all by numerous Nazi hierarchs who, on the contrary, managed to escape and lose their tracks, making use of a solid international network. of aid, which allowed them to create valid coverages. And yet, among the many channels available for a possible safe escape, Hitler, the most wanted man in Europe, resorted to the most stupid of escape plans, undertaking an extremely daring and senseless journey.
Without going around it too much, in the documents of the Red Army published (partially) in 45 and in full form in the 90s (although with some passages deleted) it is clearly stated that in the bunker the charred remains of two people were found, a man and a woman, the man was identified with Hitler through the dental impression **, the woman instead, if it was not possible to identify her 100% due to the worst conditions of the remains, it is very likely that she was Eva Broun, companion of Hitler who, as already said, according to the official version, confirmed by the documents of the time, was present in that bunker at that precise historical moment.
Ultimately, the remains of a dog were also found in the bunker, and although Nazi Germany made extensive use of dog units, these were in no way useful for the survival and operation of a bunker, however, in the Berlin bunker it was present a dog, not military but civil, it is Hitler's personal dog, whose size coincides with the remains found in the bunker ***.
Personal and impromptu considerations:
* I hope for him that he is dead, because if he had fallen into the hands of the Soviets he would have had a fate worse than death, and indeed, I believe that is precisely the reason that led him to suicide
** to date, in 2017, making use of the most modern technologies, falsifying the dental impression of a body is not easy, especially if you plan to set the body on fire, as the high temperatures would show the artificial nature of dental prostheses, and if today it is difficult, let alone in 45.
*** I can understand everything, I swear I can understand everything, but tell me, why, in order to “disguise the escape” Hitler should have killed or pretended to kill his dog? Who among other things, according to witnesses Hitler loved that dog more than his life.