# Talk:Martin Bormann

The historian and professor Mark Felton made a series of Youtube videos arguing that Bormann did not die in Berlin but fled to Argentina, died there, then had his bones retrieved and planted in Berlin. Are these extremely fringe? Are they even worth mentioning in the article, alongside other speculation about where and how he died? CoyotesKenning (talk) 15:38, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Well I don’t know about Youtube, except it is not considered a RS source. However, I have one book by Felton, “Guarding Hitler” (2014). On pages 157 and 158, he talks about the two skeletons being found and Dr. Blaschke reconstructing the dental records for Bormann. And does mention what “some authors” state are inconsistencies and mentions Paraguay where Bormann was reported seen, but not Argentina. But in the end, Felton adds it all “continues to generate conspiracy theories”. So, there you go, fringe theories. Nothing more. Kierzek (talk) 02:12, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
A very high percentage of YouTube videos are not considered reliable sources. However, videos on the official YouTube channels of recognized reliable media outlets are considered reliable. Cullen328 (talk) 02:28, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
Felton has documented his change of opinion since the publication of that book. Regardless, the speculation itself should be included in this article. Merxa (talk) 19:22, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
Have you seen Hunting Hilter?
He most definitely didn’t die in Berlin in 1945! 194.233.232.141 (talk) 19:59, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
Hunting Hitler makes for good TV fiction, nothing more. Kierzek (talk) 15:42, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
The speculation regarding the subject's potential escape from Europe to South America should be documented in this article.The theories have been well documented and they should be included as representative of the historical content relating to the subject.  Merxa (talk) 19:20, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
These conspiracy theories were put to rest with the discovery of the body, which has been conclusively identified as Bormann's through genetic testing. The possibility of an escape to South America is briefly covered in the section "Discovery of remains" and I think that's sufficient.  — Diannaa (talk) 02:14, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
I don't see how the discovery of the remains "put to rest the conspiracy theory". The mere fact that the skeletal remains belong to Bormann does not prove nor disprove the possibility that he lived past 1945, only that he died some time before 1972, and his bones were in Berlin in 1972. Occam's Razor tells us this means Bormann died in Berlin in 1945. But there are discrepancies in the various witness accounts, which could be attributed to erroneous memory from the confusion of war, but could also raise realistic questions as to their validity.
More forensic analysis is required to answer some of the questions raised by the so called "conspiracies", such as the red soil. But as the remains no longer exist, it is no longer possible. And the gaps in the witness accounts will forever remain. The official and widely accepted version of the history is that he died in 1945, but we are not 100% confident that it is entirely accurate. Keep in mind that various intelligence agencies took the "conspiracy" that Bormann was still alive very seriously until his remains were finally discovered. Therefore, the theory should be included in the article, but only if it is presented as such in a reliable source, of course. AmethystZhou (talk) 06:24, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
that's just an unbelievable piece of Original Research 2603:6080:21F0:6000:B952:B0D0:F463:F98A (talk) 03:17, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
It makes for a good story, but the idea that someone as high profile as Bormann could have gotten out of the completely torn apart central Berlin when the Red Army was inside it from all angles is nonsensical. EmilePersaud (talk) 00:13, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
True and the remains, bolstered by DNA evidence closes the book. Kierzek (talk) 03:55, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
Putting aside the fact that YouTube is generally not considered a RS, Mark Felton himself absolutely should not be considered a reliable source by any measure. He's been caught out multiple times plagiarising his work from other historians and even places like Reddit, the Axis History Forums, and Wikipedia itself. He's also been called out for peddling outright misinformation by the German Tank Museum. His YouTube videos often focus on conspiracy theories like this and should be ignored, it's sensationalist pop history, nothing more. 148.252.128.120 (talk) 01:28, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Kershaw states, "Significantly, however, Dönitz was not to inherit the title of Führer." This is the only mention in the source regarding the inheritance of the title of Führer. I don’t understand what the issue is. Perhaps you should actually read the source. Moreover, the source does not state anything like, “Hitler did not name any successor ... as leader of the Nazi Party.” Instead, it mentions that Bormann was appointed as Party Minister "Bormann, another who had proved his loyalty, was made Party Minister.", precisely as I noted in my last edit.
I hope my explanation is sufficient enough. There wasn't enough room to add it in the comments for the edit 2A04:4A43:45AF:D537:0:0:3761:BB83 (talk) 00:01, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I can't get a look at Kershaw till Tuesday but the info is on page 187 of Joachimsthaler 1999 so I added a citation.. Also, it should say "appointed" so I have corrected that.  — Diannaa (talk) 00:53, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Martin Bormann escaped. He was treated for stomach cancer and died in 1959. He was buried briefly, and his body was taken to Berlin and buried.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/bormann-escaped-but-died-as-mengele-s-patient-1475068.html
Police records should be considered sources. 146.199.25.71 (talk) 20:53, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Speculation and conjecture only, DNA evidence has proved otherwise. Kierzek (talk) 14:10, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
What do you mean? No one has disputed the body found in Berlin. But soil analysis from the body's feet confirm traces of rich dark red soil only found in Paraguay. 146.199.25.71 (talk) 19:01, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia guidelines[1] state that " Page numbers are not required for a reference to the book or article as a whole. When you specify a page number, it is helpful to specify the version (date and edition for books) of the source because the layout, pagination, length, etc. can change between editions.
If there are no page numbers, whether in ebooks or print materials, then you can use other means of identifying the relevant section of a lengthy work, such as the chapter number or the section title." I have replaced the reference with the chapter and section instead since there are not page numbers in the kindle version, that should be sufficient. Nosam89 (talk) 01:53, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Photo caption says: "A scar on his forehead has been edited out of this photograph".
Surely by Nazi propagandists at the time? Oh wait - the original at Bundesarchiv shows the scar. So it's been edited by a Wikipedia contributor. So does that mean Wikipedia is more interested in making Martin Bormann look good than the Nazi party was?
Why not use the original unmodified? 2A02:AA1:164F:2F14:E852:32E:956E:183 (talk) 20:02, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Such dueling scars were popular among aristocratic Germans "as a mark of their class and honour, due to the status of dueling societies at German and Austrian universities at the time." Many Nazis had such scars; see for example these images: Ernst Kaltenbrunner,  Curt Bräuer, Rudolf Diels. I am not sure why the removal was done, but Bormann himself would not think its removal would make him look better. Quite the opposite.The person who removed the scar has not edited since 2018, so it's not possible to ask them why they did it. It was done on the original Bundesarchiv image, which is here. It would be a simple matter to reverse that edit, but I personally don't see the need. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:55, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
It's a Schmiss? But according to e.g. German WP and Munzinger Biographie, Bormann was never an academic (he was an apprentice on a farm, then an overseer). 2A02:AA1:164F:2F14:E852:32E:956E:183 (talk) 22:29, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
Perhaps in the interest of transparency the caption could say, "A scar on his forehead has been edited out of this photograph by Wikipedia." 2A02:AA1:164F:2F14:E852:32E:956E:183 (talk) 22:30, 22 September 2025 (UTC)