Talk:Traudl Junge

message: WikiProject Biography Summer 2007 Assessment Drive
The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 04:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Assessment#Class_parameter|Biography assessment rating]] comment 

message: I like the quote very much and the external links are interesting but I request that normal layout guidelines  are followed: quote should be moved to the bottom and external links have to be described, though my descriptions were probably too wordy. Thanks Andries 18:33, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Go for it then!  A curate's egg 18:43, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: Wyss why do you think Maria Lara is an actor and not an actress - an actress is a female actor! The curate's egg 14:49, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As a native English speaker I find such uses affected and PC and I certainly never refer to a female actor as anything but an actress - but heigh - it's only a photo of someone other than the article's subject! :) The curate's egg 09:56, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you like poetess? How 'bout aviatrix? Ok, I sorta like that one. :) Wyss 10:20, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Silly person! The curate's egg 07:24, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actor is the appropriate term but it's not worth wasting time on. I'd rather not see the term actress in the caption but won't revert it if one of you puts it back in. Wyss 07:55, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Actor or actress

message: Why is the U.S title of the movie Der Untergang repeatedly used in this article?
Not only is the movie uniformly named der Untergang throughout the Nazi Germany history period series of articles, it is also a title in the language of origin.
::I think someone must have changed it? Thanks for pointing it out, I've restored the German title. Wyss 12:03, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Downfall instead of der Untergang? 

message: I saw the movie Der Untergang and was really moved by the angle the movie took. Up until recently it was rarely shown how the German people had suffered directly under Nazi leadership. Movies like Shindler’s List and The Pianist greatly portrayed the suffering of the Jews.
It is about time that the Russians and Germans get some recognition for the senseless blood that they have spilled for evil ideologies and self-indulging leaders. 
Another important scene in the movie is also where the post-Hitler government attempts to surrender to the Russians. They referred in their surrender statement to something like “The real war on the Eastern front.” From a western perspective, very little credit had been given to the savage battles on the Eastern front.
Is there not more information on why Traudl only got the recognition so late in her life? Did she refuse to speak out, was she afraid?
:She only spoke out late in her life, I think. Andries 10:52, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not publicly on her own (and yes, I think the autobio cited by JT was unpublished). She was interviewed by lots of intel types and authors during the post-war decades but as the article says (in so many words), she was unknown to the general public. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Toland referenced her, so she had a story to tell and she told it much before 2002, to Toland and there was also a 1947 book by her in which she wrote about her time with Hitler. 24.158.8.227 (talk) 01:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

text: "Recognition" is not quite the right word, really, but Junge did certainly appear on documentaries about Hitler, particularly The World At War, Jeremy Isaacs' 13-part documentary series for Thames Television in the early 1970s (the one narrated by Olivier).  Junge, still then a quite young woman, was interviewed, if I recall correctly, about her experiences during the last days of the war. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 14:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Der Untergang 

message: I read in a book that she was not a member of the Nazi party, though I forgot where. I will remove the category female Nazis, because there is no support in the article for the statement that she was a member of the party. I changed to description of the :category:Female Nazis to women who were part of the Nazi party, excluding women who were (loosely) affiliated with the Nazi regime without being a member of the Nazi party. Andries 10:52, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * I agree. chowells 13:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed again. --Tom (talk) 17:48, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Category female Nazis

message: Until a couple of days ago I didn't have the film on DVD. However after reading Traudl Junge's comments posted on this article (the second one involving her realization of the fact she could have known about the Holocaust) I had to get a copy of the movie so I could confirm what to me is a puzzling contradiction.
Like I wrote in my latest edit, she claims she and Sophie Scholl were born on the same year. This is absurd, because Scholl was born in May 1921 whereas Traudl was born in March 1920. This means Junge was aproximately 400 days older than the resistence fighter. 
I have no idea what led her say this, but I think readers should know what's going on.
David Irving apparently also noticed this inaccuracy, however I don't trust him 100%. This is because his own "translation" of the dialog implies Traudl claimed Sophie died on the day Hitler hired her. This is not what the subtitles show, not what I make of the German dialog. I don't know when Traudl started working for Hitler but since she was interviewed in November 1942 I assume it might have been 1943, which then fits Junge's description. Perhaps we could nitpick and say maybe she was hired in late November, December 1942 and not 1943, but that's probably unecessary.
If anyone knows anything about this, please let me know or make whatever necessary arrangements this article needs.
Ishikawa Minoru 15:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Traudl Junge's realization of her "role" in the Nazi Holocaust

message: The source—Until the final hour: Hitler's last secretary, Arcade Publishing, 2004. , 9781559707282 pp. 219–222 by Gertraud Junge, Traudl Junge, Melissa Müller (editor)— contradicts much of what is written in the next paragraph the one that starts:
"Junge was held for a year.."  Jung could not have been held for a year, if the "final hour:" is to be believed as she was in the British sector of Berlin by late December 1945, and in Bavaria by April/May 1946. "After spending time in the gulag" What does that mean? She seems to have been held in various prisons (unfortunately the online copy restricts access to two pages) so what is the name of the gulag that she was in? --PBS (talk) 16:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflicting accounts. 

message: The article states, "he was then released and allowed to integrate herself into post war Germany.[3] Following the war, Junge was not widely known outside the academic and intelligence communities. Other than appearing in the 1974" How did she support herself after the war? Either with a job/jobs (in which case that needs to be stated and the nature of the job specified in the article) or else was receiving monetary support (in which case, "From whom?" should be clarified in the addition) In either case additional information would be in order. --Harel (talk) 01:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the text at the end of Der Untergang, "She continued to work as a secretary for various companies and lived in Munich until her death in 2002." Shreevatsa (talk) 00:40, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: She indeed had jobs after the war, most of them secretarial. She also spent time in Australia and there were likely pensions at some point in time. Since she's only notable for her job with AH, some interviews she gave to writers and then, much later, her appearance and portrayal in Der Untergang, what she did for a living after May 1945 isn't very notable to the topic. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:55, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, but it's a natural question that arises, as in the comment I replied to. It's worth mentioning in a couple of words or so, to prevent future questions like this. This is supposed to be an article about her, after all. (It is even less notable what her father was, or what she wanted to be when she was a teenager, yet details like this are included in most biographical articles. It's quite weird to have sections called "Early life", "Working for Hitler" and then "Post-war", which doesn't even mention what she did post-war.) Shreevatsa (talk) 01:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think she may have worked when she was in Australia with her sister, but I don't know. I wouldn't use the tag from the movie as a source, perhaps her autobiography. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:07, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  So you agree that it's worth half a sentence or so? :-) You're the expert on this article; you'd know what source to use (e.g. how you know "She indeed had jobs after the war, most of them secretarial"). If you can recall it, please do add it to the article. IMHO, a poor source (which we have no reason to distrust) is better than nothing at all, but of course a reliable source is ideal. Regards, Shreevatsa (talk) 01:14, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Truth be told, a weak source does more harm than nothing at all. The movie has many, many strengths, but it's a movie: There are little mistakes, lapses and fictionalizations here and there throughout and those tags at the end aren't a fit source for this kind of text. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:25, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  This has been quite a lot of discussion for less than a sentence. As I already said, it's up to you to add it, with whatever source you see fit, or none at all, or not. (Either you agree it's worth mentioning, or not. I've given a reason above.) If we know it's true, it can just go into the article without a source. (It's a widespread misconception that everything on Wikipedia must have a source. WP:V only says "All material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source [...] not everything need actually be attributed. This policy requires that anything challenged or likely to be challenged, including all quotations, be attributed…".) Anyway, this is my last post on this issue. I thought I was improving Wikipedia a tiny amount by answering the question raised above, but it's not worth so much time. Shreevatsa (talk) 03:07, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I think you were improving the encyclopedia! Sometimes it is worth the time, but maybe only following how each editor might think/feel about it. I think what you said about verifiability is spot on. By putting something about her secretarial jobs next to the sentence about her times in Oz, I took care of any worries I might have had. If someone wants to put in more about her post-war employment by citing an RS or two, that could be very ok. I was only trying to say, way clumsily I guess, that going by the sources I've seen on this, from an encyclopedic outlook long stretches of her life don't seem so far to call for much editorial heed. However, given she did have meaningful contact with intelligence agencies after the war and new sources about that era are always popping up, I don't mean to say it will always be that way. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:12, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with you, and also agree that using unreliable sources is a bad idea. Thanks for making the change, and apologies if the earlier comment came off as rude or frustrated; I was just tired at the time. Regards, Shreevatsa (talk) 14:52, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  finances post-war 

message: There is a footnote here saying that Junge was raped by Soviet troops after she left the bunker. It says that it was "apparently" in the woods. This is all down to a shockingly flippant remark by James P. O'Donnell on p. 292 of The Bunker, something to the effect that soldiers "took them out and did the usual". No real details are given and no sources are cited. He also says that Junge's skull was fractured when she resisted. However Junge's own book, Until the Final Hour, gives considerable details of her departure from the bunker and makes it clear that she was not molested in any way (pp. 219-221). This is not because she was unwilling to talk about rape because on page 219, talking about accepting a cyanide pill from Hitler, she says, "To me suicide was only ever a vague safety net in case I was badly mistreated - tortured or raped." According to the Bunker article, O'Donnell says in the prologue, "Just how close this composite account comes to historical truth, to the kind of documentation an academic historian insists on, I simply cannot say. Nor is it overly important to my purpose." Given that the alleged rape is not an important part of his narrative, and is directly contradicted by the Junge book, I think he cannot be treated as a reliable source in this instance. I am removing all mention of the rape from this article and from Else Krüger and Gerda Christian.  --Scolaire (talk) 07:49, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rape 

message: I've undone the move to Gertraud Junge. It was made with no discussion and without consensus. Junge is widely (and almost always) noted in the sources as Traudl Junge. Meanwhile, the policy, Wikipedia:NAME#Common_names, is straightforward on this and supports keeping the article at Traudl Junge. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:22, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Gwen Gale, she is better known "Traudl Junge". Her given name and maiden name can be noted in articles where needed; if not done so already, for general readers. The re-direct is a good idea of Gertraud to Traudl. I do suggest: (Gertraud) Traudl Junge, as to listing as author, so there is no confusion. Kierzek (talk) 17:29, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Truth be told, I'm not keen on the notion of changing an author name at all in a citation. Since the article does say her given birth name was Gertraud, I don't see how a heedful reader could be led astray. However, there may be a slicker way to handle that. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:04, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Her given name was Gertraud, see: Joachimsthaler, Anton (1996, 1999). "The Last Days of Hitler: The Legends, The Evidence, The Truth". Brockhampton Press. pages 290-291. I don't feel that strong about writing it, "Traudl (Gertraud) Junge"; just a suggestion. I would leave out the Gertraud Junge as co-author to avoid any confusion and list only Traudl Junge as author; as the book covers' (HB and Paperback) state. Kierzek (talk) 18:18, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

text: I changed it per above; see what you think. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 18:23, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like the book listings themselves are muddled, see this, which lists both Traudl Junge and Gertraud Junge as authors along with Muller. Lacking any daughter or other relative with the same given birth name of Gertraud, I would go with Traudl all the way. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:29, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me. That should solve any possible confusion, I hope. Kierzek (talk) 18:59, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it does. Thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:10, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

text: Also pasting this over from my talk page (so editors here will see it): The Google books listing says Gertraud, but when one gets into the book itself (through the preview window), it's all Traudl. So, I would say Traudl is the name to use on en.WP. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:16, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Traudl or Gertraud 

message: Currently the article states
This is clearly a nonsense and OR of the worst kind (because it is not true).
The content of the article proves this:
She is mentioned by name in Lord Hugh Trevor-Roper's most widely read book The Last Days of Hitler (1947) on at least 12 different pages. She appears in the the The World At War series (1973) not one but twice speaking giving detail about events in the Bunker in English. These sources alone would mean that she was not obscure. But in addition she was portrayed in three English language TV Productions/Plays by 1981. So she was well known to far more people that "the academic and intelligence communities" from 1947 onwards and to a Television watching public from 1973.
The wording "was not widely known" and "global celebrity"  were originally introduced into the article in August 2005 by user:Wyss and Wyss did not cite a source for this claim. "Relative obscurity"  was introduce by user:Wyss (September 2005) after Wyss had been made aware that Junge had been in the World At War Series.
"Later, Junge became more public about her experiences" (user:Gwen Gale, May 2010 ). It is difficult to see how she could have been more public about her experiences than she was in the World At War Series (where she sat as a "talking head" wearing bright yellow). 
I suggest that the judgements of whether she was or was not obscure or later "[had] celebrity status" is removed and let the facts speak for themselves.  -- PBS (talk) 22:51, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree; the wording is uncited, therefore, challenge is easy and your points above are persuasive. Kierzek (talk) 01:43, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

text: I performed ce and WP:NPOV edits per the points above. Kierzek (talk) 15:31, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Junge was not widely known -- is a nonsense 

message: The quote at the end, attributed to Junge talking about Sophie Scholl, says "I could see that she had been born the same year as I, and that she had been executed the same year I entered into Hitler's service."
Neither of these are consistent with the biographies of Junge and Scholl - Scholl was born in May 1921, Junge was born in March 1920, so Junge was 14 months older. And Scholl was executed in February 1943, but according to this article Junge started working for Hitler in December 1942. Timbouctou (talk) 17:42, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scholl and years