Talk:Martin Bormann

Are Mark Felton's theories about Bormann's death plausible

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documented in this article.The theories have been well documented and they should be included as representative of the historical content relating to the subject.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)

Bormann was primarily unknown by general German civilians and soldiers, he could blend in quite well. In addition various high ranking Nazi's escaped Berlins ruins. ~2026-21585-44 (talk) 03:15, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Which doesn’t mean anything. Evidence wise. Kierzek (talk) 14:17, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Successor and title Führer in regards to my edit

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)

It is increasingly becoming obvious.

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)

Citing Bergstrom

Wikipedia guidelines 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)

Scar on forehead

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)

I see no difference between the image of Borman linked to and the the image on the front page. Where is the scar? ~2026-30811-63 (talk) 08:49, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

The scar is on the forehead. Here is the original image as uploadedby the the Bundesarchiv bot. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:15, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Laughably bad section on Christianity/Religion/Church

The decades old sources are in bad need of replacement and its obvious the problems that Shirer and Lang have. Bormann had increasing influence but it was precisely in matters of religion/Christianity where he did not get his way, almost always.

1. Clergy were and continued to be party members. Bormann’s attempts to expel them were reversed by hitler himself (see “Holy Reich” pages 226-227)

2. Crucifixes in class rooms? Same as above, and it was only in parts of Bavaria. (Idib, p. 244)

3. Bormann’s supposed “public” announcement that Christianity and National-Socialism were incompatible? It was a private circular sent to Gauleiters that Hitler forced him to retract and remove (idib, 245)

Incidentally, in “Holy Reich” the author Richard Steigmann-Gall also notes that there “is no objective evidence” that Nazism planned on removing Christianity after the war. M.S. Asher (talk) 09:50, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

“Holy Reich” is a bad source

"Holy Reich" by Richard Steigmann-Gall is not a reliable source on any topic. It's been refuted by many scholars like Ernst Piper and Irving Hexham for intentionally mistranslating original materials and taking quotes out of contexts.

For example, Steigman-Gall falsely asserts Rosenberg as "administrative clerk" when the original German source from Bracher’s book describes Rosenberg as "der Weltanschauungsprokurist des Nationalsozialisum", which should be translated as "worldview authority", as demonstrated by Irving Hexham in his critique against Steigman-Gall book. Another example is that Steigmann-Gall mistranslates the phrase "wahrhaftiger Gott" in one of Hitler's speeches into "as the true god" in order to frame Hitler as a Christian, as pointed out by Richard Weikart. Toby Thacker's biography about Goebbels also critiques Steigman-Gall's distortion of Goebbels' religious view. Another scholar being Manfred Gailus notes how Steigmann-Gall's work is utter nonsense and dubious:

"Steigmann-Gall relies almost exclusively on discoveries gleaned from newspaper cutting collections in one or two archives. This is no substitute for continuous content analysis. Whilst it is possible to prove many things by this 'method', one can also usually prove the opposite as well. Steigmann-Gall only ever finds that which fits in with his obsession." - Manfred Gailus, A Strange Obsession with Nazi Christianity: A Critical Comment on Richard Steigmann-Gall's The Holy Reich Journal of Contemporary History

Steigman-Gall's claim that there's no real evidence of the Nazis planning to take anti-Christianity actions after the war is also not true. The Goebbels Diaries, The Political Diary of Alfred Rosenberg, and various other primary sources all demostrate the Nazis' determination to take radical action against Christianity after the war. This explains why Bormann's anti-Christianity efforts were sometimes hindered: Hitler thought excessively provoking conflict with domestic Christian forces during a WAR was courting disaster, and that only after their victory could more radical actions be taken. The problems is that Steigman-Gall deliberately only picks quotes that seemingly fit his narrative while ignoring any other piece of evidence he doesn't like, so of course there's "no evidence" against whatever narrative he wants to push.

"Christianity has so entangled our entire public life that it can only be gradually removed with the greatest difficulty. I don't want to do anything about it now, even during the war; these are all problems that we will have to deal with AFTER THE WAR" - Goebbels diary entry for November 21st, 1941

To sum up, Steigman-Gall's book is widely and rightly criticized in academia. In my opinion, a book with such blatant academic dishonesty which goes against far broarder academic consensus shouldn't be quoted everywhere in a wikipedia article as if it's the best book ever. It's really surprising to see a wikipedia entry subscribing to such a poorly-written historical-revisionist book. If you want to dive deeper into how bad the book is, just read the scholars I've mentioned.

“The contention that National Socialism was profoundly anti-Christian movement endured for so long not because it was convenient for researches not to prove otherwise but because it is a FACT.” - Ernst Piper, Steigmann-Gall, The Holy Reich (Critique of Richard Steigmann-Gall’s The Holy Reich)

Therefore, I've removed the texts in this entry related to Steigmann-Gall's unsuccessful historical revisionism. VioletFlower7007 (talk) 22:10, 24 January 2026 (UTC)