4 ms·

> And so on and so forth.. Or we could just take the word of the KGB/FSB who has lied about everything. The same people who say we can't trust anything from pu

by qiskit 5y ago

> And so on and so forth.. Or we could just take the word of the KGB/FSB who has lied about everything. The same people who say we can't trust anything from putin because he is/was a kgb/fsb agent are the same ones saying we should trust their version of events absolutely. Katyn massacre was rife with conspiracies too because the official narrative was a lie. The official narrative was that in 1970?, the kgb dug up their bodies, burnt them, ground them up into fine powder and dump them in a river so that nobody should visit their burial site. Were there many people in the soviet union/east germany looking to visit hitler's grave to pay homage? Of course not. Does that kgb narrative make any sense to you? Also, it's hard for me to believe that the kgb didn't keep some dna material. After all, by 1970, dna was old news.

efficax 5y ago
DNA was old news sure but using it to identify individuals was only theoretical and hardly widespread knowledge, it wouldn't be practical until the late 80s/early 90s...
- qiskit 5y ago
  Sure. But police departments started keeping dna evidence in the 70s/80s in anticipation of advances in technology. It's how the golden state killer was eventually caught. If police departments were capable of such forward thinking, it's hard for me to believe the kgb wasn't. If the russians did get hitler's body, then they most likely still have it or dna material. Also, aren't they worried that fsb headquarters or their archives will attract fascists wanting to pay homage to hitler?
AlbertCory 5y ago
Maybe before you throw shade on the KGB (well-deserved in general, imho) you should examine the provenance of the official story. It does not depend solely on KGB / FSB [1]. In fact, it doesn't depend on them at all. Rather, Hugh Trevor-Roper interviewed many, many people, without them knowing what the other people said. He carefully cross-checked their testimony, and since then no serious person has disputed what he established. Unfortunately in the 1970s he damaged his credibility by "authenticating" the Hitler diaries, which were fake. That doesn't change what he did in 1945-46. [1] https://war-documentary.info/the-last-days-of-hitler/ https://war-documentary.info/the-last-days-of-hitler/
Beltalowda 4y ago
> Were there many people in the soviet union/east germany looking to visit hitler's grave to pay homage? Of course not. Does that kgb narrative make any sense to you? There are some Nazi graves that are used as such. So yes, it makes sense to me. Furthermore, we don't need to believe the KGB or see the actual remains as they're not the only evidence that Hitler's dead: there are a number of (German) eye-witness testimonies, as well as documents such as his will.

by qiskit 5y ago

efficax 5y ago

DNA was old news sure but using it to identify individuals was only theoretical and hardly widespread knowledge, it wouldn't be practical until the late 80s/early 90s...

qiskit 5y ago
Sure. But police departments started keeping dna evidence in the 70s/80s in anticipation of advances in technology. It's how the golden state killer was eventually caught. If police departments were capable of such forward thinking, it's hard for me to believe the kgb wasn't. If the russians did get hitler's body, then they most likely still have it or dna material. Also, aren't they worried that fsb headquarters or their archives will attract fascists wanting to pay homage to hitler?

AlbertCory 5y ago

Maybe before you throw shade on the KGB (well-deserved in general, imho) you should examine the provenance of the official story. It does not depend solely on KGB / FSB [1]. In fact, it doesn't depend on them at all. Rather, Hugh Trevor-Roper interviewed many, many people, without them knowing what the other people said. He carefully cross-checked their testimony, and since then no serious person has disputed what he established. Unfortunately in the 1970s he damaged his credibility by "authenticating" the Hitler diaries, which were fake. That doesn't change what he did in 1945-46. [1] https://war-documentary.info/the-last-days-of-hitler/ https://war-documentary.info/the-last-days-of-hitler/

Beltalowda 4y ago

> Were there many people in the soviet union/east germany looking to visit hitler's grave to pay homage? Of course not. Does that kgb narrative make any sense to you? There are some Nazi graves that are used as such. So yes, it makes sense to me. Furthermore, we don't need to believe the KGB or see the actual remains as they're not the only evidence that Hitler's dead: there are a number of (German) eye-witness testimonies, as well as documents such as his will.