Talk:Eva Braun

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Eva Braun article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
	This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.

	Germany Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
	This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Munich, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Munich on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project.

Contents 1 Name 1.1 Article name 2 "Mistress" revisited 3 My reverts 4 Question about this sentence 5 Cosmetics Question 6 Brother In Law 7 Picture 8 gift-giving Eva 9 The sketch is not by Hitler

[edit] Name

I see no reason why the first sentence of this article should use Hitler as her surname. There are plenty of other examples of articles in which the woman's birth name is given in the first sentence. Is seems particularly odd in this case given that she was married for little more than 24 hours. Jooler

• Truth be told, I'm not obsessed with the surname, I'll remove it now.

An interesting omission in this article is that we are not told why Eva Braun is of interest in the opening section. From the contents of the article, she had little training for a career, & it hard to describe her occupation other than as Hitler's mistress. Any objections to changing the first sentence to make this point obvious?)

I've tried to make the point of interest more clear.

Well, "lifelong companion" works. One could suss out the fact that they had a relationship, but making the reader to it gave the impression that we were trying to hide the fact from delicate minds.

I certainly wasn't trying to hide it, and I agreed with you about the point of interest issue as soon as I read it. About companion, the term seems to be frequently used in this sense nowadays. As an aside, I must say that in my life, I've never once heard the term mistress used in any form of real conversation about real people and their relationships... I've only run across it in books and some journalistic efforts (mostly relating to some sort of scandal). Only to be clear, in my experience, mistress in print pretty much equals whore of Babylon, the end. So I think it's a rather loaded, archaic term.

I guess the fact my parents were born before the start of the Depression is why I have some old-fashioned ideas. It was once not uncommon in some social circles to keep a woman for social & sexual company; now that women have career choices other than marriage, the cloister, prostitution, nursing or teaching, it has become rare in Europe & the US.

No, not at all. And I think we should also get rid of the word "Hitler" in her name. This is bordering on the ridiculous.

She died Eva Hitler, the cermony was legal, that was her name. I think mistress is a loaded, obsolete term. Ridiculous? Why, exactly? What is there in the article that isn't accurate, for example? Eva Braun didn't walk around Munich with a sign dangling from her neck saying, "I'm the main squeeze of a sociopathic murderer," and WP's job is to give readers the facts necessary to see it for themselves.

The name Eva Anna Paula Braun Hitler is ridiculous, but I can see it has been changed in the meantime. It may be usual in countries where English is spoken to just add your husband's name to your own, but there was no such thing in Germany in 1945. Therefore she was never legally called Braun Hitler. Today, if an unmarried woman called, say, Anna Meier married a Peter Lustig, it is up to her if in future she wants to be Anna Meier, Anna Lustig, Anna Meier-Lustig or Anna Lustig-Meier (but always with a hyphen). There was no such thing 60 years ago.

That's why we have talk pages! Thanks.

Her name legally became Eva Anna Paula Hitler when she married. When clarification of maiden name is required, the née is used. I changed it to that. Compromise people, compromise :-)

I see that the née has been reverted, which I would have done myself. I think has adequately explained why the name should be presented in its German format and since Eva Anna Paula Braun is the only form in which we can keep Braun in her name, and since it was her name for every day of her life (but one, when she might have chosen to change Braun to Hitler), I think the choice is plain. I was not following German naming convention when I added Hitler to her name the other day. I made a conscious decision to try the Anglo-Saxon style in an English language encyclopedia, I was curious to see the reaction and agreed with it when it came.

How is Eva Anna Paula Hitler not the German format? Yes, she was only married for about 24 hours, but she was still legally married, and thus became Eva...Hitler. In the book "The Last Days of Hitler" (whose authorship currently eludes me) it states that Eva signed a document (I believe her marriage certificate) as "Eva Braun", but then scratched the "Braun" and replace it with "Hitler née Braun". Seeing how close she was to Adolf Hitler, I think she would be insulted if she was referred to as Eva Braun. Yes, everyone refers to her as Eva Braun, but she died Eva Hitler.

I'd forgotten she'd written it herself. Given that, I'd be willing to change the format of her name in the first line but... I don't know if others watching this page would be willing to give her the surname to avoid any insult. I mean, it's not like we're talking about Julie Andrews here, is it? Yeah, I think hers is a sad story and all that, maybe even a metaphor for lots of German women who got pulled into the traps of Nazi sexism but the thing is, she must have known about all the killing, I mean, the millions one way or another and she stayed with him, living rather well by it for a time while hundreds of millions suffered and tens of millions died. I can imagine how that happened and think of her as a human being but I don't know how it happened and her diaries don't get to the pith of whether she felt trapped or doomed to stay or cope with him regardless. Anyway I've no problem with Hitler née Braun, it's documented (which would conform to <KF>'s reasoning, I think), but neither will I mind if others want to skip it. Lets wait for comments, whatever the consensus is will work for me.

For the record, I don't see her story as tragic or anything. I'm sure being the Führer's mistress has its perks. My interest is in historical accuracy, specifically how the people in question lived. I'm pretty sure if she hadn't died less than 24 hours after her wedding, she would be remembered as Eva Hitler (assuming of course she and Adolf Hitler had actually publicized their marriage). I still think Hitler née Braun is the best compromise, since it includes the name most people know her by (Braun) while stating the fact that she was Hitler's wife.

This link is to a PDF that includes a copy of Hitler's Marriage Certificate. Page 4 includes the couple's signatures, including that of Eva Hitler geb Braun.

Quote from 'Inside the Third Reich'

Albert Speer never wrote that he had intercourse with Eva Braun in his autobiography. I am going to remove that from the cited passage and I would suggest that those with more convenient access to the book than me check the rest of the passage to see if it is correct.

Albert Speer, had sex with Eva Braun. (LoL) No wonder you deleted that section.

01:50, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Simplify, simplify 

longtime companion (and ultimately, wife for a night and a day) of Adolf Hitler.

Is clumsy and ugly. Can we not just call her the "wife of Adolf Hitler"?

Since she spent only about 24 hours as his wife during 12 years as his friend, most historians avoid referring to her simply as his wife. I don't think the above is so ugly or clumsy btw (although Eva likely did). Wyss 10:53, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Article name

Shouldn't this be renamed Eva Hitler? I mean since they did get married shortly after their deaths, wouldn't that mean that her name changed to Eva Hitler?

In a word, no. This has been thoroughly discussed above but the pith of it is that, given German naming conventions of 60 years combined with her being married to AH for only a day, the historical consensus seems to have settled on calling her Eva Braun. Eva Braun Hitler would always be incorect, Eva Hitler would be technically ok but again, since she lived only the briefest fraction of her life with that name it's not considered reasonable for use in a scholarly context. Wyss 01:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• Since almost this entire talk page involves the issue of her name, I have added a section about it at the end of the article. Wyss 02:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

The statement that "but Machtan's hyppothesis has not found wide acceptance among historians." is a personal opinion that violates Wikipedia:No original research. Karl Schalike 17:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

No, my personal opinion is that Machtan's book is speculative and inventive and over all quite rubbish. Since most historian share variations of that view, the result is the fact of the book not having found wide acceptance. Please read the NOR policy again. Str1977 18:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

No need to even mention it. Lots of codswallop has been published about AH (wontedly for the purpose of selling books to the gullible). Unverifiable, unsupported assertions are not acceptable citations in Wikipedia. Wyss 19:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

First, the complete Ludecke and Professor Lothar Machtan reference must be included in accordance with Wikipedia policy. And in fact the book received wide acceptance as seen by the references & external links at The Hidden Hitler, and was made into an American film by HBO by prominent and respected members of the gay community. Regardless of your broad, sweeping "personal opinion", which is not acceptable at Wikipedia, Professor Machtan is a highly qualified Academic who is most certainly an acceptable source for Wikipedia. If you can name a schoilar and provide the source for their comment and their rationale as to why they disagree with Dr. Machtan, please insert it. Karl Schalike 19:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Mistress" revisited

Anthony Beevor used the word mistres for Eva Braun in his book about the fall of Berlin. Braun may not formally comply with the definition of mistress (the other woman of a married man) but the degree of secrecy was similar. So I think that the word mistress may be appropriate. Andries 19:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The term mistress is the wonted one and has been used by some writers but is inaccurate. There is also a PoV temptation involved in using it, demonstrated by journalists all the way back to 1945. Wyss 19:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My reverts

Karl Schalike is attempting to insert wholly unsupported "tabloid" type material into Adolf Hitler, Eva Braun, August Kubizek and Rudolf Hess. This includes categorizing AH as homosexual. The sources he cites are not based on verifiable documentation and are not recognized by historians. In one or two cases I have reverted this material as straight vandalism - disinformation.

I am adhering to my scholastic principles and believe I am editing within WP written policy. Some admins will agree with me but others may not. A request on my talk page (User_talk:Wyss) from an admin will be sufficient to stop me from reverting this material as vandalism. I will respect any such request and if it is received, following WP policy I will then take this issue to the RfC level instead. Thanks. Wyss 20:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

It is not vandalism, but we should at least write that his book is controversial. Andries 20:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

The book is not controvrsial, the book is dismissed altogether by serious historians. Even mentioning this sort of material lends it a credibility and currency which it would not be given in any scholarly source. Adolf Hitler's sexuality is the only possible place where any of this could be placed using responsible sourcing methodologies and IMHO, WP policy. Wyss 20:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Call it anything you want, but a University of Bremen professor and qualified historian is a credible source. And, whether or not you agree is immaterial. See: Wikipedia:Verifiability#Verifiability, not truth that says:

"Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources, regardless of whether individual editors view that material as true or false" Karl Schalike 17:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

That's not a credible source, nor are the assertions it contains verfiable. You have misinterpreted WP sourcing policy. Wyss 19:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Str1977 - properly referenced facts on a very relevant subject of the nature of Braun and Hitler's relationship is not "POV." - Karl Schalike 18:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Str1977 - YOUR EDIT: 18:23, 6 March 2006 Str1977 (differing theories notwithstanding, the relationship was most likely sexual)

This is your personal opinion and goes against the Wikipedia:No original research policy. I remind you what Wikipedia: Administrator Jtdirl said at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive68 concering references to homosexuality or other such issues:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive68

The claim is clearly sourced from published books with named authors and so belongs in the article. All it needs is more NPOV phraseology. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 00:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

And Wikipedia: Administrator Jtdirl also said on this [[1]] article:

• I have to say as an academic I find Keith's stance mindboggling. The claims are from named sources in credible publications. There is more than enough claims to warrant inclusion. If this was an academic publication, the above quotes and references would make reporting of the claim automatic. Indeed failure to mention something with so many sources would be be looked at as either incompetent research or agenda-motivated censorship. FearÉIREANN\^(caint)

23:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Please do not reverse this important and well documented information from a qualified University professor and historian that is supported by other reliable sources. Karl Schalike 20:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Karl, the statment that the Hitler-Eva relationship was most likely platonic is a POV presented in factual language, hence my revert. This time I have only removed this contentious sentence but I still can't see why other editors should be burdenend with ploughing through your dirt to find the particles of gold that might be included as well. Please, learn how to write concisely and in NPOV language. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

And, Karl, be sure that Jtdirl will get to know about your misuse of his name. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question about this sentence

"The German people were not entirely unaware of Eva Braun and her relationship with Hitler until after the war."

Maybe it's just me, but I find it a bit confusing. This is mean the German public were unaware or aware of her relationship with Adolf Hitler until after WWII? XXX

The words say that German knew something, but that isn't true. The "not" is either a typo or an insertion. (self-professed) Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:05, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cosmetics Question

"Hitler is known to have been opposed to women wearing cosmetics (in part because they were made from animal by-products) and sometimes brought the subject up at mealtime. Linge (who was his valet) said Hitler once laughed at traces of Braun's lipstick on a napkin and to tease her, joked, "Soon we will have replacement lipstick made from dead bodies of soldiers.""

Can someone please explain the logic of the above passage from this article, at least in regards to the sentence that states Hitler was in part oppossed to cosmetics because they were made of animal by-products? Was Hitler a vegetarian or vegan, and thus against animal by-products for moral reasons? Or was it because he viewed animals as inferior and thus inferior for use in cosmetics? This seems much more plausible, especially given the last sentence of this passage, however, it doesn't make it any more logical. Why would he be oppossed to the cosmetics made of animal by-products because he saw animals as inferior, but he clearly wasn't oppossed to cosmetics (at the very least, soap) being made from human by-products, specifically from humans that he deemed to be inferior? I'm not questioning the accuracy of this passage, it just doesn't make any sense to me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.14.107.13 (talk • contribs) .

• I have read that Hitler was an avid dog-lover, so I doubt it's much of a stretch that he had a fondness for animals in general. Certainly one of the man's most interesting complexities; the fact that he could care so much about dogs, but so little about other human beings. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.61.21.98 (talk • contribs) .

I don't have a source for this, but my understanding is that Hitler was a vegitarian, very pro-animal rights, and very environmental. I belive he actually conducted a successful reforestation program before the war. — Chris ( t c ) — 08:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

For the last decade or so of his life AH was a vegetarian by the standards of his time. This causes fits for some modern advocates of vegetarianism, who try to "disprove" it without end. National socialism in general deprecated cosmetics on women, AH expressed further objections to the animal byproducts some contained. In private, he made unpleasant jokes about it. Gwen Gale 03:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brother In Law

"Also in 1944, Eva Braun's sister Gretl married a member of Hitler's entourage, Hermann Fegelein, who served as Heinrich Himmler's liaison. [...] When Fegelein was caught in the closing days of the war trying to escape to Sweden with another woman, Hitler personally ordered his execution and Braun is said to have deliberately refrained from interceding on her brother-in-law's behalf."

The last sentence has an ... implication, insinuation, or the like that she should have interceded for a man who had betrayed her sister (and country). I don't see her having any obligation like that. Hga 06:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

That seems to be a factual error, anyway. Reading Joachim Fest's work about the events in Histler's bunker, he states that Braun most likely plead for the life of her brother-in-law, and there was speculation that she was not adverse to his advances on her, as well, which makes is seem unlikely that she would have refused to defend him. LuxPerpetua 14:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Picture

Isn't there some sort of photo/portrait of Eva to display on the page top? That sketch isn't really that good, and those photos - while quite well showing what she looked like from both the left and the right - isn't really as good as a proper frontal photo.

I agree, someone must have a better image --Snozzbert12 02:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

AH himself did that sketch and yeah, while his landscapes and buildings are ok, his drawings of people strike some as a bit... off (the fine arts academy in Vienna did suggest he get into architectural drawing). So WP has been going through a purge of images lately and it's hard to find clearly free images of EB. Gwen Gale 03:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] gift-giving Eva

I've moved the following text here for discussion:

Eva became struck with a streak of generosity in these twilight hours of the Third Reich and began giving away her fur coats, clothes, jewelry and some other belongings to the nurses in the bunker. She sent hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of jewelry, which she had received as gifts over the years, to her sister and mother, with a note saying that Germany would be destroyed and that they would need something to live off of. She also wrote several altruistic and patriotic letters saying she was a martyr for the Third Reich and was willingly giving up her life for the Fatherland. These letters were to be delivered to Admiral Donitz, soon to be President Donitz, with Hitler's will, but they were destroyed by the air courier out of disgust and distaste for Eva's unmeritied self-bestowed honors.

Aside from the garbled syntax and so on, this takes some significant details way too far for the article without a strong citation. If a reliable cite shows up to support these assertions, then with a re-write I think it could go back in. Gwen Gale 20:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The sketch is not by Hitler

From the image page: Hitler did not draw or paint after 1918, this drawing is a forgery by Konrad Kujau. Also he never signed his full name he used "AH" or "A Hitler" and he never wrote mottos and greetings on his work. Kujau was the author of the "Hitler Diaries" and that was built from forgeries and fabricated events and information. Read "Hitler and the Power of Aesthetics" by Frederic Spotts Egil 09:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Although you're mistaken about AH not having drawn after 1918, altogether your comments throw enough worries onto this that I'll flip what I said: Let's see some support that the sketch was drawn by AH. Gwen Gale 08:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)