Talk:Martin Bormann

Bormann as a possibly spy

Matt58 apparently believes that the claims that Bormann was a Soviet spy has been absolutely "debunked" and are a "Spy hoax", citing a book Heinz Hohne and Hermann Zolling that is critical of Reinhard Gehlen. However, their claims have been extensively criticized by a CIA analyst. "much of it is sheer garbage". See https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/kent-csi/vol16no3/html/v16i3a06p_0001.htm. Furthermore, also other have made similar claims regarding Bormann, which is mentioned in one sentence in the article, but now after Matt58's editing completely obscured by the dubious anti-Gehlen material. Upplysning (talk) 18:20, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Are you serious suggesting we should believe the CIA? Is this a joke? In any case that is a dead link. I made credible entries here. Metapedia is not especially yours (I appreciate you continue to think this). Matt58 (talk) 16:56, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Why should we believe your dubious source? Why should we ignore the other sources stating that Bormann was a spy? You present your 50-years old and dubious source as if it was the final TRUTH on the issue, despite later sources contradicting this. Upplysning (talk) 17:54, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I have not use any dubious sources. I have used credible books etc. It is disputed that Bormann was a spy. I have said that.Matt58 (talk) 18:24, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Again, the article gives impression that this has been absolutely "debunked" and is a "Spy hoax" as you state in your text. And yes, your 50-years old book, written by two staff writers for a newspaper with political motivations, has been criticized more recently and is a dubious source.Upplysning (talk) 19:48, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

You simply never ever give up, do you. You seem to be suggesting that only books written recently are acceptable on Metapedia! Is this actually what you are saying? No academic you, that is a certainty. General Gehlen is the singular source for the spy business plus Bormann still being alive etc. His memoirs were considered an embarrassment by the governments of the day and debunked in newspaper and magazine reviews. I have cited a couple. I am sorry if this does not fit your narrative. Matt58 (talk) 10:37, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

You simply never give up, do you. I have never suggested that we could not use the book as a source, but it is not THE TRUTH, there are criticisms and other sources which should be prominently mentioned and the article should not describe the spy claims as "debunked". Your are also incorrect regarding Gehlen being the only one to claim that Bormann was a Soviet spy. https://www.historynet.com/book-review-hitlers-traitor-martin-bormann-and-the-defeat-of-the-reich-by-louis-kilzer-ww2.htm Upplysning (talk) 15:08, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I cannot believe you are citing Kilzer, another journalist (whom you previously decried). His ridiculous 1994 book, Churchill's Deception, sought to prove that Great Britain tricked Germany into attacking the Soviet Union in 1941. Completely crazy nonsense. Matt58 (talk) 15:47, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Regardless of your personal opinion of the book, it is yet another source stating the Bormann was a spy. Apparently only sources approved by you personally are allowed in Metapedia. Upplysning (talk) 16:13, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Anyone who reads the main page and then reads the rubbish on this Talk page will draw their own conclusions.Matt58 (talk) 17:24, 16 June 2021 (UTC)