Talk:Heinrich Müller (Gestapo)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Software Bug?!

I cannot see what should be wrong with that Gestapo Müller link. Can somebody help me, please? — Nol Aders 15:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Now I can see what I could not an hour ago: self-reference, haha :-) — Nol Aders 16:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Ummm

Over 5,000 people were arrested and about 200 arrested, including Canaris. ???Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 16:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Executed. Thanks. Adam 21:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Israeli operatives

Does anyone have more information or links to the claim that Israeli operatives were caught while breaking in Muller's wife's house ? Amoruso 18:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Image

I found an image of Heinrich Mueller on the Italian Wikipedia. I flagged it as PD as that is what it is tagged there. Could someone check this out and make sure I did this correctly? I think an image is important for this article and don't want to see it get deleted. Thanks!--jmootz20 14:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea why that image would be PD. There seems to be an assumption thal all photos from Nazi Germany are PD because Nazi Germany is defunct. But I doubt this is true. Still, you are free to upload the photo and claim it as PD and see what happens. Adam 14:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The template talk at pd-germany has some interesting comments. It appears in Germany that photograph copyrights expire 50 years after first publication. I'd assume most of these pictures were taken by Germans during the war, and that means now they're expired. Hopefully I'm reading that correctly.--jmootz20 14:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

That's not what that page says at all. Read it again. It says that for virtually all German photos, copyright extends for 70 years after the death of the photographer. Thus almost no photos taken after 1936 are PD. Adam 15:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, right you are. I took the first few lines as a law, not as an example. 70 years it is. --jmootz20 17:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

For more interesting debate, check out User:Physchim62/German_images. Seems there is still some debate over 50 vs 70 years, but nothing authorative. In this case it also gets muddied as many of these WW2 photos may in fact be by the government, as it was at the time. which does not enjoy copyright status. (excludes photos). It now looks like the {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} template could be a good tag to use, as several photos of officers, etc were tagged with it. Beats me what we should use.--jmootz20 18:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Biography assessment rating comment

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Edofedinburgh 14:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Wrongful arrest

Intelligent Mr Toad is obsessed with removing the following information and edit warring to remove it In 1967 in Panama, Francis William Keith was accused of being Heinrich Mueller, the former head of the Gestapo, West German diplomats pressed Panama to extradite to Berlin for trial. German prosecutors said Mrs. Sophie Mueller, 64, identified the man as her husband, however he was released once fingerprints revealed he was in fact not Mueller.

so what do you make of it, should it be included or not? I don't see how it's 'trivia' Bleh999 18:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

References

BritinDC vandalism

Would BritinDC stop trying to add the section "Employment by the CIA and Biographical References" or would somebody lock the article or something? This is getting ridiculous. Difference engine 21:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

born April 28, 1946 ????

How can someone born in 1946 of been head of the gestapo ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.23.16.70 (talk) 05:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Thats a Different Hans Muller who I believe is a swiss Tv personallity.(86.31.187.246 (talk) 02:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC))

Declared dead

The lead was changed from "Heinrich Müller (born April 28, 1900, date of death unknown)" to "Heinrich Müller (born April 28, 1900, officially declared to be dead as of May 1st, 1945)" by these three edits. I can't find a <ref> for this, so I've reverted it back. [1] - 58.8.9.148 (talk) 09:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Rename of Müller article

If any Wiki watchers (or readers) have an interest in the discussion of the very recent "rename" of this article then go to WT:GER under "(Nazi) renames" if you care to comment. Kierzek (talk) 00:41, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Reverted back-due to consensus of discussion on WT:GER page. Kierzek (talk) 17:22, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

German intelligence claim made

A recent edit to this article page was reverted as suspect. I checked and the edit comes from a book that, in the end, is a fringe theory book; not put out by a mainstream publisher. And as user OberRanks reminded me, "...several mainstream sources indicate that by 1942, the German Overseas Intelligence System had been completely infiltrated and destroyed. There was also never a serious German intelligence presence in the United States - any person even remotely suspected of being a German spy was placed under immediate surveillance by the FBI and arrested at the slightest excuse..." Kierzek (talk) 16:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Charles Howard Ellis

In 1941, one of Müller's agents within the MI-6, Charles Howard Ellis, learned of the Allies' SIGSALY system while in New York City, and dispatched a report of it to Berlin via Mexico City and Buenos Aires. The Deutsch Reichspost in collaboration with Philips constructed a deciphering installation near The Hague, and were soon capturing the coded messages sent through the ether between U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt and Prime Minister Winston Churchill. The Allies wouldn't learn of the breach until 1944 when the installation was then destroyed.(see: "Nazi in Exile", "Ellis, Charles Howard") — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petey Parrot (talk • contribs) 21:28, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Footnote: Noted in the linked article is the following language:"...Allegations have been made that 'Dick' Ellis had passed information to German intelligence before and during World War II, and that he could have worked for Soviet intelligence while with the B.S.C. and subsequently. Experts have dismissed these claims..." WP:FRINGE and WP:VERIFY, issues are therefore reinforced to the german intelligence claim made. Kierzek (talk) 19:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Recent edits and rv

As to my recent edits and rv as to the article "Disappearance" section (in relation to the addition from Longerich's published biography of Heinrich Himmler), the changes I made were, first, edits for concision and secondly out of WP:OR concerns. Specifically the part, "Since Müller was definitely still in Berlin on 1 May, when the city surrendered to the Soviets, Longerich's claim would require Müller to have made his way undetected through Soviet-occupied territory to be in Flensburg by 11 May." It is not cited. I agree that the editor's surmise probably is correct but unless it is cited to a historian or WP:RS, then it is only an analysis of the prior statement put forth. Kierzek (talk) 17:30, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Homosexuality

I dicussed the matter on the useer page of My last edit about the homosexuality of Heinrich Müller was removed. The information has been confirmed by two independent historical studies. The first one is a study about the attitude of the Amsterdam police during the Second World War; the study by Meershoek was his PhD study at the University of Amsterdam (Dienaren van het gezag. De Amsterdamse politie tijdens de bezetting(Servants of the authorities. The Amsterdam police during the occupation)). The study brought to dayligth that the commissioner of the Amsterdam police Broekhoff was homosexual (Broekhoff was between 1917 and 1940 the coordinator of the police intelligence services that were locally organized and the Dutch Central Intelligence Service). The information came from the family and friends of Broekhoff and also from inspector of police Kallenborn, a subordinate of Broekhoff. That subordinate informed at January 7th, 1946 the inspector-general of the Dutch police about the homosexuality of Broekhoff and handed over a love letter of Broekhoff to Müller (at that time Broekhoff was seriously ill and died soon due to a failed brain surgery because of a brain tumor, although there were rumors that he was murdered by a Britsish Intelligence service by means of poisoned pipe tobacco). Broekhoff visited Berlin regularly, because he was a major member of the Internalioner Kriminalpolizeilicher Kommission. A second study by Harthoorn about the Dutch intelligence services (the only independent study about the Dutch intelligence services), recently published, confirmed the findings of Meershoek ( Vuile oorlog in Den Haag (Dirty war in The Hague)). Meershoek is nowadays lecturer at the University Twente. Harthoorn is not a historian, however he has two PhD's, so that his scientific integrity is sure. You can check both names on internet (websites are in Dutch). So, I like to have restored the information and I hope that others are convinced about the truth of that information.KeesKnoest (talk) 13:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

First, English Wikipedia prefers one use english language sources which you have not. Second, no other WP:RS source confirms what you have proposed. Not Kershaw, Longerich, Gerwarth, Miller, Williams, Hamilton, Lumsden, or Padfield. Therefore, I am against the addition for WP:FRINGE and WP:VERIFY reasons. The burden is on the one who wishes to make the addition to obtain WP:Consensus to add. If you do, then so be it. Kierzek (talk) 14:08, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Very peculiar to demand only English written sources. For instance, in the lemma about Stalin several Russian written sources are cited. It seems to me not a usual Wikipedia policy. It withholds people from learning from other verifiable sources. It seems to me very stupid because you would block in this way also German sources.KeesKnoest (talk) 14:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The simple fact is that this theory does not appear in most mainstream history sources. Two sources out of thousands constitutes WP:FRINGE and this is highly disputed material - I've studied the SS for 25 years and have never read this in any mainstream established source. I don't think at its present state it should be allowed in the article per WP:CONSENSUS. -OberRanks (talk) 14:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that people here are very narrow minded. You allow onlu sources that are known to you, but you are not prepared to learn from foreign language sources. The first who detected it was Guus Meershoek who mentioned it in his PhD thesis at the University of Amsterdam. He is nowadays lecturer at the University Twente. The promotor of Meershoek was prof. Hans Blom who was at that time also director of NIOD (Dutch Institute of War Documentation), the institute that owns the diary of Anne Frank. Of course such a source is unreliable for narrow minded people. And of course all references to the diary of Anne Frank should be removed from the English Wikipedia: it is a foreign language source.KeesKnoest (talk) 15:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I did not "demand" English sources; I said they are preferred, which for this Wikipedia and the native tongue it is written is a reasonable request for WP:VERIFY reasons. The material you want to add, at this point in time holds a viewpoint which is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, therefore, to quote Wikipedia principles: "...it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not...". It is nothing personal. Kierzek (talk) 15:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Seems to me that the argument that Müller was bisexual (not homosexual, since he had a female mistress) rests on one letter that Broekhoff wrote Müller, the letter being in Kallenborn's hands at the end of the war (was this a file copy, or was the letter never sent?). Have the contents of the letter been published? Ning-ning (talk) 17:12, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I understand by the tone here that we are probably dealing with a new user to Wikipedia wishing to make these changes. This is mainly an issue of adherence to long standing Wikipedia policies such as WP:CON, WP:DISPUTE, and WP:VERIFY. Under these policies, which have been accepted by the community, we cannot add this material under the current circumstances. Also please be careful about "lashing out" at others when your views are challenged. Calling users "narrow minded" in fact violates WP:CIV and WP:NPA. Comment on the content, not the contributor. Welcome to Wikipedia. -OberRanks (talk) 19:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

My objection is that only sources seemm tobe permitted that are known to the two opponents as one of them states: "I've studied the SS for 25 years and have never read this in any mainstream established source." Of course you didn't read a study about the Amsterdam police in war time or a study about the Dutch intelligence services. That are not your subjects and both studies are in Dutch. In the first study Müller is hardly of interest, he is just mentioned because Broekhoff is described. In the second study Müller is of more interest, because the relationship might have influenced the murdering of more than two thousand Dutch communists and thousands of German refugees to The Netherlands (Jews, communists, social-democrats). Besides, Müller exchanged information about Indonesian strivers for independence obtained by German intelligence for information about Dutch communists that were helping German communists. But in both studies Müller is only a minor subject. Therefore, foreign historians wil probably never look in such studies. Wikipedia is meant to spread verifiable information, so also information of sources that are not known to the two opponents. In this way information that is overlooked easily can be spread over people that are interested. I now stop the discussion, because its seems useless.

To user Ning-ning: It might be correct that Müller was bisexual, I am not an expert on the subject. I have looked in the thesis of Meershoek (also published as commercially available book) but I cannot find a citation of the letter. The second study gives only the first sentence, which is only understandable if you know that with 'Schwester Anna' Müller was meant (it was very dangerous for Müller when it became known and it might have costed Broekhoff his job, so he had to be very careful). The first sentence reads (Broekhoff was excellent in German language): "Meine liebe Schwester Anna, Jeden Tag steige ich auf dem Turm und sehne mich nach dir ...." According to both authors (the first author wrote only in more detail about it in a not-scientific historic magazine) the sentence is sexual ambigeous meant and translates as: "My dear sister Anna, every day I climb the tower and languish for you." You are adult enough to imagine what was meant. It is not known to me whether the letter was really sent. Whether the complete letter still exists I do not know; Kallenborn mentioned that the file that contained the letter was burned during the invasion of The Netherlands by Germany. Kallenborn cited only from that letter, he wrote it dated back from 1938. The letter of Kallenborn was in the Police Archive of the Dutch Ministry of Justice and nowadays in the National Archive in The Hague. The second author identified also other really sent informal letters with sexual ambiguities that can only be recognized if you search for it. Meershoek obtained his information about a sexual relationship with a 'high-ranking German officer' from a friend of Broekhoff, who he interviewed in 1990. Meershoek identified that 'high-ranking German officer' as Müller on basis of the letters with sexual ambiguities.KeesKnoest (talk) 10:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

With this edit user KeesKnoest added a new paragraph in which he wrote: "Soon Broekhoff and Müller started a homosexual relationship that continued for several years.<ref>Guus Meershoek, Dienaren van het gezag. De Amsterdamse politie tijdens de bezetting(Servants of the authorities. The Amsterdam police during the occupation), ISBN 9055152234, Amsterdam, 1999</ref>" In the Dutch Wikipedia user KeesKnoest tried in January to enter similar information in the article about Broekhoff. I repeatedly asked him on the talk page of that article and his talk page to specify where Meershoek wrote that in the book but no answer came. Recently he added similar information in the Dutch article about Müller together with more information that looked suspicious to me. I therefor reverted it and later he restored it, now writing that the homosexual relationship with Müller was almost certain with a reference to a specific note in that book. In that note Meershoek wrote that there are indications of such a relationship. It is shocking to see that KeesKnoest states that Meershoek wrote in that book that the homosexual relationship continued for several years whereas in fact Meershoek didn't write in that book there was for sure such a relationship and also nothing about the period it lasted. It is good to see this misinformation was quickly removed from the English Wikipedia. - Robotje (talk) 12:53, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Post-war & death

Heinrich Muller did not die in the Berlin bunker in 1945. He was interrogated in Switzerland in 1948 by the USA authorities - probably CIA - who thought he may be some use to them in the cold war because of his hatred of Soviets & communism.

See "Gestapo Chief, the 1948 interrogation of Heinrich Muller" written by Gregory Douglas 'from secret US Intelligence Files' published by R.James Bender Publishing 1995. According to this, Muller "was living comfortably in Switzerland after the end of WWII". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.224.95.242 (talk) 17:06, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

No - and again, no. The "Gestapo Chief" volumes are in fact fraudulent; all one has to do is Google this subject. By the way, the "Gestapo Chief" series also claims that Hitler did not commit suicide, but fled to Spain. It is preposterous to cite anything by that author, who has been accused of forgery before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.105.97.131 (talk) 05:00, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

The book "Untouchable" by By Pierre de Villemarest is very interesting. There is a summary of the book here: http://www.aquilion.com/PdV_untouch.htm The web page says that Muller defected to the Soviets before the end of the war. After the death of Soviet General Viktor Abakumov, he fled to South America; to the border between Argentina, and Brazil, where he was kidnapped by Czech agents (after he stopped reporting to his Soviet controllers), on orders of the KGB, and brought back to the Soviet Union in 1954. It says he died under mysterious circumstances. The web page also says that Muller helped the East German communist intelligence apparatus. The author is a former French intelligence officer. I have not read the book, but the information on the above web page seems very convincing. In the book "Hitler's secret service" by Walter Schellenberg, Schellenberg (former head of AMT 6) says that he believed that Muller had defected to the Russians, and although Schellenberg did not show any proof of this, I think he was correct, considering the book by Villemarest. Woronick (talk) 08:36, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

The info. put forth by the website is an old rumor. Further, info. from the website doesn't meet the WP:RS requirement for cites. The website would also have WP:VERIFY and WP:SPS problems. Kierzek (talk) 12:53, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I see this has come up again. The WP:RS cited text shows the evidence points to May 1945. See: Joachimsthaler, 1999, p. 285. The ip's mention of a website, has the same problems as the prior website above from April 2012. Kierzek (talk) 18:27, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Provide the paragraph which says he died. Not all of us have access to the book. --67.202.71.186 (talk) 18:41, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

First, you should know that the burden is on the one wanting to make a change, not the other way around here on Wikipedia. With that said, I can tell you that the best sources state: he was probably killed or committed suicide in Berlin shortly after Hitler's death, although his body was not found. Adrian Weale, The SS: A New History (2010), p. 412; Guy Walters, Hunting Evil (2009), p. 37; others state: assumed killed, missing. Louis Snyder, Encyclopedia of the Third Reich (1976), p. 234; Joachimsthaler, Last Days of Hitler: The Legends, The Evidence, The Truth, (1999), p. 285. These are all in line with what was said before your chance.

It said in the info. box: death_date= May 1945 & death_place=Berlin (assumed); then in the first section of the article it stated, date of death unknown, but evidence points to May 1945. Therefore, the door was left open, a degree; never did it say his date and place of death as set in stone. Further, I must tell you that I did review the website you mentioned. It only states old rumors; nothing of fact or probability; but only possibility. It doesn't meet WP:RS and it would be considered a self published source, as well. Lastly, I see it is put out by David Irving's Action Report. Irving's reputation as an historian has been widely discredited. So I would not rely on him, herein. I would suggest putting back in "assumed" in the info. box and "date of death unknown, but assumed to be May 1945" in the article. Kierzek (talk) 00:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

31 October 2013 - German newspapers claim body of Heinrich Mueller buried in Berlin on Jewish cemetery

Link: http://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article121387188/Gestapo-Chef-wurde-auf-juedischem-Friedhof-beerdigt.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.135.99.227 (talk) 11:27, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

siegfried or heinrich

An Eastgerman opinion has it that Kongo-Müller and Gestapo-Müller in fact are the same person, and further, that Kongo-Müller died at about the age of 80 in Africa. (A German discussion on Wikipedia makes a distinction between the two, which I do not trust.) Anyway the contradiction is there. Proposals: 1. Gestapo-Müller is the real father of Kongo-Müller, his career is only similar to that of his father because he did not grow up with him. A family relationship is suggested by the name Heinrich reappearing in the set of pre-names of the son and, by the age difference of 20 years. It remains unclear whether the general living conditions, which include philosophies, produced the biographies of both of them or not. A closer family link assumed, it seems unreliable that Kongo-Müller had a purely military career. SS and Gestapo followed the Wehrmacht, also in Auschwitz. 2. The biographies are lumped together. Possibly there is a German Wehrmacht member who died at the end of the war and whose life data were (partly) overtaken making for the escape. Another one is the killer who used the data. 3. Both escaped to Africa, and nobody knows exactly.

That is, then, two big fish, one dead in Germany, one alive, in Africa; two big fish, both alive in Africa; one big, one small, the big one alive in Africa, the other one dead, in Germany. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.115.83.247 (talk) 18:20, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

The cutting edge were the year 1945. The older one was prisoner of war in the American occupation zone, the young one, if alive, prisoner of war in the soviet occupation zone. Consequently, the argument stating a relationship of one of them to the 'Russians' had a more serious background. 46.115.83.247 (talk) 18:20, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

The above cannot be confirmed, nor has any been presented in WP:RS sources. It falls into speculation and has WP:FRINGE theory problems, to say the least. Kierzek (talk) 19:35, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Working for Western Allies against the USSR

I just finished watching a history channel show about Nazis escaping Germany during WWII (Eichmann, Brunner, Bormann, Muller to name a few), and it said that Muller escaped Berlin in April of 1945 and was used for counterintelligence against the Soviet Union during the Cold War. It went on further to say that the US has released records confirming this.

I have never in the past heard that this theory is fact? Any thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.28.170.95 (talk) 20:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Bormann didn't escape. He was killed trying to cross a bridge during the siege of Berlin, and his remains were positively identified years ago. HammerFilmFan (talk) 03:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

i found the following under wikispooks: https://wikispooks.com/wiki/File:Gestapo-Chief_-_The_CIA_%26_Heinrich_Muller_%281998%29.pdf it seems to confirm it. 92.72.164.47 (talk) 23:57, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

That's b.s. about Bormann. Read OpJB (Operation James Bond) by Christopher Creighton as well as Hiter Was A British Agent by Greg Hallett. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.96.71.221 (talk) 00:32, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry but those two books would not be considered WP:RS sources and in the end have: WP:FRINGE and WP:VERIFY problems to say the least. Kierzek (talk) 01:18, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't have any time to argue with any wiki-tool idiotic enough to take that Artur Axmann story at face value, or bones with red-clay re-interred. Try AFTERMATH or the writings of Trevor-Roper for information on Bormann surviving Berlin. The real question is whether or not he survived Northern Germany/Denmark. 2604:2000:F6C6:7C01:5AB0:35FF:FE73:EC9D (talk) 05:19, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Diary

I put up a link to extracts of Heinrich Müller's diaries edited by Dr. Rainer Scholz and someone called Adam Carr has removed it twice without any explanation. Here is the link

http://www.tbrnews.org/Archives/a1186.htm

Maybe he might be kind enough to explain his reasons why he thinks it is bogus. It looks quite genuine to me, what do others make of it?

When you become a registered Wikipedian I will be happy to discuss this matter with you. In the meantime I will continue to delete the link. Adam 00:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Why can't you give your reasons without registering? You appear to be acting very autocratically and it does not give me much confidence in Wikipedia when people like yourself are acting in this manner. I had a look at your page and it appears others are none too happy as well.84.69.80.181 18:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Translation from the German by Ernst Gauss ... you are kidding, right?

I guess you have given a lot of credence to the theory the earth is flat too? Cantankrus 03:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

For future reference: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_172#Gregory_Douglas_and_TBRNews.org. 18:58, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Muller recovered and used by the Russians: We need consensus on adding this section to the article

I propose adding to the article the paragraph below, which relies on a recent and extremely well document book, Spymaster[1}... User:Kierzek claims that the paragraph is redundant and based on hearsay. I challenge both claims. First, the paragraph adds a new angle, namely that the Soviets might've recovered and protected Muller. Most of the 'Disappearance" section in the current version deals with the truly incredible story that the US had something to do with it only to conclude that in fact it had nothing to do with it. If the section is redundant is because it spends so much time on innuendoes. On the other hand, the paragraph proposed below cites a truly remarkable source, Sergey Kondrashev, a major KGB player during the 1960. The interviews with him conducted by a former CIA retired operative are 100% authentic and credible. The book is recognized as legit and quite a read.

I was asked to put the paragraph here for public discussion and for reaching "consensus"... I am interested in hearing your opinion...

Goleniewski story, is however, corroborated in the recent biography of the Soviet KGB foreign intelligence official Sergey Kondrashev, "Spymaster"1, a reliable source vetted by Kirkus Review and Publisher's Weekly .The author of the biography, Tennent Bagley, a former CIA operative, interviewed Kondrashev who confirmed that Muller was recruited, protected, and handled by Alexandr Korotkov, the head of the German section of KGB. In Chapter Ten, Bagley also affirms based on classified information provided by Goleniewski which he read personally that Muller took refuge to Argentina after the war [locations 1971-1981 in the Kindle version of the book]. He was used by the KGB as a high level influencer of the Nazi movement after the war. His role was to create an unstable Germany and to provide information to the KGB from West German sources. After some initial collaboration Muller became silent. The KGB in cooperation with the Czechoslovak foreign intelligence kidnapped Muller and took him to Moscow. After being re-indoctrinated, Muller was released to continue working for the Soviets. Bagley makes these statements on the basis of information provided by the former head of the Czechoslovak intelligence, Rudolf Barak [locations 1993 - 2005 in the Kindle book].

Bagley, Tennent H. Spymaster: Startling Cold War Revelations of a Soviet KGB Chief. 1 edition. Skyhorse Publishing, 2013. http://www.amazon.com/Spymaster-Startling-Revelations-Soviet-Chief/dp/1626360650 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.147.15.198 (talk) 21:49, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I am opposed to adding this material to the article. It's a fringe theory. Kirkus Review and Publisher's Weekly are not in the business of reviewing a book's sources to confirm that a source is reliable the way Wikipedia defines it. They are in the business of reviewing books that are recently released for sale, not in verifying their content for historical accuracy. -- Diannaa (talk) 22:06, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

First, the book is not written by a RS historian. Second, the above is claims put forth, not confirmed fact. And the claims are not new information but hearsay and leads which were followed up on in investigations in the past. Second, to add the proposed addition which is based on circumstantial evidence (at best) and conjecture would give it WP:UNDUE weight. If consensus goes the other way then what should be considered is an addition made up of a short cited mention. With that said, in the end it is another WP:fringe theory and I don't want to go down the G. Douglas road as to Muller's fate. Kierzek (talk) 22:35, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Bagley is not a conspiracy theorist or a crackpot. He is a professional historian in that he made a living of publishing excellent history books of the Cold War espionage agencies. He has a PhD and has done extensive rigorous research in this field above and beyond his own personal experience. The Washingon Post obit is nothing but laudative http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/tennent-h-pete-bagley-noted-cia-officer-dies-at-88/2014/02/24/b2880bf2-9d6c-11e3-a050-dc3322a94fa7_story.html. His Spy Wars book, preceding the one mentioned above, was positively reviewed in the New York Times by another reputable author of a CIA history http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/03/books/review/Thomas-t.html?_r=0. Bagley had access to primary sources no academic historian ever dreamed of. He has published several books, all well received and validated by the scientific community. His latest book does not have academic reviews, but that is because it is too recent. And please note the PW or KR only review legit books. They rarely notice conspiracy theory books, based on hearsay, or if they they review them, they do it only if the book has too much public success and needs to be brought down a notch. The importance of the source cannot be denied. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.147.15.198 (talk) 19:09, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Anon - statements like "Bagley had access to primary sources no academic historian ever dreamed of." - do not aid your cause - that's patently nonsensical.HammerFilmFan (talk) 08:36, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

removed

This statement in the "Fictional portrayals" section needs more explanation and details about what it is: ' * The Barnes Review has alleged he was hired by the CIA after the war. ' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.67.180.187 (talk) 02:26, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Language used - partly Nazi terminology...

I just saw an edit I'd made on this page a while ago, with an addendum to the edit comment regarding neutrality of language: "The language used sometimes seems off mark though. (eg I don't think referring to the holocaust as "the extermination of the jews" [or along those lines] is adequate. Nor stating they are to be "physically destroyed" --> as a quote yes, but otherwise, this is usually referred to as "murdered" I think. I'm a bit hesitant to do more changes though, since it'd be quite a few... maybe I need to bring up the issue on the talk page"

So now I'm bringing up the issue on the talk page :). I think the vocabulary used in this article (at least in some parts) is that of the Nazis themselves (translated to English obviously), rather than neutral language. I would propose changing these (examples see above "extermination of the jews", that jews are to be "physically destroyed") either to quotes, or to more neutral language (eg, "murdered").

Regards Sean Heron (talk) 18:14, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

P.S. I've not looked into the quote pointed out in the section above (if its still in the article). Seems to be a case of a different, but similar issue..