Although it is one of the indispensable standards of relevant research that Heidegger shortly after Being and Time made a „turn“ („Kehre“) in the development of his thinking, it can be shown that this is merely due to a misunderstanding or misinterpretation that began in 1949/50 with an at least incorrect reading of the corresponding passage in the Letter of Humanism. But if this legend of research can be proven as such, the question arises as to what consequences this will (...) have for the comprehension of Heidegger’s thinking, for it is said that with the „turn“, the transcendental approach was given up in favor of an aletheiological one with which it was possible for Heidegger to overcome subjectivism. In rejection of this by now equally canonical interpretation scheme it is shown here that the aletheiological approach is merely a recourse to conceptions important to Heidegger even before Being and Time and that after the failure of its third section – Time and Being – subjectivistic features were rather transferred, partially into a being that was increasingly thought of as an active one, partially into concepts like that of the „first thinker“ („erster Denker“) or the „messenger of being“ („Botenganger des Seins“). All in all, it is argued that the paradigm of „Heidegger‘ s turn“ should be abandoned in order to enable an unobstructed view on Heidegger’s thinking. (shrink)