Author talk:Adolf Hitler

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search

You shouldn't publish the Mein Kampf German original (at least not without sidenotes): It is (without sidenotes) forbidden in Germany. And I think the Wiki servers are not supposed to become the possession of German nazis trying to read about an idol. Shall it?

German law, in such case, is anti-freedom of speech, even if the speech here is easily one of the darkest books in the history of human literature. Should Wikisource give into to anti-freedom of speech laws that are imposed by a nation that apparently (not to be harshly critical here, but forced to say it outright) seems unable to find a way to stem a tide of National Socialism by means other than total outlawing of the original man's words? Likewise, if German Nazis were to undertake the task of reading "about an idol", or in fact read his own words, all they would need do is read Mein Kampf while ignoring said notes. The argument why not to have Hitler's words read raw is thus flawed. --4.224.108.156 20:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Likewise, for that matter, in this section should be included "Hitler's Second Book," written in 1928, at least for inclusion when 2015, 70 years past his death, rolls around. --4.224.108.156 20:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
If someone has Mein Kampf to post here, they should by all means do it. That book arguably had more influence over the events of the 20th century than any other. It's a badly written book, aside from its hate-filled content, but if more people had read it after Hitler came to power, millions of lives might have been saved. He laid out exactly what he planned to do. If the Germans choose to deal with that part of their history by pretending it doesn't exist, that's their problem.
Among us are people who will haveinfluence of ourfuture. Why forbidding them to learn on mistakes of those before them? The words written by hand of Hitler don't differ much from words written by people nowadays, and realizing it might be essential for peace in future. There are some radical ideas, which i support, and to my astonishment it turned out that either communists or nazis already invented such ideas, which in dramatical situation of 30' and 40's evolved into these mosthorrible human inventions. And this is the reason why i am studying the ideologies of people in past, and history in general - so i understand what is actually happening now, and what will happen in next years. Preventing people from reading Mein Kampf might only result in repetition of mistakes we already mnade. --szp
German law does not forbid distribution of Mein Kampf and its contents in general. Until 2015 it was "forbidden" in the way that the Bavarian state had the copyright (for Germany) of the book and did not allow reprinting etc. in Germany. But selling antiquarian books from before the end of world war 2 has always been allowed. From 2016 on and regarding criminal law, it depends on the intention of the publication. If the text or parts of it is distributed for nazi propaganda purposes, that is forbidden, but if it is distributed for purposes of education, science, journalism etc., it is (probably) allowed. See [1]. --Simified (talk) 09:12, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

So is there any plan of posting Mein Kampf on Wikisource now? Huhu9001 (talk) 03:02, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Not without a clearly public-domain English translation available. We had a translation, but it was discovered to be under copyright and removed. No translation free of copyright has yet been proposed as an alternative. Translations may be under copyright even if the original test is in public domain, because the translator can hold copyright over their translation. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:10, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

National Socialism[edit]

The Party's name is National Socialist German Workers' Paty! The derogatory epithet "Nazi" was invented by Germany's enemies to denigrate the Germans and as such contradicts Wikimedia's policy of Neutrality!

"The term “Nazi” (along with “Nazism”) is a political epithet invented by Konrad Heiden (7 August 1901 – 18 June 1966) during the 1920s as a means of denigrating the NSDAP and National Socialism. Heiden was a journalist and member of the Social Democratic Party. The term is a variant of the nickname that was used in reference to members of the SDP at the time “Sozi” (short for Sozialisten). “Nazi” was a political pun, based upon the Austro-Bavarian slang word for “simpleton” or “country bumpkin”, and derived from the fairly common name Ignatz. It would be like saying “nutsy”. So, if for no other reason, one should easily understand why the term was regarded as derogatory by the National Socialists and why they would never use it to describe themselves. One should also see why it would be used and popularized by Marxist-Bolshevik agitators and understand how it was seized upon by various other political opponents and subversive types, both within Germany and abroad, including the international media and political leaders of the western powers.”"

https://justice4germans.wordpress.com/2013/04/16/exposing-the-nazi-epithet-who-started-it-why-how-and-who-benefits/

- Owain Knight (talk) 06:10, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Donebillinghurst sDrewth 06:44, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Undone. The arguments have been repeatedly rejected by the community, as they are in error, and depend upon history in another language. That is, your arguments may be valid for the name in German, but not in English. The Germans never called the party "National Socialists"; that is an English calque of the German name for the party. In English-speaking countries, the party is known as the Nazi party; it is the most commonly used and most recognizable name used in the English language, and none of the claimed word play exists in English. Besides, many political party names were originally derogatory, see Whig and Tory, for example, or Know Nothing in America. The same discussions regarding the name of the party have happened, and been rejected, on the English Wikipedia. Please do not bring your POV here. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:38, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Even easier, as we have done in previous occasions, we simplify. They can read the encyclopaedia article and fuss over that. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:36, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Looks like a good solution. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:43, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Edit request - remove dead external link[edit]

Please remove the following line from section External links:

  • Mein Kampf, translated by James Murphy, 1939, Archive.org

The underlying link on Archive.org has been taken down for unspecified reasons and there is no longer any content at that link. Mathglot (talk) 20:22, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:29, 12 February 2019 (UTC)