Talk:Mein Kampf/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1

Contents

Wildly available and popular in Iran?!

I've lived 20+ years in Iran and have never seen or heard of this book in any library or bookstore. I added a "citation needed" and will remove if no such citation shows up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.217.84.191 (talk) 19:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

henry ford quote

i swear i had this experience: i found old copies of mein kampf in a college library. some of the editions will have the reference that hitler makes to henry ford, and some will not. i find this to be extremely fascinating, but havent seen any scholars work on this weird fact. . . it would be awesome if wikipedia had something about this.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Decora (talkcontribs) 01:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

a lot of problems

a lot of stuuf state dw/o evidence. like saying the book was popular. well, thats like saying turmenis love to read the turkmenbaashi's poetry. actully, when you control the entire state, and murder people who express disagreement with your party line, its kind of silly to call it 'popularity' when people publish positive articles about it in papers and so forth. everyone is trying to kiss up and/or keep from getting killed by the secret police, so of course they are going to have their copy at hand for inspection, or put out an article on it, or whatever.

there is also no mention of the henry ford quote in the book. doubtless it has been included in this article before, but thanks to some unknown phenomenon amongst the wikipedia power hierarchy, things like that never make it into articles.

it also completely fails to cover the autobiographical and psychologial insights into hitler, especially his bitterness about his wwi experience, and how he played on similar bitterness in the populous. this is probably a pretty important issue in germany nd in many other countries.... disaffected veterans of horrific battles and their influence on politics....

anyways. i would try to improve the rticle myself, but i have given up on that, in the face of the really, really silly behavior of the people that run this site. at least there are still 'talk' pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.202.106.226 (talk) 14:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

"Globalists vs Continentists"

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mein_Kampf#Globalists_vs_Continentists

The Continentists believe that Hitler for his own lifetime would have been content with ruling merely Europe.

- This is speculation.

I should have marked/deleted this part but instead I added the following paragraph:

Fact however is, that the Wehrmacht attempted to conquer Africa and Eurasia as well.

A deletion would be the better solution, but even my attempt on clarifying this speculation gets reverted by certain users like Hongooi: "Wehrmacht fighting in Africa is irrelevant -- they were helping out Mussolini, not part of a grand plan; Eurasia because that's part of the USSR)"

This is -NOT- irrelevant for this discussion. It does not matter what might have been their goal or reason in your opionion. What matters is that they were conquering Africa and Eurasia thus Hitler was NOT content with ruling merely Europe as the quoted paragraph claims.

Availability in US libraries

Perhaps a dumb question, but how available is Mein Kampf in an average US library? Feels like it should be a given part of any library selection but you never know... Slipzen 02:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

In this vein, I'd like to note that the article claims the book's publishing rights are owned by Bavaria in all languages save English and Dutch. It then goes on to explain why this is so for Dutch but not for English. I see that someone else commented on this in the talk page (below) and that others tried to answer his or her concerns, but still there is no mention of the English language copyright in the article (at least not in that section; I confess I didn't read the entire thing). Also, in the same section it lists the availability of the book in several countries around the world; missing from that list are the US and the UK (though it does mention that an Arabic edition is popular in Arabic parts of the UK). It seems like the book is freely available in both countries and maybe that's why they were left out, but still, the article makes mention of the fact that it's freely available in Canada and Australia; we shouldn't just assume that users will know it's available the US and UK. Am I missing something? Thanks for your time.
For what it's worth, there are 19 copies of Mein Kampf listed today among 12 branches of the Montgomery County, Maryland public library. 18 copies listed in the online catalog of the Detroit, Michigan public library. An English version is also available through Project Gutenberg. I'm sure exceptions exist in particular areas or particularly small libraries, but in general I'd assume you'd find it as easily as any other dense historical tome (e.g., The Wealth of Nations, Das Kapital). OtherDave (talk) 15:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
You can get a good sense of its availability in US libraries by searching Worldcat http://www.worldcat.org/isbn/0395078016 Rabourn (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC).

Working title

As far as I Know the title is "Mein Kampf" but why is the book referred to as "Mein Kompf" throughout the text? A false spelling? I don't speak german. 83.92.58.114 20:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I read somewhere that Hitler's working title for the book was "My five year struggle against ignorance and stupidity" and it was the publisher who shortened it to "Mein Kampf". Is this true? If so, might be worth adding to the article (JMHO).

The original title, according to Hitler biographer Ian Kershaw, was Four and a Half Years of Struggle against Lies, Stupidity, and Cowardice and that it seems that the name was shortened to My Struggle on the suggestion of Max Amann - ChessPlayer 06:07, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
It seems a bit odd then that the article strongly suggests the name of the book should be interpreted as "My War." Max Amann, Hitler's Publisher, wanted to shorten the name not rename it.
Furthermore "Kampf" has never exclusively meant war. Selecting only examples where Kampf means war is an obvious fallacy. The same could easily be done today rendering the same false definition. During the same time period for example a "Kampf gegen Faulheit" - "Struggle against Sloth" was lead in the Prison system. Surely the prison authorities did not mean to outfit their residents with rifles and body armor?
More likely their aim was to make prisoners productive so upon leaving prison they would have gained work skills to escape their life of crime. Considering all of this the intepretation of "Mein Kampf" to mean "My war" seems at best unlikely. - Hvatum 06:07, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
I've edited the article to the best of my ability to reflect what I stated in the above post. A grammer and style proofing would be highly appreciated.
Also, off the top of my head I remembered Rudolf von Jhering's "Der Kampf ums Recht" as a relavent example contemporary to Hitler. If you know of a more appropriate contemporary book feel free to either replace this example or append the Paragraph.

6/3/06: removed the suggestion that "My War" would be a good translation of the title. There's a perfectly good word for "war" in German: Krieg. Hitler doesn't use it. - 24.52.167.159

Good thinking, I need to learn more german! Hvatum 17:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Kampf is best translated as Struggle or Battle. In this context, I would say struggle would be the best translation, as the consensus would suggest. Kampf or kampfen is sometimes used in a military sense but in this sense it clearly means struggle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.72.41.171 (talk) 05:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Cranston controversy

This caused [Alan Cranston]?, later Senator from California, to sue Hitler in a case which he lost.

What does "This" refer to? What did Cranston allege, and when did the case take place? --AxelBold Rewrote to include what happened. Cranston published his own version of Mein Kampf with anti-Nazi notes. Hitler sued him for copyright infringement and won.

I think we also need a summary of the contents of the book. --AxelBoldt

That might be beyond the scope of the project; the Table of Contents alone runs twenty pages! 128.163.113.201 19:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Copyright and distribution

If I recall correctly, Mein Kampf is in the public domain in the US. All Nazi copyrights were voided in the war. --GABaker

Would it include the translations? From memory, the current American edition is based in an arrangement made before the war that Bavaria couldn't break. Though it could be on of the incomplete versions -- Error

Is it true that Hitler earned so much that he could renounce to an official salary from the State? -- Error

Not necessarily from sales of Mein Kampf, but I've heard that he collected royalties from the sale of German postage stamps bearing his image, making him very wealthy — sort of like William Wrigley Jr. selling chewing gum for a penny a piece — not much money in each sale, but the sales volume was huge. -- Quicksilver

The copyright on Mein Kampf has been disputed: see this web page. From this court decision it appears that the copyright was not left by Hitler to the state of Bavaria but was confiscated by Bavaria from Hitler's estate.

Agreee. Changed the part with the testament. Klaus Mann 13:08 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Popularity/availability

I remember reading somewhere that this book is the second bestselling book in the world, after the bible. Does anyone know if there is any truth in this? I hesitate to put it in, although if true, it would certainly be worth mentioning. 80.255 06:59, 27 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I think you are thinking of the Communist "Little Red Book". Maximus Rex 07:07, 27 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Unlilkely, since you can't buy the book in most countries. Klaus Mann 20:51, 27 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Actually, I'm pretty sure that you can buy the book in most countries. Almost every country that bans it, if not all, is in Europe. Since it was forced upon people in Deutschland during WWII, I assume that perhaps temporarily it may have held that title, but of course I doubt that it does now... The Little Red Book may indeed hold the title at the moment, considering China's population... Khranus
Its purchase is not banned in most places, just printing is. In most places you can import, as long as you are not an aknowledged neo-nazi--60.42.157.16 00:01, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I do NOT think there is ANY truth in that "Mein Kampf" is the second bestselling book in the world, after the bible.
I don't even think it would be on a top-1000 list.
I'm not sure, but I think "Lord of the Rings" or "Harry Potter" is the second bestselling book in the world...
Luckily, they are not so offensive as "Mein Kampf". :)
There is an episode of the history channel's TV show "Secret Worlds" about American Nazism that made the claim that Mein Kampf was the second best selling book after the Bible. I think this is what many people are referring to when they say they heard this fact somewhere.Cbraz 04:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Regards, Dna-Dennis 00:56, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I believe the second best-selling book in the world is The Diary of Anne Frank. I can't remember the source of that, though.--Ryan! 09:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The Diary of Anne Frank is the second best-selling book in the world. I remember hearing it while I was watching a special on TV. I dont' have the source either and I forgot what the show was on television, but you're correct either way. RoseDincht 18:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Bizarre. I always heard that it was the Bible in the number one place, followed by Mao's Little Red Book and the Jehovah's Witnesses' The Truth that Leads to Eternal Life. I find it awfully difficult to believe that Anne Frank has outsold those two! 128.163.113.201 19:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Mein Kampf sold millions of copies during Hitler's lifetime; it was almost mandatory to have a copy if you lived in Germany, and it sold millions more in Allied nations during World War II. I once had a copy published in the U.S. in 1943. I would bet it is easily one of the top 1,000 selling books of all time, but is nowhere near No. 2. Having read it, I will say that it may be the worst best-selling book of all time. Even leaving the content aside, the quality of the writing is unbeliveably bad. Jsc1973 (talk) 09:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

More antisemitic blather

  • "In 1999, the Simon Wiesenthal Center documented that major internet booksellers like amazon.com and barnesandnoble.com sell Mein Kampf to Germany. After a public outcry, both companies agreed to stop those sales." I'd be willing to bet money that had the rights to the book been in the hands of jewish interests, then the wiesenthal centre would have been promoting the book as a 'example of the horror of national socialism' as opposed to harassing booksellers to drop its sales. Jews afterall, almost exclusively follow the $$$ (anonymous edit)
    • Actually, if the rights to the book had been in the hands of jewish interests, the book would never be published ever again. We already have enough examples of the horrors of national socialism, thank you.

I do NOT think it is the second bestselling book in the world. However, it is often a bestseller in many Arab states. It has been a bestseller in PA controlled areas, Jordan, and was the number two best selling book in Turkey, recently.

Turkey isn't an Arab state. --86.135.217.213 02:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I think what people are not saying but inferring is that "Mein Kampf" arabic translation is popular among arab muslims and muslims in general.

We should not be afraid of the truth. Neither should we hide facts. Otherwise we will be like those who re-write history to their own choosing. Simply stating facts cannot be construed as "hate" except by those who wish to hide the facts for their own political purposes. Origen 17:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Hitlers own nephew refused to receive royalties from the new publications of Mein Kampf, so why would you suggest that a Jew would seek to benefit from its sales? Clearly everyone ever related to it is ashamed of both it and the author. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.72.41.171 (talk) 06:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Summary?

I agree that a summary could be useful, because of misconceptions about its contents. In particular, I removed the mention of Poland from the sentence related to Lebensraum: Although the territory of Poland was inevitably on the way of each and every "Drang nach Osten", "Mein Kampf" doesn't mention Poland in this particular context, while Russia fits well into Hitler's not so original theory of expansion of "active" nations into the "under-used" territories. (Also, Hitler "analyzes" pro and contra of alliance vs. war with Russia, as an example of his chaotic logic. On one hand, by his logic "Lebensraum" is supposed to be taken away from "weak", "lazy" nations that cannot "consume" it. On the other hand, Russia with its Marxism/communism is considered to be a strong threat, and the war on the East is a preventive one.)

mikkalai

Adolf Hitler. Mein Kampf copyright 1925

I found Volume 2, 1925, Hard cover, written in german, It still has the dust cover which has a picture of Hilter. is this book worth anything? contact me at doug@lewistonmichigan.com

I doubt it had a picture of John Cleese on the cover! Do you mean Adolf Hitler?-GeorgeFormby1

NPOV Problems

I changed some of the beginning statements that violated Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy. If any disagree with my changes, I urge them to first go read the policy carefully. I also left in some of the violations for now, such as the statement, Like many autobiographies, much of the material was distorted or fabricated by the author. This statement is the opinion of the Wikipedia editor, and that is not allowed in articles. It needs to be re-written in accordace to the guidelines on the NPOV page I linked to above. ChessPlayer 08:00, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

Who edits "excerpted versions"?

Most German libraries carry heavily commented and excerpted versions of Mein Kampf.

Could someone with specific knowledge of these versions elaborate on this sentence? I read the word "excerpted" here as a euphemism for "redacted" or other words of that sense. If the copyright is held by Bavaria, and Bavaria withholds it from publication, then who edits and publishes such editions? Under Berne Convention copyright I would expect such editions would be derivative works of the Bavarian copyright and thus would be illegal to publish without the consent of the copyright holder. --FOo 02:55, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Dutch government

Hello there is a phrase in this article "the Dutch government seized that [copyright] in the same way". Some text seems missing here. What else exactly was seized. And how about England, also mentioned in the phrase?

By the way, being Dutch myself, I belief that owning the book in Holland is illegal. I would actually think it is in several other European countries as well, such as France.

Looking at the changelist, the clause about the Dutch government was made by IP 62.251.90.73 at 12:40, on Jul 9, 2004.
I suspect the sentence is attempting to refer to this: [1]. Apparently the government of the Netherlands has taken the position that it owns the copyright to Mein Kampf in the Netherlands, and as the copyright owner, has prohibited anyone else from publishing it there.
This could be better expressed in the article. Also, as you suggest, many similar things may exist in other European countries, and these probably deserve mention. --Saforrest 22:21, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)
Indeed the possession of the book is in itself not prohibited.

Er...

"Mein Kampf was an influential text among the Arab Ba’ath Party activists. An Arabic edition of Mein Kampf has been published by Bisan publishers in Lebanon. It ranks on the best-seller list among Palestinian Arabs"

I'm suprised this hasn't been discussed already. Whilst I wouldn't know either way about the first part, the final sentence strikes me as a hateful lie. Check the Article history.. pomegranate 13:43, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

"It ranks on the best-seller list among Palestinian Arabs". In order to be a "lie" it must be untrue. Otherwise it is merely an embarrassing truth. Origen 17:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Current Availability

The statement that both Barnes and Noble and amazon.com no longer sell the book is false.

Check both websites and you will see that both still sell the book quite openly.

Holden 27

But will they ship the book to a German or Dutch address?--Ryan! 09:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I hardly see how that is relevant to the above statement. They still sell it; where they will ship it to is of no consequence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.72.41.171 (talk) 06:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikisource?

There's a link to wikisource, but there's nothing there. What's the use of that?--Aslate 19:48, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree and have removed it. Thanks for checking. -Willmcw 22:18, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

There is a section here claiming that the book is the 6th best seller in Palestine, but the source for this information is MEMRI who are completely biased. If somebody cannot find a neutral source to substantiate this claim, I would like to remove the text from the article. I hope people understand, as Wikipedia should be a reliable source where possible, not a conduit for propaganda. Israel/Palestine is a contentious subject and it should not impinge on this subject matter. manchester_me 00:33 (GMT), 30 Dec 2007

NPOV Main Discussion

On 31 July 2005 11:52, this article was given a NPOV-logo by "84.67.32.255" with this motivation "Major NPOV needed here! This is supposed to be a balanced neutral account. NOT a Hitler bashing exercise, full of with emotive POVs, loaded language, and gross pro-communist/Jewish bias."

Since I believe arguments will arise in the future, I decided to start a discussion on the matter. I have removed the NPOV-logo, of the following reasons:

  • There were no examples of the exact sentences which were considered POV.
  • I don't believe the person has read "Mein Kampf". I have, and I do not think the article is POV.
  • One should be extra careful when calling "referencing" articles POV
  • The sources should be checked (in this case "Mein Kampf")

Because of my defence you may think I have written the original article. I have not. But since I have read "Mein Kampf", I can assure you that the book is full of exactly what this article was accused of, namely "emotive POVs, loaded language, and gross anti-communist/Jewish bias."

Regards, Dna-Dennis 13:51, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Mein Kampf im Deutschland verboten ist!

Wer zum Teufel hat die Webside mit dem deutschen Text auf die Wikipedia gestellt? Dieser Krampf ist in Deutschland verboten...

translates roughly as: "who the hell has put the website with the german text into wikipedia; this book is forbidden in Germany..." Lectonar

Thats not correct. "Mein Kampf" isn't forbidden in germany despite the common believe... 194.127.8.18 09:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I have seen a TV - documentary which clearly said that the book "Mein Kampf", the symbol "Swastika", and the "Hitlersalute" were all forbidden in Germany. In the german version of the computer game of "Indiana Jones and the last Crusade" the Nazi flags have a black square instead of the Swastika, and a text appears, basicly saying that that symbol is forbidden by law. The Neonazi groups in Germany salute with raising their right arm and spreading three fingers apart (the thumb , the pointer and the middle one) and lowering the other two fingers and they explain that it it stands for the first letter "W" in the german word "Widerstand" - Resistance. It is simple censorship in the name of decency.
What do I think? : "Freedom of Speech not only means that we have the freedom to say what we like to hear. It also means that other people have the liberty to say things we despise and hate." Flamarande 10:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, if you can provide a reliable source saying the book is forbidden in Germany, please provide it; one would think the German Wikipedia article about it would strive to be correct, but who knows? (And, as always, our personal opinions about the propriety of such bans is irrelevant.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
    • It's a bit more subtle than that. It always is. The article already says that copyright of the text is with the State of Bavaria, who refuses to licence it. The German Criminal Code has a provision against "symbols of anticonstitutional organizations" (§ 86a) - that does cover the Hitler salute - and another against "anticonstitutional propaganda" (§ 86). Usage for scholarship is excluded. One would guess that that would cover the "Kampf". Dr Zak 14:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
      • It doesn't. I've updated the page to reflect this. --Mellum 19:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
It isn't forbidden. Here, look up the german amazon page and you se helluva lot of Mein Kampf copies ready for sale. --Baruch ben Alexander - ☠☢☣ 02:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Repetitiveness

A big block of text concerning the sequel to Mein Kampf is present both in its own section of the article, and also further up, buried in the 'Contents' section. I would suggest that one of these sections be removed, or refer the reader to the other. --84.68.83.35 17:45, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Very good you spotted this! It disrupts the flow and I will try to fix it right now. Regards, Dna-Dennis 23:21, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I've fixed it now, by keeping the general info in "Contents" with a simple link to the subsection "The Sequel". Regards, Dna-Dennis 23:39, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Who holds copyright?

Was it ever determined who holds copyright to this book? Amazon.com still offers it for sale, under the publisher "Mariner Books" (ISBN: 0395925037). Who makes money when someone purchases this book? Is it possible to find an original version that isn't so heavily edited or includes the first and sequel in a single volume?

Just a comment :-)

The intentionalist vs functionalist debate is quite blatantly one sided and most of it belongs in the article intentionalists vs functionalists and not here. Even if it were to be moved to the appropriate article it still comes off as very biased and not nuetral as it should be, not giving a proper intentionalist reply.

Off topic, but in reply, Mein Kampf being a best selling book?? this is highly unlikey as it is only influential among a small minority whereas the Bible's influence is global, selling in its millions in every continent annually. the same could be said of the Lord of the Rings/Harry Potter which again though sell well do not appeal to the global community i.e. Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe. A religous text such as Qu'ran or mass produced as The Little Red Book and Guiness World Record are probly closer to the mark.

I doubt that the Bible sells well in Antartica! (Prehaps the Penguins are secretly Neo-Nazi's!)-GeorgeFormby1

What is "folkish state"

In his book The rise and fall of the Third Reich, William L. Shirer admitted that he did not fully understand one Hitler's concept that he translated as "folkish state", having the word Volk in the German term. Can somebody explain what is "folkish state", its etymology, its true or hidden meanings, etc. ?

It is difficult to translate or even explain. The Nazis used the Word "Volk" (people) very frequently, also when promoting certain things that should be made available to the whole German people, as in "Volkswagen" or "Volksempfänger" (a cheap radio that couldn't receive foreign stations.) These things were all the same for everybody, and their was no alternative. You could have a Volksempfänger or no radio at all. In a similar way, also a "Volksstaat" was conceived. The people and movements promoting this kind of living were often called "völkisch". They were racist, dividing people into races and believed in the superiority of the Germanic race. They were anti-semitic, believing in works by Houston Chamberlain and Gobineau. The original folkish movement stemmed from middle-class people, often Protestants. They also propagated a heterogene society, without Jews, Slavonic, South-European people, of course, all working according to their state and being obedient. Hitler began such a concept with the Hitler youths. Concerning religion, the folkish movement was uneven. Some preferred Protestantism, because it was not a slave religion like Roman Catholicism (in their eyes), some propagated a neo-pagan religion worshipping the cruel gods like Thor and Odin. Hitler, who was brought up as a Catholic, wrote that Protestantism fitted the Aryan nature better. -- I hope this helps a little. --Prorokini 21:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Shirer's translation is better replaced with "people's state" as a more precise rendering. Despite the racial overtones which the national socialists gave to the term, with their emphasis on the Aryan people, the form of terminology used here was similar to what prevailed on the Left with the notion of a "people's front" (often misrendered in English as "popular front" based upon the French form of the phrase). The Left talked of building a people's front and the Nazis of building a people's state with the accent on a racial interpretation of "the people," but both phrases were intended to tap into similar sentiments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.247.125.206 (talk) 02:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

supplemental info for article

In Mein Kampf, Hitler also explained his version of the swastika. "In red we see the social idea of the movement, in white the nationalistic idea, in the swastika the mission of the struggle for the victory of the Aryan man, and, by the same token, the victory of the idea of creative work....." The victory he is referring to is of course the so-called victory of the National Socialist German Workers' Party, and its self-proclaimed socialism. (in Mein Kampf). It's clear from this that the red in the German National Socialist flag stands for socialism ("the social idea of the movement") appropriated from the traditional socialist Red Flag. The white stands for German Nationalism and the swastika for "victories" of that dogma. There is also a clear indication that the cross piece is an "S," signifying "sieg", the German letter for "S." All of the above is even more evident when read in the actual German. There is the clear import that Hitler was using the symbol as overlapping "S" letters that signify "socialism" since Hitler has already said that the red stands for socialism and the swastika also stands for the "socialist victory" of the National Socialist German Workers' Party.

Adolf Hitler’s symbol (the swastika), although it was an ancient symbol, was used sometimes by the National Socialist German Workers Party to represent overlapping “S” letters for their “socialism,” as shown in medals, banners, flags, stamps, etc by the historian Dr. Rex Curry. The same symbolism is shown in Hitler’s own bizarre signature, which Hitler altered to use the same stylized "S" letter for "socialist," and in Hitler turning the symbol 45 degrees to the horizontal and eventually pointing all uses to the right to highlight the S letter, and similar alphabetic symbolism still shows on Volkswagens.

Poison Gas

It's obvious that Adolf mentions the poison gas because it's what he had been thru in WWI (remember he was blinded by it). It's a way to mark the WWI because the veterans reading the book would identify, don't forget poison gas was used A LOT in WWI. Underlining the sentences and even putting it in the article it's MANIPULATION of Adolf's words just to keep the connection to holocaust as if he had planned using zyklon-b for years and years before the concentration camps (IF it was actually used to anything else than killing lices). Remove the paragraph because it's nonsense and manipulative to anyone who doesn't know history and reads the article.

Hitler had sarin, etc gas - never used a drop of it against the Allies.159.105.80.141 19:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Mein Kampf arabic translation

Certainly something needs to be said of the arabic translation and sales of Mein Kampf. This subject might warrant it's own heading.

It is a best-seller in many arabic speaking countries and the Palestinian Authority published an edition that was distributed to it's soldiers.

Does anyone have any information regarding actual sales numbers and distributions in arabic countries?

"More antisemitic blather" and "Er..." above have both referred briefly to this topic. Origen 17:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Alan Cranston's Translation

This page states that Cranston's translation was abridged, but Cranston's article claims it was unabridged. Which was it?

  • It was abridged, I'm pretty sure. Here is Cranston discussing it; he'd read the original 350,000 word edition. One reference I've seen said Cranston's version was 70,000 words, but I've not found an authoritative source (the 70,000 number comes from a columnist I dislike.)

So I talked to an editor friend of mine in New York, a Hearst editor named Amster Spiro, and suggested that I write and we publish an anti-Nazi version of Mein Kampf that would be the real book and would awaken Americans to the peril Hitler posed for us and the rest of the world. So we did that. I spent eight days [compiling] my version of Mein Kampf from the English language version that I now had, the original German language version, and another copy that had just appeared. A book was then selling for around three dollars normal price. Hitler was getting forty cents royalty for each copy that somebody bought that wasn't [even] the real thing. We proceeded to print in tabloid the version that I wrote, with a very lurid red cover showing Hitler carving up the world, and we sold it for ten cents on newsstands. It created quite a stir. Some Nazis went around knocking down newsstands that displayed it in St. Louis and the German part of New York and elsewhere in the country. We sold half a million copies in ten days and were immediately sued by Hitler's agents on the grounds we had violated his copyright, which we had done. We had the theory that [though] he had copyrighted Mein Kampf in Austria, he had destroyed Austria with his army, so we said he destroyed his copyright at the same time. Well, that didn't stand up in court, and a Connecticut judge ruled in Hitler's favor. No damages were assessed, but we had to stop selling the book. We got what was called an injunction. But we did wake up a lot of Americans to the Nazi threat...

--jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

81 years

As mentioned on the Main Page, it has been 81 years since he published it. Is that mentioned anywhere?--Chili14(C|@|T) 03:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Irrelevant paragraph

I'm moving this here:

Functionalist historians have pointed out that there is no evidence linking Hitler to the decision to use poison gas to commit mass murder. The use of poison gas for mass murder began in 1939 for the T-4 Euthanasia Program when the program’s directors were looking for a more efficient way of killing large numbers of people rather than merely injecting each victim with a needle. Though documentation proves that Hitler ordered the T-4 Euthanasia Program in January 1939, there is no evidence that Hitler gave any orders for the use of poison gas. The mass murder of Jews began in the summer of 1941 with massacres committed by the Einsatzgruppen in the occupied parts of the Soviet Union. Until December 1941, the Einsatzgruppen always shot their victims. Ultimately, Heinrich Himmler decided in August 1941 that mass shooting was too inefficient, and so imported the experts from the T-4 Euthanasia Program to devise methods of gassing Jews, first with gas trucks, and later with gas chambers. There is no evidence that Hitler gave any orders for the SS to switch from mass shooting to mass gassing. Furthermore, all of the perpetrators who were brought to trial after the war such as Rudolf Hoess and Adolf Eichmann always stated the decision to use poison gas was something that the SS decided upon themselves as they felt it was more efficient than mass shooting. In view of these facts, Functionalist historians argue there is no connection between what Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf and the decision to use poison gas for mass murder starting in December 1941 with the gas trucks at the Chełmno death camp. In regard to the Chełmno death camp, the British historian Sir Ian Kershaw, in his article “`Improvised genocide'?: The emergence of the `Final Solution’ in the Warthegau”, published in the Transactions of the Royal Historical Society in 1992, has noted that the decision to use gas trucks was done in a highly ad hoc and makeshift manner, which does not support the Intentionalist view that the use of the poison gas was a part of a master plan going all the way to 1924.

I don't see any relevance to Mein Kampf, speaking as a total non-expert, reading this article for the first time. Stevage 09:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

English copyright

Who owns the copyright to the English translation? In the article it says they're all owned by Bavaria except the English and Dutch, but unless I missed it, it doesn't say who owns the English. - Рэдхот 18:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

It probably doesn't have copyright? Aran|heru|nar 12:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
If this is true (of which there is no evidence) it should be stated outright. I am also interested in this issue. john k 15:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure, but I think not all (there might be some) translations are eligible for copyright independant of the original (because they are absolute derivatives, are contain no content that wasn't entirely based on the original language - i.e. anyone could have done it with sufficient skills, and come up with results that would have been counted as the same in copyright terms) - Рэдхот(tce) 22:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Hitler in English

The discussion here with regard to Hitler's writings in English would appear to refer to American editions only. A full unabridged English-language translation of Mein Kampf was available in the United Kingdom (I have one in my own library) from the early 1930s up until 1944, when publication ceased. The next full edition, that annotated by D. E. R. Watt, appeared, from memory, in 1969. Also his unpublished book on foreign policy was available in the UK-in the 1960s-under the title 'Hitler's Secret Book.'

As far as the 'warning to history' school of thought is concerned it might be of interest to note that there was some attempt to make up for past negligence during the Cold War. Some of Nikita Kruschev's speeches and sayings were lumped together and published in the US with the rather absurd title 'Kruschev's Mein Kampf.' White Guard 01:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Name Change

My history teacher was talking about how Hitler had his last name changed from something else to Hitler. I was wondering if this was true, and if so, from what?

--> His father, Alois, changed his name from Schicklegruber to Hitler. As such, Adolf was born a Hitler.

Stars & Stripes

I recall a bit of a flap in the late 1980s when some German newspaper found that Mein Kampf was available in the US Army's Stars & Stripes bookstores in Germany. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 11:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like it would be worth mentioning. In defense I would say that it is very important for military people to study history. Borock (talk) 16:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

German Source at Radio Islam (abbc2)

abbc2.com, also known as Radio Islam, is a site with anti-semitism contents. 141.35.188.239 16:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Removed links to abbs2.com and radioislam.org sites. --Schwalker 22:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The articles says that Hitler had the Jews at the bottom of society - inferior. I believe he wanted them out of society not at the bottom or top. He seemed to believe their presence made progress in Germany - for the general welfare of Germans - impossible. He would classify them as troublemakers, unpatriotic, etc not as inferior.159.105.80.141 19:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

WRONG- ARABS ARE ALSO SEMITIC SO HOW COULD RADIO ISLAM BE ANTI SEMITIC IFALL ARABS ARE ISLAMIC?141.155.146.180 (talk) 22:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

French version

I changed the link because I think it can drive a bad image of Islam. The link I joined is a school work from teenagers thinking about violence. Barraki 16:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Bisan version

With regard to this source, I don't think we can combine "The Telegraph found it on sale in three newsagents on Edgware Road, central London, an area with a large Arab population" with "Copies of the translation are understood to have been distributed to London shops towards the end of last year and have been selling well." to say that copies have sold well in Arab areas of London - so we need to either delete the line, or settle on the selling well bit, or the finding it in Arab areas bit. --Coroebus 16:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Hitler Mentions Antisemitic Excesses of Middle Ages

Early in MK, Hitler mention the anti-Jewish riots/pogroms of medieval Europe and indicates that he felt (at one point, at least) such things were regrettable. I think this is a remarkable statement from someone who would within a couple of decades cause the Holocaust.Jrm2007 11:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Availability in India

The article states that the book is unavailable in Germany, which to my knowledge is not true. See for example http://www.indialog.co.in/publications/meinkampf.asp. I have updated the text accordingly. I remember being surprised to see stacks of the book (30+ copies) in very small booksellers in Kerala in 2001. Does anyone know where we can get sales data? SociableLiberal 15:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

German-Austrian

The opening sentence says that Hitler was German-Austrian. Shouldn't that be Austrian-German since he was born in Austria and then moved to Germany? Borock (talk) 16:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I reworded the sentence in a minor way which made that more clear. Borock (talk) 14:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Popularity

Though by no means popular, people were said to have contacted Eher asking for a larger run. Kind of contradicts itself, no?--Jack forbes (talk) 21:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Citations for "Famous Quotes" from the James Murphy Translation

With some difficulty I managed to track down all but one of the cited quotations listed under "Famous Quotes" from the Murphy Translation. It turned out that most of these "famous quotes" were not the exact wording from that translation, at least not in correspondence with what is in the referenced PDF version (http://www.greatwar.nl/books/meinkampf/meinkampf.pdf). I included the text I found in the PDF file, but did not delete the text that was already listed as "famous" since those sometimes did flow better and did not significantly change the semantics.

I added citations in the following format, which should make it somewhat easier to track these down in both the PDF file and in print editions of the book. (PDF, Volume 1|2, Chapter N, Page P, Paragraph C, James Murphy Translation) While some of that information might seem redundant, it does provide for the possibility of creating additional citations to alternative translations, the original German version, and other types and versions of online source files using the same format. Perhaps instead of "PDF" a link to the PDF should be inserted here? I will go back and make that small change.

Fjb3 (talk) 04:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

After re-reading my previous edits several times, I found it distracting to see the mis-quotations mixed in almost randomly with the actual quotations. I clarified this by separating these into a table, with the mis-quotes clearly labeled and the actual usage appearing just below with the citation as specified above. While some might argue that the mis-quotations should just be deleted, I believe that highlighting the differences adds some useful content here. Much as the Bush Whitehouse has mis-quoted Ben Franklin, the preservation and distinction between the actual words and those in somewhat common use adds a certain amount of value to the discussion.

For those who may not know the Franklin quote to which I refer, here is what Benjamin Franklin actually said, compared to what he has recently been misquoted as having said:

Oft-misquoted Those that would trade liberty for security deserve neither.
Actual quote They that would give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Benjamin Franklin

Fjb3 (talk) 10:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

S&W 1925?

Pity the poor reader who depends on infoboxes and reads within this one:

  • Publisher Secker and Warburg
  • Publication date July 18, 1925

I think that both parts are true. The combination of the two is not an explicit lie, but is highly misleading at best. The obvious fix would be to alter the former, e.g. to Eher-Verlag. A better fix would be to rename the fields to specify that this is the first edition. Morenoodles (talk) 09:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Bible verse

"Oft-misquoted Sooner will a camel pass through a needle's eye than a great man be `discovered' by an election. Actual quote There is a better chance of seeing a camel pass through the eye of a needle than of seeing a really great man 'discovered' through an election. PDF, Volume 1, Chapter 3, Page 80, Paragraph 1, James Murphy Translation "

No matter how you stack it, this is a quote from Matthew 19:24 "...I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. Matthew 19:24" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.242.58.125 (talk) 02:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the wording struck me as having certainly had some biblical influence - although the application and end results ("winning an election" vs. "entering the Kingdom of Heaven") are frequently diametrically opposed conclusions, don't you think?  ;-) --Fjb3 (talk) 06:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Interesting observation, though here is my take.

Modern day Neo Nazis seem to be influenced by ancient paganism; worshipping Wotan(Odin) and so on. And so it might have been in those times as well. But perhaps in seeking a more mainstream voice they emulated a Christian verse to reach (potential) followers. Just my take, but the "end results" are clearly just a metaphor or analogy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.72.41.171 (talk) 06:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

If we're quoting Bible verses, it's worth noting that the translation of the famous verse "it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle" is a fault of the Aramaic word for thick hauser(rope used on a fishing boat)similar to word for camel translated to Greek, although the point being made is clearer using the idea of a "camel".Not everyone is as familiar with the fishing ropes of the Mediterranean, but everyone knows what a camel is.The faulty translation succeeds where accuracy might fail. Ern Malleyscrub (talk) 07:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC) Further to this verse translation: the Greek word "kamilos" means camel, the Greek word "kamelos" means cabel,or rope. You can see the easily made mistake, no biggy,as teens say.Ern Malleyscrub (talk) 15:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Nation and Race

In the Chapter about Nation and Race Adolf Hitler makes a clear distinction between North and South America (USA and Latin America): Germanic (Anglo-Saxon) North America and Mestizo (mixed race) South America.

For Hitler the United States is an example (in fact he gave the Great Cross of the German Eagle to Henry Ford and Thomas Watson, founders of Ford and I.B.M. and copies the concept of "International Jew" from the American tycoon Henry Ford in his book of the same name "The International Jew" published in Dearborn, the magazine of Ford Motor Corp.)

According to Adolf Hitler the U.S. will continue to be the ruler of the Continent as far as it doesn´t mix the Aryan Race as Latinamericans have done.

But time has demonstrated that the Spanish approach in Latin America is the only outcome possible for USA for demographic and economic reasons, and by the year 2046 it is expected that Hispanics will be 30% of the American population with Whites becoming a minority of 46%. Curiously by then (2046) it is expected that the American Century will have past giving birth to the Chinese Century...so in this he will be right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.146.210.74 (talk) 22:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Rudolf Hess

The person who literally 'wrote' this book is Rudolf Hess. Hitler simply told him about his ideas.--207.96.174.66 (talk) 17:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Hitler and the sanctity of life wordings

This section uses the phrase "Indeed," as a sentence starter four times: it isn't used even once outside of this section. you could say that, "Indeed, this section reads very poorly." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.88.44 (talk) 07:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


I find this section interesting, but also confusing.

I can see this section making more sense on the Hitler page itself. This article is supposed to be about the book, yet this section has only one references to any actual quotes from the book (Footnote #9). Additionally, this section has 19 references in it, but 16 of those references are to the same source which just feels wrong. Surely there are other sources for some of the quotes in this section. The article referenced in footnote 8 (What Makes the Holocaust a Uniquely Unique Genocide by Gunnar Heinsohn from the Journal of Genocide Research(2000) 2,(3), 411-430) has 105 references. Surely some of those could be cited instead. --Shelshula (talk) 04:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Most Harmful book

"In more modern times, the conservative magazine Human Events listed Mein Kempf as the 2nd most harmful book in the world, after The Communist Manifesto, in its list of the "Ten Most Harmful Books of the 19th and 20th Centuries."

The Holy Bible is the most harmful book of all time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.142.242.128 (talk) 19:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

This particular list also cites the works of Charles Darwin, Rachael Carson, Ralph Nader, Freidrich Nietzsche, and Alfred Kinsey as just a step below the ideology of Nazi Germany in terms of harm. I'm sure there is a more neutral source that states the harms of Mein Kampf, and if there isn't, then the statement should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.163.246.10 (talk) 03:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Unclear

The opening of the 3rd paragraph seems unclear: "Though Hitler had received many visitors ..." The fact that Hitler was in prison should be mentioned before this sentence. 145.7.182.4 (talk) 12:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

It looks like someone deleted the introductory material that made this clear. I added a short sentence before this to at least make his imprisonment apparent, but I think this raises more background questions that also should be included in the article content. Perhaps a forward reference to a section about "Conditions of the author" should be included somewhere? Or would that be better in a cross-reference to a bio article about hitler? --Fjb3 (talk) 20:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Current availability

What is the point of having a list of countries where the book is freely available? It seems that only a handful of countries has any restrictions on the sale or possession of the book. In all other countries it is available on the normal conditions of the book publishing market. I propose to remove the "freely available" countries list, as it must be assumed that that list would include all the countries in the world except the few mentioned (7-8? including non-existant USSR) as having a ban or other special circumstances concering the book. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I have transformed the "availability" list into a list of "restrictions or other special circumstances regarding the book". --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:10, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Famous Passages section deleted

"Some often-cited {citation needed} (and yet some as-often misquoted) passages from the James Murphy translation include..."

"Some often-cited..." are weasel words. Cited often by whom? "often misquoted" by whom? It seems to be made up of an editor's own opinions and pedantic disagreements over translation. Please provide the source of the "often misquoted" passage. Where is it misquoted?

Better yet, if you wish to restore the Famous Passages section, please suppport the entries with specific citations validating their claim to "fame" (merely citing back to Murphy is not enough) and completely eliminate the Oft-misquoted table cells, which are at best matters of opinion and thus POV. Good sources of "cited passages" would be famous Hitler studies such as those of canonical historians Alan Bullock, Hugh Trevor-Roper, Ian Kershaw, etc. Without them, the section is original research which is prohibited by Wikipedia. J M Rice (talk) 13:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Ford Translation

Back on 25 June 2009, one "Historyprof101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)", heard of neither before nor after that date, added some material on the Ford translation of "Mein Kampf," which remain to this day. I've done a bit of investigation, and think the addition highly dubious. First, there is no information I can find on who "Ford" is. Second, the publisher is essentially a vanity outfit. Third, a review of the material finds that Ford doesn't write English all that well, and gives no idea of his qualifications (although his material suggests that he is not a native speaker of German).

And although Ford is right that some previous translations have problems, he confidently claims to have the "correct" translation, even when his isn't... For example, he takes this German text: "Sang- und klanglos zog Herr Cuno zurück..." and translates it as "While singing and soundless [without a whimper], Herr Cuno.." He's translating an idiom literally, which good translators do not do.

However this citation is incorrect and because the reason for the translationis explained clearly in the accompanying book MK A Translation Controversy. The translation is valid. Added by "Historyprof101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)"

In short, it looks to me like this is naked self-promotion, that "Historyprof101" is close to the author, and that the translation does not meet reliable sources criteria.

I don't have time at the moment, but later this weekend I'll get around to removing the Ford material. Anybody know anything about this that I don't? Bytwerk (talk) 19:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Good call. The linked website reeks of selfpublishing. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Historyprof101, who added the material on the Ford translation in a single burst of edits back in the summer, is back again, reinserting the material. Since the translation is self-published, and had not undergone any kind of review [other than Ford's promotional book on the subject, which claims it is the best translation ever), it clearly does not meet Wikipedia standards for inclusion. Once (if...) the translation gets favorable reviews from experts in the field, one might reconsider.
However, User:Historyprof101 is likely to continue to try to reinsert the material, so some help from others would be appreciated, should he continue his efforts. Bytwerk (talk) 22:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

If you dislikethe weblinks then remove those. It is however outright deceptive and dishonest to completely remove all references to the Ford translation and pretend a new and better Mein Kampf has not been published. You are cheating everyone who comes here for honest information. The errors section is also accurate and the book being promoted is free to download as a pdf. Bytwerk has decided on his own, without any support from a single historian that he will label this new Mein Kampf as bad even though he has never been able to show why. He continues to cite two examples over and over even after his claims were discredited. Added by "Historyprof101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)"

So far, the only person who thinks the Ford translation is "new and better" is User:Historyprof101. All I am asking is that you provide credible sources who agree that Mr. Ford's translation is as good as you say. If it really is that good, it will not be hard to find credible scholars to review the book. Bytwerk (talk) 01:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

"Reviews"

the "Reviews" section seems to take Beck extremely out of context. He didn't say "It will blow your mind" because it is a good book, he said it because Hitler's ideology is so obvious in the text and wonders why no one realised what was to happen or spoke up about it. Should it be deleted? Hypershock (talk) 14:54, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Copyright situation in the US

Section Current availability states "The copyright has been relinquished for the English, Dutch and Swedish editions.", and "The U.S. government seized the copyright during the Second World War as part of the Trading with the Enemy Act and in 1979, Houghton Mifflin, the U.S. publisher of the book, bought the rights from the government.". Could someone please clarify that? Paradoctor (talk) 18:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Sidebar

Currently the sidebar on this page is Antisemitism. I am changing it to the Nazism sidebar, because that is a more strongly related topic. Perhaps an antisemitism portal can be put at the bottom? Quantumelfmage (talk) 03:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Authorship

I seem to dimly recall having picked up somewhere that Hitler had a helper/secretary/ghostwriter who visited him in prison and at least helped write the book. Is there any info on this, or did Hitler really personally write the entire book? 188.192.112.203 (talk) 22:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Apparently the opposite of what I remembered is actually the case: http://www.augsburger-allgemeine.de/Home/Nachrichten/Bayern/Artikel,-Mein_Kampf_Hitler_Landsberg-_arid,1685379_regid,2_puid,2_pageid,4289.html IMHO a section on authorship would still be useful. 188.192.112.203 (talk) 01:52, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

doi:10.1524/vfzg.2009.0043 This is the source the Augsburger Allgemeine article is based on. Paradoctor (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


Jesuit priest Bernard Staempfle, editor and contributor to Mein Kampf

Why was this reference removed? The source was a book that received first rate reviews in the serious press? It should be noted that Farther Bernard Staempfle was killed, at Hitler's orders, during the Night of the Long Knives. What would be the possible reason, if not his contribution to Mein Kampf and knowledge of Hitler's lack of historical knowledge and writing skills?

Please research this issue and allow this important fact to be part of the article. It is too important a part of our understanding of the text to be omitted.

Mrfh (talk) 19:30, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I have not yet been able to find a peer review of this book. The current publisher of it states they have "been equipping Christians for evangelism for 40 years". The description of the book on their homepage says that it "shows that Rome is responsible for the two great world wars" and that "the Roman Catholic institution is not a Christian church and never was". It does not sound like a reliable source for anything of this sort to me, or at best a fringe source (for example most historians would disagree with the conclusion that the Catholic church was responsible for both World Wars). If Staempfle played such a great part in the creation of "Mein Kampf" it shouldn't be too much of a problem for you to find a better source for that claim. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


I have seen this account in a number of books on The Third Reich, over the years, but will have to try to find them again (one cited at end of this entry). His murder during the Night of the Long Knives is hard to explain if the story is not true. He was editor of a newspaper that was pro-Nazi and certainly involved in editing Mein Kampf to some degree, at very least. Why else would his name have been added to the very short list of non SA members killed? The others were old political rivals, critics and only two or three party to information Hitler wanted suppressed. Staempfle seems to be in this small group. I think you will find another reference in "The Occult and the Third Reich" Mrfh (talk) 03:39, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I assume you mean this book? That is not a reliable source for this either. Please find an academical work that has been peer reviewed. I suggest you read the Wikipedia page on reliable sources. We do not engage in original research on Wikipedia, so unfortunately your speculations as to the motives for his being killed during the Night of the Long Knives are not valid arguments as to his inclusion. Come now, Hitler and Nazism are probably some of the most written about subjects in history, I do not think it should be that difficult for you to dig up a proper source that covers the role of Staempfle. --Saddhiyama (talk) 16:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

This is already on Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victims_of_the_Night_of_the_Long_Knives. It already says that several sources have named him as an editor, so adding the possibility that he was here, seems in order.

Also : - Father Bernhard Stempfle (Catholic priest, former associate of Hitler, found in a forest outside of Munich with a broken neck and three bullets in his heart. Probably killed because of what he knew about Geli Raubal) http://www.axishistory.com/index.php?id=4558. Another reference: - ~ Robert G.L. Waite, The Psychopathic God: Adolf Hitler, Basic Books, 1977, pp.237–243. Also: - Hitler A Study In Tyranny (1962) by Alan Bullock and from page 198 of William L. Shirer's THE RISE AND FALL OF THE THIRD REICH : - "The body of Father Bernhard Stempfle of the Hieronymite Order, who, it will be remembered from earlier pages, helped edit Mein Kampf" and from David Irving's The War Path (Focal Point) Page 71. "He learned that somebody had killed his old friend Pastor Bernhard Stempfle, an almost daily acquaintance of earlier years, who had helped edit Mein Kampf for publication". Do you require more references or are we in agreement now? I have provided references from five books that include respected works on the topic.Mrfh (talk) 07:13, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

You have come up with some good sources. The claim that he helped edit (though not author parts of) the book can be verified with these. --Saddhiyama (talk) 12:59, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Dear Saddhiyama, I wondered if Bernhard Stempfle was in jail with Hitler because he was involved in the Beer Hall Putsch and have been able to confirm that the assumption was correct from a first hand source, Otto Strasser. This is from Otto Strasser's Flight from Terror (NATIONAL TRAVEL CLUB New York 1943. Page 99). "In its original version, Mein Kampf was a rambling, almost incoherent expression of political commonplaces and hackneyed socialistic theory lifted from the philosophies of a dozen minor politicians and obscure statesmen. There were passages taken from Houston S. Chamberlain and Lagarde, men whom Dietrich Eckhart used to quote in conversation and writing. The finished manuscript was given to Father Staempfle, a priest of brilliant intellectual attainment who was also the editor of a newspaper at Miesbach, and he twice rewrote it for Hitler, editing it extensively and making it both coherent and readable." ALSO - Dr. J.H. Lehmann points out in his book Behind The Dictators (pp 133) that the Jesuit Father Staempfle wrote Mein Kampf for Hitler. "Hitler's Mein Kampf was edited and, according to Alberto Rivera (Former Jesuit), ghostwritten, by Bernhardt Staempfle, a Jesuit priest."

Do you feel that some mention of his 'considerable contribution' to the book is in order, even if we qualify it by saying 'based on some reliable sources?'.

I am thinking of publishing a page on Bernhard Stempfle, as the link is empty at this time, and would love to have you involved as you seem the perfect 'devils advocate' and highly knowledgeable in this regard. The role of Bernhard Stempfle is one that needs to be documented as he appears to be a central character in Hitler's rise to power, and one who is largely overlooked. Mrfh (talk) 03:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

This article is good... it just fails to present the book

Hi all. I realise that I merely by posting in a place like here I may be stigmatising my Wikipedia account beyond recovery. Good, I eat stigmas.

I have attempted to "educate" myself on what this highly acclaimed book is really about, and on what reputable Mr. Hitler has to say to the world. (Without necessarily having to read his work myself.)

However, all that I found in this article as of today is a (thoroughly referenced) wealth of details on all sorts of circumstances related to the book.

Presentation of the book's actual content is limited to index of chapters.

I feel that the author's own voice has been thwarted. (Poor him.)

In particular, I had high hopes about the section titled #Hitler and the "Sanctity of Life". While it is an absorbing read, after a while the reader (this is me) wakes up to an abrupt realisation that it says nothing about the book! How come?

How to solve this: Somebody intimately familiar with the book (perhaps a devotee) should write up a summary presentation of the whole book and of individual chapters.

Said this, I do appreciate the amount of work that has gone into building this article.

6birc (talk) 01:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Nazi Germany

A minor point, but the country is "Germany," not "Nazi Germany." First, the book was published before the Nazis took over. Second, the name of the country remained Germany (or "Deutsches Reich".) Bytwerk (talk) 21:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, the "Nazi Germany" thing seems to pop up regularly. There's not much place for it in an encyclopedia, other than a rarely necessary clarification. --jpgordon::==( o ) 15:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

"The new territory that Germany needed to obtain would properly nurture the "historic destiny" of the German people; this goal, which Hitler referred to as "Lebensraum" (Or living space in English), explains why Hitler aggressively expanded Germany Eastward, specifically the invasions of Czechoslovakia and Poland, before he launched his attack against Russia. Hitler's invasion of France was not motivated by ideology, as he had previously claimed that Lebensraum should be found eastward, but as a retaliation and strategic occupation after the war declaration against Nazi Germany by the Allies (Including England and France). The invasions of Denmark and Norway were similarly not motivated by ideology, but by a strategic need to fortify all coastlines in Europe in preparation for the Allied invasion of Europe. " from Wikipedia, "Mein Kampf."

Someone has interjected an opinion on Lebensraum that is NOT in the book, because France was attacked in 1940! This is clearly an interpolation by a partisan. Please remove it, wikipedia. I posted this notice on the main page, but they asked me to post it here. Paolosilv (talk) 06:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)paolosilv, Aug 25, 2010

You will have to be more specific. Apart from the Nazi Germany-name, what is it exactly that you object to about that paragraph? (btw I have added a "Citation needed" tag to it) --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Citation consistency

Per WP:CITEVAR, citations in an article should be consistent in style. At present they are not in this article. My own preference is the Template:Citation style/template, but in any event can we get some consensus for one method or another, please? Given the controversies surrounding the article, I would hope that this is a minor issue! - Sitush (talk) 16:01, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Mein Kampfs Literary Content directed at events in Post WW I Germany?

While there is much debate about what Hitlers Writing entail, many scholarly attempts to understand and define Hitlers words MISS the point and substance that comprised what Hitler was writing about. Mein Kampf can be better understood if the events in Germany at that time are also compared to Hitlers writing.

1. After WW I, the Treaty of Versailles placed great economic hardships, for war reparations to the allies,the allies also created the League of Nations that broke up the Austro Hungarian Empire , a measure that would prevent any future Kaiser from having complete consolidation over an area to mobilize an Army.

2. Hitlers narrative in his book makes it appear that he alone notices the social , political atrophy that the German People struggle against, while completely ignoring the fact that these conditions were created by the events of WW I and those who instigated that War, which in fact were the Germans.

3. It is a point of fact that Hitlers attempts to focus prominence on Himself in identifying the problems of Post WW I Germany, when there were other Germans in the Weimar German Officer Corps already actively planning for a German rearmament, one of these prominent Germans Officers was Von Seeckt.

4. Hitlers book to some may seem hard to follow, this may be because Hitler does not present the subject matter in any particular order, Hitlers narrative in some instances jumps to unsubstantiated or collaborated Conclusions, for example, Hitler suddenly writes that Marxism and Jewry are the culprit , the narrative then resumes on a different subject with no further basis or substantive proof to support the initial claim.

5. In short Hitlers Mein Kampf is Hitlers dissatisfaction with the consequences that resulted from Germany losing WW I, and the inability of Hitler and the Military Clique of German Officers that could not stand the fact of losing, and being unable to swallow their pride, began an effort to change the economic and political conditions to their advantage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.108.164.2 (talk) 17:42, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Vienna

He speaks of not having met a Jew until he arrived in Vienna

I'm fairly sure that this is wrong. He knew at least one Jew at school. He saw his first traditionally dressed, "Jewish-looking" Jew in Vienna. 151.200.112.197 (talk) 02:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I recently saw a PBS program called "The Mind of Hitler" or something like that. It turns out his parents' family doctor was Jewish, and had a close relationship with the family. Borock (talk) 16:12, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Intro

I have not read the whole article. (I have read one chapter of Mein Kampf itself BTW, posted on the Internet, and was not impressed.) However it really would be nice if the introduction tells us why Mein Kampf is important. It also would probably be better if the digressions into the editor's later fate and the opinion of Hitler's jailer were moved to the body of the article. They are certainly not the main points of the article. Thanks.Borock (talk) 16:00, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I need some info

I am writing an articol in my native language about curtain aspects of Mein Kamp and I need to know if it is legal to sell the book in Romania. I already left a note in the Romanian Wikipedia but I got no answer and I thought someone here ought to know since there are way more Wikipedians here and the articol is more developed.
If you know whether Mein Kampf is legal or ilegal to sell in Romania and you are sure of your answer, please answer me and I'd be glad if you could also give me a reference link that supports you answer. Thank you all in advance. RG. P.s. I'm sorry if you see it posted twice. For some reason I can't see my post on the discussion page although there's no indication for any deletion in the history log. P.s.2 How come only when posting my new section I can see the older one? :\

Hello. You should try posting your question on the reference desk, where there are lots of people willing to help you with your question. This page is only for discussion of subjects relating to the improvement of the article. Cheers. --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:37, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Ford translation

Since the translation is self-published with no credibility, it does not deserve mention. Bytwerk (talk) 19:42, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Third Reich

The Ten Commandments, specifically the sixth one, Thou Shalt Not Kill, is the idea Hitler wanted to cleanse from the German consciousness through the coming of the third age or the Third Reich.

This is obviously convoluted bullsh*t, and I know almost nothing about the life of Hitler. If you're going to propagate lies and f*ck over history, at least make the lies believable and consistent. Otherwise, tell the mrfking unbiased truth, and remember, kids, if you make a point of sharing harsh factoids, you're probably a bigot. Ratiuglink (talk) 01:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

The section was questionable, since it was based on one controversial source, so I have removed it. Although I must admit that at first I was reluctant, since such a constructive result of your post would only validate your act of behaving like an asshole on the internet. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:26, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Gunnar Heinsohn

I removed this huge section based entirely on one source (an article by Gunnar Heinsohn). It presented Heinsohns views as the academic mainstream, while they are in fact very much a matter of controversy in the historical field. Possibly a mention of his theories is warranted and the controversy regarding those, but not in this form with long blockquotes of primary sources, weaselwording ("Gunnar Heinsohn provides evidence of Hitler's ideas"), misrepresentation ("historians such as Professor Gunnar Heinsohn". He is a sociologist, "The Ten Commandments, specifically the sixth one, Thou Shalt Not Kill", it is the fifth one) and editorialising ("he implications of Heinsohn's article for Mein Kampf are important" etc.). --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:50, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Kenneth Burke

Apparently Kenneth Burke wrote a now legendary, piercing critique of MK at the time of more widespread translation in 1933.[2] I'm not sure where note of this belongs, but im sure it should be here, perhaps in the "criticism" section, which is rather sparse. "controversial" can be a weasel word in this context.(mercurywoodrose)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:13, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Looks fine. I moved it down so the contemporary criticisms of political figures are separated from, what with your addition, could become a section of contemporary criticism from academic figures. --Saddhiyama (talk) 18:21, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Sweden and copyright

It says:

Sweden: it has been reprinted several times since 1945; in 1970, 1992, 2002 and 2010. In 1992 the Government of Bavaria tried to stop the publication of the book, and the case went to the Supreme Court of Sweden which ruled in favour of the publisher, stating that "the copyright is unclear" and that the original Swedish publisher from 1934 had gone out of business. It therefore refused the Government of Bavaria's claim, and so the Swedish books are published without a copyright.[citation needed]

Based on [3] and the talk page on Swedish Wikipedia, it seems that the statement is partially incorrect. The Supreme Court seems to have made two conclusions:

  • The book is protected by copyright.
  • The copyright holder is not the State of Bavaria.

Based on the sources, the court does not identify any copyright holder, though. The copyright is not completely unclear (it is protected by copyright); it's just that the copyright holder is unidentified. It also means that the Wikipedia statement about the book being published without a copyright is wrong (since there is an unidentified copyright holder). According to the Swedish talk page, the 2002 edition has a disclaimer stating that anyone who considers himself or herself the copyright holder of the book should contact the publisher for any potential royalties. I assume that this statement is in the book because the unidentified copyright holder might be identified at any point. (Stefan2 (talk) 09:36, 6 September 2011 (UTC))

Adjusted with the information from Hägglunds förlag. I'm not sure if the additional information from Swedish Wikipedia can be considered a reliable source. (Stefan2 (talk) 14:08, 6 September 2011 (UTC))

Revert Recommended

I suggest that someone revert the most recent edit. I'd do it myself, but since I'm mentioned in it, that might be unseemly. Basically, the translation in question isn't worth mentioning since it doesn't meet any of the criteria for a reliable source. Bytwerk (talk) 12:38, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Besides the notability issues, the entire section was also unsourced, so I have reverted. --Saddhiyama (talk) 16:26, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

RfC

Light bulb iconBAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 17:01, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Word Count

Does anyone know roughly how many words is Mein Kampf? (in German of course) 92.22.198.174 (talk) 13:58, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Contradictionary statements?

Forthcoming English Translation in 2015
The Bavarian government plans to publish a new English translation with commentary in 2015, shortly before the expiration of copyright in 2016.[18]
Republication in Germany after 2015
The Bavarian government opposed the plan, citing respect for victims of the Holocaust. The Bavarian Finance Ministry said that permits for reprints would not be issued, at home or abroad. This would also apply to a new annotated edition.

So is the Bavarian government is publishing a new English translation with commentary, or is it refusing permits for reprints home/abroad including a new annotated version? Or does the second one only apply to an annotated German version? Or only versions they are publishing themselves? I'm a bit confused. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.24.159 (talk) 17:29, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

"Controversial" wording under "Contemporary criticisms"

"Mein Kampf, due to its racist content and the historical effect of Nazism upon Europe during World War II and the Holocaust, is considered a highly controversial book."

Is "controversial" the right word here? I'd say that the denunciation of Mein Kampf is if anything uncontroversial.

Better to say:

"Mein Kampf, due to its racist content and the historical effect of Nazism upon Europe during World War II and the Holocaust, is one of the most widely denounced books of all time." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.25.74 (talk) 04:12, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Section Intentionalists vs. functionalists

At top of this section I've found this sentences:

Mein Kampf has assumed a key place in the functionalism versus intentionalism debate.
Intentionalists insist that the passage stating that if 12,000–15,000 Jews were gassed,
then "the sacrifice of millions of soldiers would not have been in vain,"
proves quite clearly ...

Shouldn't such a thesis been added with "direct citation of the related part"
and with an explicit reference to the exact position in Hitlers book?
Jaybear (talk) 16:25, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually all the "x vs y" sections are unsourced original research, and as far as I can see completely full of bullshit. I would be in favour of deleting them outright. The "Analysis" and the "Antisemitism" sections are problematic as well regarding original research and/or synthesis. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:28, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Since noone has objected I have deleted the unsourced sections which mostly contained original research. The remaining two sections are still problematic, but contains a few acceptable citations of reliable sources. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:46, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

6.3.6 China

Hi there!

Dear Josh Gordon!
I must apologize for choosing the wrong way to put my comment, I must not do it in the artcle. It was all my fault.
I only would like to say that the reference «[23] Baumann, Birgit (January 23, 2012). "'Mein Kampf' am deutschen Kiosk". Der Standard (in German) (Vienna)» is far afield (off the subject, irrelevant), imho, `couse there isn`t any word about China.
Best regards, --Bookvaedina (talk) 08:00, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
P.S. I`m from https://ru.wikipedia.org & https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/. --Bookvaedina (talk) 08:00, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I just replaced the useless ref with a cn. --jpgordon::==( o ) 15:03, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. --Bookvaedina (talk) 18:21, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Unclear phrase

"For example, Hitler announces his hatred of what he believed to be the world's triplet evils: Communism and Judaism."

It's not clear whether this should read "twin evils" or if one of the referenced evils is missing from the sentence.99.57.128.122 (talk) 18:42, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Sales figures?

I'm not seeing sales (or print) figures, except for British and American sales during the 1930's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.80.227.35 (talk) 05:58, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

From de.wikipedia.org: until 1945 about 10.9 million copies were sold in Germany.
Some say, it maybe the most sold book in Germany, only second after the bible while also being the "most unread" book (perhaps also after the bible)...--188.174.223.4 (talk) 11:21, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

The figures currently in the article about Hitler owing $8 million 2014 dollars in tax on sales of 240,000 books doesn't seem to make sense. The book would have to have cost (very rough 2014 estimates) $65 each with a 100% tax rate, or $130 each at a 50% tax rate. 96.246.63.173 (talk) 20:53, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

How influential was Mein Kampf really?

How influential was the book? article says it became popular after Hitler assumed power, i.e. "too late now". Books by (for example) US Presidents are often bestsellers, but rarely are they at all influential. It may be interesting to look and see that he wrote all the terrible stuff down, then went on to implement it, without assuming that there was any cause and effect. Perhaps the book had very little influence itself? It's not like anybody today ever reads and says "great read". Winston Churchill saying "no other book deserved more intensive scrutiny" is essentially making the same point in the other direction: the book did not receive the consideration it should have by many among "the allies". 96.246.63.173 (talk) 20:58, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

More sold than printed?

In "Sales and Royalties", in the table labeled "Sales of Dugdale abridgment in the United Kingdom", the total of the "Printed" column for all 6 years is 65,900, while the total for the "Sold" column is 91,828. How can there be more copies sold than were printed? Also the Royalties, Commission and Tax columns seem unnecessary. Mnudelman (talk) 18:03, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

How about an article that's actually about the book in question?

Looking over this article, it seems like the vast majority of it is concerned with talking about different translations of it and its availability in various countries today and VERY little about the book itself. One would think that an article on 'Mein Kampf' would include an in depth analysis of the actual contents of the book.

Agree. It looks as if there has been an act of suppression of content of the actual book, in favour of the relative trivia of this translation and that translation. I doubt that this distracting tactic is used on most other book-related articles in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.99.194 (talk) 23:28, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
What are you insinuating? Irondome (talk) 23:46, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a place where books are analysed in depth, you are incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jewnited (talkcontribs) 16:02, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Still, I would assume that an article on a book in a supposed encyclopedia would focus more on the, well, book rather than whether it was received well in several countries or whether it's available or not. I don't think anyone's asking for an analysis of the book, just more content relevant to the book's material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.83.247.165 (talk) 15:56, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

A non-European version annotation

MEIN KAMPF by Adolf Hitler - A demystification on archive dot org — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.204.85.237 (talk) 16:50, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Mein Kampf/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Reading through the first part of this article there are several things which I feel could be changed in it. First of all it is written in quite informal English, certain aspects could do with being altered to make it more formal. The 2nd point that I wish to highlight is the lack of citations or references in the first section. There are several quotes and attributions which have not been referenced, this could do with being updated. Thanks. Joe (talk) 21:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 21:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 15:22, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

CONTENTS: What it contains

Even though, Mein Kampf does contain anti-Semitic and militaristic contents, it is also a book containing a lot of sociological and political insights and observations. This is what makes the book attractive to a lot of readers, who are not bothered or connected to anti-Semitism or militarism.

The book is not what Hitler wrote when he was the Chancellor, but something he wrote before he had any information or feeling that he would arrive on the top of German national politics. When he wrote this book, there is a very evident feverish desire in him to find a means to change the national problems in his nation. From this perspective, the book is a great study on the many inferiorities of the German nation and people. However, there is always the tone of war and battles in the background. German defeat in World War One is certainly a sore point, which Hitler is not willing to forgive or forget.

There are other mentionable points about the contents.


One is the continual use and focus on the word ‘Aryans’. It was erroneous in many ways.


Second is a grudging admiration for England throughout the book, more or less to the point of even mentioning that England is undefeatable. In fact, Hitler wants Germany to form an alliance with England or Britain.

QUOTE: For such a policy there was but one ally in Europe: England.

With England alone was it possible, our rear protected, to begin the new Germanic march. Our right to do this would have been no less than the right of our forefathers. None of our pacifists refuses to eat the bread of the East, although the first ploughshare in its day bore the name of ‘sword’! END OF QUOTE

QUOTE: no sacrifice should have been too great for winning England’s willingness. END OF QUOTE


Third is an infatuation with Fascism or Italy of his times.


Four is an attempt to see some greatness in Japan.


Fifth is a shallow claim that US is a great nation built by Aryans (meaning Germans)


Sixth, there is disdain for the common people:

QUOTE: The receptivity of the great masses is very limited, their intelligence is small, but their power of forgetting is enormous END OF QUOTE


Seventh is a very deep contempt for democracy, and the various parliamentary Committees.

QUOTE: The decision is always made by a majority of ignoramuses and incompetents END OF QUOTE

QUOTE: parliamentarian democracy, whereby decisions are enacted through the majority vote, has not always ruled the world. On the contrary, we find it prevalent only during short periods of history, and those have always been periods of decline in nations and States. END OF QUOTE


Eight is an insight that public opinion is not a spontaneous or natural development, but something that is created by vested interests with very deliberate aims and machination.


Ninth, it is a book on political thoughts, especially on the duties of the state and the citizens.


Tenth, it does contain very powerful information on how to create a strong social or political organisation, in feudal language nations.


Eleven, there are a few critical information and observations on how to induce the people to think on a particular pattern without them knowing that they are being slowly indoctrinated.


Twelfth, this book predicts the possibility of takeover of Europe by other populations.


Thirteen, there are places in the book where it is mentioned that being peaceful can lead to being drawn to war

QUOTE: They dreamed of preserving world peace, and landed in the World War. END OF QUOTE.


Fourteen, this is also a book on education. In fact, formal education is mentioned as utterly useless and waste of time.

QUOTE: Knowledge that is merely drilled into people can at best qualify them to fill government positions under our present regime END OF QUOTE


Fifteen, there is a discussion on what motivates people to die for faith or patriotism

QUOTE: We no longer had the slightest idea concerning the essence of the force which can lead men to their death of their own free will and decision END OF QUOTE


Sixteen. There is disdain for the German people also.

QUOTE: a British officer, Colonel Repington, to make the contemptuous statement: ‘Of the Germans, every third man is a traitor.’ END OF QUOTE


Seventeen, There are very powerful observations on the practices of Communism:

QUOTE: Gradually he becomes the leader of the trade-union movement, all the more easily as he is not interested in really eliminating social evils in an honest sense, but only in training an economic storm troop, blindly devoted to him END OF QUOTE

QUOTE: these masses will always be first to follow the man who in economic matters offers the most shameless promises END OF QUOTE

QUOTE: The masses of illiterate Russians were not fired to Communist revolutionary enthusiasm by reading the theories of Karl Marx but by the promises of paradise made to the people by thousands of agitators in the service of an idea. END OF QUOTE


Eighteen. There are insights on developing public speaking skills.


Nineteen. There is a discourse on patriotism

QUOTE: One can be proud of one’s people only if there is no class left of which one need to be ashamed. END OF QUOTE


Twenty. There is a discussion on the issue of giving citizenship to outsiders:

QUOTE: Nothing but a stroke of the pen, and a Mongolian slave is forthwith turned into a real German. END OF QUOTE


Twenty one. There is a general air of contempt for the so-called ‘scholars’ from the Indian subcontinent in Europe who acted as if they were the formally designated leaders of the peoples of the subcontinent to speak for them, to free the place from British rule

QUOTE: But there were not a few Germans, especially in the nationalist camp, who let themselves be dazzled by such inflated Orientals and readily accepted any old Indian or Egyptian student from God knows where as a ‘representative’ of India or Egypt. END OF QUOTE

QUOTE above all were authorised by no one to conclude any pact with anyone END OF QUOTE


There are umpteen other casual or deliberate insights and observations that make this book quite different from the work of the man who more or less was focused on world conquest. If the book can be kept apart from the war, then it has its merits.


SOURCE: MEIN KAMPF by Adolf Hitler - A demystification! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.216.38.22 (talk) 11:16, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Ford translation?

Why is there no mention of the recent Ford translation of MK?

Radio Sharon (talk) 23:45, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mein Kampf. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:29, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Contents

The book contains a dedication and introduction from the author. Shouldn't these be included in this list? GreaseballNYC (talk) 09:22, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 June 2016

ADD NEW COUNTRY ENTRY — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.7.162.225 (talk) 10:45, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Kazakhstan

Mein Kampf was declared extremist by a court in Almaty on 16 September 2014. Its import into, and publication and distribution in Kazakhstan is banned. http://pravstat.prokuror.kz/rus/o-kpsisu/spisok-religioznoy-literatury-i-informacionnyh-materialov-priznannyh-ekstremistskimi-i

86.7.162.225 (talk) 19:01, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.  B E C K Y S A Y L E 08:28, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Hitler's dictation of Mein Kampf

Regarding the claim that Hitler dictated Mein Kampf, which I just removed from the lead, please see this story in the Times Literary Supplement: "Contrary to popular myth, the first version was not dictated but typed." FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:22, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

A good spot there. However, the question remains, did H do the actual typing or was it Hess? There has been a previous discussion on this and it won't shatter my world if der fuhrer banged it out on an old Adler. I'm happy with the revision but any other thoughts on this by colleagues? I am intrigued by the mention of a few remaining pages of original manuscript. Do we know if there are any images of these that we can use? Irondome (talk) 01:42, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
The claim that Hitler dictated Mein Kampf had already been removed by an IP, but I restored it. Discovering another source claiming that Hitler did not in fact dictate Mein Kampf made me reconsider. We certainly don't want to include the claim that Hitler dictated the book, or in fact any claim about how the book was produced, unless it can be properly supported. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:42, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Indeed. Irondome (talk) 00:45, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Should reality be controled by your whishes?

Dear editors, here I present a simple FYI, before changing the word "Book", for "Bestseller".

Please be so kind as to try understand that reality is the state or quality of being real. Reality is something that exists independently of ideas concerning it. If you hate "Mein Kampf", it does not give you the right to change reality.

If I state: "Mein Kampf is a bestseller", this statement is real if - and only if -it reflects the reality, if does not reflects what is real, the statement is false.

Isn't that idea simple?

For this logical reason, the explanation that "bestseller" and "book" do not mean the same thing., does not justify to ignore the reality that The Bible and Mein Kampf are, BOTH, bestsellers. Both books are included in the same category.

PS. If a book sells billions of copies, it does not mean that the ideas inside the bestseller are purified. Bad or good ideas don't change if thousands of brain-washed reader buy the book.

Can anybody give me a good reason why reality should be ignored when I don't like read what is real? Dr. LooTalk to me 01:08, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but I find the final sentence of that totally unintelligible, and that makes it tough to take the rest seriously. Changing "book" to "bestseller" is not a helpful or constructive change, but if you want to find some other way of indicating that Mein Kampf was a bestseller, and can properly cite that claim, that's fine. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:45, 13 November 2016 (UTC)