Talk:Mein Kampf in English

English versions

¶ It seems ungracious to criticize an article which so clearly displays solid knowledge and effort in a topic so important yet so seldom written about, but ... this article makes mention of English versions of Mein Kampf that remain unexplained. There is a mention of a Stalag edition, of an "Unexpurgated Digest" and another "Unexpurgated" edition, without any clue as to the provenance of any of them. Undoubtedly there were several renderings of Mein Kampf in English but it is important to know which might have influenced readers going into WW2 and which came afterward, which made Hitler sound more (or less) civilized, and which were just plain sloppy. On the whole, I am glad this article was written, I just wish that editions were better described and identified. Sussmanbern (talk) 14:20, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

@Sussmanbern:The two 1939 pamphlets are discussed in the final three paragraphs of the section Mein_Kampf_in_English#Excerpts. The sources for them, other than Hitler's Mein Kampf in Britain and America: A Publishing History 1930–39, are

• Court Halted Dime Edition of 'Mein Kampf' : Cranston Tells How Hitler Sued Him and Won, LA Times, 1988.

• Houghton Mifflin Co. v. Noram Pub. Co., 28 F. Supp. 676 (S.D.N.Y. 1939)
• Houghton Miflin Suing on Behalf of Hitler and "Mein Kampf" (1939)

The last includes some scans of that edition. As for the other 1939 one, not much is known - I scanned and uploaded it to archive.org years ago, but my account there and most of my uploads have been blocked due to an unrelated copyright strike. (I'm in contact with them trying to resolve the issue.) Luckily there was another scan at hitler-library.org/. All that can really be said about it is what is in the introduction itself, and the library records.

The Stalag edition is not mentioned in the text of the article because I don't have any independent verification of its existence beyond what is on the PDF file itself and what amazon.com and other private retailers say about it, none of which are considred RS. Though I did link to it and use the cover as an illustration.

I hope this helps. --Bellerophon5685 (talk) 01:46, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Colonies

"In 1938, 8,000 copies were sold in the colonies." What colonies? MartinezMD (talk) 21:42, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

• I would like to know too, but that is what Barnes and Barnes said.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 02:44, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Can you tell if Barnes and Barnes meant the US (assuming B&B is an English publisher) or the former German colonies in Africa? Those are my initial thoughts but neither were colonies by 1938. MartinezMD (talk) 09:14, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

The full context on page 17 is "At the end of December the popular edition showed an additional 14,815 sales and the library edition 27,331, making the year's total 53,738 of which slightly over 8,000 were colonial sales". Barnes, James J.and Barnes, Patience P. (1980) Hitler's Mein Kampf in Britain and America: A Publishing History 1930–39 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. p. 17.

I assume they meant British colonies as Hurst and Blackett are stated to have the license to publish the book in Great Britain and its dependencies as of 1939. (ibid p.63) By the late 1960s it is mentioned that they have a license for the UK and the Commonwealth. (ibid p.139) I do wish more could be found out about the status of MK in the other English-speaking countries. Barnes and Barnes mentioned that a review was made of the British edition of the abridgement by the Irish Independent of Dublin, then in the Irish Free State. At least a few copies made their way to India, according to archive.org, but I don't know when.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 22:53, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

On a related note

The sales figures for 1937 and 1938 don't quite add up - if the publisher had 2,055 on hand at the beginning of 1937 and printed 7,000 copies, that means a total of 9,055 copies of which 8,648 were sold, that means they should have 407 copies on hand at the beginning of the next year. Even then, the 16,442 on hand, plus the 25,500 printed still account for only 41,942 copies, yet they sold 53,738? Subtracting the 8,000 "colonial" sales, that still leaves 45,738 sales in the United Kingdom which is still 3,796 more than what was on hand plus printed. I am guessing the discrepancies are due to fact that so many of the publishers records were lost during the war?--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 15:24, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Dalton Translation

I'm surprised no one has added the 2017-2019 Dalton translation to the page. But I'm just going to bring it to your attention here, because if I try to edit the Wikipedia page my edit will just be deleted, as you wonderful people are wont to do. ChristianBethel (talk) 20:25, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I have added it previously, but it was removed for (1) coming from a Holocaust denier, (2) being self-published, (3) having no reliable source as the Amazon page doesn't count. Apparently all three factors were relevant. HonestManBad (talk) 00:32, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

This translation has no scholarly significance. "Thomas Dalton" is a pseudonym used for self-publishing fringe theories. A thing is not encyclopedic just because it exists, and Wikipedia has little patience for this trash. Cite reliable sources, with a strong preference for independent sources. "Dalton" is neither. Use reliable sources to explain why this matters, without editorializing. Grayfell (talk) 01:34, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

So in order to foster your desire for political correctness and suppression of freedom of speech, you deliberately sabotage the incomplete Wikipedia page. This is the most up-to-date translation of the work, and probably the most accurate. You're shooting yourselves in the foot, as always. But, as per, if I voice my frustrations, it will be seen as an attack against this godforsaken site. ChristianBethel (talk) 22:20, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Uh huh. Wikipedia relies on reliable sources. Your assessment that this is the most accurate is backed up by nothing but your own opinion, which is not relevant.

Looking over the entry for the 2009 Michael Ford translation, it also appears to be self-published. The publisher is "Elite Minds", and Ford's other books there include compilations of arcade flyer art, a guidebook for finding employment with a criminal record, and several books on buying and selling on ebay. I don't see any indication that this translation is significant. Wikipedia is not a directory, especially not of obscure self-published translations of public domain works. To avoid citation spamming, I have also removed the "Grand Oak Rare Books" translation, as I didn't find any significant coverage of this publisher, or of this translation. Mein Kampf has been studied for decades by many academics who work with established publishers under editorial oversight. Use those sources, instead.

In other words, cite reliable sources, please. This is the standard for all Wikipedia articles. Grayfell (talk) 22:06, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Mein Kampf - The Stalag Edition - The Only Complete and Officially Authorised English Translation Ever Issued (1940) - Adolf Hitler 0000.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:54, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Mein Kampf - The Stalag Edition - The Only Complete and Officially Authorised English Translation Ever Issued (1940) - Adolf Hitler 0000.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:44, 20 September 2021 (UTC)