Talk:Bibliography of Adolf Hitler

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How You Can Help[edit]

    • EDIT: Although different than the method I would employ, all books should be filed according to author last name, and then according to year. --Chr.K. 21:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

White Supremacist Site[edit]

  • The link which Mr. Isaac Brock is recommended inclusion to belongs to a white supremacist - the owner of the site sells "rare Hitler books", but if one backtracks the link, one can see the racist rants and a photo of the site owner in a Hitler costume, complete with mustache. I see no reason to advertise for such a site, and frankly, never thought an encyclopedia was supposed to be a catalogue. I think it is sufficient to list what books have been printed - printing where to buy them - especially if they are Neo-Nazis that benefit financially - is irrelevant and unencyclopaedic in my opinion.Michael Dorosh 05:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The commercial link is to a specialized store that sells hard to find Adolf Hitler books. This is what the article is about and it aids readers in finding books. If it is a dealer someone does not care to buy from they do not have to buy from them. Please put the link back. Cordially SirIsaacBrock 02:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The link in question does not belong. First, if one is going to include commercial links, amazon.com would be better, since it also includes many hard-to-find books -- but such commercial links are generally discouraged on Wikipedia, as far as I can tell. Second, the books on the site are not the books a general encyclopedia reader would likely be interested in. Third, there is doubt about the quality of the books, since Gary Lauck is something of a one-man operation who has found he can make money by marketing material to neo-Nazis. The books lack the editorial and professional standards one should expect. Bytwerk 15:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. As Wikipedia is a free, open-source, collective effort, there exists little room for commercial links, promotions, adverts, or anything of the likes; this is why we don't have ads, beside the fact that they are obtrusive and deserve to be ripped to shreds. Also, Wikipedia, as a neutral encyclopedia shouldn't market to neo-Nazi Hitlerist propaganda. That would be illegal as well as promoting hate speech, and we don't want that now do we? The link should go. Эйрон Кинни (t) 11:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was rather surprised[edit]

File:AHmedalbook.jpg
a page

when i posted this book in the article:

Colbert, R.W. and William D. Hyder, Medallic Portraits of Adolf Hitler, The Token and Medal Society, Inc., El Cajon, California, 1981

to discover it gone today with this explaination.

rv - remove non-existent, improperly formatted, no ISBN, last entry, SirIsaacBrock

So I wrote Sir Isaac, and even posted a page or two from the book, but decided to take my case here too. Surely books are not deleted if they format is different or if there is no ISBN? It is a form vs function world for sure, but . . . . . . . ............ Carptrash 03:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop acting childish, if you want to add the book to the list add it. Just follow the same APA style as the other 100 entries. Cordially SirIsaacBrock 10:15, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Putting it in the incorrect format doesn't mean the book isn't informative. If someone doesn't know a format but wishes to contribute they should have the opportunity. Эйрон Кинни (t) 11:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Sir Issac! If you don't know everything about Wikipedia from the very second you discover Wikipedia, then Goddammit don't you even think of posting here! The last thing we need is people with good intent trying to help! If the book has no ISBN, then it does not exist! We don't care if you have the book in your hands, and can post scans of every page! No numbers, then the book doesn't exist! Right, Sir Issac? Keep your Goddam non-existant book that you posted scans of away from us, you filthy rotter! And stop being polite! You must be rude like Sir Issac and me! Only rudeness is allowed here, you dirty bastard! CaptainCaveman 05:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Indirectly related to Hitler" seems like a too-huge category[edit]

Couldn't every published book on the European theatre of WW2 fit this category? Unless someone wants to split it off into a List of World War II books, I'd suggest removing this section. --Delirium 05:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - When the subsection gets to large a second list can be created. It would seem it is there to ensure that books do not get mixed in with the other topics more closely related to Hitler himself. Headphonos 12:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Annotated" bibliography?[edit]

About a month ago, the first line of this article was changed from "This List of Adolf Hitler Books is an annotated bibliography" to "This List of Adolf Hitler Books hopes to be an annotated bibliography" by an anon, with the edit summary, It is not annotated at all. This change was reverted by User:PianoKeys, with the summary, Annotated in this case means we have inter-wiki links to books that have articles written about them and their authors. If this is the case, then it would seem inappropriate to link the words "annotated bibliography" to the article annotated bibliography, as that article gives a rather different definition of an annotated bibliography than the one that User:PianoKeys suggests. For whatever it's worth, I'm inclined to agree with the anon that calling it an annotated bibliography at all is confusing at best. ergot 16:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Annotated in this case means many of the books titles are inter-wiki linked to an article about the book. Hence annotation, not all books have articles written about them at this time, perhaps they will in the near future. thanks. PianoKeys 21:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I realise that. What I am saying is that it does not make sense to link the article annotated bibliography in that sentence, as it provides a different definition of an annotated bibliography than the one being used here. ergot 16:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, if you click on the inter-wiki link about the book it gives you the annotation at the article. PianoKeys 20:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, it's a list with links - not an annotated list. 24.16.181.1 (talk) 19:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David Irving's thumbnail?[edit]

When you go through the item Doyle, D. (2005). Hitler's Medical Care you'll find following in chapter Acknowledgements: "The author acknowledges with gratitude the assistance of David Irving, the University of Marburg...". According to Wikipedia article on David Irving: "Irving's status as a historian has been widely discredited as a result of controversy arising from his Holocaust denial and misrepresentation of historical evidence." So, I don't think the medical care article is very reliable as a source and I don't recommend using it to anyone. I'm not sure though does the article deserve it's place in the list or not, but Irving's part should be recognized. --Ukas 00:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will and Testament arent books[edit]

They are short texts, not books. --212.71.176.82 (talk) 15:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is related to his writings, so it should be included. Chessy999 (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Norman Mailer[edit]

The Castle in the Forest? Or is it non-fiction books only? SGGH speak! 11:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Non-fiction only. Chessy999 (talk) 11:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Weikart's book[edit]

I removed the additon of Richard Weikart's book[1] from the list because as the author himself says, "you apparently became so outraged by the title that you assumed you knew the thesis before reading the book, leading you to incorrectly allege that I argue a straightforward "Darwin-to-Hitler" thesis."[2] The book, which I own, does not argue about a direct link to Hitler. The author concedes this. Its received such harsh criticism from historians you should becareful when citing it. We66er (talk) 22:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Non-English titles[edit]

OK, why titles in Dutch and Icelandic, and not any of the hundred other languages with books on Hitler? How likely is it that an English-speaking reading will be interested? German, well, that makes sense, given the significant literature. I see no reason, however, to privilege Dutch and Icelandic.... Bytwerk (talk) 01:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't have a separate subheader for different languages, users will add them to the main list, which is English. In other words, the main list will become a hodge-podge of different language books. Green Squares (talk) 13:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This does not respond to my question of what use titles in Dutch and Icelandic will have for the English-speaking reader. I didn't remove the Foreign language section, only the Dutch and Icelandic subheadings. Of course editors can add anything they want. Others can remove it. My point is, unless we want to include books in every language, books on this page should be restricted to English (and probably German). Bytwerk (talk) 13:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, check the history of the article, you can see the problem and why it was resolved by using subheaders. Green Squares (talk) 20:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

here's one: After the war, Giesler wrote "Ein anderer Hitler" (Another Hitler), a personal memoir about his relationship with the dictator.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermann_Giesler". must be an interesting one for historians since he shared the job of speer, that is regarded a prolific yet untrustworthy source.24.132.171.225 (talk) 02:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was support for move.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

Hi. Does anyone else find this article's current title, "List of Adolf Hitler books" either ambiguous (in the sense that it doesn't indicate whether the books are by or are about Hitler, or both) and/or ungrammatical ("Adolf Hitler" isn't an adjective)..? If so, how about "List of books by or about Adolf Hitler" or possibly something else? The same query about "List of Adolf Hitler speeches" is posted here. Sardanaphalus (talk) 00:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose rename: I believe the title is appropriate for the article. It is succinct and clear, no need for a change. Green Squares (talk) 20:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It may be succinct, but, unfortunately, it's ambiguous, as described above. (It's also ungrammatical, but that's secondary.) Do you see the ambiguity? Sardanaphalus (talk) 21:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      I've now linked this discussion from Wikipedia:Requested moves in the hope of collecting some more opinions.
  • Support move to List of books by or about Adolph Hitler or similar. Definite improvement. Andrewa (talk) 14:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Agreed. I have concerns with the ambiguity of the current title. The suggested title is much more suitable. Maedin\talk 14:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hitler, A. (1941). My New Order. (Reynal & Hitchcock. ISBN B0007DN9B2)[edit]

A 1941 book would not have an ISBN. Is that a Library of Congress catalogue number? Varlaam (talk) 04:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Der Hitler-Prozeß (1924)[edit]

Was "Der Hitler-Prozeß vor dem Volksgericht in München" (1924) written by Hitler? OCLC seems to think so: OCLC 638670803. The German Wikipedia article, de:Hitler-Prozess, does not mention it, but that may be because there are only like 4 copies in all of Germany... (There are many more in the US than anywhere else.)

If so, it should definitely go in the list. Int21h (talk) 06:35, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have done it. Int21h (talk) 06:00, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Better late than never: That book (different title: "Vor dem Volksgericht in München) contains the trial documents of the Hitler trial. As such, it is not specifically WRITTEN by anyone, but collects speeches held on trial by prosecution, defence and judge, and as such it contains Hitlers self-defence as part of the book. It was neither written nor edited by Hitler, and its not a comment on the trial, but purely a collection of documents, put together by an editor of Knorr & Hirth, a popular non-right-wing publisher of the Weimarer Republik. 95.90.129.68 (talk) 18:10, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Death of Adolf Hitler: Unknown Documents from Soviet Archives.[edit]

  • Bezymenski, L. (1968). The Death of Adolf Hitler: Unknown Documents from Soviet Archives. Harcourt Brace. ISBN 0-7181-0634-2

Hi, I took a look at the book in question and it seems okay to me: http://www.amazon.com/The-Death-Adolf-Hitler-Bezymenski/dp/0718106342

'Illustrated with gruesome black and white photographs. Dust jacket design by Craig Dodd. Soviet autopsies and other reports of Hitler, Goebbels and others who died in the Bunker in Berlin at the end of World War II.' IQ125 (talk) 13:55, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know this "work". The fact is that it was written back in 1968, and you cannot go by a source such as Amazon above, which frankly tells one nothing of substance. That is why I listed the historians I did in the edit summary. Contemporary historians have rejected Bezymenski's account of Hitler's death and the so-called autopsy; it was, to say the least, colored and bias Soviet propaganda. See Eberle and Uhl, The Hitler Book: The Secret Dossier Prepared for Stalin from the Interrogations of Hitler's Personal Aides, p. 288 and Kershaw Hitler, 1936–1945: Nemesis, p. 1037. I am not at home right now so I cannot go into further detail. With respect I must revert, but thank you for the comment. In the end, per WP:OR, it does not matter what we think but what the WP:RS sources state. Kierzek (talk) 14:25, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not everything in a book has to be agreed upon to make the list. The list is called: "List of books by or about Adolf Hitler", so the book qualifies to be in the list. The best thing to do is write an article at Wikipedia about the book and wiki-link it to the name in the list. Good luck with that. I have copied this discussion to the article's talk page. IQ125 (talk) 15:22, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your reasoning is faulty; by that reasoning everything and anything written on a subject could be included. I cited works by leading historians and you have cited nothing. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information or in this case dis-information. The only reason I don't revert again is because of the three revert rule. I have added a note with cites. Kierzek (talk) 15:35, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This 1968 book as well should be removed as well, per WP:RS and propaganda, bias and POV pushing; which has determined to be false. Contemporary historians have rejected Bezymenski's account of Hitler's death and autopsy, as Soviet propaganda. See Eberle and Uhl, The Hitler Book: The Secret Dossier Prepared for Stalin from the Interrogations of Hitler's Personal Aides, p. 288 and Kershaw Hitler, 1936–1945: Nemesis, p. 1037. Kierzek (talk) 13:28, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let's start with Irving...[edit]

Just because some book was placed on the list at some point does not mean it is WP:RS or should be kept. See WP:NOTEVERYTHING. I was reverted as to a recent edit and I have to wonder how one can justify the inclusion of works by Holocaust denier and "author" David Irving? His books should be removed as non-RS; bias and POV pushing. Kierzek (talk) 15:56, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence in the article states it is an annotated bibliography, so you can add some NPOV information about the book underneath the citation, if you want. However, the book is definitely Hitler related and should remain on the list. Some notable people disdain the book and others praise the book. IQ125 (talk) 18:41, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument is flawed, per WP:RS and WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Also, it is only your opinion, which is WP:OR. Kierzek (talk) 20:06, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David Irving[edit]

I removed two of David Irving's books on Hitler diff; Irving's works on Hitler have been widely criticised. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:35, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the removal; there is nothing which states this is an all inclusive list and it is a disservice to the general reader to include discredited authors, to say the least and discredited works. Kierzek (talk) 11:56, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree; Hitler’s War is notable enough to be included, although I understand the reasoning not to include discredited authors. So I will not oppose the exclusion of this work, but then I have three suggestions:

  1. To be consistent, we should exclude Secret Diaries of Hitler's Doctor too, since it was translated and edited by Irving, and probably not in a neutral way;
  2. We should say something in the lead that Wikipedia does not include works that violate the truth, but then in a better choice of words.
  3. As it goes for David Irving's books, Pat Buchanan's Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War is largely discredited too; just see the article concerning the book. I wouldn't mind if that one disappears too, if we keep the 'delete discredited works'-policy.

Regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 10:22, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff5102, I have no objection to the two books above being removed; one by Irving and one by Buchanan. I don't believe a note needs to be added, as I said above back in May, there is nothing that states this is an all inclusive list. Kierzek (talk) 12:40, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Books in foreign languages[edit]

I removed those not in English or German; it's unclear why single books in Hungarian etc should be included. Preserving the material here by providing this link. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:17, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 20 August 2019[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved (closed by non-admin page mover) DannyS712 (talk) 10:37, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]


List of books by or about Adolf Hitler → Bibliography of Adolf Hitler – I propose the title of the article to be renamed "Bibliography of Adolf Hitler" following the Wikipedia title naming protocol. There are many articles on Wikipedia exist, titled such "Bibliography of...XYZ". The current title of the article is unusually long and seems little off the grammatical order. Hemant DabralTalk 14:50, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Biography ghostwritten by Hitler?[edit]

I was reading this Lithub article from 2016 that mentioned "A scholar’s recent discovery that Hitler himself probably wrote an early 1920s biography—supposedly penned by an admiring aristocrat". I checked this article and Historiography of Adolf Hitler, linked from the biographies section, but didn't see any entry that matches this. It sounds worthy of inclusion. --BDD (talk) 17:47, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bibliography_of_Adolf_Hitler&oldid=1216331280"