Talk:Nazi book burnings/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

March 18 edits by 81.157.101.187

I deleted the long text by 81.157.101.187 and restored Alansohn's version for several reasons:

  • 81.157.101.187's text is (at least in parts) copy-pasted from other websited, and only slightly altered
  • the compilation is chaotic, unformated and unsupported
  • it is largely off-topic (on book burnings in general etc)
  • the list of banned authers was expelled from the article without reasoning

--Derbeobachter (talk) 15:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

iw & red links

At List of authors whose books were burnt section:

Ernst Erich Noth, iw

Grete Weiskopf, iw

--PLA y Grande Covián (talk) 14:11, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Minor editing.

Removed and edited POV text in the second paragraph of the final section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.186.10 (talk) 03:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

In the second paragraph of “The book burning campaign” section, I’ve made a number of small changes to clarify the events of the book burning and to generally make the paragraph more succinct. I began by placing the date at the beginning of the first sentence. Previously, placing the phrase in the middle of the sentence overshadowed the day of the book burning. I then deleted the word “symbolic” due to its inefficiency lack of necessity in the sentence. This sentence is much more powerful without it. I also deleted the phrase that read, “such as Jewish or American novels.” Although this is a fact, the phrase itself implies that the Nazi party targeted primarily foreign authors and works. However, that was not the case. In addition, I deleted the phrase “and control of culture,” inserting “uncompromising” before “state censorship” instead. This is more concise and implies the far-reaching impact of the Nazi party without sounding redundant. I further edited the paragraph, changing “most” to “many.” Without concrete examples of which university towns participated, “most” lacks the desired oomph. I also changed the phrase “torchlight” to “torch lit,” as the first description does not seem to make sense. In the same paragraph, I modified the quotation marks so that they surround only the term, “un-German.” This term is in quotation marks in the previous sentence, so this keeps the style consistent. Additionally, I replaced “unwanted” with “banned.” The previous description begs the question, “unwanted by whom?” It also implies that everyone in Germany was in agreement that these books were no longer worth reading. That was not the case. Many Germans did not agree with the book burning. Therefore, “banned” is a more accurate term for the state of the books. I also clarified the description of the ceremony by replacing the term ”band-playing” with “live music.” The previous term is unnecessarily confusing.71.61.176.61 (talk) 19:33, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Nazi book burnings. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. 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}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:48, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

List of authors whose books were burnt

  • I noticed that Charles Darwin is on the list of authors whose books were burned. But I am unable to find any list that mentions Darwin by name. Can anyone give me a link to a historical document that specifically mentions Darwin by name? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.171.71.1 (talk) 19:54, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I will cancel Charles Darwin since there's no reliable source stating his works were burnt. Calle Widmann (talk) 17:05, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Werner Hegemann is not listed as an author whose books were burned. He was an architect and city planner and writer, who was and editor at Wasmuth Publishing house. His biography and a review of his writings which were critical of the Nazi movement was published in 2005: "Werner Hegemann and the Search for Universal Urbanism" by Chrstiane Crasemann Collins, W. W. Norton and Company, New York and London, 2005. Hagemann Studied at the University of Michigan, married an American, Ida Belle Guthe of Ann Arbor, Michigan, in 1920 and returned to Germany. Submitted by H. M. Hildebrandt, hmhilde@comcast.net. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.244.179.16 (talk) 21:53, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  • it says ernst haeckels books were banned however the source listed above i searched and cannot find any of his books being mentioned.
https://www.berlin.de/berlin-im-ueberblick/geschichte/berlin-im-nationalsozialismus/verbannte-buecher/suche/
Is there a reliable source? comparing haeckel and hitler quotes it seems that he had read haeckels books and that national socialism were heavily influenced by haeckel. http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Germany/Radical%20Ecology.htm 2601:984:200:765B:61BE:64C7:3A55:264D (talk) 18:59, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
  • The article quotes a speech by Goebbels in which he specifically names Haeckels as a banned author. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:13, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I read through the article several times i could not find that. then used the "find" tool and there were only one result for haeckel, and that were in the instance of my complaint.are you thinking of ernst glaeser? he is a different guy. 2601:984:200:765B:61BE:64C7:3A55:264D (talk) 19:25, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
  • You are right, my mistake Goebbels referred to Ernst Glaeser not Ernst Haeckel. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:30, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
  • This article in American Scientist says "By 19th-century standards, Haeckel’s views on race were moderate, and in particular, he had an unusually high opinion of Jews. The Nazis themselves repudiated Haeckel and banned his books."
  • This, from the Ecological Society of America says " Haeckel was clearly a nationalistic chauvinist, and that influenced his German Monistenbund. However, the Nazis banned his books (De Rooy 1990, Mocek 1991)", citing
    • De Rooy, P. 1990. Of monkeys, blacks, and proles: Ernst Haeckell's theory of recapitulation. Pages 7–34 in J. Breman , editor. Imperial monkey business: racial supremacy in social Darwinist theory and colonial practice. VU University Press, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
    • Mocek, R. 1991. Two faces of biologism: some reflections on a difficult period in the history of biology in Germany. Pages 279–291 in W. Woodward and R. S. Cohen , editors. World views and scientific discipline formation. Kluwer Academic Publishers, London, UK.
I would consider these to be reliable sources that Haeckel's work was banned. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:43, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I have obtained a digital copy of [http://libgen.io/book/index.php?md5=71CA1C1542A9F6BBB0C0F4EE3532BBEA "world views and scientific discipline formation" ]from Library Genesis containing the "two faces of biologism: some reflections on a difficult period in the history of biology in germany". It does not appear to make any claim that haeckels books were banned that i can find, but it does critique another authors claims that haeckel influenced national socialism and closes that haeckel's monism is incompatible with volkish philosophy because of an argument made by a nazi called ernst krieck, but does not mention that monism was banned either, which the wiki article also claims.

I could not find a digital copy of "imperial monkey business" however google books provides a free preview to allow one to search for key phrases or words contained in the book to see a screenshot of that highlighted in the book. searching for ban or banned does present two results on page 40 and 42, outside of the cited pages 7-34 and do not appear to be in any way related to haeckel or the nazis.

I too have obtained a copy of [http://libgen.io/book/index.php?md5=3949979ABA0C49950A0DA6233D198113 "THE TRAGIC SENSE OF LIFE: Ernst Haeckel and the Struggle over Evolutionary Thought"] from Library Genesis which the scientific american article cites. The chapter on Haeckel's relation with the nazis begins on page 489. It does not make any mention of the nazis banning his books or his ideas either from what i can tell. It does admit a claim of influence, but denies and argues against direct responsibility for their ideology or their atrocities, as best as i understand it.

The author of the scientific american article also appears to have written a book on haeckel called H.G. Bronn, Ernst Haeckel, and the Origins of German Darwinism: A Study in Translation and Transformation which i also could not obtain however could search through it on google books. ban or banned does not apparently appear anywhere within this book either.

To the best of my knowledge and understanding it seems that the authors may be mistaken on where they got this claim from or simply made an assumption. 2601:984:200:765B:61BE:64C7:3A55:264D (talk) 01:16, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

It is not "Scientific American" it's "American Scientist", a wholly different publication.
Since we have reliable sources that say his work was banned, it's going to take more than "I can't find a mention of it", it's going to a positive citation that says "despite claims otherwise, his work was not banned". Your personal knowledge and understanding is original research and is not relevant, or allowed.
Why is this such an issue for you? Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:41, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
but the sources they themselves cite for those claims do not contain what they claim they do?That doesn't sound very reliable.Its an issue for me simply because i am doing research to find out what kind of books the nazis burned and wanted to find a reliable source. Shouldnt we check our sources to make sure they are valid when doing research? Sorry for the trouble i suppose 2601:984:200:765B:61BE:64C7:3A55:264D (talk) 02:15, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
You're "doing research to find out what kind of books the nazis burned" and you zeroed in on Haeckel? Doesn;t sound like you're doing general research, it sounds more like you have a bee in your bonnet about Haeckel. If you're not going to level with me about what the heck is going on, I don't feel any particular obligation to continue to discuss this with you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:35, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
i thought it made sense why in my original comment that began this and i quote " comparing haeckel and hitler quotes it seems that he had read haeckels books and that national socialism were heavily influenced by haeckel.  http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Germany/Radical%20Ecology.htm "

it sounded strange to me that they would hate haeckel because of research i had done in the past regarding nazi environmentalism where i learned of the similarities between haeckel and hitler's views on ecology. The german source originally listed on this talk page, that i said made no mention of haeckel in my first comment https://www.berlin.de/berlin-im-ueberblick/geschichte/berlin-im-nationalsozialismus/verbannte-buecher/suche/ does however list everyone else named in the article as banned except i couldnt find felix mendelsohn but he is jewish so of course there should be no question of his banning ...leaving haeckel alone as the odd man out. Should it be deeper than that?however i was hoping myself that those sources would get into it deeper than he were just banned and explain why they didnt like his books so i could have a better understanding, only to find they made no mention of it whatsoever to my dismay. 

i found a Richard Weikart who is professor of history at California State University says that "Not even Haeckel was banned in Nazi Germany. Indeed, some books lauding Haeckel were published in Germany during the Nazi period and received positive reviews in the Nazi press."

Thats what you asked of me to do,right? And Daniel gasman,who i learned about from the r mocek article, in his book "the scientific origins of national socialism" says "in 1942, a society of scholars,centered at the Haeckel Haus, was founded, the Ernst Haeckel Gesellschaft- an organization enjoying the protection of the Gauleiter of Thuringia, Fritz Sauckel, who would be condemned to death at the Nuremberg Trials." therefore,it drives me the question now how could a nazi political official-a gauleiter, approve the creation of a ernst haeckel appreciation club if he were banned? 2601:984:200:765B:61BE:64C7:3A55:264D (talk) 05:28, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Heine quote

Meant to only make a minor edit, adding missing closing quotes. Have instead swapped the translation for one that reads more smoothly. I realise this is a subjective decision, and a discussion that has also been at http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Heinrich_Heine. I have yet to see a translation that completely captures the generality of the "man" (be it others or us), the locality, and reads well in English. "Where books are burned, one eventually will burn people." is the closest I personally manage to render.

Tarchannen (talk) 01:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

In the original context that Heine intended, the quote referred to the burning of the Quran by christian knights subsequent to the conquest of the Spanish town of Grenada in 1499. In this context, it was intended as a caveat by Heine, who was politically fairly progressive at his time. Although not being a contemporary of the Nazi regime, he too was submitted to political prosecution, censorship and forced into exile during his lifetime. Just as many other authors were forced into exile by the later Nazis. Along with their books, his books were among those being burned in the Bücherverbrennung of 1933. For these reasons, this quote, that Heine coined as early as 1820, is quite often referred to in Germany when commemorating the Bücherverbrennung.

The commonly used citation of the Heine quote comprises two subsequent sentences: "Das war ein Vorspiel nur, dort wo man Bücher verbrennt, verbrennt man auch am Ende Menschen.“ Thus, the comlete quote would translate into: "This was just a prelude. Where they burn books, they will end up burning people". In the present Wikipedia article, only the latter sentence is quoted. Subsequent to the Bücherverbrennung, around 1940, vast numbers of murdered inmates within the nazi concentration camps were cremated in an industrial scale. The modern use of the quote refers to the Bücherverbrennung as a premonition the Holocaust.

At present, only the bare quote is mentioned in the article with few explanations. My language skills are not sufficient for editing, but I would appreciate somebody helping me with the wording.

Bittelächeln (talk) 18:41, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Overview

Problems

I have a problem with the way postwar "de-Nazification" is equated with the original book burnings. The apparent representative of the Military Directorate quoted in a minor Time magazine is an unnamed U.S. official. We dont know how many German books were destroyed -- the Time article says the "the Allied order would eliminate millions more" books but we dont know if this is a serious interpretation of the law or if it was carried out. It seems quite unlikely, given the protests by the US, Britain and France over Soviet censorship in what was then Eastern Germany. In any event, this needs research.

(Wkovarik (talk) 11:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC))

Politics?

I would like to suggest getting rid of this section. It seems politically motivated and off topic. The Time magazine quote was also far from conclusive and certainly not worthy of Wikipedia. As a Wikipedia beginner, however, I wanted to see what other people thought:

==Allied Denazification==

Millions of copies of these books were confiscated and destroyed. The representative of the Military Directorate admitted that the order in principle was no different from the Nazi book burnings.<ref>[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,776847,00.html Read No Evil] [[Time magazine]], May 27, 1946</ref> Artworks were under the same censorship as other media; ::"all collections of works of art related or dedicated to the perpetuation of German militarism or Nazism will be closed permanently and taken into custody.". The directives were very broadly interpreted, leading to the destruction of thousands of paintings and thousands more were shipped to deposits in the U.S. Those confiscated paintings still surviving in U.S. custody include for example a painting "depicting a couple of middle aged women talking in a sunlit street in a small town".<ref>Cora Goldstein "PURGES, EXCLUSIONS, AND LIMITS: ART POLICIES IN GERMANY 1933-1949, [http://web.archive.org/web/20071223153732/http://culturalpolicy.uchicago.edu/workshop/goldstein.html URL at Wayback machine]</ref>

--Baruchespinoza (talk) 12:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

{{totally-disputed-section}}

This section is horrible. Can anyone fix this please? Not only is it poorly worded (what's up with the tense?) but it is completely unsourced and with (probably) incorrect or unverifiable information. This reads like a year 8 school project. I couldn't believe it when I read that supposedly the blame rests on the people. What sort of moralising crap is this? This section really offends me in terms of what wikipedia is supposed to be. - Storleone 120.16.125.158 (talk) 04:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Can anyone think of a reason not to delete it? It's enormously POV and cites no sources.Pillcrow (talk) 03:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I would approve a complete deletion, since there is no obvious relation to the topic of the article.

The Bücherverbrennung of 1933 was not an act of censorship in the first place. Censorship is fairly widespread throughout history and throughout different political systems. If we misinterpret the Bücherverbrennung as mere censorship, we would not stop at comparisons with the post-war denazification. We could spam the article with acts of censorship from the ancient rome up to the very present. However, the intention of the Bücherverbrennung was different. Its attempt was rather striving for a publicly staged propaganda. It was broadcasted in the all new radio, printed in the newspapers, shown to the population in the cinema Wochenschau and it was performed on central market squares. A publicity that censors commonly do not wish for.

Thus, the more plausible comparison with another historic event would rather be the Reichskristallnacht. What the Reichskristallnacht and the Bücherverbrennung have in common is, that both were not presented as governmental acts. Care was taken to make it up as an initiative of the general population (regarding the Reichskristallnacht) or the university students (regarding the Bücherverbrennung). Josef Göbbels proclaimed, that the Reichskristallnacht resulted from "spontaneous manifestations of indignation" of the public. He depicted the Bücherverbrennung as "Vollzug des Volkswillens" ("will of the people").

To my knowledge, the allies did never claim their denazification actions to be requested by the population. They were, frankly, announced as governmental orders. They were, quite accurately, defined by the officials as an attempt to indoctrinate a misled population. Nothing was dramatically burned at the stake. No big fuss was made. The materials that were confiscated were, for instance, school books released by the Nazi regime, promoting racist biology and so forth.

In no further suggestions are made within an appropriate time, let us delete the section as a whole. Bittelächeln (talk) 17:33, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Article contains a huge error by claiming Nazis burned classical liberal books

I hope I got the signature right. Sorry, I want to be as civil and concise about this as possible. This is in no way an attack on anyone. The articles on Classical Liberalism and Nazi Book Burning contradict each other. This needs to be ameliorated. Nazi book burning and the page on Classical Liberalism contradict each other. The page on Nazi book burning links to the page on Classical Liberalism, yet the page on Classical Liberalism doesn't mention or link to the article in return. Additionally, the claim that the Nazis burned Classical Liberal books is contradicted in the body of the article itself. The article on Nazi book burning mentions some 80 names, and none of them are Classical Liberals. The heading "Persecuted Authors" contains some roughly 40 to 50 names mentioned and none are Classical Liberalism. A thorough search of the Nazis, book burning, and shows that Hitler showed zero interest in 19th century writers aside from Marx and a few people inspired by him. The 80 authors mentioned in the article aren't even from the Classical Liberal period. The Classical Liberal period ended as late as 1900. This article needs to find examples of Nazis burning books by authors like Jeremy Bentham, John Locke, or David Ricardo.

I am not pointing any fingers, but a person who locked my privileges on this page claimed that the author of every "liberal" book that the Nazis burned was by definition "classical liberal". I'm sorry I can't find the page. I do have a bachelor of arts in History/Sociology/Anthropology from a Republican College. I know this doesn't make me a "historian", but I just want the two pages to not contradict each other. If you can find solid evidence that the Nazis burned the books of "Classical Liberals", then post it in the article please. This is not an attack on anyone in particular. I just want good scholarship.CohenBrosIntellectualized (talk) 21:57, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

First, it is not a "contradiction" if an article on a specific subject cites an article which is a survey of a subject with larger scope, but the survey article doesn't mention the subject of the specific article. Not everything can be included in a survey article. Second, the sentence in the lede is referenced to a page published by the U.S. Holocaust Museum, which is considered to be a reliable source. Third, that source doesn't say "classical liberal", it just says "liberal", so I have changed the sentence to align with the source. Fourth, your own estimations of who among the listed author are or aren't "classical liberals" is your opinion, and nothing more. It's what we call original research, and we are not allowed to rely on it in writing Wikipedia articles. Hopefully, every statement of fact will be sourced to a citations from a reliable source. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:22, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Fifth, what do you mean that someone "locked your privileges on this page"? Does that mean you are subject to a topic ban of some sort? If you are,, and it's still in effect, you should not be editing here. If it is, and it's under another account name, editing under a different name is also WP:Sockpuppetry, which is not allowed, as well as a violation of the topic ban
Please clarify what your situation is. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:27, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Content discrepancies between app and website, including a vulgar prank

At least two content discrepancies exist within this article between what shows on the website and what shows on the Android app:

INTRODUCTION, 2ND SENTENCE:

  • Begins, "The books targeted for burning..." on the website, but in the app, it says, "The book__s targeted for burning..."

'CAMPAIGN' HEADING, 1ST PARAGRAPH, 1ST SENTENCE:

  • An offensive line of text has been inserted in the middle of the sentence and has no bearing upon the subject matter. Upon further analysis, this line of text only occurs in the app: "... which was to climax in a i like to say ********** a lot and i am a white man literary purge..." (expletive censored for decency).


I attempted to edit the article myself, but once inside the markup version of the article, I found that neither of the discrepancies noted above appear within the markup.

PS- Apologies for inadvertently adding two extra discussions (now removed). I'm brand new to this, and in trying out the Wikipedia markup language, I accidentally broke my discussion into 3 parts.

Cheers

Willtravel4food (talk) 06:37, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

References 22 and 23 are unavailable

This link too:

United States Holocaust Memorial Museum - Library Bibliography: 1933 Book Burnings

Xx236 (talk) 14:14, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Later burnings

It reads as if the burnings all took place in May 1933. Yet, I know that Munro Leaf's children's classic The Story of Ferdinand, which was not even published in the USA till 1936, and presumably considerably later in Germany, was ordered burnt by Hitler as "degenerate democratic propaganda". There must have been sporadic burnings that continued well after 1933. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 20:51, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

In popular culture

This section doesn't make much sense as "in popular culture", which is why I removed it earlier. There is currently one museum exhibit listed (from which I removed copy-pasted text), and one scene referencing a fictional Nazi book burning, which feels very out of place given the tone of the subject. Maybe a section on commemoration and memory with better writing about pop culture presence would work. Citing (talk) 17:01, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nazi_book_burnings/Archive_1&oldid=1209166927"