Talk:My Political Testament

Copyright?
I did not put this source on the site but according to this site http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/policy/1945/450429a.html
 * English Source: United States, Office of United States Chief of Counsel for Prosecution of Axis Criminality, Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression, 8 vols. and 2 suppl. vols. (Government Printing Office, Washington, 1946-1948), VI, 259-263, Doc. No. 3569-PS.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Licensing#Works_by_the_US_Government by the US Government:
 * "A work by the US federal Government is in the public domain."

Hope that helps --83.151.224.154 09:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Hitler's Will and Political Testament are Public Domain. Hitler wrote this for public consumption, no one can copyright it.   To suggest otherwise is ridiculous!  70.48.55.110 03:10, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The document has been tagged appropriately, and its copyright status is no longer in question. // [ admin ] Pathoschild (talk/map) 22:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Uh... I hate to break it to you, but only works created (not published) by the US Government are PD. This was text was not created by an employee of the US Government, so the tag does not apply (it may appliy to the translation itself, but not to the translated text as a derivative work). Also, to create something for public consumption does not keep it from being copyrighted (see movies, commercials, newspapers - all copyrighted, all for public consumption). In fact, German law grants copyright for 70 years after the death of the author - this is a moral right which can not be transferred or waved (You cannot create a non-trivial PD work under German law). This is retroactive, and thus also applies to Hitler - thus, his works become PD only at the end of 2015.

As far as I know, the copyright of Main Kampf is claimed by the State of Bavaria (who uses it to keep it to keep it from being reprinted). I suspect that the same is true for this Text.

I think documenting political statements like this one is a good thing. But bogus copyright tags don't help the cause. -- de:Benutzer:Duesentrieb 22:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The previous discussion can be read at Proposed deletions/Archives/2006/05. The basis for keeping it was that the work was public domain, but the translation might not have been. If you believe that the work itself is copyrighted, feel free to bring it up at Possible copyright violations. — {admin} Pathoschild 20:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Any way, from a practical standpoint, who would risk professional or academic suicide to litigate an IP claim on behalf of Adolf Hitler, and what court in the modern West would not summarily dismiss such an action out of hand as patently frivolous? 208.127.136.27 17:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * That is a good point. I personally am in favour of including works that are in practice considered public domain in the traditional sense, however there are two concerns with this approach: 1) how could that be codified into policy in such a way that it cant be abused, and 2) it puts the Wikimedia Foundation at risk (perhaps not in this specific case, but it is a very slippery slope).  A feasible approach is to gather case law together regarding orphaned works and present a case that there is no constitutional argument for protecting copyright for works that have been orphaned. John Vandenberg (chat) 15:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Small points
Isn't it more accurate to write Fuehrer and Doenitz as Führer and Dönitz? Also wouldn't it be better if the "[Here follow 15 others]" part was complete instead of omitted?--Nevermind 16:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * We tend to stick to what appeared in the printed edition. If you have a printed edition, go ahead and change our text to accurately reflect what you have in front of you.
 * Feel free to "value-add" to the text, by linking text to Wikipedia biographies, or by adding footnotes. Perhaps the other 15 names could be recorded in a footnote until we can work out whether they also appeared in print. John Vandenberg 22:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Original German?
Is there anywhere I can read it in it's original German?

"Volksgemeinschaft" ≠ "community of nations"
The German word "Volksgemeinschaft" in the original does not mean "community of nations" at all. It means "community within the nation", if any translation of this "very Nazi" term has to be done at all. I'd suggest letting it stand in German. -- 77.7.167.132 19:57, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Complete Version, Please
"[Here follow fifteen others.]" - surely, we should have the complete version here.
 * Ironically, the Wikipedia article lists all 15, while the primary source document here is truncated. Good work, Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.169.30 (talk) 20:22, 6 March 2019‎ (UTC)

Oroginal German source
http://www.ns-archiv.de/personen/hitler/testament/politisches-testament.php

Freiherr (talk) 19:48, 24 March 2018 (UTC)