Is there a complete digitized copy of the Nazi book-burning list (Sondermeldung / Die Deutsche Studentenschaft) for May 10 1933 available online?

1. What people are claiming and what the archival record actually says

Analyses provided assert that the famous 10 May 1933 burnings were widely reported and that lists of proscribed titles circulated at the time, but none of the supplied materials demonstrate an unequivocal, complete online facsimile of the original Sondermeldung. Contemporary reporting, such as the Associated Press account from 10 May 1933, documents the events and names many targeted authors but does not reproduce a single full, primary “book‑burning list” as a digitized package ^[3]. Scholarly and encyclopedic resources summarize and compile titles and authors; Wikipedia’s article offers a comprehensive overview of titles believed destroyed, yet it does not confirm the online existence of an unedited, complete original list ^[1]. These materials together support the existence of reconstructed or compiled lists but stop short of confirming an official, fully digitized original published online.

2. Where digitized content does exist — curated libraries and selections

There are online projects that digitize portions of the corpus of books identified with the burnings; for example, the digital library verbrannte‑buecher.de hosts a selection of 36 public‑domain works drawn from an expert‑compiled set of over 316 titles associated with the burnings ^[2]. This demonstrates institutional willingness to preserve and make accessible material linked to the Aktion wider den undeutschen Geist, but it also indicates curation and selection rather than wholesale reproduction of the original 1933 list. Academic treatments and modern essays supply context and reconstructed lists of authors and works, yet these are often derivative compilations rather than scans of a single contemporary Nazi commission document ^{[4] [5]}.

3. Contemporaneous reportage versus archival source reliability

Contemporary journalism provided contemporaneous catalogs of what organizers intended to target and what books were destroyed, but newspaper reportage is not equivalent to a primary archive item: it can conflate local lists, lists supplied by student groups, and editorial summaries ^{[3] [5]}. Later institutional histories and national archives may compile authoritative lists, but the materials here reveal differences in scope and selection criteria across accounts — some list authors singled out by Deutsche Studentenschaft action committees, others list broader categories like “Jewish‑democratic” or “Bolshevist” works mentioned in press coverage ^{[5] [6]}. These differences underscore the challenge of asserting the existence of a single digitized original without explicit archival metadata confirming provenance ^[1].

4. Scholarly treatments, online repositories, and publication dates — what the records show

Scholarly overviews and recent journalistic retrospectives provide the best documented online narratives: Wikipedia’s 2024 overview aggregates titles and context ^[1], academic essays and archives from 2007 through 2025 analyze motives and lists ^{[4] [6]}. The digital library project documented in 2023 demonstrates active digitization efforts but limits itself to a curated subset ^[2]. The AP report dated 10 May 1933 is a contemporaneous source reproduced in modern compilations but remains reportage rather than the original student commission’s master list ^[3]. Across these dates, no single provided source claims to host a verbatim digitized Sondermeldung file with archival provenance.

5. Why the gap matters and what to scrutinize if you search further

The absence of a confirmed complete online facsimile means researchers must triangulate among curated digital collections, contemporary press, and secondary compilations to reconstruct the list. If you pursue the original document, prioritize repositories that maintain provenance metadata (university archives, national libraries, or organizations focused on censorship history) and seek digitized catalogs that explicitly cite the archival shelfmark or scan of the student commission’s record ^{[2] [1]}. Be alert to institutional agendas: curated libraries may display works chosen for scholarly or commemorative reasons rather than replicating the exact 1933 commission list, and nationalist or revisionist outlets may selectively omit context ^{[4] [6]}.

6. Bottom line and recommended next steps for researchers

Based on the supplied materials, no complete digitized Sondermeldung for 10 May 1933 is demonstrably available online; instead, a patchwork of curated digital books, reconstructed lists, and press reports exists ^{[2] [3] [1]}. For a definitive primary source, consult German national archives, university special collections that hold Deutsche Studentenschaft records, and digital repositories that provide archival citations; verify any candidate file by its archival metadata and provenance statements before treating it as the authoritative original ^{[1] [2]}.