The utter hypocrisy of anti-book-burning puritanism

The Nazi mass book burnings are and will probably forever remain as one of the most remembered and symbolic events of recent history. They are one of the most prominent symbols of totalitarian ideology that stands as the polar opposite to the principles of free speech and free expression, and freedom in general. As is so common, totalitarianism and other similar oppressive ideas can only withstand and survive by suppressing, censoring, gatekeeping and destroying all dissent, all criticism, all contradicting opinions and ideas. There's no more striking image that symbolizes this act of censorship than a bonfire made of books that are considered "harmful" to the totalitarian ideology.

The destruction of literature for the purpose of censorship and gatekeeping is considered abhorrent and against the core fundamental ideals of freedom and liberalism. Good ideas can survive and, in fact, welcome criticism and scrutiny. Bad oppressive ideas can only survive by banning and destroying criticism and scrutiny.

One of the official statements of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum heavily condemns the act of book burning, of censorship of books, and how this kind of act is a sign of totalitarianism and against freedom.

Do you know what's funny, and extraordinarily hypocritical, about all this?

The fact that the Allied Forces, in 1946, after Germany had been defeated and occupied, created a list of over 30 thousand book titles and engaged in a massive book destruction campaign that not only rivaled but in fact greatly surpassed the amount of books that the Nazis ever burned.

The irony, and hypocrisy, of this act didn't escape smart journalists even at the time. In fact, Time Magazine in 1946, shortly after the book ban list was crafted and millions of books destroyed, interviewed a representative of the Military Directorate directly responsible for this, Vivian Cox, and asked her how this action is any different in principle from Nazi book burnings.

She replied it's not.

Apparently the hypocrisy didn't escape even her. At least she admitted it outright, rather than trying to make excuses.

How many people today, especially those on the left who loudly protest book bannings and book burnings, would condemn the banning of over 30 thousand titles and the destruction of millions of books by the Allied forces in 1946? Given that this massive destruction of books was part of the "de-nazification" process, I would bet that not many today, especially on the left, would be willing to condemn that act.

And that's the huge hypocrisy in all this. Banning and destroying books for censorship and information gatekeeping is only bad when the enemy does it, not when "the good guys" do it.

(This is not just some wild conspiracy theory or made-up story. Eg. the Wikipedia article on the subject is (unusually) clear and open about it.)

In Germany there's a work of art at one of the places where one of the biggest Nazi book burning events happened, acting as a memorial. Take a wild guess how many memorials exist for the literally millions of books that were destroyed by the Allied Forces in 1946. (How many people are even aware of such a thing?)

I myself? As a free speech absolutist, I condemn the Nazis burning all those books, and I equally condemn the Allies destroying all those books. I consider both equally bad, and that act by the Allied forces to be extraordinarily hypocritical.

As Evelyn Beatrice Hall once wrote, attributing the sentiment to Voltaire, "I disapprove of what you are saying, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

This is not just something inconsequential and harmless. I am quite certain that the people in charge of creating that list of over 30 thousand titles to be destroyed did not meticulously go through each one, making a fair and rational decision on whether it's actual "Nazi propaganda" worthy of destruction or not. I'm pretty sure that list was created quite shoddily and without any care about historical preservation of works of literature and art that had nothing to do with the Nazi ideology. It is extremely likely that some completely innocent works of art were completely eradicated and removed from existence, irrecoverably, lost forever.

And even then, who gave them the right to decide on your behalf what you should and should not have access to? Who elected them to decide which books you can and cannot read, which books must be destroyed, to stop people from reading them? Who gave them these gatekeeping powers? Even if some of those books did contain despicable full-on Nazi propaganda that's absolutely abhorrent, who are they to decide whether you should have the right to read it or not?

Not only is it your fundamental right to read or not read what you want, but even the worst and most despicable propaganda can have academic value. Even historical documents containing despicable content are still that: Historical documents. It tells something about our past. Destroying it is not acceptable regardless of what it contains.