The Immortatlity of Horses and Ideas

On May 10, 1933, thousands of books were burned and tens of thousands of people gathered around Germany to hear speeches by the likes of Joseph Goebbels and other Nazi leaders.  Many, if not most, of the books were pillaged from libraries.  The stated purpose was to rid the German state of un-German books and un-German thought.

The threat made by pastor Terry Jones this weekend to burn copies of the Koran has of course been compared to this event.  Notably (well, to me) different is that the pastor's plans were to burn copies of the Koran that he acquired legally.  It would be quite a stretch to reasonably believe that there was any threat to burn every Koran in America, though some people insist on couching their argument in those implied terms.  As a result of this man's stated intentions, he has received death threats and had hundreds of people marching outside his church chanting "Pastor Jones, you’re a clown. We don’t want you in our town”, some while also carrying signs saying "Love thy Neighbor".  Well, I guess if he leaves town, he's no longer a neighbor so no need to love him.  Though he chose not to go through with his despicable act, he continues to be vilified.  

The question that I have is, while burning books is quite an obnoxious use of one's free speech, kind of like burning a flag or putting a crucifix in a jar of urine for an "art" exhibit, why the overreaction?  My thinking is that the mobs allied against him are trying to feel powerful in reaction to fear.  Not fear of Pastor Jones, but fear of the reaction of radical muslim extremists.  Like any mob, they are weak but feel powerful in numbers.

My other, more open question is, would it have been "right" for those whose books were being burned back in 1933 to have issued death threats against those Nazis?  Would H.G. Wells, Heinrich Mann, Ernest Hemingway, etc. have been justified in hiring hit men to kill Goebbels, etc. at that time, given only what was known at that time?  Would this have been a justified "preemptive" war?  Again, this was 1933.

Also of note is that during the Allied occupation of Germany after WWII, thousands of Nazi books and works of art were collected and destroyed.  But such was the process of de-Nazification.

Comments

[Sleuth]

Burning Korans, villainous Pastors, building mosques. There's a long bit of talk on TPM's website relating to the matter. I've had enough of it to be honest. If he wanted to have his own private bombfire in protest - fine. But as it is, he has to go on and get the whole world talking about this brilliant idea. I think that the parallel with the Nazis only goes so far as: they both burned books in ignorance.

I would suppose, from my historical knowledge, that the Nazis had the books burned largely to ensure that all new generations could only be eductaed by the Nazis and in the Nazi fashion. They were after total control of German society. Stalin did something similar I believe; don't know about burning books, but he really limited the amount of knowledge that one ordinary bloke could gather from writings. As far as trying to kill Hitler for the burnings, probably a little over the top, if just for the burnings. There were after all other books about.

Sorry that I haven't added much to the argument, I may return at some future date to do more...

[WTP]

Without a doubt the pastor is a twit. I think the attention went way beyond what he thought he would get. Seems no one ever learns from the Sorcerer's apprentice.

As for "Uncle Joe" Stalin, books either just disappeared or they never appeared in the first place. No sense making a big production when such things can be handled more delicately. I think he saw the value in them enough such that he favored making "alterations" over public destruction. I also think he was more of a coward in that he had to hide what he was doing. Granted Adolph was hiding the details of what he was actually doing to the Jews, etc. and discovery of the Holocaust was shocking, but it's not like he hid his feelings on the subjects. People just refused to take him that seriously.

[Sleuth]

It seems that Stalin was the superior, if more cowardly, tyrannical dictator. I mean, he did contribute a fair bit to the Cold War by his actions n' all.

Ahh, forget my ponderings on which dictator is superior. I'm too tired and too likely to forget vital info anyhow.

I do wonder though, do you think we should have sided with Hitler vs. Stalin or (as we did) Stalin vs. Hitler? Which is the better nutter to have left in the aftermath? One might say: at least Stalin was further away.