> The second example is the notorious Nazi bonfires in 1933 that turned to cinders and smoke hundreds of thousands of books [..] this was so widely condemned th

> The second example is the notorious Nazi bonfires in 1933 that turned to cinders and smoke hundreds of thousands of books [..] this was so widely condemned that it seemed no one would dare to repeat it, or at least would not film and display it to the world. And yet in Chile, forty years later, that is exactly what happened It happened rather sooner than 40 years later: on May 13, 1946, the Allied Control Council issued a directive for the confiscation of all media that could contribute to Nazism or militarism. As a consequence a list was drawn up of over 30,000 book titles, ranging from school textbooks to poetry, which were then banned. All copies of books on the list were confiscated and destroyed; the possession of a book on the list was made a punishable offense. All the millions of copies of these books were to be confiscated and destroyed. The representative of the Military Directorate admitted that the order was in principle no different from the Nazi book burnings. [..] 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 US. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denazification#Censorship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denazification#Censorship But while blunt censorship more often than not backfires, there are plenty of ways to effectively suppress ideas. News guidelines on what should or shouldn't be included in articles, which movies or research* gets funded, which books get published.. A recent HN submission on literary censorship went into this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30836184 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30836184 *The authors also submitted different test studies to different peer-review boards. The methodology was identical, and the variable was that the purported findings either went for, or against, the liberal worldview (for example, one found evidence of discrimination against minority groups, and another found evidence of "reverse discrimination" against straight white males). Despite equal methodological strengths, the studies that went against the liberal worldview were criticized and rejected, and those that went with it were not. - https://theweek.com/articles/441474/how-academias-liberal-bias-killing-social-science https://theweek.com/articles/441474/how-academias-liberal-bi...