On May 10, 1933, Nazi students in Germany staged massive bonfires to incinerate the works of writers they deemed “un-German.” From Freud to Einstein, Helen Keller to Thomas Mann, books were cast into the flames as Joseph Goebbels, Hitler’s Minister of Propaganda, ranted that the “age of arrogant Jewish intellectualism is now at an end.” His words were theatrical and terrifying: “Out of these ashes the phoenix of a new age will arise.”
But it was not just books that were targeted. It was knowledge. It was inquiry. It was truth.
And we would do well to recognize the echoes today.
There are no bonfires in our public squares—yet. But the attack on science, reason, and critical thought is well underway. The Trump movement has made hostility to experts, universities, and scientific institutions a pillar of its political strategy. NIH and NSF budgets are under siege. Climate science has been silenced or sidelined. Researchers have been harassed, educators vilified, books banned, and history rewritten.
This isn’t just about money. It’s about memory. About method. About the very foundation of how we understand our world.
The German-Jewish poet Heinrich Heine, whose works were among the first to be burned in 1933, warned over a century earlier: “Where they burn books, they will, in the end, burn people too.”
Heine’s prophecy proved devastatingly accurate. The burning of ideas preceded the burning of bodies. What began with attacks on liberal and Jewish intellectualism ended with death camps and genocide.
Of course, the United States in 2025 is not Weimar Germany in 1933. But the mechanism—the cultural and political logic—is alarmingly similar. Discrediting experts. Mocking facts. Portraying education as elitist and science as partisan. These are not just rhetorical devices; they are weapons in a war against reality.
Consider what we’re witnessing:
- Funding for biomedical research and climate science proposed for deep cuts, even as pandemics and environmental disasters loom.
- “Anti-woke” crusades banning books that discuss slavery, civil rights, or LGBTQ identity.
- Politicians openly threatening universities and public schools that teach “divisive concepts.”
- Journalists and scientists labeled as “enemies of the people.”
- Deportation of legal student protestors
- Executive order accusing the Smithsonian Institution of spreading “anti-American ideology.”
When Goebbels called on the crowd to “consign to the flames the unclean spirit of the past,” he was not just condemning Jewish writers—he was condemning the Enlightenment tradition itself: the belief that truth is knowable, reason is valuable, and dissent is necessary.
That same spirit of vilification has returned, updated for the age of social media and partisan news. But the target is familiar: anyone who stands in the way of myth, grievance, or authoritarian control.
Slashing science budgets is not just a fiscal decision. It is a moral and ideological one. It signals that facts no longer matter—only loyalty does. Banning books is not just about shielding children—it’s about shaping memory. About rewriting the past to control the future.
The late Nobel laureate Elie Wiesel, reflecting on the deportations of Hungarian Jews in 1944, wrote with disbelief: “It was inconceivable. In the middle of the twentieth century! In the heart of Europe!”
He, like many others, could not comprehend how quickly civilization could collapse into barbarity. But collapse it did—not all at once, but step by step: first by mocking knowledge, then suppressing it, then punishing those who defended it.
We must not be naïve. A society that burns books does not stop with books. A government that silences scientists will soon silence citizens. A movement that attacks educators will not long tolerate free thought.
The flames of 1933 began with literature. But their embers smolder still.
The question before us is not just political. It is civilizational. Will we invest in truth—or incinerate it?
Will we remember what history has already taught us—while we still can?
Book banning and challenges happen across the political spectrum, with different groups objecting to different types of content. Historically, both liberals and conservatives have supported or opposed book bans depending on the subject matter.
Liberal-leaning groups may challenge books they see as promoting racism, sexism, or harmful stereotypes, while conservative groups often challenge books that contain LGBTQ+ themes or explicit content.
The term “book burning” is more extreme and historically associated with authoritarian regimes seeking to suppress dissenting ideas. In modern times, book bans typically take the form of school boards or libraries removing certain titles.
Notice two words that don’t appear in my essay – conservative and Republican. The only time liberal appeared was noting the attacks in Germany. You’re responding to a point I never made.
Nazi, Goebbels, Weimar Germany…
What, no Mao references today?
I still think it’s the most apt parallel particularly since Hitler was elected and Mao took power following a prolonged civil war.
Book burning?
The only thing burning today are Teslas and it’s not conservatives who are doing it.
Fourth paragraph: “There are no bonfires in our public squares—yet.”
Then again… “They don’t gotta burn the books they just remove ’em “
But they are burning the Teslas.
Some might consider that as idealogical fascist extremism relying on violence and propaganda to try and implement their views.
Continuing the analogy, I would compare to the feeble response from the left in Germany to the Nazis rise. The left subsequently failed to unite in response to Hitler’s rise and we know what happened.
Keith says: “Liberal-leaning groups may challenge books they see as promoting racism, sexism, or harmful stereotypes, while conservative groups often challenge books that contain LGBTQ+ themes or explicit content.”
True. I’ve probably been irrevocably-poisoned by being exposed to Dr. Seuss books.
I probably also saw Disney’s “Songs of the South” at one point, but don’t remember it. Except for the “zippee-do-dah” song.
And more recently, I’ve watched (and appreciated) “Gone with the Wind” – even without the trigger warning.
I watched “October 8” at the Varsity last night. Book burning came up comparing what the Nazis did in 33 with what has been happening on campuses by groups supporting antisemitism on American campuses today.
Good analogy. Maybe David can write an article about comparing their actions to the Nazis and Goebbel.
You’re being obtuse. They aren’t in power. Can’t compare a group of protestors to a group of people who hold power. As I mentioned in my previous comment, all of this is comparable not to the Nazis but the Communists at the end of Weimar, it’s not the Communists wouldn’t have been abusive and authoritarian, it’s that they were out maneuvered by Hitler and the Nazis. Your attempt to both sides fails, but you fail to recognize the difference between a protestor and the government.
Good protesters are people who fight for my cause, bad protesters are people that fight for the other cause.
Do I have that about right?
You’re completely missing the point.
I know because I’m obtuse.
The key piece you continue to miss is power. You can have bad intentions all you want, but if you lack power, then it limits if not obliterates your ability to implement them.
“Slashing science budgets is not just a fiscal decision. It is a moral and ideological one. It signals that facts no longer matter—only loyalty does.”
The fact that we have a measles epidemic spreading in the United States, after nearly eradicating measles here just over a decade ago, tells us where this ideological crusade is going to take us.
The head of the HHS should be able to utter the words “parents should get their kids vaccinated for measles.” He can’t.
A functioning federal government would be promoting education about disease prevention, aggressively providing and encouraging vaccination in the region, and providing resources to the local governments for containing a fully preventable disease that has now spread to multiple states.
Rebuilding USAID will be crucial to monitoring and helping to manage epidemics and malnutrition and starvation overseas, because preventing those problems there keeps them from becoming problems here.
The next presidential administration and Congress are going to have to rebuild the federal government, restore the flow of health and climate research funding, and work hard to restore trust with our institutional research partners around the world. The brain drain of leading researchers has already begun.
“A functioning federal government would be promoting education about disease prevention”
Don’t necessarily disagree about the utterance that should be uttered. However, a functioning federal government wouldn’t have lied to us about Covid-19 and Covid-19 vaccines. This is a large chunk of the backlash that got DT elected and RKJr in power.
Exactly Alan, the Biden administration stifled all talk about COVID coming from a Wuhan lab in China. You couldn’t even talk about it on social media without getting shut down and the Biden administration was mostly behind the suppressing of that free speech.
A big part of why I couldn’t vote for Harris (voted for Rob Roy).
I understand Fauchi’s reasoning about needing to controlling the masses by telling them untruths — but it was freaking stupid! Once you lie to the masses, you lose their trust.
Then two weeks after I got my booster, which was supposed to be peak vaccine resiliance, right after Biden announced that it would keep you from getting or spreading Covid-19, I came down with Covid-19. I decided the administration was lying to me and I’ve never had a booster since.