Hot History - HOT TAKE: Should we destroy history? (Part 1)

Episode Date: May 14, 2026

Hi guys! Today we're back with a HOT TAKE episode to unpack the big question we've been asking the last couple of weeks: Do we have a right to destroy history?In this first part of the series we're going to look at 2 kinds of historical sources: Buildings, including the Berghof & Winter Palace, and Documents, including Mein Kampf & Queen Victoria's diaries! Make sure to head on over and watch part 2 where we will cover exhibits and art/sculpture very soon!If you also want more Hot History you can follow along on ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Instagram⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠TikTok⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ and ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠YouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ and of course, right here!Til next week, Ainslie x

What does one do with a mass murderous former party house? We cannot just destroy stuff because we don't like what it reveals about certain people. If certain artifacts don't serve the historical record or society, then why keep them? So what's our verdict here? Keep or destroy? Are you one of those media strategy people clicking through slides, scrolling spreadsheets? Yes? Good. This is for you. Because on Spotify, there's an audience that's different.

Locked in. Loyal. Investors. They're called fans. Fans don't just listen to music. They feel seen by it, like it belongs to them. So when your brand shows up on Spotify, that's who you're talking to. And you're right next to artists like me, Lizzo. So, are you ready to talk to fans? Spotify advertising.

You're among fans. Hi guys, and welcome back to Hard History, your corner of the internet covering all the things in history you probably should know, but don't. I'm Aisley Harvey, your hot historian here. ready to chat about a super important topic that I've been getting all your thoughts and feedback on over the last couple of weeks, whether we have the right to destroy history. Now, prefacing of the top, this will be two parts, because we're not just looking at a handful

of examples here. We are going to unpack four different kinds of historical sources with multiple examples of real historical conundrums for each. It is jam pack. Guys, definitely the biggest episode I've ever prepped. So we will be looking at structures and documents in this part today. And then in part two, we're going to cover exhibits and arts slash sculpture. Now, I want to say at the top here that I have not included human remains as a source here, as I am prepping another episode for you guys, specifically about the ethics of studying human remains and archaeology. And I just don't think I can really do it full justice lumped in together in this episode.

So that will come later. But for now, we are going to dive in, and I want to give you guys a bit of context on exactly why I was thinking about this in the first place. And it all started towards the back end of last year when I was doing some Romanov research. And I stumbled across an interview with a Russian man named Alexander Avdinen. Now, some of you may have heard of him before, but for those who haven't, he was a Russian geologist and amateurs. historian, who in the 70s became obsessed with trying to figure out what happened to Zarn Nichols II and his family after their execution in 1918. Remember at this point in history, Russia is under Soviet rule, and details about the Romanov's

deaths are like a strict secret. No one really knows what happened. But Alexander wanted to find out. So working with filmmaker and researcher Geli Rehobov, Avdenan tracked down a memoir by one of the executioners who led them to a site near Katernberg known as the field of piggies. He was certain that this was the burial place of the late imperial family, so the pair began excavations in 1979 in complete secret and made the discovery of a lifetime. Human remains consistent with the Romanov family.

Now this is groundbreaking. It is a history, mystery that had gone unsolved for 60 years, and here in their hands, literally is the skulls that the human evidence needed to finally solve it. Now for us today, such a discovery would be front page news. Honestly, the first thing any of us would do if we came across something like this would be to whip out our phones and like hoot and hoot and holler about it, right? All over social media, all over TikTok, all of the things. But that's not what Abdenon did.

He and Rehobov were certain that this discovery would not be treated as an archaeological win, but rather be seen as evidence of political dissent, but even more than that, guys. They were afraid the remains would be permanently destroyed, burned, smashed, hidden, deep in archives never to see the light of day, and as such, an essential part of Russian history would be lost. So they did the only thing they could to preserve and save that history. They reburied the skulls and waited for a more politically stable time to eventually reveal their find. Now that eventually came in the late 80s and early 90s when Gorbachev's openness reforms and the collapse of the USSR brought the story back into the light.

And finally, the Romanov's bodies were exhumed, DNA tested and eventually laid. to rest. Now, whether you're pro-Rominov or not, it's a pretty incredible story. And I've got to be honest, reading this account, I couldn't help but wonder whether that's what I would have done. It is a dream come true, the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow for every historian, archaeologist, geologist, or someone with a fucking metal detector to make a discovery like this, including me. I mean, to learn about history is one thing, but to be a part of it, to help uncover it, is something else entirely. And if I was Abdenan, having spent years of my life dedicated to researching this one specific, singular event, and finally having the evidence in my hand, I've got to be honest. I don't know if I would have the restraint to leave it there.

Of course, this is my 21st century view and I'm not crushed under the weight of communist Russia, but it made me think, how do we balance politics, the passing of time, geography, nationality, cost and cultural barriers to decide what history survives and what history gets destroyed? So I did the only logical thing and asked all of you, and the answers were pretty mixed. 62% of you said we don't have the right to destroy history at all under any circumstances. 33% of you said some history should be destroyed if it poses a threat or is no longer useful. To society and then there was a handful of other answers ranging from, you know, destroy it all because then we'd be free at the chains of the past. And even a who cares, please do only fence.

Now given I'm not Cassie from Euphoria and clearly not of the opinion that ditching the past makes us free, I'm electing to ignore those couple of suggestions, but I am keen to unpack the other ideas. And we are going to do so by looking at those four different types of sources I mentioned and basically do what every gal with a toxic but hot boyfriend has done for centuries. A big old-fashioned pros and cons list, guys. Because my conclusion, spoiler here, there is no clear cut way or system of deciding what to keep and what to destroy. So we've just got to put our big girl panties on, our little matching red suit I've come prepared to wade through the murky depths together and just try to come to a decision for each of these

examples. So let's start first with structures. They're the hardest to destroy, the hardest to spin for a certain agenda, and in many cases the best example we have of both victory and Chrome. And one of the most controversial structures, at least in the last hundred years, has to be the Berkhov. Now, for those of you who don't know what the Berkhov is, it was Adolf Hitler's vacation home located on the over Slousburg mountainside in southern Germany, just above the town of Berkus Garden. First renting the property in 1923, Hitler later purchased and renovated it, turning what was once a small alpine chalet into a full, blown night. complex, where he and other members of the High Command made political decisions about both the

war and the final solution, while also going on walks, playing with their pets and watching their mistresses sunbathe. The Berkhoff, in particular, was really described as a kind of party house, being, quote, chock full of stolen gold, jewelry, cash, luxury, luxury, luxury, cars, artwork and the highest quality liquor and wine in the world. So guys, for the Nazi High Command, a house in Berkus Garden was basically the fascist version of getting a yacht and subarts for the summer. Right? It's the thing to do so much so that Berkus Garden became a key piece of Nazi propaganda, which made it the perfect target for Allied bombers who dropped over 1,200 tons of explosives on the region at the end of the war.

Now, if you are watching on Spotify or YouTube, Hi Devers, I am going to play some footage taken by the Allies after the bombing raid, but if you're not, don't worry, I will post this on social media, still love you, my audio kings and queens. While largely damaged, including significant destruction of the terrace, roof, second story, and the infamous picture window, the Burkhov, was still standing, making it a key site to visit for Allied ground troops who held the region under symbolic occupation until 1952, after which the Bavarian government took it back over, you know, it's handed back over into their hands, which saw the question raised.

What does one do with the mass murderers former party house? Right? It's a decent question. So let's sharpen our pens and start our pros and cons for keeping The Berkhov. So let's start with the cons. Well, firstly, the Berkhov is the ultimate example of how the Nazis profited and plundered from the death and suffering of others. After all, while the furnaces of Auschwitz were burning corpses and German army men were dying in trenches, these guys were getting a tan and drinking with young women in the mountains.

So this isn't a military barracks or a government building where the case can be made that it reflects the actions of the state as a whole. Instead, it's basically Hitler's Airbnb. Next con on the list, and for me, the biggest one, is the fact that since Hitler's death, neo-Nazis and right-wing extremists have made pilgrimages to Berkis in reference to Hitler. Still, to this day, people lay memorial candles of the Berkhov on Hitler's birthday,

take pictures while hailing, and proudly display their support with flags and clothing, like the 2023 incident, where three men wearing neo-Nazi shirts punched a man outside a bar in Berkus Garden. The documentation of Obislausburg, one of the region's key bodies, commented on this rise in neo-Nazi activities, saying, the fact that many people from relevant right-wing circles are making pilgrimages to Obislausburg again today

is a thorn in the side of many. So as cons go, I reckon the fact it's a mecha for Nia. Visit BetMGM Casino and check out the newest exclusive. The price is right fortune pick. BetMDM and GameSense remind you to play responsibly. 19 plus to wager. Ontario only. Please play responsibly. If you have

questions or concerns about your gambling or someone close to you, please contact Connects Ontario at 1-866-531-2,600 to speak to an advisor. Free of charge. BetMDMD operates pursuant to an operating agreement with Eye Gaming, Ontario. When you're a mid-sized business, you need every competitive advantage

you can get. Like an AI solution that works for you, not against you. SAP Grow is built with AI embedded at its core, working across every system, and it's ready to go from day one so you can hit the ground running. Bring it with SAP Grow, AI Cloud ERP for any size business. Your Nazis is pretty solid. Next con is we don't actually learn anything from the remains. Again, remember guys, this is a pile of rubble and mess. metal and charred wood. And given the amount of evidence that we have across other sources, including extensive first-hand video footage, it doesn't teach us anything new about how Hitler

and the Nazis lived in Burke's gun. A great example, however, of a structure that does do this is the Eagles Nest, the mountaintop tea room that was given to Hitler as a birthday present, featuring solid stone walls and a gold-plated elevator, which remains undamaged by Allied bombers and can be freely visited today. But the remains. of Hitler's house, don't teach us anything, or, as one of you put it, it's just the basement of an infamous tyrant. That's all. Under those circumstances, you might as well preserve his undies and used handkerchiefs, and he's not wrong. If certain artifacts don't serve the historical record or society, then why keep them? Because, as much as we would perhaps like to,

we can't keep everything that everyone who ever before us has touched. So let's move on to the prose. Why should we keep the Berkov? Well, first and foremost, the Berkov is the perfect example of the hubris of dictators. It was Hitler's city in the sky, this place where he looked over his dominion like some kind of benevolent god, laughing with children and playing with animals as both a good neighbor and a great statesman, or so Nazi propaganda would have you believe. The reality, though, was it was built on the back of death and oppression, a case seen

time and time again with dictators, leaders and kings who rule by fear and force, or try to anyway. I mean, you need to only look at Epstein Island as the perfect example of what happens when these men in impossible positions of power are left unchecked to pursue the nefarious agendas. So from this POV, the Berkhov should survive to ensure we never forget, or as one of you put it, history needs to be preserved, taught and debated so we can hold people accountable and, in an ideal scenario, prevent these ideas and practices from being repeated and accepted. And I do agree, especially when it comes to structures, because some history, particularly the difficult parts, guys, needs to be seen to be believed.

One of you here even made the argument that just because something terrible happened in a place doesn't give us any right to destroy or censor it. What would we be saying if there was a movement to tear down Auschwitz or any other concentration camp? Now no one, including me, is making that argument, but if we apply this blanket statement that sites which represent terrible things need to be torn down, Auschwitz-Burkenau would be on that list, the result of which, would not only be deeply disrespectful as it is the final resting place of hundreds of thousands of people, but also a huge blow to the historical record, with evidence of the Nazi's crimes being eradicated. And in doing so, one, allowing Holocaust denial to so,

with 61% of teachers in the EU already encountering Holocaust denial in the classroom, and two, increasing the likelihood of it happening again. Now, I do want a caveat here that the Berkhov and Auschwitz, very, very different, right? The Berkhoff is the remains of a former party house, whereas Auschwitz-Berke now is the scene of genocide open to the public in a controlled way where learning and remembering victims is the priority. This is not the context in which the Berkhov would be presented, so we have to question the context here. The next pro is the invert of the neo-Nazi debate, that the rubble of the Berkhov would be presented. a trophy of sorts to show the strength of ally victory.

Now, given I am about as far from Neo-Nancy as humanly possible, I do understand this point. However, I cautioned the toting of war trophies in any capacity. Look what had to happen, how many people had to die on both sides for you to achieve this end. It's a glorification of our own violence, which in my opinion only breeds further violence, something the world is already chocked full off. So the final prognosis? Well, I think the cons outweigh the pros pretty clearly here.

Even if the Berkhoff is a symbol for the hubris of dictators, which we can learn from, or a victory for pro-ally supporters, the fact that it's a rallying point for neo-Nazis which we can't learn anything from and isn't the appropriate context for memorial or education, makes it redundant. Or, as one of you put it here, his stupid chill-out area isn't a memorial for victims. It's just an example of how evil he is which neo-Nazis visit in celebration and reverence, which can only bring more extremism and violence.

After all, if we're being really, really honest here, do we need to go to the charred remains of Hitler's party house to believe he lives up like a king, wanking over his, you know, big mountain window and golden elevator, are, while people died? No. I believe that because of all the other sources we have which prove it. To be honest, I don't even need to see a photo to know that that's real. That's what would happen. So the real reason I and non-Nazis would want it to survive because majority of us don't sit in that camp. Largely comes down to what this very self-aware listener said. I think it's my morbid curiosity wishing that they were still standing and wanting a tour.

which again, is not a pro, I believe, outweighs the other cons. So I agree with the Bavarian government's 1952 decision to tear down the Berkhoff, which today is marked by only a few concrete blocks, which, just to prove my point further here, still have candles placed upon them on Hitler's birthday. Now, to compare against the Berkoff, I'm going to give you an older example of a structure which had a largely positive reputation for the majority of its history,

right up until the end, where it seemed, almost certain that destruction was inevitable. The Winter Palace. Now, if you've listened to this podcast before, in which case, love you welcome back, you'll have heard me talk about the Winter Palace, but if you're new, also high, also love you, you may never have heard of it.

So, the Winter Palace is located in St Petersburg, Russia, and was the official residence of the Russian Tsars from the 18th century until 1917, when revolutionaries forced the Tsar to abdicate. The result was the provisional government taking charge of Russia, soon replaced less than eight months later by Vladimir Lenin and the Bolshevik Party who formed the basis of the USSR. Now during all this upheaval and revolution,

there is the very, very real possibility that the Winter Palace, one of Europe's greatest examples of art, architecture and craftsmanship, would be destroyed. Whether it was by fire like the Library of Alexandria, ammunition and force, like the Berghoff or just simply looted and kind of left to rot like Versailles after the French Revolution. But that didn't happen. Well, some looting did happen to be fair, but for the most part, the palace survived pretty

much intact. It was first taken, like I said, by the provisional government who based themselves out of there, and then seized by the Bolsheviks who actually nationalised the building, making it part of the State Hermitage Museum, which was almost fully open to the public by the early 1920s. So in the course of five years, you have the Romanovs walking the halls in, you know, their imperial greatness and garb,

then two sets of armed revolutionaries seeing wealth and riches they couldn't imagine, and now you have ordinary Russians just kind of strolling about. But why? Why was the Winter Palace saved when so many other structures post-regime change or conflict are destroyed. Well, to figure this out, we are not only doing a pros and cons list, but we are doing it with our revolutionary hats on.

Okay, I do want to say throughout this whole series, some of the pros and cons I'm arguing are from, like, terrible sides. But, you know, we're trying to be objective here. So first con, guys, the Winter Palace is the very embodiment of what the revolutionaries and later the USSR wanted to destroy. It is a symbol, the ultimate symbol, really, of imperial grandeur. The divide between the absurdly wealthy few and the vast majority of the peasantry and workers. It's basically like saying I hate liberty, but then leaving the statue of liberty standing and more than that, like going and taking picks there. Right? So

on the grounds of principle alone, it should go. Plus another con in keeping it, but definitely a pro the Bolsheviks if they did decide to get rid of it, is that the contents of that place could have bankrolled the USSR for years. First built between 1754 to 1762, the Winter Palace cost millions to construct at the time, and that's just the building. Inside was art, furniture, jewels, decor and precious metals, which were likely worth hundreds of millions of rubles in 1917, the equivalent of which roughly translates to billions of dollars today. Now we do know that the Bolsheviks sold off large parts of the Romanov's belongings, including jewels, furniture and art, but if they'd sold at all, they would have made absolute bank.

The other con in keeping it is that you're holding onto a part of the past when what this new regime is wanting is the future. If the Winter Palace was torn down, sold off and returned to the ground, then the newly formed USSR could have built their own monument here, a place that respected the aesthetic of communist Russia versus imperial Russia. And while yes, they did this in other regions, especially in the form of statues, after all, the Motherland Call statue is hardly something anyone forgets,

but still, they could have built their own communist version of the Winter Palace along the banks of the Neva for the new start of Russia. But they didn't do that. And the reason, aka the pros for keeping it, largely lie in three things. the first of which, is that despite the conflicting aesthetics and politics, the Winter Palace does reflect the might of the Russian Empire.

It is huge, it's bright blue, it's glistening with marble and gold and crystal, and this is a language that all the other European nations understand. Look at Versailles in France, Windsor Castle, in Britain, Schoenbrun, in Austria. The strength of European nations has always been. been reflected in their palaces. And if the Soviets had gone and built some great big, brutalist monument to the workers by tearing down the Winter Palace, it would have reduced Russia's strength and standing in their eyes. Something that would have been particularly precarious at this time because the First World War is ravaging Europe. So keeping the Winter

Palace, in this capacity at least, is a strong political decision. Plus, which is our second point here, do you know how expensive it is to demolish something? It's genuinely a large part of the reason the complex of Versailles remained untouched after the revolution. It costs a lot of money and a lot of energy and a lot of effort to demolish something. And while yes, they did have explosives at this particular point in history, the risk of shelling or blowing up a huge building in the middle of St Petersburg is a pretty high risk. And with the nation at war, the cost of symbolically blowing up a building isn't quite worth it. Plus, it hardly inspires morale for them to win the war if a huge part of the city centre is like on fire, right? But the last pro, and what I truly

believe was the key factor here, was that the Winter Palace wasn't just about Zarn Nicholas the second and his family. It was a home to centuries of other rulers, including Catherine the Great. So keeping the palace preserves all the history that came before the last Tsar. And I do think that that actually requires a pretty level-headed perspective. Just because the last guy who lived, he was fucked, doesn't mean we should wipe out all the history of the people who came before. Or as one of you said, I do not think it's the right of a small group of people to get to decide to vandalize something or ruin it. I think experts need to be consulted to determine what to do with these items, not an angry mob to decide.

for everyone. Now in the case of the Winter Palace, the authority who made the decision was the Bolshevik government, and given it was led by Lenin, I'm certain it was his decision in the end, so definitely not an expert in history or conservation, but he was passionate about art and culture as a tool. And given that the Winter Palace didn't just represent the Tsars, but the strength of the Russian people, after all, it was state property, its salvation could largely work in his favour. You pair that with the fact the Russian people themselves respected art and culture greatly, so much so they were at the forefront of many of the trends of 18th and 19th century Europe.

Faberjeet is a great example here. So in opening up the Winter Palace as a museum for the people, which they did, of course, pick, choose and censor what was in there to the end of the earth, the Soviets celebrated their culture and at least respected the history of the building and its contents. taking a page out of the French revolutionary book here when they opened the Louvre up to the public as an art museum. Plus, there is, of course, the argument that in keeping it in situ, the Russian people would never forget the hubris and excesses of life under imperial rule,

and therefore it never occurs again. So where do we land here, guys? Should it have stayed or should it have gone? Well, I think they did the right thing here, and I do largely credit it, like I said, to the size of the Winter Palace, which, like Fassai, was just too big and too expensive to tear down. But I also credited salvation to the Russian focus on culture and art. I'm actually impressed with how much they kept relatively cool heads

when it came to the raids on the palace in the first place, destroying far less than they could have, because I think they respected it. If only they had the same respect for people and human lives. This and their desire to continue to show their might in a way recognisable to the Western world largely saved the Winter Palace, which would have been a huge blow to both the historical record and Russian cultural heritage.

Now, the last structure I want to cover with you guys is Old Penn Station. So this station was opened in 1910 by orders of the Pennsylvania Railroad as a monumental gateway to Manhattan which reflected the industrial might of the US. So this wasn't just a place to board and disembark on your travels. It was a symbol of modern progress and civic pride, which was reflected in the classical Roman architecture featuring columns, grand waiting halls and light-filled spaces using steel and glass. For over 100 years, Penn Station stood tall, ferrying travellers from A to B, C, D, and E, but as the 50s rolled into the 60s and the automobile boom went supersonic, rail, no longer

became the primary method of transport. You pair that, with the fact that it occupied landed in Midtown Manhattan that had skyrocketed in value, and the needs of society for further offices, housing and entertainment, facilities, Penn Station was no longer a good use of space. And so, it was torn down, replaced with a new underground Penn Station, along with Madison Square Garden and surrounding high-rises. The whole project, though, sparked huge public outcry, with some arguing the new area better reflected modern human needs, while others believed it was a destruction of history and culture for profits' sake. So what do we think here? First, the convales of the context of the country. First, the

cons in keeping it. Now, this was one that you guys wrote a lot about, which was all around the needs of modern society. One of you said here, from an architectural point of view, I believe there's no point in preservation for preservation's sake. If something isn't serving us in a modern context, turn it into something that will. Otherwise, we'll stop creating history and start becoming it. Now, I agree here, to a certain extent. But I also think it's a slippery slope to apply this idea of no longer serving us as a blanket statement. Under this logic, the Coliseum, which is no longer used as an entertainment menu, should also go, which would be a huge loss to both the historical record and Lizzie McGuire fans who wouldn't have gotten this.

But this isn't the Coliseum. It's an old train station. One which took up two city blocks or around eight acres, and with the needs of society evolving, we can't hold on to things out of nostalgia, especially when the UN estimates that today 55% of the world's population lives in urban areas, a proportion that is expected to increase to 68% by 2050, adding another 2.5 billion people to urban areas who need somewhere to live. Take the UK here, where more than 400,000 buildings are on a protected conservation list due to their architectural and historical significance.

Now this might be all right, if there was a plethora of other, housing options, but according to The Guardian, the number of people living in affordable accommodation in the UK has risen dramatically, reaching over 130,000 households at the beginning of 2050. So you've got 130,000 households that are affordable accommodation facilities, but 400,000 conservation list properties that are priced up for the elite, or, as academic John Pendlebury said, heritage status is more often associated with the protection and gentrification of elite landscapes and structures. So if the choice is in tearing down or repurposing aging housing stock,

in exchange for more affordable housing which meets the needs of modern society, shouldn't we take it? Now again, this isn't quite the same as old Penn Station being torn down, but the point here is the needs of modern society aren't for the station to be kept. It's for new venues which reflect the way we actually live. Or as one of you put it, While the study of history is important, the whole cannot be preserved forever until the end of time. There's a point where life moves on and the current humans do need space to live life now. The next con in keeping it is that it costs a lot of money to keep transport infrastructure safe and working, especially when it's not fit out with modern technology.

That's more staff, more maintenance costs and more time trying to bring old pen up to modern standards, all of which costs money. and in an environment where rail travel is no longer as popular and therefore no longer as profitable, where does that money come from? Tax dollars, which again are better spent on public works to serve the current community. Now let's do the pros in keeping it. Well, first and foremost, guys, it is an architectural masterpiece. As one of the finest bow-art buildings in the US, it captures a time where,

craftsmanship and trade were an art form, reflecting the strength and might of US transportation. And yes, we can study the blueprints and look at photos, but when structures are so famed because of their scale and detail, the only way you can fully appreciate them is in person. Hence why there was such an outcry when old Penn Station was torn down, acting as a key catalyst for strong historic preservation laws in New York City. This has happened, time and time again, especially in Europe where the architectural history is so much older. In the UK again, for another example here, it is a criminal offence to carry out works to a listed building

without prior listed building consent, even if you didn't know that building was listed. Dorena Pajani, Associate Professor at the University of Queensland, speaks to preserving this cultural heritage, saying, Built heritage reminds local communities of their shared identity. This may help foster social harmony, which is vital for the effective functioning of cities.

Also, looking at the UK example from earlier before, they have 400,000 conservation listed properties. Meanwhile, the US as a whole has around 95,000 nationally listed sites, which makes Old Penn Station as one of the grandest of these locations far more important to keep. Plus, it's not just sitting there collecting dust or it ruins like the Berkov, it was still active as a train station when it was demolished. Therefore, still serving society as it always had done. So what's our verdict here?

Keep or destroy. I've got to be honest. I'm pretty torn. I totally understand the value in tearing down certain structures to make way for the needs of modern society. But was there really no way the station could be repurposed? I mean, look at Muse de Orsay in Paris. It was a former train station repurposed into an art gallery, which remains one of the most visited destinations in the city.

So could we not have done something similar here? Or with a cost too high to try and convert it? And as the fact we have Grand Central Station, another gorgeous historic building, which is only three years younger than old pen, tick the box of cultural heritage. It's super murky, guys, and I do. I understand both sides here,

which is why I think it's so important to try and balance the needs of modern society with the values of history. with the values of historic structures by having experts with a realistic code and system to evaluate on a case-by-case basis. Okay, pivoting from structures now, I want to talk about documents, mainly because I feel like I need a bit of Victorian sex drama and what better place to get it from than the diary of Queen Victoria, who, after the death of her Uncle William, became queen at only 18 years old and is now largely associated with Britain's age of industrial

expansion, economic progress and burgeoning empire, with her family describing her as a warm-hearted woman of strength who navigated the seas of the modern world keeping Britain and the monarchy on top. But if we were to look at her personal diaries, they tell us something else. Now this woman wrote more extensively than Sarah J. Mass, whose books she would have. have loved, by the way. Making her first diary entry in 1832 at age 13, she continued writing about her life until her death at age 81, accumulating millions of words across 120 volumes,

so 68 years of Queen Victoria's innermost personal thoughts were extensively recorded. And, FYI, when I say innermost thoughts, I really mean it. She covered everything from her scathing opinions on politicians, including former PM William Gladstone, who she called a half-crazed, wild and incomprehensible old fanatic. The taste of certain dinners she had, thoughts on her grandchildren, including the German Kaiser, who she said, if he has such notions of this behaviour, he'd better never come here. And of course, like I said at the top, her sex life. What these diary entries reveal is not a stony queen, and it's also not a warm-hearted artistic spirit.

Instead, they reveal the truth. Victoria was an opinionated, crass, an extraordinarily powerful woman who freely expressed her thoughts with as much bigger as any man. But even as queen, well, to be honest, especially as queen, she could only do so in her diary, which after her death was heavily censored by her daughter Beatrice, who insisted the volumes be edited and the parts that were considered too scandalous be taken out and burned. The result was two-thirds of the original volumes being destroyed, with key content including her experience with motherhood, her struggle to combine the roles of ruler and wife,

and her intimate friendships with other European leaders being deemed unsuitable for public consumption. And that's before we get to the sex drama, something which the stifling conservative values of Victorian England would not have approved of. Now, before we get into the pros and cons here, of which there are many, I want to chat to you about something that I think actually lies at the heart of this question that we're trying to answer about this right to destroy history, or at least in many of the examples that I've included. And it is something called revisionist history. So for those of you who haven't heard of this before, revisionist history is defined as the reinterpretation of accepted traditional historical narratives, challenging established views by introducing new evidence, interpretations or perspectives. Now, this can be very simple.

Something as minor is correcting dates of certain events based on new evidence or using new technology to analyze old evidence. Arguably, DNA testing of evidence in cold cases can be seen as. revisionism. And for the large part, guys, this is not only a positive thing when studying history, but essential. Or, as Princeton's Civil War historian James McPherson said, history is a continuing dialogue between the present and the past. Interpretations of the past are subject to change in response to new evidence, new questions or new perspectives gained by the passage of time, which makes revisionism vital to the study of history. And he's not

wrung here. Right? Look at the original Romanov example from the top that I was talking about. We wouldn't be able to confirm those human remains, were the Romanovs, without the use of DNA, which wasn't used in forensic analysis until 1984, so five years after the bodies were originally discovered. But, big, big but here. Revisionist history is a double-edged sword. On one hand, it allows a legitimate academic revision of our historical past using evidence to support this, but it also allows the illegitimate distortion of the past by altering, distorting or warping evidence for ideological, political, or social agendas, resulting in many versions of history, which directly ties into our first con of keeping Queen Victoria's original diaries.

Legacy As Britain's longest-serving monarch at the time and one of its few queens, Victoria's legacy was essential in not only affirming her own life, but also affirming the system of monarchy in which she operated. There's a great look at this actually in The Crown, which, yes, I know it's a fictionalised TV show, but I think it sums it up really well. Have a listen. Monarchy is God's sacred mission to grace and dignify the earth, to give ordinary people an ideal to strive towards,

an example of nobility and duty to raise them in their wretched lives. Now, if you ask me, sounds pretty wanky, but if you do subscribe to this belief, which the majority of Victorians at the time did, that same monarch, saying how much she loved to fuck her husband and how she couldn't stand her grandson's attitude,

would surely break this grand illusion. And without this, what's the point of monarchy? A question which would potentially see an entire system with centuries of history come crashing down, so the burning of some pages to continue to preserve the ideal of the monarch doesn't seem like such a hard price to pay. Even Victoria herself realised this, and reportedly instructed Beatrice to rewrite the journal,

omitting or modifying passages which she considered unsuitable for her legacy, which leads us to our second con in keeping the diary. It's just that. A diary. The innermost thoughts about deeply inappropriate things you don't dare say out loud, so you write them down. In this context, keeping the diaries of Victoria and anyone, really, is deeply inappropriate,

a huge, huge invasion of privacy, and raises questions of exactly what documents should make up the historical record. And the last con in keeping them is the beef that comes from spilling such diabolical tea. Not for Victoria, of course. She's dead, but can you guys imagine the political backlash that would emerge for the British government and the royal family with other regions and rulers who Victoria slagged off? Remember, she went and married her offspring to all the various courts of Europe. So when she's talking smack about her family in this diary in this journal, you're talking about the king of Bavaria and the Kaiser of Germany and the Tsar of Russia, right?

That has got to make for some pretty awkward diplomatic meetings and some hella awkward weddings and family functions. So in many ways, keeping the diaries here is like sending a group text about how unhinged your cousin is and she's like C-Ced in. So what are the pros for keeping them then? Well, first and foremost, the thing about diaries by their very nature is that their firsthand accounts of what that person actually thought and felt and experienced, which means we don't have to guess or try to fill in the gaps. Instead, Victoria tells us firsthand exactly what she thought, which makes her diary the holy grail of primary sources.

And in a world where women make up 0.5% of her own. the historical record because it is largely written by men, about men, for men, 120 unedited volumes into the life of Queen Victoria by Queen Victoria would genuinely change women's history, which historian Yvonne Ward points out here saying the editors highlighted the political and disregarded most of her correspondence with women, deeming it trivial. It's a crime to have such a treasure trove censored and edited like this because of what it reveals about her, which is our next point. We cannot just destroy stuff because we don't like what it reveals about certain people,

especially when it is the written word. These are documents, guys. They're not structures which take up a huge amount of space or could otherwise serve modern needs, if modified, their volumes, kept in archives and libraries, which quite literally are the historicist. historical record. As one of you here wrote, I think a lot of times, unfortunately, emotions get the better of us as humans in the immediate aftermath, and we make devastating decisions without considering what we're losing in the process.

And it's bang on here. Beatrice was offered for the diaries to be sealed for 100 years, but still she insisted on editing them herself. Applying the morals, values and lens of the late Victorian period to the diaries, which, in a context of 100 years, years, and to be honest, even today, we would view very differently. After all, let us not forget. We currently have a sovereign who wished to be reincarnated as a tampon. So I reckon we all would have gotten over some raunchy comments about Queen Victoria 100 years after her death. More than that, though, I really feel this censorship is a discredit to her. Her experiences are sanitised or rewritten into something.

more palatable, which makes us feel more comfortable. Royal historian Elizabeth Jane Timms rightfully points out this, saying, the editing of the Queen's Diaries has edited our subsequent perception of her, making the Queen literally lose her voice intermittently even in death. So what's the verdict here, guys? I think it's pretty obvious. The pros far outweigh the cons here. Like, genuinely, this is a crime.

Imagine what we could have learned about this woman and I get the legacy piece, but you know, seal them for 100 years, don't destroy them. Still, though, the agendas of monarchy and personal legacy tend to always trump historical fact, much to the detriment of the historical record. Let me tell you, in the age of billionaires and gazillionaires, it's only going to get worse. Now, the other example I want to chat with you guys about, is a document also authored by another highly controversial individual, but unlike Queen Victoria's diaries which were personal,

this was written with the express aim of mass production. And that is Mienkemp, written by Hitler after he was imprisoned after the failed beerhole putsch in 1923, Vienkamp, aka My Struggle, is part autobiographical and part political manifesto, which details Hitler's beliefs about race, nationalism, and power. It was published in two volumes across 1925 and 1926 selling around 200,000 to 250,000 copies. But those numbers skyrocketed once Hitler became Chancellor in 1933, and soon,

Wienkamp became ingrained in the national identity after it was heavily promoted by the Nazi Party, being given as a wedding gift to newlyweds and distributed to soldiers and officials, with stores throughout the state being forced to stock the book. quite the marketing drive. By the time the war started in 1939, it had sold around 5 million copies. And by the time Hitler had died, that number tripled to around 12 to 15 million. Now, just for context, on how many books that is, the entire Fourth Wing Imperian series has sold over 12 million copies in the last two years. So imagine having all the copies of Fourth Wing in the world, but instead of Hot Dragon Rider's Fucking, it's full of the extreme.

extremist hate-filled ramblings of a delusional psychopath. Right? No one wants that out in the world. So what do you do? Well, one of the first things the Allies did post-1945 was ban the book, after which they began destroying millions of copies in occupied regions as part of the denanansification process, which included giving the book's copyright to the state of Bavaria, who blocked any form of republication to ensure no new copies were printed.

However, that control could only go on for so long, and when the copyright expired in 2015, Germany allowed a new version to be printed the following year. And while it was filled with annotations by historians and plenty of critical commentary, it sparked great debate as to whether it should be in the public domain again. So let's unpack it, guys. Firstly, what are the cons in keeping it? Well, the most obvious one is that a book with hateful rhetoric will inspire extremist sympathizes to action, which is already happening, guys. Neo-Nazi group activity has reached record numbers in the 21st century, with marches and violent acts occurring in the community and even at Holocaust memorial sites.

Anti-Semitism, too, is rising at an alarming rate, which we here in Sydney experienced firsthand on December 14th last year. when two gunmen opened fire at a Hanukkah celebration at Bondi Beach, the result of which was the deaths of 15 people and more than 40 injured, which the Prime Minister made clear was, quote, an act of anti-Semitism and pure evil. And while these gunmen were allegedly inspired by ISIS ideology versus Nazism, it is clear how indoctrination from propaganda such as Mian Kampf still takes hold today. The next con is kind of the other side of that coin, which is the idea that Mienkamp is collected by the majority of Nazi sympathizers, not as a tool of action, but a source of reverence.

While the extremists, as we said, take the text as a call to arms, author and historian Gillies-Madonna argues the book is far more ornamental to sympathizers, noting that, quote, once people had adopted Adolf Hitler as their hero, they wanted to have his book, and they left it lying around. A bit like people left the Bible in their parlors, but I don't think many people read it. And it's an interesting point. Why have this book in circulation if it's largely seen as a trophy for sympathises to connect with their hero? As though they're some kind of like huge Tolkien fan with a first edition of the Hobbit or an Austin lover with an 1813 copy of Pride and Prejudice. The next con here is, of course,

the fact that Mienkamp being available in the public sphere is traumatising for Holocaust survivors and all other communities mentioned in the text, including people of colour. Even in the annotated versions which were designed to break the book's symbolic power, they're still deeply charged, and to have these sitting on bookshelves as the original was in 1939 is terrifying, especially with anti-Semitism on the rise. The result of this has seen calls for certain copies without scholarly perspective pulled from the shelves. Amazon reacted to this in 2020 after almost, this is insane, 20 years of backlash, adding the selling of Mienkemp and other Nazi authorised books to their codes of conduct.

Again, back on my shores in Australia here, one of our biggest booksellers, Dimmix, was forced to remove dozens of editions in 2020 following community requests. after it was revealed that no fewer than 60 editions of Mienkemp were being sold in stores and online. In a letter to the bookseller, the Executive Council of Australian Jewry wrote, We ask you to consider the use that hate groups would make of most of the editions of Mienkemp that are currently available from Dimmix, asking stores to cease selling all editions of Mienkemp, which do not contain detailed historical commentary and annotations by recognised scholars.

Dimmix quickly responded by removing 55 of the 60 versions of Mienkamp from their shelves, but should they have all been removed to spare those affected from further pain? Or does Prohibition make it forbidden fruit, which is our first pro for keeping Mienkamp? Whether it's alcohol, drugs or dark texts like this, prohibition doesn't necessarily stop people from doing something. It just increases the desire and largely makes them find or do that thing in a less safe or controlled way, and I think this would be the case with a total ban on Mienkamp.

I actually came across a clip of Robert Proctor. He is a Stanford historian who works on the history of scientific controversy. And he was asked about whether we should keep or destroying Mian Kampf, and I want to play you a bit of a snippet here because I think he gets this point across well. I think a lot depends on the placement and the purpose of icons of statues, of text. I don't see the harm in being able to buy Minkv. It's so out of this world by now, just the language. And if anything, they're probably, it is more good done by people being shocked at how dumb it is

than the evil that might be done by someone reading it. I can't imagine people being really gripped by that now, partly just because it's kind of outdated and crazy, crazy talk. So in that case, I would not be in favor of that. Now, I do want a caveat. This was four years ago. And so the state of the world is quite different from when he was saying this. But I do agree that we have to trust the intelligence and as difficult as it can sometimes be, the moral compass of modern society to recognise Mienkamp for what it is,

the rambling idiocy of one man rather than a tool which would promote extremism, which ties into our second point here. That intelligence that we're talking about and that moral compass which we need to rely on comes from education, the best example of which is firsthand sources, including Mienkamp. To destroy it is to rob ourselves of that understanding of how this terrible thing happened. It is Hitler's first-hand account of exactly what he thought and exactly what his plans were and gives us a look at how he managed to mobilize his beliefs from ramblings in a book

to World War and Genocide. In this respect, I would actually argue, Mienkamp is probably one of the most important historical documents we have, because we are able to use it as a reference to recognize similar rhetoric and patterns in future generations, including our own. We cannot bury our heads in the sand because it makes us uncomfortable. For in the words of Churchill here, those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. And I think all the destruction of me and camp would do is take away a key tool for the

identification of evil, which opens up the doors for it to seep in and happen again. So the diagnosis here, keep or destroy. Personally, I don't think there's any world where this text can be or should be destroyed. In fact, I would largely argue its very existence ensures our survival, as it allows us to make sense of one of history's greatest tragedies and ensure it doesn't happen. again. However, I can absolutely see how it's life in the public sphere can be deeply traumatic, especially for survivors, which is why I think it is so important to have versions available that are filled with the necessary context and criticism from actual historians and experts.

But I am keen to hear your guys' thoughts on this one, please. It is murky, it is difficult, it is very, very charged, even when I was kind of like going through online. There was an plethora of, you know, really opposing hot and cold opinions here. So I wanted to hear from you guys. Let me know. Now, I could talk about documents all day. I mean, don't even get me started on the Library of Alexandria or the Nazi book burnings. But we have to keep moving on, guys.

So this is the end of part one. Thank you for following along with me on this episode. Make sure to tune in for part two because we are going to continue to unpack this topic by looking at exhibitions slash memorials and the most written about. topic by you guys, art and sculpture. As always, guys, if you are looking for some more Hot History before then, you can follow us on Instagram at Hot History Club and on TikTok at hot. It has been a pleasure getting down and dirty in time with you and I will speak to all shortly. Thanks, guys. Love you. Bye.