That's your opinion, and I respect it, but my opinion is that you are drawing too hard a line, and that it can be possible to separate a person's work from their other views and actions. Perhaps not always, but it can be. And -- as I said in my original comment -- it is still possible to suffer bad consequences from doing this, so we still must be careful when choosing to publish non-toxic works from toxic creators.

It's one thing to go after a possibly mad poet to make a point.

But while this was happening the US had shipped Von Braun and other Nazi scientists over to the US, IBM's practical contribution to the Holocaust was being quietly forgotten, the industrialist Thyssen - who provided substantial funding to Hitler and could be argued to have made WWII possible - was being allowed to live a very comfortable life having been punished with a fine of just 15% of his net worth, and there appeared to be little interest in investigating the role that US industrialists and bankers, including the grandfather of George Bush, had played in association with Thyssen and other industrialists. In fact many of their confiscated assets were quietly returned.

Against this background Pound's actions had exactly zero influence on the course of the war and the fate of the holocaust victims. The real causes were elsewhere. And not only were the people responsible never deplatformed or otherwise challenged, many never faced any significant criticism of their actions.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworl...

Nice whataboutisms.

What the people running the US government and other allied governments did after the war in the face of the massive Soviet threat really has nothing to do with this case.

That's an interesting attempt at a whataboutism of your own.

Perhaps you can explain how a fascist propagandist was supposed to be involved in the "massive Soviet threat"?