Thread: Karajan's politics and Mahler's religion

Everyone knows that Gustav Mahler converted to Catholicism to get the Vienna Court Opera position, and I've heard the claim that Karajan wasn't really a committed Nazi, but joined the party to further his career. So how Catholic was Mahler, and how Nazi was Karajan, in your opinion? Do we view them as hypocrites or pragmatists? Were both more committed to the music that to anything else?

Without going into a long diatribe and getting involved in religious and racist arguments, in short, the main aims of both of them were self-advancement and self-preservation.

I won't get into Karajan, because that's too much a can of worms, but for Mahler--does it really matter how committed to Catholicism he was? For instance I would not condemn a Jew who hid his religion in Nazi Germany to be a hypocrite.

R. Strauss, for instance was the ultimate pragmatist. He said something to the effect of (I'm remembering very vaguely) "I was a good composer under the Kaiser, I was a good composer under the Republic, I will be good composer under whatever follows [Naziism]."

Mahler was neither a committed Catholic nor a religious Christian, though he had his own idiosyncratic beliefs about God and the supernatural, related in part to his fascination with theosophy. He converted because it was necessary to take up a position at the Vienna Court Opera, simple as that.

I'm not aware of the details surrounding Karajan, but I have no evidence that he was a devoted Nazi party member. The same goes for Strauss, as mentioned above. People say that Franz Schmidt's collusion with the Reich was a matter of political naivete, and some have suggested this for Webern, as well (though he certainly made some unpleasant comments about Hitler). It seems that the only (relatively) major composer who was particularly devoted to the Nazi cause was Pfitzner.

Employees must always make opportunistic/career-advancing decisions and choices. Nothing's changed. In my view, this is the number one reason people choose to be self-employed. It eliminates many employed pitfalls. Unfortunately, this option rarely exists for conducting orchestras, or getting one's music played.

Critics of such decision-making are hypocrites or hacks at worst, and armchair quarterbacks at best.

Originally Posted by Mayerl

Without going into a long diatribe and getting involved in religious and racist arguments, in short, the main aims of both of them were self-advancement and self-preservation.

Self-preservation is important. When in an evil government unless you want to try to overthrow it you have to be careful.

Originally Posted by Fletcher

There's a chapter on Karajan's denazification in Richard Osbornes excellent book Herbert von Karajan: A Life in Music.

Whilst trying to avoid opening the can of worms, HvK once signed "Heil Hitler" at the end of a letter to a local politician. (*I'd welcome a correction or clarification on this.)

The book contains numerous anecdotes of occasions when Karajan was questioned on his political views, to which if - if correct - he changes the conversation to music. Osborne concludes that Karajan's membership was entirely opportunistic and for his self-advancement.

Yes, virtually everything you read about Karajan leads to that conclusion. He started as a penniless nobody, and eagerly exploited every opportunity to the fullest, first with the Nazis, and then with the victorious allies. Richard Strauss was already old and wealthy, and could afford to be aloof. In fact, Hitler gave Strauss a fancy title, but later took it away when an intercepted letter revealed Strauss considered it a joke. Furtwangler was in the middle. He had to choose between working with the Nazis whom he despised as Germany's leading musician or career suicide. (He could have succeeded Toscanini at the NY Philharmonic in 1936. Imagine the disaster that would have been.) Of course, one could argue that people like Karajan were key to the success of the Nazis.

Originally Posted by fluteman

Yes, virtually everything you read about Karajan leads to that conclusion. He started as a penniless nobody, and eagerly exploited every opportunity to the fullest, first with the Nazis, and then with the victorious allies. Richard Strauss was already old and wealthy, and could afford to be aloof. In fact, Hitler gave Strauss a fancy title, but later took it away when an intercepted letter revealed Strauss considered it a joke. Furtwangler was in the middle. He had to choose between working with the Nazis whom he despised as Germany's leading musician or career suicide. (He could have succeeded Toscanini at the NY Philharmonic in 1936. Imagine the disaster that would have been.) Of course, one could argue that people like Karajan were key to the success of the Nazis.

One could argue a good deal of things if the day is long. The question is whether one could CREDIBLY argue such a thing. I could argue that rainbows are the contrails of unicorn farts. I have read numerous accounts of the rise (and fall) of Nazism in general, and Adolf Hitler in particular, and no major historians on the matter, that I am aware of, have ever credited someone like Karajan as a key to the success of the Nazis. Unless you are referring to him in such a generic way - but then the point is really pointless.

Originally Posted by fluteman

Ugh. What I meant was, many like Karajan enthusiastically joined the Nazi party and supported its cause because it was good for their careers, and likely would have done the same for any regime, because they were ambitious opportunists. Others no doubt refused to follow that path and never joined the party. Karajan could have stood on principle and remained a penniless nobody. Furtwangler, much as he despised the Nazis, wasn't willing to surrender his position at the top of the German music world and go to New York, where he would have been a distant second to Toscanini and no doubt unable to reclaim his position in Berlin after the war. Many in France had to make a similar choice when the Germans invaded, i.e., collaborate or give up successful careers. The Nazis' success depended on many choosing to collaborate once they gained power.

Now that you have clarified your point, I would have thought that this was well known.

It makes more sense than the implied suggestion in your previous post that the Nazis' success was the result of support from a key group of powerful people such as Karajan in the world of music.

Originally Posted by Genoveva

Now that you have clarified your point, I would have thought that this was well known.

It makes more sense than the implied suggestion in your previous post that the Nazis' success was the result of support from a key group of powerful people such as Karajan in the world of music.

Well, nobody in the world of music had any power in Nazi Germany. Hitler was a big classical music fan and practically worshipped Richard Strauss, but the Nazis nevertheless saw him solely as a propaganda tool and had he protested their policies too vigorously no doubt would have jailed or executed him, and certainly his Jewish daughter-in-law, whom they threatened in order to keep him in line (even though Jewish spouses of prominent people were typically safe). Hans Pfizner tried hard to gain Hitler's favor, but was pretty much ignored. Hitler also recommended to Mussolini that Toscanini be executed, but the maestro fled Italy when his situation became dangerous.