Classical Music Forum banner

Karajan's politics and Mahler's religion

26K views 102 replies 34 participants last post by  bz3 
#1 ·
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?
 
#3 ·
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]."
 
#11 · (Edited)
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]."
Almost identical to a quote from a Nazi counter-intelligence officer who had been career police. He said, "I was a cop under Weimar, a cop under NSDAP and I'd be a cop under Thaelmann (German Communist leader.)"

I can understand the predicament of those affected by the Nazi regime, but Karajan and Furtwangler had options. They could have opted out, but instead chose for career instead of humanity. I wish, for the sake of music, it could have been otherwise, but both were tainted by their choice. I honor those who either left, in many cases at great sacrifice to their careers, or actively resisted.
 
#4 ·
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.
 
#5 · (Edited)
I find this an odd juxtaposition; Karajan's politics and Mahler's religion. Joining a political party is, in my experience, a very different thing from changing one's religion. I'm not that familiar with the circumstances of Mahler's 'conversion' but I do find it strange that it's mentioned in the same breath as Karajan's decision to join the Nazi Party - apparently not once but twice.
I recall coming across an old Jewish friend not that long ago. When we were close he was definitely not religious. He's now devout and observes the Sabbath etc. As someone who was baptised a Catholic but since the age of 14 a deliberately lapsed one I admit I find the notion of becoming religious in later life shocking and, to be frank, ludicrous.
 
#22 ·
I find this an odd juxtaposition; Karajan's politics and Mahler's religion. Joining a political party is, in my experience, a very different thing from changing one's religion. I'm not that familiar with the circumstances of Mahler's 'conversion' but I do find it strange that it's mentioned in the same breath as Karajan's decision to join the Nazi Party - apparently not once but twice.
I recall coming across an old Jewish friend not that long ago. When we were close he was definitely not religious. He's now devout and observes the Sabbath etc. As someone who was baptised a Catholic but since the age of 14 a deliberately lapsed one I admit I find the notion of becoming religious in later life shocking and, to be frank, ludicrous.
Why on earth? You mean you find it impossible to respect other people's opinions and beliefs if they don't coincide with your own?
 
#6 · (Edited)
I have no idea about Mahler intentions converting to Catolicism, but his theosofist ideas are present in a great deal in his musical compositions, and I believe it was for more than good.
For Karajan. Pff. Really complicated, reading from Walter Legge's and Wilhelm Furtwängler's account. 'Herbie' was hungry for power then, and after the war he followed the tiranic way of conducting he developed in Germany, with the Philharmonia and the BPO.

If we read from Furtwängler's side, Karajan was a rising star that was menacing his already weak status with the Berliner and the Nazi regime. If 'Furt' left Germany, Karajan would become the chief conductor of the BPO, which he would never forgive himself.
Karajan was the toy of the Nazis to confront Furtwängler. Whether Karajan willingly played this role or not is a huge controversy.

From Legge's side, Karajan just went too close to the Reich but he never played a major part in the Nazi culture politics. Legge lately found the shelter for Karajan in the WPO after the war. Then Karajan became smarter than Furtwängler doing lots of recordings, while he did few and without pleasure. Technology developed in favour of Karajan, he rose to the Philharmonia and it was a matter of time that he took over the BPO almost forever, as the cash machine he became in.

Karajan, an opportunist, was then playing with fire. That is, if Furtwängler had actually left Germany before the war and Karajan had been asigned the BPO at that time, I think he would have fatally burnt his hand.
And I would not be writing here. Listening to his discography.
 
#7 ·
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. :cool:
 
#9 · (Edited)
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.
 
#10 ·
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.
 
G
#16 · (Edited)
We are we to Judge,we look AFTER the horrible events that took place most people were ignorent of or closed their eyes to.
A german man who was walking down the street passed soldiers of the SA (sturmabteilung) They salut with the Hiltler salute and the man was severely beaten up because he did not response in a desirable manner.The next time he met SA people he streched his arm as a real german.
 
#18 ·
In the early 1940's Karajan divorced his first wife in order to marry someone who had a Jewish grandfather, i.e. one quarter Jewish. Would someone who subscribed to the Nazis vile ideology have done that? I don't think so. I think Karajan's membership of the Nazi party was entirely opportunistic, just to advance his career.
 
#19 · (Edited)
In a sense, both men are willing to reject their true roots in order to further their careers. Karajan in a way "rejected his own humanity" by colluding with Nazis, and Mahler (as recounted in his infamous letter to Alma) rejected his own Jewish heritage.

With Karajan, this was motivated by the safety of the power of the Nazis, as he was a "nobody" before this.

With Mahler, knowing he was racially Jewish (although "race" in humans is now discouraged by sociologists as an identifiable characteristic) and looked Jewish (he could not be anonymous), his forlorn strategy was to represent the spiritual (the role of all composers before him), and seek the safety of The Church, although this did not work at all in a cosmopolitan era of secular spirituality in an environment like Vienna. Thus, he was forced to leave, and wisely sought sanctuary in New York City, where he would be among those who were like him.

Thus, Bruno Walter, thus Leonard Bernstein, thus ultimate vindication in America, land of the immigrant.

Mission accomplished, the art lives on in history.

Mission accomplished, the replacement of the Wagnerian long-form opera (using people in roles and voices in Germanic mythology as the apotheosis of German culture) by the instrumental symphony (in which the detestable, bothersome "human" element is minimal by comparison). After all, it was "people" who created all these barriers and prejudice.

Mahler would be today characterized by Dr. Phil as being a "sociopathic" outsider. But as McLuhan said, artists are always outsiders.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Totenfeier
#21 ·
Mission accomplished, the replacement of the Wagnerian long-form opera (using people in roles and voices in Germanic mythology as the apotheosis of German culture) by the instrumental symphony (in which the detestable, bothersome "human" element is minimal by comparison). After all, it was "people" who created all these barriers and prejudice.
I'm not sure what this means. Mahler didn't "replace" Wagnerian opera with the symphony--he simply preferred to work in that form, which had existed well before Wagner. And he certainly didn't reject the human voice, which is featured in several of his symphonies and his various song cycles.
 
#20 ·
The picture of Karajan and the Nazi Party seems murky. On the one hand, he was clearly an opportunist with a knack for working his way into the favor of whomever was powerful in the music business in Austria and Germany in the 30's. He also programmed music by Jewish composers, against Nazi policy, and had many Jewish friends and working partners who spoke highly of him in his long career.

On the other hand, as a German magazine pointed out in early 2008 in a lengthy piece on Karajan, he joined the Nazi Party for the first time in Salzburg in 1933 - before the Party was in power. He later volunteered his services to the Nazi regime in several ways he did not have to - including an attempt to enlist as a fighter pilot during the war.

As has been stated by others in this thread, I can't overlook the fact that many other ambitious people, including artists, in Germany and Austria in the 30's chose to jeopardize their livelihood and their ability to pursue their art, by emigrating out of Germany and Austria rather than joining or even colluding in any way with the fascist regime. Many of those people made major sacrifices and had to give up promising careers in the arts due to their choice. Likewise, Karajan should not have been surprised by the consequences of his choices - both when the Nazis were in power and when they fell out of power.
 
#23 · (Edited)
I am always puzzled why the Wagner brothers - both of whom had a vastly more prominent role in the Nazi regime than Karajan - are not debated with the same gusto. Possibly because Weiland deliberately used left wing politics and the 'New Bayreuth' productions to cover up his previous closeness to Hitler.

On a similar line, one might ask why certain prominent Soviet musicians who were members of Stalin's communist party - an equally disgusting regime which committed untold atrocities - were never put under the same scrutiny as Karajan. That is not to justify Karajan but to point out that he did become a butt for a certain section of the press' self-righteousness.
 
#25 ·
This is no doubt an over-simplification but perhaps it's because however high feelings may have ran about Stalin's regime the USSR are still seen as a victorious ally and not a defeated enemy.
 
#26 ·
My grandmother taught me that there were two things that one never discussed - politics or religion. So I would guess that for this thread we have an epic fail!:lol:
 
#29 ·
DavidA, I find myself in agreement with all of your posts. I am not sure why you have resurrected this thread at this time, as I think that most of the TC posters have tired of it, although we are getting a fresh infusion of Amazon Refugees, so perhaps there may be a renewal of interest.
Since the topic has reappeared, I will add my 3 cents worth. I think that HvK was what Historians have labeled a Fellow Traveler.
He had attitudes and prejudices that were common to Germans and Austrians of his time, such as casual Anti-Semitism, resentment of the Versailles Treaty, a longing for the stability that the Hapsburg and Wilhelmina regimes represented as opposed to the Political instabilities of the Weimar Republic. He wasn't a fire breathing Nazi Idealogue. His interests weren't Political. He didn't mind kissing the Emperor's Ring because he wasn't opposed to the Politics, and kissing the Ring made it possible for him to succeed in his career.
 
#30 ·
DavidA, I find myself in agreement with all of your posts. I am not sure why you have resurrected this thread at this time, as I think that most of the TC posters have tired of it, although we are getting a fresh infusion of Amazon Refugees, so perhaps there may be a renewal of interest.
Since the topic has reappeared, I will add my 3 cents worth. I think that HvK was what Historians have labeled a Fellow Traveler.
He had attitudes and prejudices that were common to Germans and Austrians of his time, such as casual Anti-Semitism, resentment of the Versailles Treaty, a longing for the stability that the Hapsburg and Wilhelmina regimes represented as opposed to the Political instabilities of the Weimar Republic. He wasn't a fire breathing Nazi Idealogue. His interests weren't Political. He didn't mind kissing the Emperor's Ring because he wasn't opposed to the Politics, and kissing the Ring made it possible for him to succeed in his career.
I didn't actually realise I was resurrecting the thread. I thought it was still being discussed but now realise you were right in that the last post before mine is April 2015. Apologies if we offend!
 
#36 · (Edited)
I always feel that people get religion as they get the older because they are hedging their bets. Seems terribly hypocritical to me as in -"I didn't believe in God before but as I get closer to shuffling off this mortal coil I might as well take no chances and it costs nothing." That seems disrespectful to those who have always had faith.

I would hope that I had enough faith in my own lack of it not to grasp at salvation when that time comes.
 
#38 · (Edited)
This may not be the place to bring this up, but I do find it interesting that people rarely bring up Goodall's Nazi sympathies, whilst Karajan (and Schwarzkopf) continue to be criticised for theirs. Goodall remained a steadfast Nazi supporter throughout World War II, and once referred to the Holocaust as a "BBC Jewish plot".

Today his views are usually accepted as political naivety, where Karajan and Schwarzkopf, who more than likely joined the Nazi party for professional rather than political reasons, are reviled for their errors of judgement. The evidence would suggest that they were opportunists, also politically naïve, doing what they thought they had to do to forge a career, without thinking of later coincidences. Artists tend to be single minded and will do what they must to survive.

Goodall's behaviour and actions seem to me far more reprehensible. He joined the British Union of Fascists two days after Britain declared war on Germany. Even though Britain was at war with Germany Goodall continued to support the fascist cause. He campaigned for the British Union of Fascists, called the sinking of the German battleship Bismarck ‘disgusting’, and was actually arrested briefly for expressing pro-German views in public.

On the other hand, Karajan conducted music by Jewish composers, and happily worked with both Jewish and black musicians after the war, and yet recently in a Facebook post celebrating his birthday, many of the comments referred to him as a Nazi. Schwarzkopf too often elicits the same response. Why the double standards?
 
#39 · (Edited)
This may not be the place to bring this up, but I do find it interesting that people rarely bring up Goodall's Nazi sympathies, whilst Karajan (and Schwarzkopf) continue to be criticised for theirs. Goodall remained a steadfast Nazi supporter throughout World War II, and once referred to the Holocaust as a "BBC Jewish plot".

Today his views are usually accepted as political naivety, where Karajan and Schwarzkopf, who more than likely joined the Nazi party for professional rather than political reasons, are reviled for their errors of judgement. The evidence would suggest that they were opportunists, also politically naïve, doing what they thought they had to do to forge a career, without thinking of later coincidences. Artists tend to be single minded and will do what they must to survive.

Goodall's behaviour and actions seem to me far more reprehensible. He joined the British Union of Fascists two days after Britain declared war on Germany. Even though Britain was at war with Germany Goodall continued to support the fascist cause. He campaigned for the British Union of Fascists, called the sinking of the German battleship Bismarck 'disgusting', and was actually arrested briefly for expressing pro-German views in public.

On the other hand, Karajan conducted music by Jewish composers, and happily worked with both Jewish and black musicians after the war, and yet recently in a Facebook post celebrating his birthday, many of the comments referred to him as a Nazi. Schwarzkopf too often elicits the same response. Why the double standards?
It may be an unfair double standard, but the likely reason is that while Karajan and Schwartzkopf were German, Goodall, like Mengelberg, was not. And unlike Mengelberg, and various French 'collaborateurs', Goodall's country was never occupied by the Germans during the war. However, before posting this, I took a quick look at Goodall's entry in Wikipedia, and it begins, "Sir Reginald Goodall CBE ... was an English fascist, singing coach and conductor ...." You don't usually see Karajan referred to as a German Nazi and conductor. But if a prominent American conductor had openly expressed fascist sympathies at the time, you might see the same sort of thing being said about him. History has an element of the arbitrary in how it casts the role of individuals, as I mentioned in another thread.
 
#41 ·
I'm no fan of the honours system anyway. It always looks like the favoured few get the kudos for nothing more than celebrity. I am especially annoyed when non native born residents like Geldof and Schwarzkopf get honours. The whole thing should be done away with as far as I'm concerned. Grumpy socialist rant over.:lol:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tsaraslondon
#42 ·
I am not sure what Schwartskopf’s involvement with the Nazis was except that slept with some big shots, including Goebbels, to further her career. Honorable, no, but it’s not like she was a concentration camp guard.
Goodall is more troubling. Schwartskopf and Von K could at least be excused on the grounds of patriotism, but R.G. does seem like he came to brink of being a traitor
 
#43 ·
I am not sure what Schwartskopf's involvement with the Nazis was except that slept with some big shots, including Goebbels, to further her career. Honorable, no, but it's not like she was a concentration camp guard.
Goodall is more troubling. Schwartskopf and Von K could at least be excused on the grounds of patriotism, but R.G. does seem like he came to brink of being a traitor
https://www.theguardian.com/music/2006/aug/24/classicalmusicandopera.secondworldwar
 
#51 ·


This work by Orff is conducted by Karajan, and might further explain things. Orff, like Karajan, also 'rose to power' as a composer in the 1930s. "Carmina Burana" made some perceptive and prescient foreign observers and people in America a little nervous, in light of what was happening in Germany, with the Nazis rising in power. Orff's music in Carmina Burana, with its simple, rhythmic, incantatory choruses, sounded pagan and primitive, like a Jungian archetype which was being invoked around a fire at a night rally…you get the picture. This music was later used as a model for the movie soundtracks of "The Omen" series, with its Latin chanting and invocation of Satan.

This later work by Orff is based on religious ideas, the idea that God, after the judgement, decides that all evil and all sin (and all war crimes) are "erased" and forgiven, completely, as if they never occurred, an idea which did not fly too well with Holocaust survivors. It seems that Orff and Karajan both supported the idea of Germany being ultimately forgiven for its sins, and of 'moving on' with life, without grudges. I can see their point.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Triplets
#52 · (Edited)
Did Karajan join the Nazi party twice or not? My previous understanding has been that he joined the party in 1933 in Salzburg (membership number 1607525) and again in 1935 in Aachen (membership number 3430914), although Karajan later maintained that he had first joined in 1935. In 1933, the Nazis were far from holding power in Austria, so it seems unlikely that such a very early membership in the Nazi party was done solely to advance Karajan's musical career? Indeed, there are letters from Karajan's youth where he makes anti-Semitic comments, and he also "belonged to an ultra-nationalist, pan-German youth group in Salzburg" (according to the article "Historian Probes Conductor Von Karajan's Nazi Past", by Rachel Hirshfeld). Therefore, such "ultra-nationalist" political ties and racist views against Jews in his youth, along with Karajan's joining of the party not once, but twice (& very early on, initially), do suggest the probability that Karajan may have held strong Nazi sympathies.

Yet, Richard Osborne claims that the 1933 membership wasn't an actual joining of the Nazi party, he writes:

"What are the facts? First, though Karajan was nominated for membership in the as yet unbanned Party in Salzburg in April 1933, he did not collect his card, sign it, or pay his dues, though the registration itself (no. 1607525) got onto the files and crops up in many memoranda and enquiries thereafter. Secondly, he did not join the Party on 1 May 1933 despite prima-facie evidence to the contrary. In the first place, the membership number 3430914 is too high to belong to that date. The highest number issued before the freeze on membership, which lasted from May 1933 to March 1937, was 3262698. During the freeze, however, various functionaries, diplomats, and others were issued cards bearing an NG, or Nachgereichte, designation. These cards were, by convention, backdated to the start of the freeze: 1 May 1933. Karajan's Aachen membership was an NG card, and its number accords with batches issued in 1935, the year Karajan had always identified as the one in which he was asked to join the Party." ("Conversations with Karajan", Oxford Univ. Press, 1991.)

I'm not sure I entirely understand this paragraph. So, Karajan was "nominated" for the party in 1933 in Salzburg, but never paid his dues or collected his card, or signed it. Does that mean his nomination was done entirely without any connection, request, or personal interest on Karajan's part? If so, then who nominated Karajan in 1933 and why? under what circumstances? Of course, I understand that Karajan's 1935 membership card was "NG" & was backdated to May 1, 1933, but that still doesn't explain the circumstances under which Karajan was "nominated" in 1933, and why? that is, whether or not the nomination was done at Karajan's request?

Can anyone answer this question?
 
#55 ·
Did Karajan join the Nazi party twice or not? My previous understanding has been that he joined the party in 1933 in Salzburg (membership number 1607525) and again in 1935 in Aachen (membership number 3430914), although Karajan later maintained that he had first joined in 1935. In 1933, the Nazis were far from holding power in Austria, so it seems unlikely that such a very early membership in the Nazi party was done solely to advance Karajan's musical career? Indeed, there are letters from Karajan's youth where he makes anti-Semitic comments, and he also "belonged to an ultra-nationalist, pan-German youth group in Salzburg" (according to the article "Historian Probes Conductor Von Karajan's Nazi Past", by Rachel Hirshfeld). Therefore, such "ultra-nationalist" political ties and racist views against Jews in his youth, along with Karajan's joining of the party not once, but twice (& very early on, initially), do suggest the probability that Karajan may have held strong Nazi sympathies.

Yet, Richard Osborne claims that the 1933 membership wasn't an actual joining of the Nazi party, he writes:

"What are the facts? First, though Karajan was nominated for membership in the as yet unbanned Party in Salzburg in April 1933, he did not collect his card, sign it, or pay his dues, though the registration itself (no. 1607525) got onto the files and crops up in many memoranda and enquiries thereafter. Secondly, he did not join the Party on 1 May 1933 despite prima-facie evidence to the contrary. In the first place, the membership number 3430914 is too high to belong to that date. The highest number issued before the freeze on membership, which lasted from May 1933 to March 1937, was 3262698. During the freeze, however, various functionaries, diplomats, and others were issued cards bearing an NG, or Nachgereichte, designation. These cards were, by convention, backdated to the start of the freeze: 1 May 1933. Karajan's Aachen membership was an NG card, and its number accords with batches issued in 1935, the year Karajan had always identified as the one in which he was asked to join the Party." ("Conversations with Karajan", Oxford Univ. Press, 1991.)

I'm not sure I entirely understand this paragraph. So, Karajan was "nominated" for the party in 1933 in Salzburg, but never paid his dues or collected his card, or signed it. Does that mean his nomination was done entirely without any connection, request, or personal interest on Karajan's part? If so, then who nominated Karajan in 1933 and why? under what circumstances? Of course, I understand that Karajan's 1935 membership card was "NG" & was backdated to May 1, 1933, but that still doesn't explain the circumstances under which Karajan was "nominated" in 1933, and why? that is, whether or not the nomination was done at Karajan's request?

Can anyone answer this question?
The answer lies more with Austrian Politics of the interwar years. Prior to WW 1 there was a movement for Pan Germanism -Hitler among others imbibed this at an early age, one of the reasons that he wound up enlisting in the German, not Austrian, Army-that viewed the Hapsburgs as an obstructionist anachronism to realizing this dream. After the War, Austria lost most of its former territory and all of its prestige, and eventually the Pan Germanic Rightist resurgent, and as in Germany, had a pronounced Anti Semitic orientation.
The Anschluss didn't occur until 1938,but the Far Right was emboldened by the Nazi rise to power, and several coup attempts were made in Austria , including one that resulted in the assasination of the Austrian PM, and in response, Martial Law being declared and the Nazi Party being banned. However, in 1933, it seemed as though the Nazis were on the verge of successfully taking over Austria. I'm guessing that Karajan, being the arch opportunist that he was, was hot to join the Party when it was on the ascent, and then had second thoughts when it was perhaps an impediment to boast of membership in what was considered a treasonous organization, and never completed the steps necessary for membership.
 
#53 ·
I don't think it matters, ultimately. So what if Karajan disliked Jews? That doesn't mean he wants to kill anybody. Racism is part of humanity, and always will be, so it's what we do to rise above it that matters.
 
#54 ·
Peter Alward, former vice-president, EMI Classics said of Karajan:

"I first met Karajan in 1976, and we remained friends up to his death. He was one of EMI's flagship artists in the late 70s and early 80s; most of his operatic work was for us, his symphonic work for Deutsche Grammophon. Yes, he cultivated the cult of the maestro - he was a shrewd businessman and recognised his market worth. He was not slow in coming forward and speaking his mind, but no conductor is a shrinking violet. I feel he was misunderstood. There was the glamorous image - the jet-set lifestyle - but this was all a defence. He was really very shy, a simple man with simple tastes. I vehemently oppose the theory that he was a Nazi. He was an opportunist. I'm Jewish, and if I believed otherwise, I wouldn't have spent a minute in his company."
 
#56 · (Edited)
Thanks, Triplets. Yes, that makes a lot of sense. My only contention would be that it doesn't sound like it was all about "opportunism" on Karajan's part. He wasn't just an "arch opportunist". Since it also appears that Karajan definitely held "Pan German Rightest" views together with Nazi sympathies, & perhaps strong ones; though in 1933 he wasn't going to destroy his career for his beliefs either, as he wasn't a fool. Indeed it wasn't until the Nazi hold on power became more of a certainty that he felt confident again about joining the party, as he did in 1935.

So, yes, in my view, Karajan did attempt to join the Nazi party twice, he just had second thoughts about his membership the first time around, and not likely due to any ideological differences with the Nazis, but rather simply because he saw that it could seriously hurt his career to become a member in 1933, so he pulled back. Therefore, it certainly looks like Karajan's "nomination" in 1933 was done at his request, and with his own personal involvement & full intent, at least initially (that is, before he had second thoughts).

Obviously these are not things that Karajan would have talked about later in life, as they're shameful, and certainly not to the Jewish Peter Alward. That Karajan never publicly admitted to holding such ultra-national Pan German views and Nazi sympathies in his younger days was surely a calculated move on behalf of his later flourishing career. However, such silence may also belie that he didn't privately hold any remorse or regret over it. Hence, all the speculation.
 
#57 ·
I don’t find it difficult to believe that Von K was a German Nationalist first, and probably a casual Anti Semite. Coming of age after he did in the interwar years, with Germany and Austria humiliated and struggling economically, the Right and the Left both had a powerful appeal on the youth. Given Karajan’s patrician background and the importance of Culture in his education, it would of been the far Right groups of the time that would have appealed, and those groups tended to equate Jews with Bolshevism. There were many followers of Hitler that were Anti Semitic but didn’t really take the virulence of Hitler’s hatred of the Jews at face value.
I think it most likely that HvK fell into this camp, but that Politics for him were not a sacred cause. His own advancement was his main concern
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top