Wagner's Hitler: The Prophet and His Disciple

Rating:
Summary: The marching music...
Review: I read this together with Magee's recent The Tristan Chord and the two together create a funny dissonance, if not a blown gasket, but the twice over left a few question marks next to Kohler's book. This does not subtract from the book's remarkable interest and I would recommend Wagner defenders 'face the music' here to the extent of at least not ignoring it. Wagner wasn't your garden variety shmuck.
However, I felt as if I were left hanging by a text that was poorly documented, and found myself suddenly distanced from the text with some of the speculative takes cut into the footage. No footnotes, no deal, and the question is on hold since tracking down this data is not an afternoon's work. That's a pity since I doubt if this objection will deflect the author's basic point. The interleaving of Hitler bits with Wagner bits was confusing also, better to have simply laid out the sequence. Then it might be clearer that, while Wagner probably cannot be easily absolved here, it is also doubtful if we can establish a full or correct chain of consequence. Finally, blaming all this on the Romantic movement doesn't quite wash, and the fact is, as the Magee book shows, that we are dealing with a very complex figure in Wagner (as Nietzsche well knew)and a very tangled social question involving the sources of fascism in the rightist reaction of the nineteenth century. Indeed, it is sad to see the hothead of 1848 turning into the cultural derelict pursuing the 'aesthetic state', with such a bone crushing opposite result. Important, but sad book. Needs further commentary, however, with some historical backup.

Rating:
Summary: Engaging, challenging, and at times controversial
Review: In Wagner's Hitler: The Prophet And His Disciple, Joachim Kohler, scholar of philosophy and German literature, persuasively argues that Wagner's influences played a vital role in shaping the cultural context in which Nazism developed. Kohler begins by tracing the legacy of the German romantic tradition and the irrational, egocentric, nationalistic, and intolerantly utopian features which Wagner and Adolph Hitler shared. Kohler goes on to trace Wagner's influence on Hitler from his days as a young and failed Austrian artist, to his triumphant days as dictator enacting megalomanic Wagnerian visions of a Germany that would rule the world. Also shown is how Wagner's family in Bayreuth supported Hitler from the beginning of his political career, and aided his introduction into highly influential social and political circles. Wagner's Hitler is insightful, provocative, engaging, challenging, and at times controversial, but always fascinating reading and recommended for students of Germany history in general, and the Nazis influences on German culture in particular.

Rating:
Summary: The absense of evidence proves the depths of the conspiracy
Review: Joachim Köhler argues that Adolf Hitler was merely a puppet of dead composer Richard Wagner. The destruction of democracy, the German conquest of most of Europe in pursuit of a dream of world domination, the mass murders of European Jews, the whole Third Reich: all Wagner's idea.

Really? Let's see. Overthrow of democracy? Wagner supported constitutional monarchy, with political parties of "men with equal rights"; the monarch to stay above politics and ensure stability. His essay _State and religion_ is clear enough.

German conquest of Europe, and world domination? Wagner's _What is German?_ specifically condemns German attempts at military conquest, saying that German culture and polity never prospers when Germans rule other peoples.

The Holocaust? Wagner's most antisemitic essay, _Jewishness in Music_, calls on German Jews to abandon their separate culture and assimilate into German culture. That's racist, but did it influence Hitler? Since Hitler preferred racial segregation followed by extermination, it would seem not. Nor could Hitler have been comfortable with Wagner's opposition to the rule of one "race" by another, nor his suggestion that Europeans get used to racial intermingling (_Heroism and Christianity_). Meantime Köhler ignores the mainstream antisemites of Wagner's day, who really did influence Nazi racial policies.

(Wagner privately made some loathsome antisemitic remarks to Cosima Wagner, who duly recorded them in her diaries for Köhler to make the most of. But they weren't published till after Hitler's death, and for other reasons can't have been an influence.)

Look up "Wagner" in the indexes of Hitler's books and speeches, and accounts of his conversation by Speer and other eyewitnesses, and you find, despite Köhler's picture of an "obsessed" Hitler, that Hitler hardly ever mentioned Wagner. Köhler even admits this, but claims - seriously - that it's part of a conspiracy to hide Wagner's posthumous puppet-mastery. But Hitler never once referred to Wagner's ideas or essays, only to music. Hitler didn't even find Wagner's antisemitism interesting or important enough to mention.

It's clear that Wagner's influence on Hitler is essentially the same, that is, emotionally intense with without intellectual content, as his influence on Theodor Herzl, the founder of Zionism. Both men were passionate Wagnerians. Herzl loved Wagner's music, regularly attending Wagner operas and concerts for inspiration and renewal while he wrote Zionism's founding texts. But that doesn't make Wagner the founder of Israel. Hitler likewise loved the music but showed little interest in Wagner's ideas.

Köhler deals with these intractable realities in five ways:

1 Make stuff up
Here's Köhler describing Hitler in the bunker, 1945: "As the outside world disintegrated, it was to his inner world ... that Hitler turned ... Like a film projected onto the screen of his consciousness, he was suddenly gripped by a vision". Köhler then describes Hitler's "vision", which turns out to be about Wagner and to support Köhler's thesis. But no source mentions this "vision". Köhler seems to have invented it because the historical record wouldn't give him what he needed. There are many other examples.

2 Footnote fakery
Though the book is festooned with footnotes, they only add credibility if you don't look them up. For example that "vision" passage is footnoted, but follow it up and you won't find a source. Instead it says that an irrelevant phrase Köhler threw into the passage echoes words Hitler used in 1936. Soon after, Köhler describes a 1944 meeting between Hitler and Wagner's grandson Wieland, with Hitler dismissing Wieland's claim to Wagner's manuscript scores "over supper". Follow up the footnote and you find that no meeting took place. A little further Köhler alleges that Hitler's words "The people will not tolerate any act of clemency", in relation to the murders after the Reichstag fire, are "taken almost literally from _Rienzi_". The footnote directs you, rather vaguely, to Act II, which I have just checked in vain for those words or anything like them. And so on.

3 Twisting words
Köhler's quotes from Wagner tend to give only two to perhaps ten words at a time, wrenched from context and ascribed sinister meanings. Thus Köhler describes Hitler's "orgies of killings in dark, secret places ... 'in the bosom of darkness and death', as Wagner once put it." But check "in the bosom of darkness and death" back to the source and you nothing whatsoever to do with "orgies of killing": Wagner meant "caves". This is no occasional slip-up; it is systematic. Almost all Köhler's Wagner quotes are twisted in this way.

4 Irrelevancy
Köhler's deceptiveness on that non-meeting between Wieland and Hitler is odd, because Wagner's grandson's access or non-access to Hitler in 1944 is irrelevant. Some of Wagner's descendants and their partners supported the Nazis, some went along, and some defied them. Köhler spends much of the book showing that some Wagner descendants were contemptible, but the Wagner Köhler wants to arraign was then long dead and gone.

5 The big lie
Sometimes Köhler just lets rip, and it's breath-taking. Try this, about the _Ring_: "The gods in Valhalla had ordained that the destruction of their 'deadly enemy' must precede the age of the 'master race'." That would certainly be damning, if true, but instead it's bizarre nonsense. Other claims, especially about the operas, are similarly fantastic.

There's much more, shonky chronology, dodgy sources, etc, but I'm out of space. Of course there's much to condemn about Wagner, but that's no excuse for fabrication. This is a bad book, partly for untruth concerning a flawed man, mainly for its evasion of the actual historical persons and forces that led to Nazism, the Holocaust and attendant horrors. Neither the far-right political parties, unions and associations, nor the antisemitic Christian right groups, nor the opportunistic business backers, nor the street thugs behind Nazism and neo-Nazism cared then, nor care now, a hoot about opera.

Misdirection like Köhler's not only tries to cede to Nazis a cultural treasure that they do not deserve, but by obscuring the actual historical origins of Nazism it gives comfort to those who deserve none.

Cheers!

Laon

Rating:
Summary: The absense of evidence proves the depths of the conspiracy
Review: Joachim Köhler argues that Adolf Hitler was merely a puppet of dead composer Richard Wagner. The destruction of democracy, the German conquest of most of Europe in pursuit of a dream of world domination, the mass murders of European Jews, the whole Third Reich: all Wagner's idea.

Really? Let's see. Overthrow of democracy? Wagner supported constitutional monarchy, with political parties of "men with equal rights"; the monarch to stay above politics and ensure stability. His essay _State and religion_ is clear enough.

German conquest of Europe, and world domination? Wagner's _What is German?_ specifically condemns German attempts at military conquest, saying that German culture and polity never prospers when Germans rule other peoples.

The Holocaust? Wagner's most antisemitic essay, _Jewishness in Music_, calls on German Jews to abandon their separate culture and assimilate into German culture. That's racist, but did it influence Hitler? Since Hitler preferred racial segregation followed by extermination, it would seem not. Nor could Hitler have been comfortable with Wagner's opposition to the rule of one "race" by another, nor his suggestion that Europeans get used to racial intermingling (_Heroism and Christianity_). Meantime Köhler ignores the mainstream antisemites of Wagner's day, who really did influence Nazi racial policies.

(Wagner privately made some loathsome antisemitic remarks to Cosima Wagner, who duly recorded them in her diaries for Köhler to make the most of. But they weren't published till after Hitler's death, and for other reasons can't have been an influence.)

Look up "Wagner" in the indexes of Hitler's books and speeches, and accounts of his conversation by Speer and other eyewitnesses, and you find, despite Köhler's picture of an "obsessed" Hitler, that Hitler hardly ever mentioned Wagner. Köhler even admits this, but claims - seriously - that it's part of a conspiracy to hide Wagner's posthumous puppet-mastery. But Hitler never once referred to Wagner's ideas or essays, only to music. Hitler didn't even find Wagner's antisemitism interesting or important enough to mention.

It's clear that Wagner's influence on Hitler is essentially the same, that is, emotionally intense with without intellectual content, as his influence on Theodor Herzl, the founder of Zionism. Both men were passionate Wagnerians. Herzl loved Wagner's music, regularly attending Wagner operas and concerts for inspiration and renewal while he wrote Zionism's founding texts. But that doesn't make Wagner the founder of Israel. Hitler likewise loved the music but showed little interest in Wagner's ideas.

Köhler deals with these intractable realities in five ways:

1 Make stuff up
Here's Köhler describing Hitler in the bunker, 1945: "As the outside world disintegrated, it was to his inner world ... that Hitler turned ... Like a film projected onto the screen of his consciousness, he was suddenly gripped by a vision". Köhler then describes Hitler's "vision", which turns out to be about Wagner and to support Köhler's thesis. But no source mentions this "vision". Köhler seems to have invented it because the historical record wouldn't give him what he needed. There are many other examples.

2 Footnote fakery
Though the book is festooned with footnotes, they only add credibility if you don't look them up. For example that "vision" passage is footnoted, but follow it up and you won't find a source. Instead it says that an irrelevant phrase Köhler threw into the passage echoes words Hitler used in 1936. Soon after, Köhler describes a 1944 meeting between Hitler and Wagner's grandson Wieland, with Hitler dismissing Wieland's claim to Wagner's manuscript scores "over supper". Follow up the footnote and you find that no meeting took place. A little further Köhler alleges that Hitler's words "The people will not tolerate any act of clemency", in relation to the murders after the Reichstag fire, are "taken almost literally from _Rienzi_". The footnote directs you, rather vaguely, to Act II, which I have just checked in vain for those words or anything like them. And so on.

3 Twisting words
Köhler's quotes from Wagner tend to give only two to perhaps ten words at a time, wrenched from context and ascribed sinister meanings. Thus Köhler describes Hitler's "orgies of killings in dark, secret places ... `in the bosom of darkness and death', as Wagner once put it." But check "in the bosom of darkness and death" back to the source and you nothing whatsoever to do with "orgies of killing": Wagner meant "caves". This is no occasional slip-up; it is systematic. Almost all Köhler's Wagner quotes are twisted in this way.

4 Irrelevancy
Köhler's deceptiveness on that non-meeting between Wieland and Hitler is odd, because Wagner's grandson's access or non-access to Hitler in 1944 is irrelevant. Some of Wagner's descendants and their partners supported the Nazis, some went along, and some defied them. Köhler spends much of the book showing that some Wagner descendants were contemptible, but the Wagner Köhler wants to arraign was then long dead and gone.

5 The big lie
Sometimes Köhler just lets rip, and it's breath-taking. Try this, about the _Ring_: "The gods in Valhalla had ordained that the destruction of their `deadly enemy' must precede the age of the `master race'." That would certainly be damning, if true, but instead it's bizarre nonsense. Other claims, especially about the operas, are similarly fantastic.

There's much more, shonky chronology, dodgy sources, etc, but I'm out of space. Of course there's much to condemn about Wagner, but that's no excuse for fabrication. This is a bad book, partly for untruth concerning a flawed man, mainly for its evasion of the actual historical persons and forces that led to Nazism, the Holocaust and attendant horrors. Neither the far-right political parties, unions and associations, nor the antisemitic Christian right groups, nor the opportunistic business backers, nor the street thugs behind Nazism and neo-Nazism cared then, nor care now, a hoot about opera.

Misdirection like Köhler's not only tries to cede to Nazis a cultural treasure that they do not deserve, but by obscuring the actual historical origins of Nazism it gives comfort to those who deserve none.

Cheers!

Laon

Rating:
Summary: There are flaws, but the overall thesis is solid.
Review: The controversy still rages over the relationship of Wagner's music and writings to Hitler's conception of the Third Reich. It usually comes down to two camps: a. Those who cannot listen to Wagner if he was an inspiration to Hitler, an anti-semitic or both. So, they spend their time ignoring or downplaying any evidence of these "facts." b. Others do not see an problem if the music influenced Hitler philosophy or if Wagner was an anti-semitic in relation to enjoying the music. They can interphet the mythology to exclude anti-semitic interphetation.
And there are anti-semitics and Nazi in the world today.
This book is over 300 pages without footnotes. His arguement is proven in various degrees by a number of sources. But, overall the theory is solid. I can't see how others would think this is not so since the writings of Hitler, Chamberlain, Wagner and others clearly show the relatioship between these three men and others. A relationship based on an anti-semitic mythology.
Read all these reviews, but still read the work on your own.
Then do a web search for additional information.

Rating:
Summary: There are flaws, but the overall thesis is solid.
Review: The controversy still rages over the relationship of Wagner's music and writings to Hitler's conception of the Third Reich. It usually comes down to two camps: a. Those who cannot listen to Wagner if he was an inspiration to Hitler, an anti-semitic or both. So, they spend their time ignoring or downplaying any evidence of these "facts." b. Others do not see an problem if the music influenced Hitler philosophy or if Wagner was an anti-semitic in relation to enjoying the music. They can interphet the mythology to exclude anti-semitic interphetation.
And there are anti-semitics and Nazi in the world today.
This book is over 300 pages without footnotes. His arguement is proven in various degrees by a number of sources. But, overall the theory is solid. I can't see how others would think this is not so since the writings of Hitler, Chamberlain, Wagner and others clearly show the relatioship between these three men and others. A relationship based on an anti-semitic mythology.
Read all these reviews, but still read the work on your own.
Then do a web search for additional information.