Every book has its target audience. The question is as to what the target of Nazi opera conspiracy books might be. It is likely to be an audience interested in opera, music and art history. It is likely to be a popular audience interested in the history of the Holocaust, some of whom have heard that it was caused by an opera composer—one who either deserves to be justly hated as the Holocaust's root cause, or amongst neonazi's, revered for it. Even the very mention of the name of Richard Wagner immediately stirs up controversy.
However, whether opera conspiracy theorists like it or not, their speculations are first and foremost about history. For that reason, major historians interested in the Dritte Reich era show keen awareness of Nazi opera conspiracy theories. Such conspiracy theories have been around since 1940-41 in the publication by Tolischus whose 1940 book, They Wanted War, Peter Viereck shamelessly plagiarised for his 1941 Harvard PhD thesis. The post-war period saw the partial elaboration of Nazi opera conspiracy theories by journalist, William Shirer in his Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, as well as by the re-publication of Viereck's Metapolitics in revised form. Over the decades after the war, numerous Nazi opera conspiracy books have appeared from various non-historians such as Leon Stein, Paul Rose, Barry Millington, Marc Weiner, Rudolf Kreis, Robert Gutman, Gottfried Wagner, Hartmut Zelinsky, Joachim Köhler, Christopher Nicholson et alia. Yet to date, mainstream historians have all dismissed the Nazi opera conspiracy theory with the same sort of utter contempt that they hold for Nazi UFO conspiracy theories, and other similar such sensationalised populist speculations.
Nazi opera conspiracy theorists seem to think that they are up against Wagnerians and opera lovers as their ideological opponents. In reality, given the massive impact that an acceptance of opera conspiracies would have on the mainstream academic historian's understanding of the Dritte Reich period, the greatest resistance these opera conspiracy theorists come up against is from historians. This is why Sir Richard J. Evans writes that:
Yet to make Wagner directly responsible for the nazi extermination of the Jews, as Köhler does, is hardly plausible.
Evans. Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 37, No. 1 (Jan., 2002), p. 149
 |
| Sir Richard J. Evans’ devastating expert testimony in the David Irving trial left the notorious Holocaust denier’s reputation in tatters. Yet Evans is equally as damning of Joachim Köhler’s idea that “reality meant for [Hitler] the task of transforming the world into a Wagnerian drama”. |
Oddly enough, opera conspiracy theorists show little evidence of having even the slightest awareness of the current trends in thought within the large academic historiographic literature on this period of history. They ignore this huge body of literature as though they regarded it with utter contempt and disdain. It is an arrogant contempt for mainstream historiography that they fully share with their Holocaust denialist colleagues. Unfortunately for Nazi opera conspiracy theorist, academic historians, on the other hand, are fully aware of Nazi opera conspiracy theories, and they have been as unequivocally dismissive of them as they have been of Holocaust denialist pseudo-histories. Historians have staunchly refused to rewrite history according to the aggressive demands of either Nazi opera conspiracy theorists or Holocaust denialists. For example, Hitler biographer, Sir Ian Kershaw writes:
It is nevertheless a gross oversimplification and distortion to reduce the Third Reich to the outcome of Hitler's alleged mission to fulfil Wagner's vision, as does Köhler, in Wagners Hitler.
Kershaw: Endnote 121 from Hitler: 1889-1936—Hubris
That is, Kershaw thinks that to accede to the demands of Nazi opera conspiracy theorists to rewrite history would entail "a gross oversimplification and distortion" of history. If historians were ever to be foolish enough to accommodate to Nazi opera conspiracy theories in mainstream historiographies it would result in such an unacceptably gross oversimplification and frightfully perverse distortion of history that it would be tantamount to "lying about Hitler".
Even the methodologies used by the Nazi opera conspiracy theorists are unethical. They make up fictitious citations, ascribe apocryphal or fictitious quotations to Hitler, tamper with evidence by doctoring quotations to suit their purposes, wilfully misquote passages out of context, and falsely ascribe quotations by Hitler and other National Socialists to Wagner—who was by that age long dead. It is a malicious reinvention of history that is as perverse as any. If historians were to permit historiological methodology to sink to the level of the gutter like this, they would leave the door wide open to the acceptance of every perversion of history ranging from Nazi UFO conspiracies to Holocaust denialism.
Moreover, as Kershaws says, to reduce the origins of the ideological foundations of National Socialist thought down to a single point source such as Wagner would be "a gross oversimplification and distortion". It is is moreover a simplification that has its roots in National Socialist propaganda itself, which made malicious claims to have its origins in great German art and culture in order to give itself false airs of legitimacy. It is a piece of oversimplified propagandist nonsense designed for mass consumption, since the origins of National Socialist thought are immeasurably more diverse and nebulous than than. To put it in Richard J. Evans' words:
No sensible historian has argued that the total package of Nazism was present in earlier social or political movements or ideologies. What historians have tried to do is to find out where the different parts of Nazi ideology came from.
Evans: Rereading German History
Least of all, no sensible historian would ever claim that the "total package of Nazism" was present wholesale in just the writings of a single nineteenth century opera composer whose "vision" Hitler allegedly set out to fulfill.
With this you can understand how, after decades of piecing together the detailed puzzle as to the origins of National Socialism, it is incredibly exasperating, and even profoundly insulting to them when someone without a background in academic historiography comes along and arrogantly makes sweeping claims backed with little more than unequivocal assertions of total infallibility that it all originated from Richard Wagner.
In the meanwhile, a whole gaggle of Nazi opera conspiracists currently occupy positions in the art and culture studies departments of academia where they write as though their opera conspiracy theories can be accepted as gospel. They form what Mark Berry has called the "Wagner UFO fraternity"—a fraternity who noddingly peer review one another's writings and approve them for publication in academic journals and books. The end result is a total disconnection between cultural commentators who entertain such speculative Nazi opera conspiracies, and mainstream academic historians who dismiss them with exasperated contempt. Thus if the reader goes from historiographies by mainstream historians to the world of Nazi opera conspiracies, the yawning divide is just as great as that between mainstream historiography and the Nazi UFO conspiracy literature. Both Nazi opera and UFO theorists seem to live in a strange parallel universe where they write oblivious to the realities of mainstream academic historical studies.
This is the reason why when Evans reviewed Ian Kershaw's two volume biography of Hitler at the same time as he reviewed Joachim Köhler's Wagner's Hitler: the Prophet and his Disciple, he dismissed Köhler as not even being even "remotely persuasive". Evans then added that :
Speculations of this kind are a world away in every sense from the most substantial of the books under review here, Ian Kershaw's massive two-volume biography of Hitler.
Evans: Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 37, No. 1 (Jan., 2002), p. 150 (my bold emphasis)
In other words, these Nazi opera conspiracy theories resemble Nazi UFO conspiracies in that they are—in every sense—totally off the planet and out of this world.
I am sure that these academic Nazi UFO conspiracy theorists would strongly object to being lumped together with UFO conspiracy theorists who live on a fantasy world of their own—"a world away in every sense" from credible academic study of the history of National Socialism. However, although all such conspiracy theories have been circulating for decades, the prospects of even one of them being accepted by mainstream academic historians looks profoundly bleak. So if Nazi opera conspiracy theorists would like to continue to press with their demands for historians to totally rewrite history according to the "gross oversimplification and distortion" of their narratives, they are going to have to work immeasurably harder to gain mainstream academic credibility. A number of things have to be formally presented if such conspiracy theorists wish to be taken seriously:
1. Clear primary and independently verifiable evidence demonstrating the direct influence of Wagner's theoretical writings on leading members of the National Socialist party e.g their speeches, testimonies, publications and diary entries. Not speculation, but quality evidence must be presented. Not the musings of some obscure musicologist party member toeing the party line, but someone with direct political influence.
2. Rigorous use of supportive citations. Authors need to use primary bibliographic references to reputable textual sources whose reliability has been independently verified. This means no more use of Hermann Rauschning, and a critical use of Kubizek according to standard practice amongst mainstream historians. No more making up fictitious citations e.g. to non-existent quotations in Mein Kampf tantamount to claiming that on p.X Hitler said that the moon was made of cheese. No more use of secondary bibliographic citations that lead nowhere when chased up. No more referencing other Nazi opera conspiracy literature to reassure each other of the veracity of statements that cannot be otherwise independently verified—until they all refer to each other's secondary literature in a groundless tautology going nowhere. No more speculative interpretations of Wagner's opera libretti, but citation of independently verifiable historical documents.
3. Submission for publication in high impact peer reviewed academic history journals. No more of this business of Nazi conspiracy theorists approving one another's publications in musicology, arts, or cultural journals. Submit your historiography to critical peer review by academic historians. Make sure your arguments are watertight, otherwise you risk being laughed out of court.
4. Make clear your demands for wholesale and radical rewriting of Hitler's biography, along with the history of WWII, the rise of the Dritte Reich and the Holocaust according to an operatically driven historiography. Don't merely state that Wagner was a large, or even the dominant influence on Hitler's ideological life—prove it rather than speculating or insinuating. Don't merely state that the Holocaust was caused by an opera composer—prove your case supported by independently verifiable evidence.
5. Come up with fresh primary evidence that can be independently verified by historians. Nazi opera conspiracies have repeated the same tired arguments like a stuck record for decades. Historians know about all of these already. Repeating the same old unconvincing lies for another several decades will not turn lies into truths if repeated often enough. So to convince historians you will need fresh evidence if your case is going to be reheard.
6. Demonstrate an understanding of the current literature on the Dritte Reich, WWII and the origins of the final solution. Show how your research impacts on the current state of academic historiographic understanding, and convince historians for the need to throw out mainstream narratives in favour of Nazi opera conspiracies.
7. Read Wagner. He left a huge body of theoretical literature spanning several volumes not even counting his volumes of letters. Cite excerpts from his writings in context and not just pluck "choice quotations" to suit your purposes. Or to quote Sir Richard J. Evans on the use of this standard technique amongst Nazi opera conspiracy theorists:
... phrases and quotations are time and again ripped from their context in the writings or sayings of Hitler and Wagner, and made to look as if they are saying the same thing. None of this is remotely persuasive.
Evans. Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 37, No. 1 (Jan., 2002), p. 149
8. Reject ad hominem arguments claiming that mainstream historians dismiss Nazi opera conspiracy theories because they are just Wagner apologists or Hitler apologists. Learn to accept that the reason why mainstream historians reject Nazi opera conspiracies is because they can barely contain their laughter at such out-of-this-world conspiracy theories—just like Nazi UFO conspiracy theories. You have an enormous uphill battle on your hands if you want to be taken seriously.
9. Justify exclusively cultural accounts for the origin of WWII and the Holocaust rather than assuming such accounts are a priori justified. Further, justify the obsessive focus on Wagner to elucidate the allegedly purely cultural origins of WWII and the Holocaust. Hitler implies in Mein Kampf that he has aspirations to be remembered as a great German alongside Frederick the Great, Richard Wagner and Martin Luther. Where is the book entitled Luther's Hitler: the Prophet and his Disciple? And what is the justification for not writing such a book in place of Wagner's Hitler?
10. Cease using the fact that Hitler liked Wagner's music to speculate that therefore only Nazified interpretations of Wagner and his theoretical writings are possible. Hitler also liked Shakespeare and Walt Disney movies. His favourite was Snow White and the Seven Dwarves—does that make Snow White aryan and the seven dwarves Jewish? Does that make Walt Disney a Nazi supporter? Hitler also liked Mozart, Mendelssohn, Johann Strauss, Franz Lehár, and Beethoven. You can speculate endlessly, but you need to rigorously prove that your speculations amount to anything other than Mickey Mouse historiography.
 |
| Hitler probably drew these Disney characters. He was a huge fan of Snow White and the Seven Dwarves. Does this mean that the dwarves are Jewish and that Pinocchio has a long nose because he is a lying Jew? Expect to read Disney's Hitler: the Prophet and his Disciple soon. |
None of these ten demands are unjustified from the perspective of the modern mainstream historian specialising in this era. All I can say to you Nazi opera conspiracy theorists is this: good luck! You have your work cut out for you. The reasons are as follows:
1. Nazi opera conspiracy theories are dependent on the questionable interpretation of a single word, Untergang (going under, downfall, decline, or sometimes "destruction") in Wagner's essay, Judaism in Music, in which Wagner called for the "assimilation" of Jews to become "united and undifferentiated" (einig und unterschieden) from Gentiles. Should history be totally rewritten based on the questionable interpretation of just one word?
2. There is no evidence that Hitler or any other major figure in the National Socialist movement ever read Wagner's Judaism in Music, let alone interpreting that one word, Untergang, as a call for genocide, let alone knowing "every word" of it as Nazi opera conspiracy theorists usually like to fantasise without supporting it with the slightest scrap of evidence. Nor do any major party figures quote the essay or show evidence of even so much as knowing of its existence, let alone basing the core dogma of official party policy entirely on it as Nazi opera conspiracists allege. None of Wagner's theoretical writings feature on the party recommended reading list. None of Wagner's theoretical prose writings feature in Hitler's private library. Should history be totally be rewritten based on the questionable interpretation of a single word from an essay for which no evidence exists that any leading member of the National Socialist Party ever read or quoted from?
3. No evidence exists that the Holocaust was a definite pre-planned "intentionalist" event let alone that it originated in the writings of a nineteenth century opera composer, whose "vision" Hitler set out with the intention to fulfill ever since being taken by his parents to see Lohengrin as a twelve year old boy. If cultural historians wish to reject structuralist arguments and instead argue the case for an operatic intentionalist cause of the Holocaust let them argue it based on sound primary supportive evidence (not speculation). Intentionalist theories are not widely favoured as it is, so operatic intentionalism would represent the extreme monocausal end of the theoretical spectrum. However, I doubt that Nazi opera conspiracy theorists even know what the structuralist vs. intentionalist debate is about to start with.
4. No evidence exists that Hitler's exposure to any art work (whether Disney films, Shakespearean drama or Wagnerian opera) was the decisive personal event that lead to the radicalisation of his political views. Nor does any evidence exist justifying the gross overvaluation of artistic and operatic influences, while ignoring the traumatic effects of WWI, the 1918–19 German Revolution, the Treaty of Versailles, hyperinflation and the Great Depression on the genesis of the political Hitler.
These are enormous, very likely insurmountable, hurdles for Nazi opera conspiracy theorists to try to overcome. However, I doubt anything like an attempt to overcome these issues will ever be presented for peer review by mainstream historians. It is all too easy for opera conspiracy theorists to continue to noddingly approve of each other's work than to submit their ideas to critical external and independent scrutiny by historians. Opera conspiracy theorists up for a challenge should keep in mind that at the moment historians such as Sir Richard J. Evans think that:
[Wagner's] influence on Hitler has often been exaggerated. Hitler never referred to Wagner as a source of his own antisemitism, and there is no evidence that he actually read any of Wagner's writings.
Evans: The Third Reich in Power (my emphasis)
Nor does a copy of any of Wagner's ten volumes of theoretical writings exist in Hitler's private library—whereas the complete Shakespeare does. Yes, historians like Evans and Kershaw are perfectly aware of Kubizek. So opera conspiracy theorists needn't lecture them about the claims by Kubizek that Hitler might have attempted to read some of Wagner's theoretical works when he was seventeen years old—with apparently little or no comprehension. The claims that Hitler "knew every word" of Wagner's theoretical writings made by a couple of authors (Joachim Köhler and Sherree Zalampas) is completely fictitious and these authors don't even try to give us any supportive evidence for their speculations passed off as absolute truth. As usual they just state lies and pass them off as indubitable fact by liberally garnishing their statements with phrases such as "there can be little doubt"—blanket reassurances of infallibility substituted for evidence. Because such statements fly in the face of evidence, historians completely disregard all such Nazi opera conspiracy theories. Brazen assertions of total infallibility fail to impress historians when they are unsupported by even a shred of evidence.
Another thing Nazi opera conspiracy theorists will likely object to is having their ideas labelled as a "conspiracy theory". The fact is that all biographies of Hitler and historiographies of the Dritte Reich contemptuously ignore the Nazi opera conspiracy theorists' claims to the effect that Hitler set out to realise some operatic "vision" on the world's stage, as representing a "gross oversimplification and distortion"—because of a complete lack of evidence to support the case for such a radical rewriting of history. The best that Nazi opera conspiracy theorists can do is say that the dramatic paucity of any mention of ideas from Wagner's theoretical writings in any of the major figures in the National Socialist movement writings or speeches is due to a massive conspiracy of silence. They were so in awe of Wagner that they virtually never mentioned his name out of dumbstruck reverence. With the invocation of a vast conspiracy of silence, where striking lack of evidence is presented as its opposite, and endless speculation is substituted in its place—then you are certainly dealing with a conspiracy theory.
I must say I concur with mainstream academic historians. Nazi opera conspiracy theorists need to be made answerable to history first and foremost. It is completely inadmissible to attack anyone who dismisses Nazi opera conspiracies as nonsense on the basis that this constitutes an "apologist" attitude towards Richard Wagner. It is far less important to defend Richard Wagner than it is to defend history from those who are willing to lie about Hitler, and feel free to substitute fantasy pseudo-histories for genuine academic historiography whenever the fancy takes them. Whether it be Nazi opera conspiracies, Nazi UFO conspiracies, or Holocaust denialist conspiracy theories, they all deserve our utmost contempt for being the gross distortions and abject perversions of history that they are.
No comments:
Post a Comment