The Man Who Said No to Hitler

[George H. Smith]

The following review was written by Terry Teachout, drama critic for the Wall Street Journal. (Teachout also wrote a biogaphy of H.L. Mencken.)

The Man Who Said No to Hitler

His life was not in danger under the Nazis, but his soul was. He chose exile over a devil's bargain

Adolf Busch, the greatest German violinist of the 20th century, is now known only to classical-record collectors who treasure the searchingly eloquent 78s that he cut with Rudolf Serkin, his son-in-law and recital partner, and the Busch Quartet, the ensemble that he led for three decades. But there is another reason to remember him, one that in the long run may well count for as much as the music that he made: Mr. Busch's name is at the very top of the short list of German musicians who refused to kowtow to Adolf Hitler. This latter aspect of his life is described in detail in Tully Potter's "Adolf Busch: The Life of a Honest Musician" (Toccata Press), the first full-length biography of the violinist ever to be published. It is at once a stirring tale and a disturbing one.

Most of us, I suspect, like to think of artists as a breed apart, a cadre of idealists whose souls have been ennobled by long exposure to beauty. The truth, however, is that they are every bit as human as the rest of us, and that a certain number of them are self-centered opportunists who are perfectly willing to ignore evil so long as the evildoers leave them in peace to do their work. That was pretty much what many German musicians did when the Nazis came to power in 1933. Within a matter of days, Hitler and his henchmen started putting into place a policy of systematic persecution of German Jews. Numerous well-known Jewish musicians, including Bruno Walter, Otto Klemperer and Emanuel Feuermann, either were forced out of their posts or quit in protest.

In April, mere weeks after Hitler seized the levers of power, the Busch Quartet decided to stop playing in Germany. Mr. Busch also canceled his remaining recitals with Mr. Serkin, issuing this statement: "Because of the impression made on me by the actions of my Christian compatriots against German Jews…I find it necessary to break off my concert tour in Germany." What makes this act so significant is that Mr. Busch was the only well-known non-Jewish German classical musician to emigrate from Germany solely as a matter of principle—and one of a bare handful of non-Jewish European musicians, including Arturo Toscanini and Pablo Casals, who resolved to stop performing there for the same reason.

Virtually all of the other big names in Austro-German music, including Wilhelm Furtwängler, Walter Gieseking, Herbert von Karajan, Carl Orff and Richard Strauss, stayed behind, some because they were active supporters of Hitler and others because they thought that the Nazis would dry up and blow away. Mr. Busch knew better. In a prophetic letter, he wrote, "Some of them believe that if they only 'play along,' the atrocities and injustice that are part and parcel of the movement will be tempered, can be turned around…they do not notice that they can only have a retarding effect, that the atrocities will still take place, only perhaps a bit later."

Mr. Busch's principled stand was motivated in part by the fact that many of his closest friends and colleagues were Jewish, including Mr. Serkin and Karl Doktor, the violist of the Busch Quartet. But the Nazis, who were keenly aware of the force of public opinion, were prepared to look the other way at such things in order to prevent prominent non-Jewish Germans from leaving the country in protest. As late as 1937, it was discreetly made known to Mr. Busch that if he returned, the Nazi government would let Mr. Serkin come back as well. "If you hang Hitler in the middle, with Goering on the left and Goebbels on the right, I'll return to Germany," he replied.

As anti-Semitic laws spread across the continent, Mr. Busch responded by canceling there as well, and at the end of 1939 he, Mr. Serkin and the members of the Busch Quartet moved to the U.S. What happened next was a tragedy. Though Mr. Serkin was quickly able to establish himself as a top-tier soloist, America in the 1940s had an oversupply of famous violinists and a limited appetite for chamber music. Mr. Busch was able to eke out a living, but his days of fame were over. Moreover, he despaired over what had become of his beloved native land. As Mr. Serkin recalled years later, "He was so German…and when that shame came, he felt responsible somehow. I think it would have been easier for him if he had been Jewish." He died a disappointed man.

Do you find Mr. Busch's story inspiring? If so, then ask yourself this: How much would you be willing to inconvenience yourself over a matter of moral principle? Would you sign a petition? Help a friend who was being persecuted? Pull the plug on your career? Or would you simply put your head down and hope that your fellow countrymen would come to their senses sooner or later? Adolf Busch paid an awesomely high price for his beliefs. Of course he did the right thing—but what would you do?

—Mr. Teachout, the Journal's drama critic, writes "Sightings" every other Friday. He is the author of "Pops: A Life of Louis Armstrong." Write to him at tteachout@wsj.com.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703296604576005193516575586.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_TOPRightCarousel_2

Ghs

[9thdoctor]

It's a very nice article, but a bit inaccurate. Busch wasn't "the only well-known non-Jewish German classical musician to emigrate from Germany solely as a matter of principle", add the conductor Erich Kleiber at least, there are others but he's the first I thought of off the top of my head. Another, grayer case was Knappertsbusch, who moved to Austria when the Nazi's came to power, then was stuck after the Anschluss.

Also, to call Busch "he greatest German violinist of the 20th century" is a bit much, but I'll leave that be.

Edited December 11, 2010 by Ninth Doctor

[9thdoctor]

Wilhelm Furtwängler, Walter Gieseking, Herbert von Karajan, Carl Orff and Richard Strauss, stayed behind, some because they were active supporters of Hitler and others because they thought that the Nazis would dry up and blow away.

Not one of the people named were "active" supporters of Hitler. Furtwängler in particular stuck his neck out, see the film Taking Sides. Orff was friends with the White Rose resistance members, though when they were caught he literally ran for the hills (it's speculated that he could have helped them).

An interesting case is Emmerich Kálmán, Rand's favorite composer. Hitler offered to make him an "honorary Aryan", though he was Jewish. He declined and went into exile. Another interesting case was the Wagnerian tenor Max Lorenz. He was married to a Jew (as was von Karajan, btw), and was homosexual. He was caught in flagrante delicto with a man, and harbored a Jew in his attic, but the Nazi's didn't touch him. Hitler had to have his Wagner, and heldentenors are a rare breed. Call it Nazi casuistry.

[Rich Engle]

I wouldn't be nitpicking that story.

To answer your question, George--would I compromise? No. There are some things they just can't take from you, and it really fires the bastards up when you remind them of that. After all, we are Professionals. . .

rde

Edited December 12, 2010 by Rich Engle

[9thdoctor]

I wouldn't be nitpicking that story.

It’s journalism, so accuracy counts. There’s a nice moral at the end, which is why I praised the article, but the facts presented don’t line up. Compare to this piece of claptrap, critiquing a piece of historical fiction for not being journalistically accurate. There are good replies from someone calling himself “ND” if you scroll to the bottom.

[Jonathan]

Compare to this piece of claptrap, critiquing a piece of historical fiction for not being journalistically accurate. There are good replies from someone calling himself “ND” if you scroll to the bottom.

I scrolled down and didn't see any replies. Have they been removed, or is my device somehow not loading them? When it comes to laying down the Objectivish Esthetic Law, Cline is probably the most prominent of the Little Ayn Rand Clones, and I think I'd really enjoy seeing you address his hyperventilations. Any chance you'd be willing to repost your comments on OL, or send them to me in a PM?

J

[Brant Gaede]

Compare to this piece of claptrap, critiquing a piece of historical fiction for not being journalistically accurate. There are good replies from someone calling himself "ND" if you scroll to the bottom.

I scrolled down and didn't see any replies. Have they been removed, or is my device somehow not loading them? When it comes to laying down the Objectivish Esthetic Law, Cline is probably the most prominent of the Little Ayn Rand Clones, and I think I'd really enjoy seeing you address his hyperventilations. Any chance you'd be willing to repost your comments on OL, or send them to me in a PM?

They are still there. Simply scroll all the way down without stopping until the end then go back a little.

--Brant

[9thdoctor]

I scrolled down and didn't see any replies. Have they been removed, or is my device somehow not loading them?

Really? I just went back there and both are showing, maybe it’s automatically logging me in and showing me the replies, but no one else is seeing them. Sneaky. Maybe it’s like Harriman’s page, they only show what they want seen (no criticism). Anyway, here they are:

First:

Imagine, if you will, a rewrite of The Fountainhead. Peter Keating, at the end of his life, reflects on how he destroyed the life of his more gifted competitor, Howard Roark. After helping Keating design Cosmo-Slotnick, and years of struggling to get his own work produced, Roark starves to death doing hard labor in the valley. In the course of the narrative, the audience comes to see what drove Keating: second-handedness, envy, etc. He blames/curses god for giving Roark talent, when he’s the religious person. Obviously a happy ending won’t be in the offing, however we find that Roark’s path breaking work, such as was produced, has had influence that eclipses Keating’s voluminous yet forgettable work. Could the themes of The Fountainhead be successfully conveyed this way? It turns it into a tragedy, however, did Kira make it across the border?

I couldn’t disagree more with this review of Amadeus, it’s a terrific movie. There’s certainly artistic licence taken, but it’s not a documentary, there are themes, motifs, etc. integrated into the plot, which is masterfully crafted.

If you visit Mozart’s home in Vienna you’ll find ample documentation on display that Mozart had a very high income (double that of an attorney, as I recall) during his good years, however, he lived large, gambled, and didn’t accumulate savings. Then the Emperor died and his successor didn’t like Mozart. The connection between The Marriage of Figaro and the French Revolution may have fed into this. In any event, Mozart wasn’t broke when he died, but his ship was sinking. He needed to move to Prague, or somewhere else. His wife had to sell off furniture to pay debts after he died.

The film would have you think he was in trouble all along, and Salieri was behind it. It makes for a good story, and while they were rivals, it wasn’t quite that bitter. In fact, Mozart joked in a letter that he was going to make Salieri go broke hiring people to attend his performances and not applaud. Apparently that sort of thing went on back then. However, Mozart’s son studied music with Salieri, later. Salieri’s portrait is on display in Mozart’s home, I’ve been there, I’ve seen it. To say that “everyone knows” about evil Salieri killing Mozart is false; “everyone knows” that Amadeus is a fine piece of historical fiction. Stay in a hotel in Salzburg and you’ll find that there’s an Amadeus channel on your TV, playing the movie from start to finish non-stop. There’s also a channel for The Sound of Music.

I’d like to invite the author to name a film about a composer that satisfied him. One that, presumably, didn’t vary from the historical record in an unacceptable way. Beethoven, Chopin, and Wagner each had high-profile biopics in the last 30 years, perhaps one of those?

Second, a few hours later:

Thought I’d pop back in just to suggest that your apparent attitude towards historical fiction smacks of naturalism. How does an author practice selectivity in historical fiction if they can’t manipulate the events and characters?

Secondly, it’s worth noting that the tale of Salieri confessing to killing Mozart is contemporary with his (Salieri’s) death, and was credited (and publicized) by Mozart’s widow. Her motives were questionable (her second husband wrote a biography of Mozart), and the story wasn’t taken seriously. It’s never been taken seriously by scholars. However Pushkin, commonly regarded as the Russian Shakespeare, didn’t invent the story out of whole cloth. You mock Shaffer for reusing the story, however Shakespeare and many other great writers have reworked stories to make them their own. Some accuse Rand of lifting Atlas Shrugged from Garet Garrett’s The Driver, among other lesser known works. Anthem from We. Have you read Pushkin’s version (I haven’t), does it compare to Shaffer’s? Also, Shakespeare’s Richard III is notoriously unfair to it’s title character, everyone knows this, it’s regarded as a masterpiece nonetheless.

Something I don’t understand: are you claiming that Amadeus diminishes Mozart’s greatness? How, by depicting him as crude and immature? We have many of his letters, we know that he had an outrageously scatological sense of humor. He was always talking about farts and defecation. Beyond that, it is recorded that he got the original Elvira (from Don Giovanni) to scream the way he wanted by touching her in an inappropriate way. There are other anecdotes which support the characterization in Amadeus, maybe they exaggerated, so what? Or is it your interpretation that Shaffer is saying Mozart’s talent came from God?

[9thdoctor]

I like the line "smacks of naturalism". In Objectispeak, that's pretty harsh, and yes, I meant it to sting.

The Beethoven, Chopin, and Wagner Biopics each used dramatic license roughly equal to Amadeus, I mean Chopin with dueling pistols? Come on! Wagner confronting Meyerbeer to his face with antisemitic nastiness? He wrote Jewishness in Music under a pseudonym, and didn't name Meyerbeer until after he (Meyerbeer) was dead. The Beethoven one was also funny, a researcher showed later that when he wrote the Immortal Beloved letters, Johanna Beethoven was in jail for prostitution. Yeah, sure she was the addressee...

Worthwhile movies all, IMO.

Edited December 12, 2010 by Ninth Doctor

[Reidy]

Marlene Dietrich is another wnom the Nazis wooed unsuccessfully, though she was in the US already and didn't pay such a high personal price for her exile.

[Rich Engle]

Marlene Dietrich is another wnom the Nazis wooed unsuccessfully, though she was in the US already and didn't pay such a high personal price for her exile.

What about Leni Riefensthal?

No. I would not sacrifice my art to a psycho-fuck just because he gave me budget and good gear. Fuck that. Never.

[BaalChatzaf]

Marlene Dietrich is another wnom the Nazis wooed unsuccessfully, though she was in the US already and didn't pay such a high personal price for her exile.

What about Leni Riefensthal?

No. I would not sacrifice my art to a psycho-fuck just because he gave me budget and good gear. Fuck that. Never.

Reifenthal's problem was that she did not see a problem. She was a cinematic genius and an ethical imbecile.

Ba'al Chatatz

[Jonathan]

Anyway, here they are...

Thanks, ND.

I'm glad that you pointed out to Cline that Amadeus is not a documentary. You'd think it was obvious, but he seems not to have been aware of it. I can just see the dipshit going to see Inglourious Basterds at his local theater and throwing an Objecti-tantrum, followed by a heroic, multi-page speech to his fellow audience members explaining the fact that Hitler and his high command didn't die in the manner depicted in the film, and instructing them how to judge a vile mediocrity like Tarantino accordingly.

J

[9thdoctor]

I'm glad that you pointed out to Cline that Amadeus is not a documentary.

It’s funny that I’ve read other things by him I disagreed with strongly (anything about Muslims), but this one set me off. Pinnacle of Cultural Corruption? I find that so offensive, I have a visceral reaction to it. I think now I know how Perigo feels when someone says Mario Lanza was no big deal, and that Slayer is better. I don’t like this feeling…

I didn’t like Inglourious Basterds very much (only saw it once). Reservoir Dogs is his best, IMO.

[George H. Smith]

I scrolled down and didn't see any replies. Have they been removed, or is my device somehow not loading them?

Really? I just went back there and both are showing, maybe it’s automatically logging me in and showing me the replies, but no one else is seeing them. Sneaky. Maybe it’s like Harriman’s page, they only show what they want seen (no criticism).

I can see both replies as well, and I've never logged in to that website.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

Anyway, here they are...

Thanks, ND.

I'm glad that you pointed out to Cline that Amadeus is not a documentary. You'd think it was obvious, but he seems not to have been aware of it. I can just see the dipshit going to see Inglourious Basterds at his local theater and throwing an Objecti-tantrum, followed by a heroic, multi-page speech to his fellow audience members explaining the fact that Hitler and his high command didn't die in the manner depicted in the film, and instructing them how to judge a vile mediocrity like Tarantino accordingly.

J

Cline writes: “Everything you’ve heard is true,” ends the narrator of the trailer for Amadeus. Well, not everything. In fact, not much is...."

If you watch the trailer (posted below, but out of sync), you will find that Cline misrepresents the comment at the end. The narrator says: "Amadeus -- the man, the music, the magic, the madness, the murder, the mystery, the motion picture. Amadeus -- everything you've heard is true."

I went to see Amadeus on the first day of its release in Westwood, partly because of the publicity that had preceded it. When the narrator says, "Amadeus -- everything you've heard is true," he is referring to the prerelease scuttlebutt about the movie itself. To suggest that "everything you've heard is true" refers to the information contained in the trailer is ludicrous, since it contains virtually no information.

Amadeus remains one of my favorite films of all time. I have watched it over twenty times, and it never gets stale. F. Murray Abraham (as Salieri) delivers one of the best performances ever in a movie, and the writing is superb.

The thing that first struck me about the film was its quasi-Randian theme, i.e., the envious reaction of a mediocrity to a man of genius. Of course, the story is much more complex than this. If Salieri is a villain of sorts, he is a sympathetic one in some respects. I rarely get chills when watching a movie, but the scene where Salieri renounces God and burns a crucifix does it to me every time.

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIThWIwOcag?fs=1&hl=en_US&rel=0"></param><param'>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIThWIwOcag?fs=1&hl=en_US&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIThWIwOcag?fs=1&hl=en_US&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

Ghs

[rhartford]

. . .

Amadeus remains one of my favorite films of all time. I have watched it over twenty times, and it never gets stale. F. Murray Abraham (as Salieri) delivers one of the best performances ever in a movie, and the writing is superb.

The thing that first struck me about [Amadeus] was its quasi-Randian theme, i.e., the envious reaction of a mediocrity to a man of genius. Of course, the story is much more complex than this. If Salieri is a villain of sorts, he is a sympathetic one in some respects. I rarely get chills when watching a movie . . .

I second your evaluation. For me, two scenes that are wonderfully written and masterfully acted, provide the sympathy - of a sort - for Salieri. First, the scene where Salieri receives Mozart's original manuscripts, forgets his envy for a moment, and simply revels in the work of the mind of a genius. Second, the scene near the end where Salieri is transcribing Mozart's dictation of the score of the Requiem. Salieri's singular focus on trying to understand Mozart's development of the piece, and Salieri's obvious appreciation for Mozart's genius, were beautifully portrayed by F. Murray Abraham. Those two scenes effectively dramatize Rand's emphasis on the importance of praise for the good as a key element of justice.

Edited December 13, 2010 by Robert Hartford

[George H. Smith]

. . .

Amadeus remains one of my favorite films of all time. I have watched it over twenty times, and it never gets stale. F. Murray Abraham (as Salieri) delivers one of the best performances ever in a movie, and the writing is superb.

The thing that first struck me about [Amadeus] was its quasi-Randian theme, i.e., the envious reaction of a mediocrity to a man of genius. Of course, the story is much more complex than this. If Salieri is a villain of sorts, he is a sympathetic one in some respects. I rarely get chills when watching a movie . . .

I second your evaluation. For me, two scenes that are wonderfully written and masterfully acted, provide the sympathy - of a sort - for Salieri. First, the scene where Salieri receives Mozart original manuscripts, forgets his envy for a monent, and simply revels in the work of the mind of a genius. Second, the scene near the end where Salieri is transcribing Mozart's dictation of the score of the Requiem. Salieri's singular focus on trying to understand Mozart's development of the piece, and Salieri's obvious appreciation for Mozart's genius, were beautifully portrayed by F. Murray Abraham. Those two scenes effectively dramatize Rand's emphasis on the importance of praise for the good as a key element of justice.

I agree that the two scenes you mention are standouts. The climactic transcription scene is especially brilliant. After seeing the movie for the first time, I remarked to a friend that I didn't recall ever seeing the creative process portrayed so well in a movie. This is not an easy thing to do.

Ghs

[PDS]

I'm glad that you pointed out to Cline that Amadeus is not a documentary.

It’s funny that I’ve read other things by him I disagreed with strongly (anything about Muslims), but this one set me off. Pinnacle of Cultural Corruption? I find that so offensive, I have a visceral reaction to it. I think now I know how Perigo feels when someone says Mario Lanza was no big deal, and that Slayer is better. I don’t like this feeling…

I didn’t like Inglourious Basterds very much (only saw it once). Reservoir Dogs is his best, IMO.

Inglorious Bastards is best turned off after the chick eats her danish.

[sbeaulieu]

I didn’t like Inglourious Basterds very much (only saw it once). Reservoir Dogs is his best, IMO.

Inglorious Bastards is best turned off after the chick eats her danish.

Sadly, the only part I liked was the scene where the German officer was talking to the man hiding his Jewish friends. The cunning of the character was well done. The fact he was the bad guy didn't sit well with me given that I despise Nazis. But... maybe that was the intent.

Not Quentin's best work, but I still like his style. Pulp Fiction and Four Rooms are my favorites of his.

Back on topic, I'd not settle for comfort if it meant sitting idly by as my friends were persecuted.

~ Shane

[Jonathan]

It’s funny that I’ve read other things by him I disagreed with strongly (anything about Muslims), but this one set me off. Pinnacle of Cultural Corruption? I find that so offensive, I have a visceral reaction to it.

I think that years ago I would have had a strong visceral reaction as well, but now I just see it as a typical rant by someone whose aesthetic sensibilities have been damaged by Objecti-Fever.

I think now I know how Perigo feels when someone says Mario Lanza was no big deal, and that Slayer is better. I don’t like this feeling…

Someone has said that Lanza was no big deal and that Slayer is better?

J

[Jonathan]

Amadeus remains one of my favorite films of all time. I have watched it over twenty times, and it never gets stale. F. Murray Abraham (as Salieri) delivers one of the best performances ever in a movie, and the writing is superb.

Amadeus is one of my all-time favorites as well. I think one of the best scenes is the one toward the beginning where Mozart comes to Vienna to play his music for the Prince Archbishop, and Saleri is trying to guess which of the young men present might be Mozart -- "Did it show? Is talent like that written on the face?" -- only to be shocked that the "giggling, dirty creature" he'd just seen "crawling on the floor" was the one that God had "chosen to be his instrument." I like the bursting of Saleri's apparent expectation that a great creator would be stately.

J

[Jonathan]

Has anyone here read any of Edward Cline's novels? I haven't, but, having read some of his opinions, I'm wondering if his art is as tainted with Rand-wannabe-ism as his cultural commentary. Do his novels project an independent vision and unique artistic flavor, or do they seem to be something more like selective re-creations of reality according to Cline's attempts to conform to Ayn Rand's metaphysical value-judgments? Do they stray in any way from Rand's moral/aesthetic rules and tastes?

J

[9thdoctor]

now I just see it as a typical rant by someone whose aesthetic sensibilities have been damaged by Objecti-Fever.

Oh yeah, me too. But this one set me off, it’s hard to explain why. I think the deciding factor was that no one had commented at all, I felt that this can’t stand, someone’s got to log on and tell this guy and future readers that he’s an idiot. Then it turned into something intelligent, if a little rambling.

Someone has said that Lanza was no big deal and that Slayer is better?

At the same time? Doubt it. But there’s someone named Goode (everyone calls him Baaade) that likes Slayer. I’m not going to go look for it, those threads are brain dead. Can’t believe that site.

Amadeus remains one of my favorite films of all time. I have watched it over twenty times, and it never gets stale. F. Murray Abraham (as Salieri) delivers one of the best performances ever in a movie, and the writing is superb.

Amadeus is one of my all-time favorites as well.

BTW, if y’all haven’t seen the expanded directors cut, it’s very worthwhile. One of the expanded scenes is here, starting about 8 1/2 minutes in. Damn, I can’t find the next part so you can see how the change turns out. Oh well, just rent it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKoOzwue-kU&feature=related