The Führer versusFree Enterprise 191Consideranotherissuein whichthe Naziprogrammightbe consideredwiseby the
standardsof the turnof the twenty-firstcentury—guncontrol.The ThirdReichdefinitely
did not inventguncontrol—this policywasenactedin the WeimarRepublicin the years
subsequentto the FirstWorldWar,and it probablywouldhaveremainedin placehad the
Naziregimenevertakenover.Nevertheless,contradictingwhatmightbe expectedof a
right-wingideologue,AdolfHitlerfelt comfortablewithguncontrolmeasureson the
books.^105 Givenwhathe wantedto do to them,the Führerparticularlyfoundit advisable
to deprivethe Jewsof theirarms.Althoughthereis somecontroversyaboutwhetherthis
interviewis historicallyauthentic,one allegedinterviewwithHitlerquoteshimsaying,
“The mostfoolishmistakewe couldpossiblymakewouldbe to allowthe subjectracesto
possessarms.Historyshowsthatall conquerorswhohaveallowedtheirsubjectracesto
carryarmshavepreparedtheirowndownfallby so doing.”^106 Supposingthatthatinter-
viewturnsout inauthentic,it remainstruethatthe Naziregimemaintainedguncontrol
anddid not findthatit conflictedwithits politicalprogram.^107 RichardGrunbergeris
thereforeincorrectto assertthatthe Nazismisidentifiedtheirideologyas “‘Socialism’
where‘SocialDarwinism’ wouldhavebeenmoreappropriate” a label.^108 At this point,
we recognizethattherewereno socialDarwinistsbut thatthe Naziswereindeedsocial-
ists.
Moreover,Nazitreatmentof the arts coincideswiththe modern popularopinion
aboutgovernmentsubsidiesto artists.
Artistsand the Nazis
SometimesI heara story,perhapscherishedamongmodernbohemianpainters,musi-
cians,andotherartists,thatis to the effectof the following:from 1920 to 1933,before
Germany’s WeimarRepublicmetamorphoseditselfintoHitler’s ThirdReich,the artistic
communityimmediatelyopposedthe NaziParty.Thiswasthe inevitableresultof the
cultureclashbetweenleft-wingartistsandNazis.TheNazis,we are reminded,were
uptight,anal-retentive,censorious, bourgeoisbores.Conversely,left-wingartistsare crea-
tive bohemianswhoopposeany and everyvariationof censorship.
An informativeauthorityon thisaspectof historyis AlanE. Steinweis,the Hymen
RosenbergProfessorof ModernEuropeanHistoryand JudaicStudiesat the Universityof
Nebraska,Lincoln.Dr. Steinweisconcursthatthe “pictureusuallypainted” in sucha
recountingof events“is onein whichthe regime actedandGermanartistsreacted”
(emphasishis).Onceat the helmof government,the mythcontinues,the Nazisclamped
downon the bohemianartistsandruinedthem.As Steinweisparaphrasesthe tale,the
regimeresorted“to monetaryfines,professionalbans,andevenconcentrationcamps
whenit becamenecessaryto disciplinewaywardartists.”^109 Afterward,art in NaziGer-
manycouldonlybe createdby commercialistichackswhowouldnot havebecomewell-
renownedmastersif the WeimarRepublichad not descendedinto tyranny.
Thisfablesoundsso plausiblebecauseit speaksto archetypesformedamongpolitical-
ly correctWesternhippiesin the late 1960sandearly1970s.Fascistsrepresentthe mili-
tary-industrialcomplexand The Man.Contrariwise,the left-wingbohemianartistswere
supposedlythe prototypicalinspirationfor the hippieswhowouldrebelagainstsucha
repressive,suffocatingmilitary-industrialsystem.The historicaldata,however,shedlight
on sometruthsthatare inconvenientfor thosewhowouldliketo thinkthatartistic
bohemianismis anathemato everythingfor whichthe Nazisstood.
It cannotbe deniedthat,subsequentto the full establishmentof this despoticreign,the
Naziregimeendedup censoringanyart of whichit did not approve—particularlyart
criticalof the Naziregimeitself.Nevertheless,the recordalsoevincesthatwhenthe
NSDAPcampaignedfor politicalinfluencein the late 1920sandearly1930s,it received