192 Chapter 8
vocalsupportfromthe vastmajorityof Germany’s bohemianartists.Germany’s bohe-
mianartistssharedHitler’s animustowardthe bourgeoisie.ParisiansocialscientistEric
Michaudmakesa tellingobservationaboutWaltherFunk—Hitler’s economicsminister
and the government-appointedchiefexecutiveof the Reichsbank.Funkwas“seenin the
companyof artistsmoreoftenthanamongbusinessmenandbankers.”^110 Indeed,adds
JoachimFest,whenHitlerwasbut a youngmanhis landladysawhimas “a realbohe-
mian.”^111
Germany’s bohemianartistsstronglyurgedthe publicto placeNSDAPmembersinto
politicaloffices.Complementarily,theyspokeout againstthe laissez-faireliberalsand
otherpoliticalparties.Theyperformedtheseactionson accountof the NSDAPvowingto
exploitany positionit mightoccupyin governmentto enlargetax patronagefor paint-
ings,symphonies,andsculptures.Artistsfearingfor theirincomeformedan association
in 1928calledthe CombatLeaguefor GermanCulture—Kampfbundfor short—thatadvo-
catedtax subsidiesto arts throughits periodicalDeutscheKultur-Wacht(GermanCulture
Watch). Its articles,writesAlanSteinweis,“displayedsensitivityto the concretesocioeco-
nomicimpactof Weimarera developments(bothrealandimagined)on artists,calling
attentionto the ravagesof capitalismon culturallife. For example,manyarticlessketched
out ideasfor rationalizationof the Germantheatereconomy,emphasizingthe themeof
de-liberalization,whichusuallyentaileda combinationof professionalizationmeasures,
workcreationprograms,and audiencemass-subscriptionarrangements.Similarly,in the
fieldof musicthe Kampfbundcalledfor greaterofficialregulationof the progressive
‘mechanization’ of musicthroughradio,film,andrecords... Culturalrenewaland
structuralde-liberalizationof artisticlife wereseenas two sidesof the samecoin.”
JosephGoebbelsstayedtrueto his pledgeto havetaxesfinancethe arts,taskingthe
ReichChamberof Culturewithdispersalof theseoutlays.On November27, 1936,he
formallyannouncedthatthe governmentagency“regulates” the artist’s “materialneeds
and “provideshim,as far as possible,withsecurityagainstold age and disease.”
Steinweisgoeson that the NaziGermanculturalchambers“actedas agentsofvölkisch
paternalismby promotingthe expansionof the socialinsurancesystemto severalcatego-
ries of hithertounprotectedartists.... Finally,the chamberspreserved,and in somecases
expanded, the various social and professional services offered to artists by the
Berufsverbändeof the WeimarRepublic.” Therefore,Steinweiscontinues,we haveevery
indication“that Goebbels—and Hitlertoo—sincerelysoughtthe expansionof socialinsu-
rancefor Germanartists.. .” Consequently,between 1934 and 1936 the Nazis’ agencies
“actedtogetherin issuinga seriesof wageordersand otherregulationsintendedto create
a frameworkof minimumwages,fees,andprices.Thechiefgoalwasto guaranteea
reasonablelevelof incomefor artistsin employment.” For instance,in 1934Germany’s
TheaterChamber“mandatedminimumsalariesfor theaterpersonnelemployedby Berlin
theaters.” The ThirdReich“sponsoredor cosponsoredconcerts,theatricalperformances,
exhibitions,and otherculturalprograms.Fromtimeto timethe chamberswerealsoable
to set asidefundsfor stipendsto supportartistsin needof work.... Becausetheaterwas
largelya stateenterprise,the theaterprofessionsbenefiteddirectlyfromthe Naziregime’s
increasein directsubventionsto the arts.Accordingto the estimateof onehistorian,
appropriationsby the Reichgovernmentfor theateraloneclimbedfromjust underRM 10
millionin 1934to almostRM 45 millionin 1942.”^112
Consequently,an articlein a 1934issueofVolkischerBeobachterproclaimed,“German
artistsare gratefulto the Führerfor his greatand warminterest.... In the Reichof Adolf
Hitlerthereis not a singleGermanartistwhodoesnot respondaffirmatively,out of his
deepestconvictions,to the Führer’s planand spiritin bothpoliticsand art.”^113
Thus,analyzesEricMichaud,it wasthrougha tacitarrangementthata numberof
Germany’s bohemianartists“transferredtheirlibertyandstrengthto the personof the