{"id":591,"date":"2023-06-12T20:40:07","date_gmt":"2023-06-12T20:40:07","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.critical-stages.org\/27\/?p=591"},"modified":"2026-05-28T15:33:05","modified_gmt":"2026-05-28T15:33:05","slug":"theatre-as-weapon-of-war-german-language-theatres-across-occupied-europe-during-wwii","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.critical-stages.org\/27\/theatre-as-weapon-of-war-german-language-theatres-across-occupied-europe-during-wwii\/","title":{"rendered":"Theatre as Weapon of War: German Language Theatres Across Occupied Europe During WWII"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Anselm Heinrich<\/strong>*<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Abstract<\/strong><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

The Second World War went beyond previous military conflicts. It was not only about specific geographical gains or economic goals, but about cultural supremacy, about the brutal and lasting reshaping of Europe. In this essay I will explore the part that theatre played in this conflict \u2013 both with a view to Nazi propaganda and the reality of German language productions in heavily subsidised theatres across the continent. With the beginning of the war German theatre was seen to be a cultural extension of the military machine and as key to Nazi Germany\u2019s total war effort. Covering theatres in Oslo, Riga, Lille, \u0141\u00f3d\u017a, Krakow, Warsaw, Prague, The Hague and Kiev, I look at the history and context of their operation; the wider political, cultural and propagandistic implications in view of their function in wartime; and their legacies. I am the author of Theatre in Europe Under German Occupation<\/font> (Routledge, 2017) and will draw on this book throughout, as it focuses for the first time on Nazi Germany\u2019s attempts to control and shape the cultural sector across occupied Europe and sheds new light on the importance of theatre for the regime\u2019s military and political goals.

Keywords:<\/strong> theatre, World War II, Occupation, Europe, propaganda, theatre programmes, theatre as institution<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In 1943, four years into the Second World War, eminent theatre academic and devout National Socialist Heinz Kindermann outlined the role German theatre was supposed to play during the conflict:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

At all those places where German culture now gains a foothold or where the old German cultural soil is newly farmed, it is not only German factories and schools, which are being built, but also German theatres. German actors, directors and set designers travel to The Hague, to Krakow and into the Ukraine, they go from Oslo to Athens. Everywhere German theatre represents German culture, German manners and German language to the outposts of German labour and military force, but it also speaks to Germany\u2019s friends from other nations (Kindermann, Theater und Nation<\/em> 61).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On the one hand, this reading of theatre\u2019s cultural importance and transformative powers corresponded to a particular central European appreciation of the performing arts. On the other, Kindermann went far beyond this reading and attributed additional qualities to the theatre as advancing Germany\u2019s war effort, even increasing and substantiating Germany\u2019s hold on Europe. The spreading of German language theatre across Europe was seen as crucial for the regime to establish a \u201cfoothold\u201d in these areas and make them susceptible to and appreciative of German domination. The Nazis expected that their substantial and continuous investment was valued as a serious commitment to the newly acquired territories and read both as a sign of confidence and a signal of permanence (Abbey and Havekamp 263).<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"
Nazi-Germany Axis Occupied Europe, 1943. Photo: Web<\/a><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

This reading of theatre\u2019s role in war time corresponded to an understanding of the war itself as going beyond previous military conflicts. This war was not solely about specific geographical gains or economic goals; the Nazi \u201cwar of ideologies\u201d was a fundamental struggle about Lebensraum<\/em>, about new territories for a superior and growing \u201cGermanic master race,\u201d and a whole continent turning into \u201ca mere object of German desires\u201d (Hirschfeld 87). The \u201cpeople without space,\u201d a term Hans Grimm had popularized in his best-selling novel in 1926, justly embarked on a lasting reshaping of Europe (Hitler 732, 740). The cultural campaign the Nazis conducted alongside was part of this total war of annihilation and Germanification.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Nazi interest in the theatre is not surprising given the influential discourse in Germany of theatre as contributing to one\u2019s cultural education. After the accession of power in 1933, the Nazis were keen to be seen to support an established institution at the heart of the culturally minded German middle classes. The 1930s were \u201cboom years\u201d for German theatres, and funding to the theatre throughout the Third Reich significantly exceeded the support available to the cinema. Regular subsidies rose to unprecedented heights, new performance venues opened and new jobs were created. During the war, the Nazi regime was at pains not to let the war affect Germany\u2019s cultural life. Theatre performances had to continue at all costs, and when Hamburg\u2019s Gauleiter<\/em> enquired on 1 September 1939 (the day German troops entered Poland) how he should communicate \u201cthe probable closure [of all theatres] for the duration,\u201d he received a furious reply within 20 minutes. Rainer Schl\u00f6sser, leading official and Germany\u2019s National Dramaturge (Reichsdramaturg<\/em>), made it clear that \u201cthe closure of theatres was completely out of the question\u201d (R55\/20258, 214\u201315). Goebbels reacted angrily to suggestions at the end of 1942 that small theatres should be closed in view of the increasingly demanding war effort (Goebbels 1941\u20131945<\/em>, vol. 6, 416). Until the end of the war \u201cHitler was anxious for Germany to retain its character as the leading cultural nation\u201d (Goebbels 1941\u201345<\/em>, vol. 7, 608).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The amount of funding available in terms of subsidies and capital expenditure, the speed at which theatres were renovated and opened across occupied Europe, the way in which the infrastructure of performance was improved with added spaces, workshops, costumes and properties, and the general effort in transporting whole ensembles across the continent to perform in the far West in Lisboa, the East in Kiev, the far North in Narvik or the far South in Athens, is simply staggering. In terms of sheer scale alone, the German Theaterpolitik<\/em> of World War II is unprecedented. However, for Nazi commentators this was not only a question of scale but also, crucially, a question of quality, both from a craft and an aesthetic point of view. Posen\u2019s mayor Scheffler in a typical statement summed up the task of the local theatre as \u201ca space for the fostering of the most noble German art, an agent for Germany\u2019s cultural intentions and for the national socialist ideology in the German East\u201d (Herder Institut Marburg, 34 VIII P120 Z23). The demands on repertoires expressed in statements such as these left theatre makers in no doubt as to what they ought to produce: the classics of the German repertoire (Goethe, Lessing, Schiller, Kleist and Shakespeare), grand opera, as well as nationalistic and v\u00f6lkisch<\/em> plays by politically \u201creliable\u201d playwrights.<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"
Photo: Anselm Heinrich<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

In this essay, I will discuss officially supported (that is, subsidised) German language theatres across Nazi-occupied Europe between 1938 and 1945, with a particular focus on theatres in Poland (Lodsch\/Litzmannstadt, Posen, Krakau), the Czech Republic (Prague), France (Lille), the Netherlands (Den Haag\/The Hague), Norway (Oslo) and Latvia (Riga). My methodological approach combines research into institutional structures, cultural policy and theoretical debates, with theatre repertoires, and it has been carried out in a range of national, regional and local archives across Europe, but chiefly in the German Federal Archives in Berlin. I have worked with programme notes, season reviews, finance reports, official, internal and private correspondence, press reviews and speeches. The focus on repertoires assumes that their outlook and composition mattered and that they played an important role within a wider framework of cultural history. Research on the topic is scarce and largely assumes that these theatres were a \u201cunique failure\u201d and left no trace, \u201cno legacy of any sort\u201d (Abbey and Havekamp 285\u201386), and that Nazi cultural policy in general failed because theatres largely refrained from producing the officially supported overtly political repertoire.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Realities of Occupation<\/strong><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

Following military action, experts moved into the occupied areas to check on available theatre spaces. In a report provided for the Propaganda Ministry from summer 1940, theatre scholar Heinz Kindermann called for a lasting German theatrical presence on the Balkans. He suggested increased touring activity in Yoguslavia\u2014for example, by the Frankfurt and Vienna opera houses, or the Vienna Burgtheater<\/em>. Performances should not only take place in large cities such as Belgrade or Zagreb but also in other smaller places. Kindermann detailed that the Berlin Philharmonic would go down well in Bulgaria, and audiences in Sofia would love to see the Burgtheater<\/em> with Heinrich George (R55\/20503, 286).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Once occupied, the Germans were keen to get their ventures off the ground quickly as a string of new or newly renovated theatres opened with grand celebrations amid substantial media coverage. As a rule, these theatres presented a repertoire exclusively in the German language, although this included plays originally written in another language which were performed in German translation. Operas tended to be performed in their original language. The occupiers showed no respect for previously established ensembles if they intended to move into their buildings. Instead, they moved resident companies that had previously performed in them around at will\u2014or disbanded them altogether. The Latvian ensemble of the National Theatre was driven out of the Riga opera house and moved into much smaller premises; the Norwegian State Theatre had to share with the Germans whenever they needed the space; and in the General Government Polish theatre performances were prohibited entirely. In Prague, Generalintendant<\/em> Oskar Walleck presided over a consortium of three venues covering drama, opera, operetta and ballet (N\u00e1rodn\u00ed archiv T 5400). Even the comparatively small city of Bromberg got its own opera, drama and dance ensembles performing over two venues. Bielitz in Upper Silesia had a population of only 50,000 but received its own fully funded theatre. And the town of Zoppot outside Danzig was smaller still (population of 30,000) but featured a well-known open-air theatre (with a capacity of 9,000), as well as a fully functional municipal theatre. Audience capacities ranged from 800 (Zoppot) to 1,400 (Lille), and most playhouses offered additional studio spaces seating between 300 and 500 as well.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Nazi regime was prepared to fund its theatrical endeavours across the continent with astonishing and rising sums of money. Relating to the established Stadttheater<\/em> model theatres were normally overseen (and managements were answerable to) city councils. Most theatres received additional funding from the Propaganda Ministry in Berlin and, sometimes, also from regional authorities, the German army or \u201cspecial funds\u201d overseen by Hitler and Goebbels personally. The amount paid out to theatres via the Propaganda Ministry alone rose from RM 9.7m in 1934 to RM 45m in 1942 (Drewniak 39), and state subsidies to the Prague German theatres rose from RM 1.6m in 1939 to RM 2.5m in 1942 (N\u00e1rodn\u00ed archiv T 5411). The regime was prepared to take a financial hit\u2014making a profit, breaking even, was never an issue. In a pre-season note from early 1941, Lille\u2019s artistic director Ziegler calculated the theatre\u2019s annual budget to be in the region of RM 950,000, RM 900,000 of which were needed as subsidy as he did not expect the box office to take more than RM 50,000 (R55\/20513, 249). Similarly, the theatre in The Hague in its 1942 budget note proposed expenses of RM 2.1m against a projected income of only RM 215,000. The sum of RM 1.9m in subsidies was duly received (R55\/20545, 2\u20138).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The importance these German language theatres played for the regime can not only be gathered from the substantial subsidies paid to them but also through rising wages, special benefits and the award of prizes and titles. Even before the German theatre ensemble had actually arrived in Prague, the actors received the title Staatsschauspieler<\/em>, a title carrying privileges including a higher salary and contracts on par with senior civil servants. In Lodsch\/Litzmannstadt and Krakau actors were provided with furnished flats (R55\/20389, 221), and in Lille they were put up in a requisitioned hotel and received free rail transport and catering (Abbey and Havekamp 268). The artistic directors of the German theatres in Prague and Lille had their own company cars and drivers (the one in Lille fitted with its own representative flag), and if Prague\u2019s Oskar Walleck travelled by train, he insisted on first class tickets (N\u00e1rodn\u00ed archiv T 5342; R55\/25, 186).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Nazis were also keen to demonstrate their commitment to the theatre by renovating existing buildings, significantly extending others or by building new ones, to provide the perfect stage for the Nazi representation of power. Relating to the 1940\/41 season, Ludwig K\u00f6rner, president of the Reich theatre chamber, stated that 36 new theatres had opened during the last 12 months (Deutsches B\u00fchnenjahrbuch 3). In Oslo, RM 1.2m were spent on turning an existing cinema into the German theatre and a year later the theatre underwent a further building programme and received a new stack for costumes and properties (National Archives of Norway, RAFA-2188 Hfs, box 28; R2\/27717; R55\/865). The regime intended to turn the prestigious Riga opera house into \u201cthe large representative German theatre for the Eastern territories\u201d (R55\/1289, 190). There was not a single theatre in my research which was not in receipt of lavish funds used for renovation, decoration and extension. Investment extended to technical equipment, interior appointment and design. Properties, scenery and costumes were bought or made from scratch, and new workshops had to be built and equipped to produce these. The Germans were keen to use the latest technologies, particularly concerning lighting and stage design, and many theatres received revolving stages.<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"
Photo: Anselm Heinrich<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

Ensembles, too, were significantly extended. Ahead of its 1941 opening, Posen\u2019s theatre extended its work force to 30 leading artistic staff (managers, directors, dramaturges, and so on), 30 actors, 17 opera singers, 13 operetta singers, 8 administrators, 36 chorus members, 23 ballet dancers and 19 leading technical staff (with an additional significant number of workers, technicians and apprentices), plus a symphony orchestra with 60 musicians (Herder Institut Marburg S 1714; 34 VIII P120 Z23). In the following season (1942\/43), staff numbers increased by a further 57%. The number of employees at Prague\u2019s theatres rose from 110 in 1939 to almost 500 in 1943, with a technical department alone employing 140 technicians, tradesmen and workers (Schneider 193, 111).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Rising subsidies and investment had an immediate impact on repertoires. Seasons were extended with more performances and more money spent on signature productions. Prague\u2019s St\u00e4ndetheater<\/em> presented 31 drama premieres in its first season alone (Rischbieter 273). In the first 9 months after its opening, the German theatre in Lille produced 8 different operas, 5 operettas and 10 dance pieces, and it gave almost 700 performances (R55\/20513a, 657\u201363; R55\/20513, 47\u201348). The tiny Alsatian theatre of M\u00fchlhausen in 1942\/43 produced 48 premieres and reached 445 performances that year (Drewniak 108). In its first season of operation, the Doppeltheater<\/em> Kattowitz\/K\u00f6nigsh\u00fctte produced 12 operas, 9 operettas and 23 plays, achieving over 500 performances (Drewniak 98\u201399). The Reichsgautheater<\/em> in Posen in 1942\/43 featured 600 performances; a year later, this figure had risen to almost 800 (Drewniak 95). The Riga opera house performed the entire Wagnerian operatic repertoire with leading guests from Germany. The 1943\/44 season was the busiest ever at Danzig with 388 performances (Wolting 173). Even the small theatre in Marburg in Slovenia staged 7 operas and 7 operettas in the first 5 months of its existence (BArch, R55\/21761). The theatre in Litzmannstadt offered around 30 new works per season, and the number of performances rose by 60% between 1940 and 1943 (R55\/20389, 218, 221). The theatre in Lille put on almost 3,900 performances between May 1941 and July 1944 with total audiences of over two million. Almost everywhere in occupied Europe the statistics were impressive. Until their closure in September 1944 due to Germany\u2019s \u201ctotal war\u201d effort, the number of productions, the output of new plays per season and audience figures rose steadily and sometimes significantly. However, and although quantity was important for the regime, quality was just as well.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Nazi theatre critic Hermann Christian Mettin\u2019s claim that \u201cthe character of the repertoire determines the nature of theatre\u201d rang particularly true in occupied Europe where German theatres were meant to fulfil moral and geo-political as well as artistic demands (29). The Hague\u2019s dramaturge Karl Peter Biltz stated that \u201c[t]heatre repertoires are never random, they have an obligation\u201d (R55\/20545, 194), and Heinz Kindermann added that \u201cthere was a lot more at stake here than mere \u2018diversion\u2019\u201d (Kindermann, Theatres<\/em> 5). Theatres were required to present a programme of heroic classical drama, v\u00f6lkisch<\/em> plays and \u201cGerman\u201d dance\/ballet, music, operetta and opera. A repertoire based on entertainment instead of uplift was not what the regime wished to see.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Accordingly, across occupied Europe German language theatres opened with grand productions of the classics in elaborate costumes and expansive settings. Lille featured Kleist\u2019s Prince of Homburg<\/em> and Goethe\u2019s Egmont<\/em> in early 1941, and it opened its second season with Wagner\u2019s Tannh\u00e4user<\/em> (Abbey and Havekamp 272, 276). Posen\u2019s theatre opened in March 1941 with Mozart\u2019s The Abduction from the Seraglio<\/em> and Kleist\u2019s Prince of Homburg<\/em>, Krakau went for Hebbel\u2019s Agnes Bernauer<\/em> after Beethoven\u2019s Coriolan<\/em> overture, Zagreb chose Goethe\u2019s Iphigenie auf Tauris<\/em> and The Hague opened in 1942 with Mozart\u2019s Don Giovanni<\/em>. Danzig started in 1939 with Goethe\u2019s G\u00f6tz von Berlichingen<\/em> and Richard Wagner\u2019s Lohengrin<\/em>. The relatively small theatre in Kattowitz\/K\u00f6nigsh\u00fctte began in 1941 with Wagner\u2019s Lohengrin<\/em> and Schiller\u2019s Maria Stuart<\/em>, and in 1943 produced Wagner\u2019s entire Ring<\/em> cycle (Drewniak 99). The equally small Bromberg playhouse produced Hebbel\u2019s mighty Nibelungen<\/em> in 1942\/43, and neighbouring Thorn started with the nationalistic anti-Polish historical drama Anke von Skoepen<\/em> by Friedrich Bethge, one of the officially supported Nazi playwrights. During the 1941\/42 season, Posen produced classical plays by Goethe, Kleist, Lessing and Schiller, alongside Mozart, Donizetti, Wagner, Weber, Verdi, Rossini and Puccini (Herder Institut Marburg 34 VIII P120 Z23). Relating to his statement above, The Hague\u2019s Biltz scheduled 19 operas (including Beethoven, Mozart, Verdi and Wagner), 16 plays (including classical drama by Goethe, Grabbe, Kleist, Schiller, Lessing and Shakespeare, as well as the highly praised v\u00f6lkisch<\/em> drama) and 9 operettas for the 1942\/43 season (R55\/20545, 194\u201395, 286\u201387).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ultimately, however, a closer look at the repertoires over and above the grand announcements, season openers and glossy reviews reveals that attempts at politically reliable programmes of high culture failed and theatres quickly adopted a much more pedestrian fare (Wolting 68). The theatre in Warsaw, for example, hardly produced any serious plays at all and almost entirely concentrated on \u201cthe lighter fare.\u201d Of the mighty German classics, neither Grabbe nor Hebbel or Grillparzer were ever performed in Lille. The Prague German theatres throughout 1940\/41 largely produced plays which did not support any political reading, with comedies such as Rudolf Kremser\u2019s Play with Fire<\/em>, Hans J\u00fcngst\u2019s Achilles Amongst Girls<\/em>, Coubier\u2019s Aimee<\/em>, Sch\u00e4fer\u2019s Trip to Paris. <\/em>Stephan Wolting reckons that during the war the Danzig theatre showed at least one operetta performance every two days (Wolting 193\u201394).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Even more worrying for the regime, many if not most performances were not only unexciting in their aesthetic but also poorly directed, designed and performed. On occasion of the production of Goethe\u2019s Urfaust<\/em> at the Litzmannstadt theatre, for example, the local press stated that the actors were \u201ctrying very hard to give it their best\u201d (Litzmannst\u00e4dter Zeitung<\/em> 24 March 1940). In a production of Max Halbe\u2019s Stream<\/em>, the actors had excelled particularly in those parts which \u201cdid not require too much intellectual depth\u201c (Litzmannst\u00e4dter Zeitung<\/em>, 7 October 1940). Out of all the productions at the Lille theatre, long-standing actress Edith Lechtape only remembered two which she found noteworthy \u201cas offering any intellectual challenge or professional satisfaction\u201d (Abbey and Havekamp 278). At the Marburg theatre in Slovenia, director Falzari\u2019s inexperience in senior management mixed with his ignorance concerning the dramatic repertoire led to a programme which lacked in almost every department, and even the Berlin Propaganda Ministry noted the \u201cembarrassing\u201d quality of productions and his \u201cbombastic\u201d direction (R55\/20406, 225, 274).<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"
A concert at the Prague National Theatre. Photo: The Czech National Archives in Prague, shelf mark NAD1322_1726<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

These failings were all the more significant since for the Nazi regime, theatre was not only an expression of the superior German culture which had rightfully conquered Europe, it was also charged to uplift, encourage and equip German minority populations (and those deemed fit to belong to them in the future) with the necessary ammunition to continue their struggle once the German armies had moved on. The Nazi investment in the performing arts, therefore, reflected a real faith in theatre\u2019s transformative powers (Weber 155). The chief \u201cpolitical goal\u201d of the Oslo German theatre, for example, was the \u201cstrengthening of the cultural ties between the Reich and Norway\u201d (R55\/155, 5)\u2014quite a task for one theatre. In Slovenia, the theatre was charged to change people\u2019s perceptions of their own nationality and turn them into German citizens. The guest performances by the Lille theatre in Belgium strengthened Flemish nationalism and made the population susceptible to the idea of a separate Flemish state under German \u201cprotection\u201d and the German theatre in The Hague persuaded Dutch audiences of the need for a Germanic super-state.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Thus, what the regime wanted was not only for Germany\u2019s supremacy in the theatre to find expression in superbly crafted and expensively produced performances of an established canon proving to the world that the leading theatre ensembles, orchestras, soloists and conductors were German, but also that wherever these prime cultural exports went, they had an immediate effect on even the most stubborn of audiences. Norwegian audiences mellowed after having witnessed the tours of the brilliant Hamburg state opera and theatre in 1940; Hungarian and Romanian audiences were successfully steeled in preparation of the joined offensive against the Soviet Union by Wagnerian opera performed by the Berlin state opera in 1941; and doubts about the progress of the war vanished in late 1943, after having witnessed Mozart\u2019s Le nozze di Figaro<\/em> as performed by the Vienna state opera under Karl B\u00f6hm in Croatia (Goebbels 1923\u20131941<\/em>, vol. 8, 420; vol. 9, 65). Contentedly, the German embassy in Zagreb reported to Berlin that the population had been reassured by the performances, because if the Germans managed to pull off such a magnificent \u201cvisit with over one hundred soloists and their own stage properties\u201d brought over from Germany, military affairs in Northern Africa and on the Eastern front could not be going that bad (Drewniak 131).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This belief in the power of theatre also meant that the German playhouses in occupied Europe made no attempts to engage with local\/regional performance traditions, identities and sensibilities, and the repertoire performed could have been seen at any German theatre. Prague\u2019s German theatres displayed a \u201ccolonial character\u201d and did not pay any attention \u201cto local talent and expectations\u201d as its repertoire \u201cwas decreed from above\u201d (Demetz 255). Even where opportunities existed to relate to local topics, and even where this relation could have been useful for Nazi propaganda, these opportunities were not seized upon. The theatre in Lille, for example, never produced Lortzing\u2019s opera The Flemish Adventure<\/em> despite the fact that the theatre was meant to play a role in furthering the idea of a Flemish identity. Despite so vigorously celebrating poets and poetry from the Wartheland<\/em> region before the war, hardly any plays by local playwrights were ever produced in the region after 1939. Instead of growing unique identities, theatres in Lille and Krakau, Oslo and Litzmannstadt, The Hague and Prague, subscribed to a universal \u201cGerman\u201d repertoire, which was in fact narrow and parochial (Wolting 171\u201372). These enterprises had taken no roots in their respective communities; a fact which made their demise in 1945 seem logical and inevitable, and a fact which contributed to commentators labelling these theatres \u201cunique failures\u201d (Abbey and Havekamp 285).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Commentators who point out that the Nazi efforts to establish a network of German theatre across Europe \u201cleft no traces\u201d are certainly correct when relating these claims to the physical evidence. The former Nazi theatres were turned into playhouses and cinemas, put to other uses or demolished entirely. Ahead of the advancing Allied forces, theatre ensembles moved log, stock and barrel and they often took properties, costumes, machinery and libraries with them. In most places, even their German audiences fled with them. Polish\/Czech\/French\/Norwegian majorities reclaimed and once again dominated local cultures (Leyko \u201cDas deutsche Theater in Lodz,\u201d 146\u201347).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The legacy of the substantial Nazi efforts, however, lived on for a long time, sometimes until today\u2014in terms of the repertoire produced, relating to some of its protagonists and, perhaps most importantly, concerning a particular discourse. After all, setting up, financing and populating theatres all over Europe was a powerful statement of intent, not least because most of the theatres the Germans moved into were large representative buildings in city centres at the heart of bourgeois life (Carlson 81\u201384, 88). For the Germans, to take over these proud symbols of civic life illustrated Germany\u2019s supremacy\u2014not only on the battlefield, or economically, but also spatially and as ruling the cultural discourse. Renovating existing theatre buildings further illustrated Germany\u2019s powerful intent as only Germany had the means, the interest and the expertise to turn these stages into modern, professional and well-equipped playhouses (R55\/864, 5).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

These efforts to stage power were not simply forgotten over night by audiences after 1945. Instead, the ruthless establishment of German theatres across Europe during the war contributed to a slow process of renewed recognition of theatre originating in the country of the former oppressor post-1945. With reference to Poland, for example, Ma\u0142gorzata Leyko has argued that the wounds were so deep and mistrust so pervasive that the Polish government in 1947 issued a decree stating that eliminating Bach, Beethoven and Mozart from repertoires was unacceptable as the rise of Hitler had not been their fault (Leyko \u201cDas deutsche Theater in Lodz,\u201d 146). Commenting on more recent developments, Leyko pointed to the perception by many Polish commentators today that contemporary German playwriting and aesthetics were once again \u201ccolonising\u201d the Polish theatre with Germany being perceived as \u201ctaskmaster\u201d (\u201cMuseales\u201d).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A reading of theatres in occupied Europe as having left no traces (Abbey and Havekamp) apart \u201cfrom a few documents\u201d (Drewniak 96) is, therefore, problematic on a number of levels. As we have seen, \u201ctraces\u201d are not only left by written documents but also by embodied memories, experiences or trauma. Aby Warburg\u2019s theory of memory as Leidschatz<\/em>, as subconscious traces which can be reactivated or released on a later occasion, illustrates that remembering occupation, cultural domination and terror does not hinge on the survival of physical evidence (Warnke 113\u201365). Traumatic experiences \u201ccan be neither remembered nor forgotten by the collective. They become part of a collective unconscious\u201d (Assmann 359). The \u201creach\u201d of a theatre performance, a particular reading of a play, its physicality or aesthetic, does not end with the evening\u2019s performance. The fact that former actors at the German Theatre in Lille, for example, remember so clearly what happened there in the early 1940s illustrates that this venture did in fact leave traces, not the opposite as William Abbey and Katharina Havekamp claim.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Many commentators have, of course, rightly pointed out that the Nazi cultural claims were hollow\u2014but are they, therefore, not worthy of our interest? The fact that theatres in occupied Europe did not for the most part present a programme of works favoured by the Nazis has led many to claim that the regime failed in its attempts altogether. Hans Daiber posited that the repertoire at these theatres was \u201charmless\u201d and \u201cnaive\u201d (Daiber 288), Abbey and Havekamp described the programme at Lille as \u201cshallow and unadventurous\u201d (272), and Wolting branded Danzig\u2019s wartime repertoires as \u201cunimaginative\u201d and \u201cmediocre\u201d (Danziger Theater<\/em> 173, 197). The uncomfortable truth, however, is that it was exactly this kind of light-hearted repertoire which presented the Nazis with the attendance records they so desperately wanted. We might want to argue that what Kracauer termed the \u201cpleasant splendour of the superficial\u201d was, ultimately, intended with demands for a repertoire dominated by the mighty classics and v\u00f6lkisch<\/em> drama acting as a smoke-screen (Kracauer 311).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The fact that this kind of repertoire was more or less the same across Europe with only minor variations was intended by a dictatorship keen to streamline theatre repertoires. Producing the same Carl Laufs comedy, Hinrichs farce or Leh\u00e1r operetta all over Europe\u2014from northern Norway to Greece, from the Atlantic to the Caucasus\u2014seemed a powerful symbol of German might. It is, therefore, problematic to play down the success and usefulness of the popular. For example, Suzanne Marchand, in a 1998 review article, asked whether arts and culture under the Nazis were \u201cbanality or barbarism\u201d (108\u201318). By doing so, she established a problematic dichotomy which seemed to suggest that presenting a banal repertoire featuring light operetta and comedies could hardly been seen as barbaric. In fact, officially sanctioned theatre in occupied Europe seems to be better described as banality AND barbarism. Audiences in Litzmannstadt and Lille, in Prague and Riga, were entertained with an ordinary, brutally trivial repertoire at give-away prices. Hannah Arendt\u2019s dictum of the \u201cbanality of evil\u201d never rang more truthful. Her portrayal of Adolf Eichmann, one of the architects of the Holocaust, as an unimaginative and eager career bureaucrat, but not a sadist monster, not even a fanatic anti-Semite, but as \u201cfrighteningly normal,\u201d seems to relate well to German theatres in occupied Europe, which during exceptionally brutal times presented a chillingly unexceptional repertoire (Arendt 56\u201357, 400).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In conclusion, spreading German Theaterkultur<\/em> across the continent was intimately linked to the German war effort and part of the \u201crulers\u2019 victory parade\u201d (Benjamin 254). The performances of German Kulturg\u00fcter<\/em> cannot be separated from the context of terror in which they were staged. Culture and barbarism were, therefore, not on opposite ends of the spectrum but at one and the same. No one should, therefore, be surprised at the Nazi efforts vis-\u00e0-vis the performing arts as their performance confirmed, legitimised and sanctioned Nazi rule. The performance of a wide spectrum of works, including ones not directly supporting the regime, can never be interpreted as being in opposition to it or as an expression of failure but as part and parcel of its very nature.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n
Bibliography<\/strong><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

Abbey, William, and Katharina Havekamp. \u201cNazi Performances in the Occupied Territories: The German Theatre in Lille.\u201d Theatre under the Nazis<\/em>, edited by John London, Manchester UP, 2000.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Arendt, Hannah. Eichmann in Jerusalem. Ein Bericht von der Banalit\u00e4t des B\u00f6sen. <\/em>3rd ed., Piper, 2008.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Assmann, Aleida. Cultural Memory and Western Civilization: Functions, Media, Archives<\/em>. Cambridge UP, 2013.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Baranowski, Shelley. Nazi Empire. German Colonialism and Imperialism from Bismarck to Hitler<\/em>. Cambridge UP, 2011.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Baumeister, Martin. Kriegstheater. Gro\u00dfstadt, Front und Massenkultur 1914\u20131918<\/em>. Klartext, 2005.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Benjamin, Walter. \u201c\u00dcber den Begriff der Geschichte.\u201d Illuminationen. Ausgew\u00e4hlte Schriften 1<\/em>. Suhrkamp, 1977.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Carlson, Marvin. Places of Performance: The Semiotics of Theatre Architecture<\/em>. Cornell UP, 1993.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Daiber, Hans. Schaufenster der Diktatur. Theater im Machtbereich Hitlers<\/em>. Neske, 1995.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Demetz, Peter. Mein Prag. Erinnerungen 1939 bis 1945<\/em>. Paul Zsolnay, 2008.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Drewniak, Boguslaw. Das Theater im NS-Staat. Szenarium deutscher Zeitgeschichte 1933-1945<\/em>. Droste, 1983.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Goebbels, Joseph. Die Tageb\u00fccher von Joseph Goebbels. Teil 2. Diktate 1941\u20131945<\/em>. Edited by Elke Fr\u00f6hlich, Saur, 1993\u201396.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2014\u2014\u2014. Die Tageb\u00fccher von Joseph Goebbels. Teil 1: Aufzeichnungen 1923\u20131941<\/em>. Edited by Elke Fr\u00f6hlich, Saur, 1998\u20132008.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Hirschfeld, Gerhard. \u201cNazi Germany and Eastern Europe.\u201d Germany and the European East in the Twentieth Century<\/em>, edited by Eduard M\u00fchle, Berg, 2003.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Hitler, Adolf. Mein Kampf<\/em>. 434th\u2013443rd ed., Eher, 1939.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Kracauer, Siegfried. The Mass Ornament: Weimar Essays<\/em>. 1963. Translated by Thomas Y. Levin, Harvard UP, 1995.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Kindermann, Heinz. Die europ\u00e4ische Sendung des deutschen Theaters<\/em>. Wiener Wissenschaftliche Vortr\u00e4ge und Reden 10. Rohrer, 1944.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2014\u2014\u2014. Theater und Nation<\/em>. Reclam, 1943.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Leyko, Ma\u0142gorzata. \u201cDas deutsche Theater in Lodz in den Jahren 1939\u20131944.\u201d Polen und Europa. Deutschsprachiges Theater in Polen und deutsches Minderheitentheater in Europa<\/em>, edited by Horst Fassel, , Leyko, and Paul S. Ulrich, U of Lodz P, 2005.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2014\u2014\u2014. \u201cMuseales aus Deutschland im polnischen Theater?\u201d International Conference in Unienow, Poland, Nov. 2012.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Liulevicius, Vejas Gabriel. War Land on the Eastern Front. Culture, National Identity, and German Occupation in World War I<\/em>. Cambridge UP, 2000.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Mazower, Mark. Hitler\u2019s Empire. Nazi Rule in Occupied Europe<\/em>. Penguin, 2009.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Marchand, Suzanne. \u201cNazi Culture: Banality or Barbarism?\u201d The Journal of Modern History<\/em>, vol. 70, March 1998, pp. 108\u201318.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Mettin, Hermann Christian. Die Situation des Theaters<\/em>. Sexl, 1942.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Pr\u00e4sident der Reichstheaterkammer, editor. Deutsches B\u00fchnenjahrbuch 1942<\/em>. Reichstheaterkammer, 1942.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Rischbieter, Henning, editor. Theater im \u201cDritten Reich.\u201d Theaterpolitik, Spielplanstruktur, NS- Dramatik<\/em>. Kallmeyer, 2000.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Schneider, Hansj\u00f6rg. Meine b\u00f6hmische Ecke. Erinnerungen an ein Projekt<\/em>. Schwarzdruck, 2007.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Stargardt, Nicholas. The German War. A Nation Under Arms, 1939\u201345<\/em>. Bodley Head, 2015.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Warnke, Martin. \u201cDer Leidschatz der Menschheit wird humaner Besitz.\u201d Die Menschenrechte des Auges. \u00dcber Aby Warburg<\/em>, edited by Werner Hofmann, Georg Syamken, and Martin Warnke, Europ\u00e4ische Verlagsanstalt, 1991, pp. 113\u201365.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Weber, Otto. \u201cDas deutsche Schauspiel in Prag.\u201d Prager Theaterbuch. Gesammelte Aufs\u00e4tze \u00fcber deutsche B\u00fchnenkunst,<\/em> edited by Karl Schluderpacher, Fanta, 1924.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Wolting, Stephan. Bretter, die Kulturkulissen markierten. Das Danziger Theater am Kohlenmarkt, die Zoppoter Waldoper und andere Theaterinstitutionen im Danziger Kulturkosmos zur Zeit der Freien Stadt und in den Jahren des Zweiten Weltkriegs<\/em>. U of Wroclaw P, 2003.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Archival Material<\/strong><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

Bundesarchiv\/German Federal Archives Berlin (BArch), Propaganda Ministry, R55\/20258, R55\/20503, R55\/20513, R55\/20545, R55\/20389, R55\/25, R55\/20543, R55\/1289, R55\/20513, R55\/21761, R55\/20389, R55\/20545, R55\/20406, R55\/155, R55\/864.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2014\u2014\u2014. BArch, Reich Finance Ministry, R2\/27717.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2014\u2014\u2014. BArch, Reichskommissar Ostland\/Gebietskommmisare, R91\/515.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Herder Institut Marburg, Bl\u00e4tter der Reichsgautheater Posen 1 (1941\/42), 34 VIII P120 Z23; S 1714, Die Theater in Posen 1941\/42.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

N\u00e1rodn\u00ed archiv\/Czech National Archives Prague, Office of the Reich Protector, Office for Cultural Affairs, T 5400, T 5411, T 5342.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

National Archives of Norway Oslo, RAFA-2188 Tyske archiver [German archives]: Organisation Todt, Einsatzgruppe Wiking.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Litzmannst\u00e4dter Zeitung<\/em> [German language newspaper in occupied Lodz]. <\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

*<\/a>Anselm Heinrich<\/strong> is Professor of Theatre Studies at the University of Glasgow. He is the author of Theatre in Europe Under German Occupation<\/em> (2017), Theater in der Region <\/em>(2012) and Entertainment, Education, Propaganda. Regional Theatres in Germany and Britain <\/em>(2007). He has co-edited a collection of essays on Ruskin, The Theatre, and Victorian Visual Culture<\/em> (2009), and is under contract for a volume on institutional dramaturgy in twentieth-century Germany. He is currently working on a book on theatre in Britain during WW2 (for OUP). He has received fellowships at Harvard, Oxford and Marburg, and is co-editor of Theatre Notebook.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Copyright \u00a9<\/strong> 2023 Anselm Heinrich
Critical Stages\/Sc\u00e8nes critiques<\/em> e-ISSN:2409-7411<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"Creative<\/a><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

This work is licensed under the
Creative Commons Attribution International License CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":664,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"advanced_seo_description":"","jetpack_seo_html_title":"","jetpack_seo_noindex":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[10],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-591","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-special-topic"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.critical-stages.org\/27\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/28\/2023\/05\/featured2.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.critical-stages.org\/27\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/591","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.critical-stages.org\/27\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.critical-stages.org\/27\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.critical-stages.org\/27\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.critical-stages.org\/27\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=591"}],"version-history":[{"count":7,"href":"https:\/\/www.critical-stages.org\/27\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/591\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1025,"href":"https:\/\/www.critical-stages.org\/27\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/591\/revisions\/1025"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.critical-stages.org\/27\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/664"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.critical-stages.org\/27\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=591"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.critical-stages.org\/27\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=591"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.critical-stages.org\/27\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=591"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}