Chapter 3
When German forces occupied large parts of Europe after 1939, they often arrived in regions with significant German minorities and at least remnants of a lively German culture, including many theatres. After defeat in the First World War and the loss of territories formerly belonging to the German or Austro-Hungarian empires, and amid anti-German sentiment, many Germans left their old homelands to settle in the Altreich. Still, many stayed, and many German language theatres survived in geographical areas which after 1918 were not formally German anymore. Most of these playhouses were not run as fully funded enterprises anymore but were taken over by bourgeois theatre societies, many of whom held on to significant memberships and semi-professional companies with proud track records and long histories.
From the early seventeenth century German speaking theatre companies and music ensembles regularly travelled and performed all over Europe, including in Scandinavia, Russia, Hungary and Romania, but particularly in the Baltic and in geographical areas which after 1918 became part of Poland, Slovenia and Czechoslovakia.1 Across Europe there were German language theatres run by schools and universities, churches and groups of tradesmen, and funding came from town and city councils and regional authorities, as well as from the aristocracy. Apart from travelling troupes, many towns and cities featured German thea-tres aimed at and sustained by significant German speaking minorities. In Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia there were resident German companies in Reval (Tallinn), Dorpat (Tartu) and Riga.2 In Slovenia, until 1918 part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, significant German language theatres existed in Laibach (Ljubljana) in the so-called Ständetheater, founded in 1765, and in Marburg (Maribor), which erected its first theatre in 1785.3 After the end of the First World War, Reval retained its professional German theatre company, and visiting companies continued to perform in the Baltic states alongside a lively amateur scene.4 Theatrical activity in what after 1918 became Polish territory was equally noteworthy. In Posen the German minority proudly looked back on 120 years of theatre history; the playhouse had been founded in 1793.5
In Bromberg the German theatre had been equally prominent until the professional stage was closed down in 1920,6 and a similar tradition existed in Thorn,
Figures 3.1–3.4 Sketches of opera productions at the Posen municipal theatre: Oberon (1886) and Die Zauberflöte (1889) (The Magic Flute), Houghton Library, Harvard University.
where the first travelling companies performed in the mid-seventeenth century and a standing company opened the new municipal theatre in 1904.7 Theatrical activity in Bielitz was first documented in the late eighteenth century, and the local German theatre opened in 1890.8 Although the city of Elbing (Elblag) had only 32,000 inhabitants in the 1870s, it still featured its own German language theatre. Łódź looked back on thriving activities by both travelling and resident German companies throughout the nineteenth century.9
After 1918, with the closure of subsidised German playhouses in areas now belonging to Poland, theatrical activity continued on an amateur basis – either based in one locality or touring in a region. The German language theatre in the Upper Silesian town of Bielitz was the only remaining professional German language theatre on Polish soil after the end of the First World War.10 The formerly German towns and cities of Bromberg, Graudenz, Posen, Kattowitz and Thorn in Poland featured amateur companies, some of which achieved a high standard, and even in places such as Dirschau and Konitz, which had never had a professional theatre before 1918, amateur companies were now founded.11 Teschen, in Silesia, had a theatre (owned by the German Theatre Association) but no permanent company, so performances were provided by neighbouring Bielitz and by companies from further afield. Łódź, Poland’s second largest city in the 1930s, featured a lively German cultural life, including German schools and choirs, a
Figure 3.5 Riga Theatre, Herder Institute, Marburg, image archive.
Figure 3.6 Reval Theatre, Herder Institute, Marburg, image archive.
Figure 3.7 Tilsit Theatre, Herder Institute, Marburg, image archive.
Figure 3.8 Elbing Theatre, Herder Institute, Marburg, image archive.
Figure 3.9 Thorn Theatre, Herder Institute, Marburg, image archive.
Figure 3.10 Posen Theatre, Herder Institute, Marburg, image archive.
Figure 3.11 Krakau Theatre, Herder Institute, Marburg, image archive.
Figure 3.12 Lemberg Theatre, Herder Institute, Marburg, image archive.
German symphony orchestra and a well-respected German amateur theatre company.12 Interestingly, and related to the particular role theatre was meant to play in society (in accordance with the general revisionist politics when it came to Eastern Europe, Poland was often referred to as a Saisonstaat [seasonal state]), the German government attached significant importance to these amateur endeav-ours and supported them financially during the 1920s via a foundation (Deutsche Stiftung) which paid for the upkeep of buildings and tours by companies from the Altreich.13 It seems doubtful that some of the successes of the German language amateur companies in Poland would have been possible without this support. In 1929/30 alone, for example, the Bromberg company produced 16 plays in 92 performances, and even the small ensemble in Thorn managed 100 productions in the 17 years of its existence.14 The Bielitz theatre mounted 28 different productions during the 1936/7 season alone.15 Although the amateur companies did not receive substantial regular subsidies and therefore had to keep an eye on the box office, the support from Germany helped them to produce a varied repertoire, including plays by Goethe, Schiller, Lessing, Shakespeare, Hauptmann, Grillparzer, Hebbel, Strindberg, Shaw and Ibsen.16 The German language performances at Kattowitz reached utilisations of over 80%.17
Figure 3.13 Kattowitz Theatre, from Kauder, Das Deutschtum in Polen (The German people in Poland), p. 42.
Figure 3.14 Posen’s amateur company, from Kauder, Das Deutschtum in Polen (The German people in Poland), p. 96.
The significant presence of ethnic Germans in Romania (still around 800,000 in the 1930s) resulted in noteworthy theatrical activity. Until 1918 both Hermannstadt (Sibiu) and Czernowitz featured professional theatre companies, and after a period of amateur activity, Hermannstadt again received a professional theatre (Deutsches Landestheater) in 1933. The company toured plays in German throughout the country and was widely reported upon in Nazi Germany.18 Particularly noteworthy – and potentially influential – were its regular touring productions in Bucharest, where a number of German clubs and associations remained active during the 1930s.19
One of the most lively theatre cultures outside Germany remained active in many cities and towns across Czechoslovakia – despite decreasing German populations, loss of funding and internal arguments among the German minority after 1918.20 In the 1930s there were still well over 100 German language theatres in the then Czechoslovak Republic, with 75% of them touring companies.21 The Neues Deutsches Theater (New German Theatre) in Prague was the biggest German language theatre outside of Germany, and it looked back on an impressive history. The opera in particular enjoyed an international reputation, with Gustav Mahler, Alexander von Zemlinsky and Georg Széll among its former directors.22 A number of famous actors, such as Alexander Moissi, Ernst Deutsch, Attila Hörbiger and Paul Hörbiger and Paula Wessely, had been part of its ensemble, too. Two publications which came out in 1938 prior to the Nazi occupation and in relation to the theatre’s 50th anniversary are a testament to this influential history. Neither of these publications, however, plays to a particularly nationalistic agenda; in fact, both seem careful, almost adamant, not to be seen as supporting a völkisch discourse. In their book Mordo/Schluderpacher presented a historical overview, listing the names of famous musical directors and of long-standing staff and season ticket holders. Interestingly, the publication also featured numerous congratulatory notes from practitioners who had once worked at the theatre, including some now living in exile outside Germany, such as Elisabeth Bergner, but, notably, nothing official from Germany.23 The second publication of note was also published in relation to the 50th anniversary of the Neues Deutsches Theater. In it Richard Rosenheim charted the earlier history of German stages in Prague (up until 1918) and made it clear that the Neues Deutsches Theater’s first artistic director, Angelo Neumann, had been a pivotal figure in the theatre’s history and the point of reference for all subsequent directors. In his epilogue Rosenheim displayed no nationalistic sentiments – on the contrary, he praised Czech president Beneš for his support for and interest in the German language theatre in Prague.24 Outside Prague, too, there were a number of German language theatres run by bourgeois German theatre associations. In Brünn the magnificent theatre which had opened in 1882 as a 1,300 capacity house with its own opera and operetta ensembles was taken over by the Czech Theatre Association after 1918. From then on the Germans had only limited access to the theatre (two days a week) and used the Kleines Schauspielhaus auf dem Krautmarkt as an additional performance space – albeit on a smaller stage not built for theatre performances which allowed only smaller pieces to be produced.25
These activities proved challenging for the Nazi occupiers in several respects. On the one hand, there was a highly respected performance tradition which the Nazis could not ignore; on the other, this success was in many instances in no small part due to Jewish communities – Jewish actors and directors, as well as Jewish businessmen who generously funded theatrical activity.26 In no other city was this more obvious, and more problematic for the regime, than in Prague. The other challenge was that the Nazi discourse of a much-needed colonisation of Eastern Europe in particular, of cultivating large swathes of un-cultured areas, of fighting barbarism with the arts, would have been only half as convincing if the Nazis had acknowledged that many of these areas actually had a rich theatrical history. In fact, all over Eastern Europe there was evidence of significant theatrical activity prior to 1939 – by German as well as Polish, Czech and Latvian companies, among others. Although the First World War had had a significant impact after 1918, with loss of funding and many Germans leaving, a number of German language theatres continued to operate successfully in Poland, in the newly founded Czechoslovakia and in the Baltic states (see above). Even more problematic for Nazi propaganda was the fact that many of these theatres had productively interacted with members of other ethnic groups within their communities. After the First World War, for almost 20 years the German theatre of Beuthen worked together with Polish theatres in Kattowice (Kattowitz) and Krolewska Huta (Königshütte) and established a lively exchange of productions.27 Funding for this collaboration came from both German and Polish sources and related to a 1921 decree by the League of Nations.28 German audiences who had been wary of Polish theatre performances on German soil were soon impressed by their quality, the professionalism and enthusiasm of the ensembles, and the aesthetics of the productions – an appreciation many Germans found difficult to admit in the politically fragile climate of Upper Silesia.29 “One used to smirk about his ‘Polish competition’ at first. Now it’s here. And nobody smirks anymore,” one commentator remarked in the late 1920s.30 In 1934 at the Bielitz theatre only the director, Hans Ziegler, was German. The 19 strong ensemble consisted of nine Austrians, eight Poles, one Hungarian and one Romanian.31 The German theatre was a very international affair, and this seems to have worked well. Equally successful was the collaboration between Polish and German theatre associations in Teschen, both of which used the local theatre for their performances,32 and in Thorn, at least for a number of years.33 In Łódź the Polish city council offered financial assistance to the German language amateur company in the 1920s.34 When Posen’s German language municipal theatre was forced to close in 1919, it published a farewell book which featured many articles by people closely connected to the theatre who showed great pride in what had been achieved. Although the book was marked by an overall sense of sadness, there were no nationalistic undertones or negative comments concerning Poland or the Poles (although this may have been for fear of repercussions or censorship).35 Prague’s New German Theatre was well connected and had an excellent working relationship with the Czech National Theatre.36 The particular political situation of the late 1930s brought democratic theatre artists – both German and Czech – together within the framework of a common club promoted by Karel Čapek, Thomas Mann, Bruno Walter, Arnold Zweig, Max Brod and others.37 In Łódź, contrary to later Nazi claims, the German speaking minority largely appreciated the work done by the Polish language theatre – and vice versa. For example, on the occasion of the retirement of the director of the Teatr Miejski, Kazimierz Wroczyński, who had managed the stage between 1923 and 1925 and then again between 1933 and 1939, the German newspaper Neue Lodzer Zeitung on behalf of the German Verein der Theaterfreunde in Lodz in June 1939 extended “cordial words of farewell” and claimed that
Wroczynski has made a great contribution to Łódź’ theatrical life […]. Although he suffered a financial fiasco this is not really his fault but is due to the particular situation in Łódź and a general atmosphere which is not conducive to producing great theatrical art.38
This incident also shows that, contrary to German claims, Łódź had been anything but a cultural desert – far from it. It featured a rich and multi-lingual performance tradition with subsidised theatres, variety playhouses and circuses featuring performances in Polish, Russian, German and Hebrew with considerable crossover of audiences, including a significant number of Jewish patrons at the German language Thalia-Theater.39 The city’s three main playhouses (Teatr Miejski, Teatr Polski and Teatr Popularny) produced a busy programme of entertaining as well as more challenging fare. The municipal Teatr Miejski, for example, staged ambitious productions with professional actors and a broad based programme consisting not only of Polish plays but also of the critically acknowledged international canon (during the 1920s and 1930s, for example, it produced Shaw, Scribe, Sardou, Shakespeare, Schiller, Galsworthy, Strindberg, Hauptmann, Ibsen and Gogol).40 Statistical data for the three years 1934 to 1936 shows that the theatre produced an average of 400 performances each year, with rising attendance figures which reached 152,000 in 1936.41 During the 1938/9 season the Teatr Miejski employed two artistic directors, seven directors and producers, nine administrative staff, one dramaturge (doradca literacki) and no fewer than 55 actors.42 This was a major theatre and, judging from its size alone, one which could have rivalled almost any municipal theatre in Germany. However, only a few months later the city was occupied by German forces amid claims that it was in desperate need of a cultural uplift after years of neglect. Related to this claim, the new German theatre opened in January 1940 as “the overture to a new bloom of the local German theatre, but this time not in an alien and hostile environment, but in the safe care of the great National Socialist German nation”.43
Łódź was not an isolated case. All over Poland professional theatres produced work to a high standard. And they remained interested in German drama, too, particularly in Schiller, but also in contemporary plays by Bertolt Brecht, Gerhart Hauptmann, Friedrich Wolf and others. In 1932, for example, the Warsaw National Theatre produced a new Polish translation of Schiller’s Don Carlos, which proved to be both influential and popular.44 Even the German embassy in the 1930s admitted that “both from an artistic and an acting point of view the Polish theatre has reached a level which compares favourably to other countries”.45 The same held true for other regions later branded as in desperate need of cultural regeneration. When the new Nazi administration took stock of what was there in terms of theatres and performance spaces in Riga, for example, it was noted that the city featured not only various professional companies but also a system of relatively generous subsidies and wider support, which had resulted in significant building work being carried out in the 1930s. This city, it seemed, did not need anyone’s help to reach the next level; rather, the onus was on the Germans to maintain the status quo. The Riga ballet and opera companies in particular had an excellent international reputation.46
Instead of giving the interwar years their due, therefore, and appreciating the hard and often successful work of German minorities across Europe, the Nazis established a discourse which referred to the years after 1918 exclusively as years of suffering, deprivation and longing, a longing for the German fatherland which the Nazis eventually fulfilled. With respect to Posen’s theatre, for example, which had been taken over by the Polish administration in 1919, theatre historian Hans Knudsen established a reading of a highly successful German theatre which had subsequently been neglected under Polish rule and run by “illegitimate political usurpers”.47 He claimed that under Prussian rule the playhouse had been a “theatre with an artistic vision”. After 1910 in particular, theatre director Franz Gottscheid had produced the grand opera with “all works by Richard Wagner”, Mozart and everything by Verdi. Knudsen asserted that the same standards applied to the dramatic repertoire, where Gottscheid had concentrated his efforts on the classics “as a matter of fact. Lessing, Goethe, Schiller, Hebbel, Shakespeare – they were all present in the repertoire with important plays.”48 Interestingly, but certainly not surprisingly, Knudsen’s account does not quite give the full picture as Posen was never a theatre solely serving up serious high culture.49 The playhouse did present literary readings and plays by Björnson, Ibsen, Wedekind and Schnitzler, but not much in the way of classical drama and opera. What the audiences got were mostly operettas, musical comedies, Possen and Schwänke.50 In any case, Knudsen’s account of Posen’s theatre enjoying significant success until 1918 – under German rule – and then falling into oblivion after having become Polish was an established reading after 1939. This was also a reading which found it difficult to acknowledge thriving German amateur theatres that were tolerated, and sometimes even supported, by Polish administrations.
In Prague Nazi claims of a decaying theatre culture which needed Nazi input for a radical rebuilding were particularly difficult to apply. Although the situation looked challenging in 1939, with the recent closure of the New German Theatre, the German theatre tradition was significant, and Nazi efforts would always be compared to the successful times of the past (for example Angelo Neumann’s famous tenure). During the interwar period the German Theatre Association was highly respected, well supported and praised for its varied repertoire. It received funding from municipal, regional and national authorities. During the 1933/4 season, for example, the Czech government paid Kc 1.1 million in subsidies to the Prague German theatre and another Kc 1 million to the one in Brünn. Although the Czech National Theatre received substantially more, almost Kc 10 million, these were not insignificant sums.51 Additional funding by the regional authorities amounted to almost Kc 1.4 million in 1933/4 (although this was down substantially, to Kc 500,000, a year later),52 and there was more from the Czech education ministry.53 In late 1935 the German Theatre Association also received a loan from the Czech government.54 Despite the fact that the financial situation worsened towards the end of the 1930s, Nazi claims of disintegration, neglect or open oppression could hardly be related to Prague.55 Apart from that, the German Theatre Association, which owned the New German Theatre and leased the studio (Kleine Bühne), even at that time remained professionally organised and influential, with hundreds of members (including many wealthy benefactors).56 Significantly, however, they were also evidently not supporting the Nazi cause; they produced plays by dramatists who were critical of the Nazi regime, such as Brecht or Čapek, often under the direction of émigré artists such as Julius Gellner and Arnold Marlé.57 In 1938 the association’s director, Paul Eger, stated that he did not want to present an exclusively German repertoire but intended to foster Czech writers and composers, too.58 When the radical right-wing Sudetendeutsche Partei invited members of the German Theatre Association to a talk by their leader, Konrad Henlein, titled “German Cultural Tasks in Czechoslovakia”, in 1936 the leaders of the German Theatre Association did not even reply.59 Audiences seem to have been similarly wary. After the German occupation, German language theatres across the Protectorate experienced “a pretty disastrous set-back in terms of audience figures, which can probably be explained by a general nervousness among the audience”. This hardly sounded like the hero’s welcome which the Nazis made everyone believe they had received when entering Bohemia and Moravia in March 1939.60
Figure 3.15 Neues Deutsches Theater (New German Theatre), Prague, Herder Institute, Marburg, image archive.
At the same time, the situation for many German language theatres across Europe was indeed challenging after 1918, and many playhouses struggled financially with decreasing audiences and loss of funding. In the late 1920s the opera in Königsberg in Eastern Prussia closed amid financial difficulties.61 In many regions previously belonging to the German Reich, ethnic Germans moved away. To stem the tide, German societies and associations were founded to provide a social and cultural platform but also, more mundanely, to offer reduced price theatre tickets.62 After 1918 German literature in Prague was in retreat as important works by Franz Kafka, Egon Erwin Kisch, Max Brod and Franz Werfel, among others, were not published in Prague anymore but in Leipzig, Vienna, Munich and Berlin.63 Literature by German authors in Prague became labelled “literature without an audience”.64 In Czechoslovakia in 1933 alone, the thea-tres in Pilsen, Iglau and Bodenbach closed down. The general economic context played a significant part here, but Schneider also blames Nazi audiences who deliberately stayed away from their local theatres, some of which were led by Jewish directors.65 At Brünn the German Theatre Association struggled not only financially (e.g. from restrictions on performance spaces – see above) but also due to the fact that many members left the society to join a rival völkisch group.66 Ultimately, in March 1938 the association dissolved itself under the increasing political pressure.67 This particular behaviour by a significant and growing segment of the audience also points to the fact that the economic problems of the German language theatres in the 1930s played into the hands of the Nazi propagandists. Claims which proved difficult to uphold in Prague, for example, sounded much more convincing almost anywhere else. In-fighting amongst theatre societies, lack of funding and official interest, or deliberate neglect even had caused a situation, according to the Nazis, where official German intervention was desperately needed.
Another issue the Nazis were keen to gloss over was the fact that it was not only German culture which had extended its influence across Europe; significant input had also come from other countries. In a cultural history of Lithuania from 1938, written while he was teaching at Kaunas University, Victor Jungfer testified to cultural influences from Prague and Paris. In contrast to Germany, he noted, in Lithuania the Russian ballet tradition remained much more prominent. Also, and significantly, Jungfer noted attempts by Lithuanian artists to establish a typically Lithuanian art as well.68 Arthur Adson (writing in 1933) testified to a similar role for the Estonian theatre, which had developed alongside calls for political independence. Adson, too, related to influences from outside Estonia, but in his list of influential visiting companies there are no German ensembles.69 Theatres in interwar Poland showed an acute and lively interest in international playwriting, and the example of Łódź has already been mentioned. However, the interest in the German classics, for example, decreased during the 1920s, while plays by British and French dramatists were increasingly produced.70
Amateur versus professional
One of the main concerns for the Germans was the issue of professionalisation. Although they had welcomed German amateur dramatic societies and their activities all over Europe during the interwar period, the Nazi regime curtailed their influence after occupation. There was a palpable fear among German cultural politicians of being unable to uphold the best possible standards, of falling short of Germany’s role as the leading Kulturnation in the world. In 1938, for example, Goebbels announced the foundation of a national acting college. His chief reason for doing so was to eliminate amateurism: “We thereby divest the education of our theatre practitioners of […] amateurism and horseplay and put them on a solid and secure foundation.”71 This focus on professional standards had an immediate effect on amateur activity across Europe. Even where this activity had been acknowledged as successful, professional ensembles from elsewhere were soon installed. The German stage at Thorn, for example, which had been popular with the German minority and had produced some good work in a busy schedule, was closed down shortly after the German occupation, and the theatre association which had run it was disbanded.72 The new professional theatre opened in 1942. Bromberg had featured an amateur ensemble and had received funding from Germany for it, but in 1939 the company of the German theatre in Riga took over and turned professional, with significant funding attached. Similarly, in Łódź the Nazis disregarded the productive amateur activity; the former company of the Reval theatre was moved lock, stock and barrel and started performing in Lodsch/ Litzmannstadt in early 1940. After the war many protagonists lamented a development which saw professional companies arrive at places whose own amateur activities were no longer appreciated. Although the new Theater zu Litzmannstadt had been first class, as Leo Müller recollected that the company members were not “representatives of the Łódź’ Germans anymore”.73 In that sense Drewniak’s reading of the situation in Lodsch/Litzmannstadt, i.e. that the German occupiers acclaimed the amateur activities of the 1920s and 1930s, cannot be upheld.74 Instead, where amateur activity still existed after the German occupation, it was sidelined.
The amateur German language theatre in the Latvian town of Libau, for example, tried its best to get noticed after the German “liberation” in 1941. In a letter to the Propaganda Ministry its artistic director argued that the company had produced work continuously for Wehrmacht, local German and Latvian audiences numbering over 120,000 in total and covering all genres (opera, drama and ballet) in 327 performances. The one thing missing to develop further was the administrative and artistic independence from Riga, an independence “every little stage in Germany had as a matter of course”.75 This, however, would have acknowledged Libau as a professional theatre in no need of supervision by the leading stage in the region, and this proved a step too far for the German authorities.76 German theatrical activity in countries formally allied with Nazi Germany during the war (such as Italy, Romania, Hungary, Slovakia, Bulgaria and Croatia) proved particularly challenging. Prior to the outbreak of hostilities they were seen as worthy of support as “beacons of German culture” in foreign environments. When their host countries became associated with the Nazi regime, however, they often became sidelined. The Romanian Deutsches Landestheater, for example, which was originally founded to perform an important cultural role for the German minority and which went on a prestigious tour throughout Germany in the spring of 1940, was taken over by KdF in 1941 and demoted to a lesser touring ensemble. From then on the company performed in small, often makeshift “theatres” or barracks for German troops in the Balkans or on the Eastern front.77 Instead, the regime pushed some of the larger Romanian theatres to produce German plays in translation. Even significant and influential companies like the one funded by the German Theatre Association in Prague, which had had its own professional ensemble and its own theatre, were deprived of any influence in 1939. Internal documents from November 1939 show that the regime did not want the German Theatre Association to have any kind of control over theatrical matters in Prague, not least because of their links to left leaning theatre practitioners and exiled artists. To make sure their influence remained insignificant, the Propaganda Ministry asked for an official at the Office for Cultural Affairs in the Protectorate administration to become the chair of the association’s board and make sure its “working principles […] comply with the wishes of the RP [Reich Protectorate]”.78 In 1943 the association itself was finally dissolved, and its funds seized.79
Figure 3.16 Danzig theatre, Herder Institute, Marburg, image archive.
This turn against amateur activity is even more surprising given that – apart from the moral support their work provided for sometimes small and shrinking German communities – they produced work which was mostly in line with the demands of Nazi cultural politics. The Hermannstadt German theatre performed comedies by two of the most successful pro-Nazi playwrights (Heinrich Zerkaulen and Heinz Steguweit) on their tour to Bucharest in 1936.80 The amateur companies in Poland produced hardly any plays by non-German playwrights, and after 1934 their repertoires largely toed the party line.81 A newspaper article on German theatre activities in Poland dating from 1938 praised amateur activity and the fact that these amateur companies had successfully filled the void left behind by the demise of the professional theatres in 1918. It particularly celebrated the choice of plays produced on these stages, for example Friedrich Bethge’s Marsch der Veteranen in a collaboration between the companies in Graudenz, Bromberg and Posen. The article further praised Bromberg’s production of Shakespeare’s Taming of the Shrew and a theatre exhibition in Graudenz, which was a testament to the good work undertaken by the Germans. The article also referred to the substantial comedy repertoire. Interestingly, there is nothing which could not have been produced in Nazi Germany as well. Crucially, though, despite the praise heaped on the amateur actors in these companies, none of them were offered any jobs after the German occupation.82
A specific case: Danzig (Gdansk)
Danzig was a particular case as after 1918 the city was politically independent from the German Reich with its own municipal government. The “Free City of Danzig” had a particular geopolitical importance as a largely German city but one physically separated from the rest of Germany and accessible only through a “corridor” over Polish territory. Significant parts of the German population were unhappy about this situation, and anti-Polish sentiment was rife (as expressed, for example, in the work of Max Halbe).83 Until 1918 the theatre had been directly funded by the Prussian government; after the end of the war, it was run by a private theatre association – a development mirrored all over Europe in regions that had previously been German or Austrian.84 In the early 1920s, however, the theatre was taken over by municipal authorities and turned into a civic enterprise.
As a cultural symbol the German language playhouse became highly important not only because it remained the prime venue for theatrical performances in Danzig but also – and increasingly after 1933 – because it had a political role, “advancing German culture in the East”.85 The fact that many theatre practitioners saw Danzig as a stepping stone in their career did not go down well with local audiences, who expected a degree of local patriotism.86 Instead, they welcomed the many high profile touring companies performing in Danzig, such as the Deutsches Theater, Schiller-Theater and Preußisches Staatstheater, Berlin’s leading theatres. The significance of these tours resided not only in their artistic quality but also – and perhaps more importantly – in “the ostentatious display of German culture, or the quality of German culture in these regions”.87 After 1933, and relating to a stronger politicisation of theatres and their programmes in the Reich, Danzig’s theatre managers were keen to establish close links between their repertoire and official cultural politics. They expressed a particular interest in upholding and furthering a strong sense of “Germanness” in their audiences, sidelining and alienating Polish speaking spectators.88 Interestingly, though, and in line with developments elsewhere in the Reich, the theatre’s repertoire did not turn decidedly völkisch but remained focussed on an already established conventional, conservative and nationalistic fare reliant on bourgeois readings of art and literature.89 Still, the theatre received significant additional funding (on top of the municipal subsidies) directly from Hitler’s Reich Chancellery after 1933. In October 1935 Hitler paid Gauleiter Forster RM 150,000 out of his own Führer Fonds, to be followed only one month later by another RM 200,000 particularly to fund tours of the Danzig theatre to Germany. In 1937 Forster received another RM 200,000, and two years later Hitler paid again.90
Concluding remarks
At the end of the 1930s many German language theatres across Europe came under increasing pressure from Nazi Germany, facilitated in no small part by funding structures already established during the Weimar Republic. Theatre directors had grown accustomed to various levels of funding and influence, sometimes bordering on control, from Berlin. Theatres in former West Prussia (Posen and Pommerellen), for example, received financial support from the early 1920s onwards. Buildings were renovated, touring dates arranged, and sometimes even losses covered. After 1933 the influence also extended to the repertoire. As noted above, after 1934 hardly any German language theatre outside of Germany’s political borders produced anything which Goebbels would not have approved of, as a number of new völkisch plays reached the region’s stages. In Upper Silesia, and immediately following the 1934 German-Polish treaty, right-wing groups infiltrated German amateur theatre associations and influenced personnel decisions. In Kattowitz, for example, leading positions were filled with Nazis.91 At Bielitz the Nazi Jungdeutsche Partei forced theatre director Rudolf Loewe (who was Jewish) to retire, and Anton Kohl took over (1938). One of his first decisions was to hire an entirely German cast and not to renew the contracts of Jewish actors. The Propaganda Ministry rewarded him with RM 5,000 as a contribution towards building costs.92 Even before the Sudetenland had been annexed following the 1938 Munich Agreement its German language theatres were already being influenced by Berlin. In May 1938 an internal report from the Propaganda Ministry proudly stated that it was quite “unthinkable today that any of the theatres in Reichenberg, Aussig, Gablonz, Troppau or Eger would produce a play or allow an actor to perform if either did not conform with the wishes of the Reich Culture Chamber.”93 As if to prove Goebbels’ point, in August 1938 the Nazi Sudetendeutsche Partei asked Goebbels to help fund the German language theatres in the region to the tune of RM 300,000. He was prepared to make this money available but anticipated problems not because, by funding theatres in a foreign state, he was violating its political independence but because such a payment “should not appear in my budget”.94 It is worth noting that at this point in time the Sudetenland was still formally Czech and outwith German legislation. Berlin also affected theatrical activity beyond German borders in other ways. In 1929 a number of Polish actors who had come to perform in a touring production in Oppeln were brutally attacked by German nationalists. The well-calculated attacks had a number of repercussions and resulted, for example, in putting the cultural exchange on hold. It was only fully resumed a year later.95 In early 1938, as if to announce the German occupation 20 months later, the leading German theatre (the Berlin Preußisches Staatstheater) came to perform in Kattowitz. Artistic director Gustaf Gründgens brought an A-list cast with Göring’s official backing and under the patronage of the German consulate general in Kattowitz to perform Lessing’s Emilia Galotti.96 It was these kinds of high profile performances the Nazis imagined as advancing their political cause, as representing powerful statements of intent concerning their wider geopolitical ambitions in Eastern Europe. The Gründgens performance also anticipated a model of touring across the whole continent that the Nazis vigorously put into practice after 1939 in order to prepare for, sustain and extend their military gains.
Notes
1 The Harvard Theatre Collection, housed at the Houghton Library, has a number of nineteenth and early twentieth century musical scores, set designs and annotated production texts from a number of German companies and German language theatres across Europe which are proof of this extended activity. Examples include elaborate stage design/production books for Carl Maria von Weber’s opera Oberon (1886) and Mozart’s Zauberflöte (ca. 1889), both produced at the theatre in Posen (THE b MS Thr 947 and 948), and the musical score to the operetta Pufferl (by Ignaz J. Schnitzer and Sigmund Schlesinger, music by Edmund Eysler), as produced at Krakau and Tarnopol in 1905/6 (M1503.E98 P8 1905).
2 See Kitching, Laurence, ed. Das deutschsprachige Theater im baltischen Raum, 1630–1918. Vol. 1. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1997. See also Kampus, Evald. “Über die Einheitlichkeit der Truppen und Spielpläne in den deutschsprachigen Theatern des Baltikums im 18.–20. Jahrhundert.” Fassel, Horst, Paul S. Ulrich, and Otto G. Schindler, eds. Deutsches Theater im Ausland vom 17.–20. Jahrhundert. Interkulturelle Beziehungen in Geschichte und Gegenwart. Münster: LIT, 2007. pp. 14–22. Concerning the German company at Reval see Ulrich, Paul S. “Die Spielplangestaltung des deutschsprachigen Revaler Theaters statistisch betrachtet, insbesondere für die Jahre 1848–1914.” Fassel/Ulrich, Alltag und Festtag im deutschen Theater im Ausland, pp. 100–127.
3 Both theatres were turned into Slovenian language playhouses in 1918/19 after the Austro-Hungarian Empire had been dissolved and the Kingdom of Yugoslavia had been founded.
4 See Garleff, Michael. “Die Deutschbalten als nationale Minderheit in den unabhängigen Staaten Estland und Lettland.” Pistohlkors, Gert von, ed. Deutsche Geschichte im Osten Europas. Baltische Länder. Berlin: Siedler, 1994. p. 506.
5 For a more detailed account see Rajch, Marek. “Zur Geschichte des deutschen Theaters in Poznan (Posen) im 19. und zu Beginn des 20. Jahrhunderts.” Fassel/ Leyko/Ulrich, Polen und Europa, pp. 11–24. See also Hinc, Alina. “Die Kulturpolitik gegenüber dem deutschen und dem polnischen Theater in Posen in den Jahren 1793– 1918.” Ther, Philipp, ed. Kulturpolitik und Theater. Die kontinentalen Imperien in Europa im Vergleich. Vienna: Böhlau, 2012. pp. 265–286.
6 See Nowikiewicz, Elżbieta. “Deutsches Theater am Theaterplatz in Bromberg bis 1920.” Fassel/Leyko/Ulrich, Polen und Europa, pp. 25–66.
7 See Podlasiak, Deutsches Theater in Thorn, pp. 10–20, 37–42.
8 See Drewniak, Polen und Deutschland 1919–1939, p. 196.
9 See Prykowska-Michalak, Karolina. “Deutsche Theatertruppen in Lodz im 19. Jahrhundert.” Pelka/Prykowska-Michalak, Migrationen/Standortwechsel, pp. 106–112.
10 Drewniak, Polen und Deutschland 1919–1939, pp. 182, 196–197.
11 For a limited period of time additional amateur activity happened in Kolma, Schwetz and Wollstein (see Drewniak, Polen und Deutschland 1919–1939, p. 183). For amateur activity in Thorn see Podlasiak, Marek. “Die Deutsche Bühne Thorn 1922–1939.” Fassel/Leyko/Ulrich, Polen und Europa, pp. 81–113. See also Vogelsang, Bernd. Funde und Befunde zur schlesischen Theatergeschichte. Band 2. Theaterbau in Schlesien. Dortmund: Forschungsstelle Ostmitteleuropa, 1984. Kindermann particularly celebrated the Bromberg theatre for keeping “German values [Deutschtum]” alive in the region (see Kindermann, Theater und Nation, p. 56).
12 See Drewniak, Polen und Deutschland 1919–1939, pp. 205–212.
13 One of the fears, particularly as the current geopolitical situation was regarded as temporary, was that the German minority might assimilate to the Poles.
14 For the Bromberg figure see Heidelck, Friedrich. Der Kampf um den deutschen Volksboden im Weichsel- und Wartheland von 1919 bis 1939. Phil. Diss. Breslau, unpublished. pp. 585–587 (Herder Institut Marburg, DSHI 140 Polen 034). For Thorn see Drewniak, Polen und Deutschland 1919–1939, p. 185.
15 See Drewniak, Polen und Deutschland 1919–1939, p. 197.
16 At that time there were still 12,000 Germans in Bromberg, 6,000 in Posen, 4,000 in Graudenz and 3,000 in Thorn.
17 See Drewniak, Polen und Deutschland 1919–1939, p. 190.
18 London, John. “Non-German Drama in the Third Reich.” London, Theatre under the Nazis, p. 251.
19 See Fassel, Die feldgrauen Musen, particularly the appendix “Das Deutsche Landestheater Hermannstadt und seine Gastspiele in Bukarest (1933–1944)” on pp. 123–144.
20 For a useful discussion concerning the changing character of German language theatre in Czechoslovakia after 1918 (from the official stage of those in power to a minority theatre), see Stamberg, Ursula. “Der Nationalitätenkonflikt im Kulturbereich der Tschechoslowakischen Republik. Die sukzessive Änderung des deutschsprachigen Theaters von der Bühne der Herrschenden zum demokratischen Minderheitentheater.” Fassel/Ulrich/Schindler, Deutsches Theater im Ausland, pp. 160–171. See also Schremmer, Ernst. “Deutsche Theatergeschichte in Böhmen 1918–1939/45.” Stifter Jahrbuch NF 6 (1992): 103–116.
21 See Schneider, Hansjörg. Exiltheater in der Tschechoslowakei 1933–1938. Berlin: Henschelverlag, 1979. p. 38.
22 See, for example, Scherl, Adolf. “Die Bedeutung des deutschen Theaters im sprachlich gemischten Prag des 18. Jahrhunderts.” Fassel/Ulrich/Schindler, Deutsches Theater im Ausland, pp. 88–94. For a contemporary celebration of German theatre activity see Levinger, Heinrich. “Zur jüngsten Geschichte des Deutschen Theaters in Prag.” Schluderpacher, Karl, ed. Prager Theaterbuch 1930. Gesammelte Aufsätze und Dichtungen samt dem Theater-Almanach als Anhang. Prague: Fanta, 1929. pp. 45–51 (this was Schluderpacher’s second “Prague theatre book”, he had published the first one in 1924).
23 Mordo, Renato and Karl Schluderpacher, eds. 50 Jahre Neues Deutsches Theater in Prag. Beiträge zum Jubiläum 1888–1938. Prague: Verlag der Blätter des Deutschen Theaters Prag, 1938. Bergner note on p. 75.
24 Rosenheim, Richard. Die Geschichte der Deutschen Bühnen in Prag 1883–1918. Prague: Mercy, 1938. pp. 224–228. There was also significant interest in Czech theatre in Germany and in Austria. Published prior to the country’s annexation, the Austrian theatre journal Theater der Welt featured a number of essays on contemporary Czech theatre and drama and was clearly fascinated by its richness (see, for example, Frejka, Jiří. “Die Theaterstadt Prag.” Theater der Welt 1 [1937]: 46–48; and Neubauer, Paul. “Das moderne tschechische Theater.” Theater der Welt 2 [1938]: 141–146).
25 See Steiner, Eduard. Die Brünner und ihr Stadttheater. Ein Stück deutscher Theatergeschichte. Leimen: Marx, 1964. p. 85.
26 The Bielitz theatre, for example, was generously supported by local Jewish businessmen (see Drewniak, Polen und Deutschland 1919–1939, p. 197).
27 See Daiber, Schaufenster der Diktatur, p. 282.
28 See Drewniak, Polen und Deutschland 1919–1939, pp. 188, 190.
29 See ibid., p. 191. After the First World War the former German region of Upper Silesia was split. One third of its territory and about half of the population became Polish in 1921 amid fierce German opposition.
30 Qtd. in Drewniak, Polen und Deutschland 1919–1939, p. 191.
31 See ibid., p. 197.
32 See ibid., p. 205.
33 See Podlasiak, Die Deutsche Bühne Thorn, pp. 97–106.
34 See Prykowska-Michalak, Karolina. “Die deutsche Dilettantenbühne in Lodz im 20. Jahrhundert.” Fassel/Leyko/Ulrich, Polen und Europa, p. 115.
35 See Herder Institut Marburg, G/34 XV K3 Abschiedsalmanach vom Stadttheater Posen 1919.
36 There was also much correspondence with other Czech theatres and genuine collegiality (see Archiv hlavní ho mě sta Prahy [Prague City Archives], Deutscher Theaterverein, Praha NDT 11, NDT 12, and NDT 17–19).
37 See Eckstein, Road to State Opera Prague, p. 16.
38 Article published on 2 June 1939 (Archiwum Państwowe w Łodzi, Zbiór Teatraliów Łódzkich, 21/46. Recenzje teatralne i wycinki z łódzkiej prasy polskojęzycznej. p. 125).
39 See Pelka, Artur. “Deutsches Theater in der Dreivölkerstadt Łódź – die Direktion Adolf Kleins am Thalia-Theater (1909–1914).” Fassel/Leyko/Ulrich, Polen und Europa, p. 78. The mutual respect between the German and the Polish theatre in Łódź went further back. In the autumn of 1911 the Thalia-Theater held a charity performance to aid Polish actors who had suffered from their theatre’s destruction by fire earlier that year (see ibid.).
40 See Archiwum Państwowe w Łodzi, Zbiór Teatraliów Łódzkich, 21/46. Recenzje teatralne i wycinki z łódzkiej prasy polskojęzycznej. p. 71. Pictures of productions, programme notes and press cuttings are found throughout this file. See also Zbiór Teatraliów Łódzkich, 21/20. Teatry miejskie w Łodzi. Repertuary przedstawień teatralnych sezonu 1938/39, with similar information concerning the city’s leading stages.
41 Archiwum Państwowe w Łodzi, Akta Miasta Łódzi 29056, pp. 16a, 16b, 18.
42 See Zbiór Teatraliów Łódzkich, 21/33. Łódzkie Teatry Miejskie. Wydawnictwo Łódzkich Teatrów Miejskich 1937–1939.
43 Müller, Deutsche Theater in Lodsch, p. 215 (Leo Müller’s essay on the German theatre in Łódź was published in Kargel/Kneifel, Deutschtum im Aufbruch, pp. 204–215. Interestingly, this article was re-published after the war, almost unchanged, apart from – not surprisingly – this quote at the end of the essay).
44 See Drewniak, Polen und Deutschland 1919–1939, pp. 165–177.
45 Qtd. in ibid., p. 213.
46 See note by Herr Dreijmanis in Riga’s city administration dated 30 September 1941 (BArch, Reichskommissar Ostland/Gebietskommmisare, Riga Stadt, R91/517 [file without pagination]).
47 Knudsen, “Die Entwicklung der deutschen Theaterkunst in Posen”. Blätter der Reichsgautheater Posen (1941/2): 27–55 (Herder Institut Marburg, G/34 VIII P120 Z23).
48 Ibid., pp. 52–53.
49 Although a similar claim was put forward by the pre-First World War theatre management itself, too. It saw the theatre as among the leading German stages (see Herder Institut Marburg, G/34 XV K3 Abschiedsalmanach vom Stadttheater Posen 1919, pp. 8–9 – inlay).
50 See Herder Institut Marburg, G/34 VIII P120 Z25 Stadttheater Posen. See also Hildegard Hirschfeld’s MA thesis on Posen’s German theatre between 1910 and 1919 (Herder Institut Marburg, G/34 VIII P103b). Hirschfeld shows the discrepancy in opinions (on the one hand claiming that Posen was one of the best theatres in Germany, on the other regarding it as no more than a typical Geschäftstheater). Overall she describes the repertoire as varied but seems to lean towards interpreting the playhouse as a Kulturtheater(p. 23). As an aside, it may be interesting to note that before 1914 Posen displayed a number of the features of a typical German regional theatre at the time. In 1902, when the new director Gustav Thiess was appointed, his contract (and the whole process) displayed some basic tenets of theatre directorship at the time. Thiess was an entrepreneur rather than an artistic director; however, the conditions the city officials offered him were relatively generous. For example, Thiess got the whole theatre building, including properties, costumes and technical apparatus, free of charge. The city also paid for the general upkeep of the building, including the services of fire-men, heating operators and lighting technicians. At the same time the city authorities secured considerable influence, e.g. free tickets for city officials, the magistrate could use the theatre anytime for charitable purposes, and any change in ticket prices, any touring activities, etc. had to be agreed by the city first. Even more importantly if performances were not up to the “required” standard the theatre director could be fired with a notice period of only four weeks (see Rajch, Marek. “‘Man kann mehr wünschen, aber nicht erreichen’. Zur Situation des Deutschen Stadttheaters in Posen zu Beginn des 20. Jahrhunderts.” Pelka/ Prykowska-Michalak, Migrationen/Standortwechsel, pp. 120–127).
51 Letter by Dr Eger to president Leopold Kopka in Brünn dated 20 September 1935 (Archiv hlavní ho mě sta Prahy, Deutscher Theaterverein, Praha NDT 7).
52 Note by Dr Eger dated 6 March 1936 (see Archiv hlavní ho mě sta Prahy, Deutscher Theaterverein, Praha NDT 7).
53 In 1937/8 the Czech education ministry paid a subsidy of Kc 300,000 (see Archiv hlavní ho mě sta Prahy, Deutscher Theaterverein, Praha NDT 7).
54 The files of the German Theatre Association suggest that this was paid out in November 1935 (see Archiv hlavní ho mě sta Prahy, Deutscher Theaterverein, Praha NDT 1, 1925–1939).
55 A financial report by the German Theatre Association dated 31 October 1937 projected a loss of Kc 1.4 million for the 1937/8 season despite continuing funding from the Czech administration and ongoing generous donations (see Archiv hlavní ho mě sta Prahy, Deutscher Theaterverein, Praha NDT 7).
56 The Prague City Archives (Archiv hlavní ho mě sta Prahy) hold a substantial collection of the German Theatre Association’s papers, with six large boxes each containing at least ten files each, some of them quite substantial.
57 See Ludová, Jitka. “Die kleine Bühne in Prag. Geschichte eines Theaters in Dokumenten.” Stifter Jahrbuch N.F. 25 (2011): 74–76.
58 See Prager Tagblatt, 10 February 1938, p. 6.
59 Original letter dated 1 February 1936. The Sudetendeutsche Partei complained about not having received an answer in another communication dated 26 May 1936 (see Archiv hlavní ho mě sta Prahy, Deutscher Theaterverein, Praha NDT 7).
60 Quotes from a letter to Carl Baron Wolf-Zdekauer (a banker, influential member of the German community in Prague and member of the German Theatre Association’s executive board since 1883) from June 1939 which was almost certainly sent by another German language theatre in the Protectorate (see folder Carl Baron Wolf-Zdekauer, Archiv hlavní ho mě sta Prahy, Deutscher Theaterverein, Praha NDT 1, 1925–1939).
61 Wolting, Verwicklungen und Verwirrungen, p. 62.
62 See, with reference to Thorn, Podlasiak, Deutsches Theater in Thorn, p. 109.
63 Knechtel, Anna. “Prag in Weiß-Rot-Blau.” Dzambo, Jozo, ed. Praha – Prag. Literaturstadt zweier Sprachen, vieler Mittler. Passau: Karl Stutz, 2010. p. 52.
64 Demetz, Peter. René Rilkes Prager Jahre. Düsseldorf: E. Diederichs, 1953. p. 109.
65 Schneider, Exiltheater, pp. 39–40.
66 See, for example, Archiv hlavní ho mě sta Prahy, Deutscher Theaterverein, Praha NDT 12. This collection contains correspondence from April 1938 concerning the Sudetendeutsche Partei demands at Brünn. The influence of völkisch groups had been noticeable before. When the director of Prague’s Neues Deutsches Theater, Heinrich Teweles, wanted to produced Gustav Mahler’s eighth symphony in 1912, the so-called Prague Aryan Choir refused to sing in it because Mahler and Teweles (and Zemlinsky, scheduled to conduct) were Jewish (see Teweles, Heinrich. “Zur Geschichte des Theaters 1885–1918.” Schluderpacher, Prager Theaterbuch, p. 11).
67 See Steiner, Die Brünner und ihr Stadttheater, p. 95 (the section referred to here is part of the epilogue by Karl Norbert Mrasek).
68 Jungfer, Victor. Litauen. Antlitz eines Volkes. Leipzig: Breitkopf und Härtel, 1938. pp. 187–188.
69 See Adson, Arthur. Das Estnische Theater. Tartu: Akadeemiline Kooperatiiv, 1933. p. 62.
70 See Drewniak, Polen und Deutschland 1919–1939, p. 163.
71 As noted by Goebbels in a speech at the Reich Theatre Festival in Vienna in June 1938 (see press release by the Deutsches Nachrichtenbüro dated 13 June 1938 [BArch, R43/ II 1252, p. 80]).
72 See Podlasiak, Die Deutsche Bühne Thorn, pp. 112–113.
73 Müller, Leo. Das deutsche Theater in Lodz: 1867–1939. Ein Zeugnis schicksalhafter deutscher Kulturpflege. Mönchengladbach: Camphausen, 1968. p. 38.
74 See Drewniak, Theater im NS-Staat, p. 96.
75 BArch, R55/20533, pp. 431. The letter dated from May 1942.
76 Libau continued to woe the Propaganda Ministry, for example by sending regular updates of its activities. In his review of the 1942/3 season director von Sichart noted that the company had only had “three days without work” and otherwise performed right throughout the year. Even Lohengrin and Figaro were not beyond this ensemble. Sichart also stressed the fact that in comparison to the previous season the theatre’s activity had been extended further with more performances and better audiences (see BArch, R55/20533, pp. 449–451).
77 See Drewniak, Theater im NS-Staat, p. 129; Fassel, Die feldgrauen Musen, pp. 135– 137, 141.
78 See letter by Rainer Schlösser to permanent under-secretary von Burgsdorff at the Office for Cultural Affairs at the Protectorate administration, dated 11 November 1939 (see Národní archiv, Urad risskeho protektora [Office of the Reich Protector, Office for Cultural Affairs], Division IV, Office T, 5342 (no pagination) [Division IV is the “Cultural Affairs”, Office T is “Theatre Affairs]. From hereon in Národní archiv, Office of the Reich Protector, Office for Cultural Affairs, file, page number).
79 See Ludová, Die kleine Bühne in Prag, pp. 82–84.
80 See Fassel, Die feldgrauen Musen, p. 131.
81 See Drewniak, Polen und Deutschland 1919–1939, p. 186 (Drewniak relates to a study by Wojciech Kotowski here). With reference to Thorn see Podlasiak, Deutsches Theater in Thorn, pp. 110–113, 115. Voices critical of the Nazi regime occurred only rarely; some members in amateur companies in Łódź, Teschen and Bielitz (at least until 1938) refused to actively support the Nazi cause.
82 See article “Deutsches Theaterleben in Polen” dated 13 December 1938, in a file put together by the Deutsches Auslandsinstitut (BArch, R57/6609, file without pagination).
83 See also Kindermann, Heinz. Max Halbe und der deutsche Osten. Danzig: Paul Rosenberg, 1941.
84 See Wolting, Danziger Theater, pp. 55–56.
85 Ibid., p. 67.
86 Wolting, Verwicklungen und Verwirrungen, p. 63.
87 See ibid., p. 67.
88 See Wolting, Danziger Theater, p. 73.
89 See ibid., p. 140. See also Heinrich, Theater in der Region, pp. 229–270.
90 BArch, Reichskanzlei R43/II 973b, p. 29 (letter by Hitler’s adjutant Wiedemann to permanent secretary Lammers, dated 25 October 1935), p. 36 (note for Lammers, dated 22 November 1935), p. 50 (letter by Lammers to Forster, dated 12 November 1937), p. 53 (letter by Forster to Lammers saying that Hitler had promised him another RM 200,000 in a private conversation and that he needed the money as soon as possible).
91 See Drewniak, Polen und Deutschland 1919–1939, pp. 192–193.
92 See ibid., p. 202.
93 Qtd. in Drewniak, Theater im NS-Staat, p. 79.
94 The theatres listed in the letter as requiring financial help are Eger, Brüx, Teplitz, Aussig, Leitmeritz, Bodenbach, Reichenberg, Gablonz, Troppau and Brünn (see BArch, R43/II 1252, pp. 85–88). It is not clear whether the money was awarded before the Munich Conference little more than a month later.
95 See Drewniak, Polen und Deutschland 1919–1939, pp. 191–192.
96 See ibid., pp. 193–194.