Download - German Historical Institute London

Book Reviews
Schnitzler, Zweig, Molnar, and Priestley, a fact, which ‘in an ironic
twist of logic’ appears as ‘a breath of freedom’ (p. 207).
Another rather special theatrical enterprise is presented in an article
about the German theatre in Lille by William Abbey and
Katharina Havekamp. Theatre played an important part in Nazi
Germany’s war campaign. Its main purpose was to provide German
theatre for German audiences, but it was also a means of demonstrating
cultural ‘superiority’ and the intention of staying permanently
in the occupied territories. Most of the German theatres were
established in places which the Nazis claimed to be ‘re’-incorporating
into the Reich and in assimilated areas. Elsewhere theatres existed
mainly for soldiers, or were designed ‘to win over the local (Germanic)
populations’ (p. 263). The main purpose of the Deutsches
Theater in Lille was to entertain the forces gathered in a city of great
military and economic importance. Ernst Ziegler became theatre
director and, as in many other cases around Germany, he was an
ardent supporter of the Nazi regime and an eager Hitler Youth leader
rather than a talented Intendant. The prestige of Lille in Goebbels’s
view can be seen from the high subsidies it was awarded—the staff
alone totalled 430 when it opened in May 1941. The discrepancy
between expectations and actual practice, however, also became
obvious in Lille. The programmes contained some classics but mainly
trivial entertainment and appear to have been very ordinary. The
quality of the productions seems to have been similarly poor. It is
interesting to note that many plays with small or all-female casts
were produced, and that these productions in particular went on tour
to Belgium and the rest of �rance. Expectations of ticket sales to the
local community were high but never materialized as the locals
remained extremely hostile. The authors point out that although the
statistics may look impressive, the theatre failed to make any lasting
impression on the cultural life of the city and that after its closure in
August 1944 nothing remained of the German cultural presence. The
Deutsches Theater in Lille was a special case, and the authors themselves
admit that it was ‘distinct from any other theatre in Nazi-occupied
Europe’ (p. 285). The question, therefore, arises as to why such
a specialist study—interesting as it may be—was included in the volume.
Instead, one could have wished for an essay on theatrical activity
outside Berlin. The relative freedom enjoyed by Gründgens and
Hilpert was something that provincial theatre directors in Dortmund
92