Tentative Questions and Evaluations Concerning German Nationalist Culture, 1933-1945By Paul Christian Wolff Jr.
Adolf Hitler spoke to the members of the German Reichstag on March 23, 1933. He made it quite clear that:
“Parallel with the cleansing of political life, the government will also proceed to purify completely our social organism. The entire system of our educational institutions—the theater, cinema, literature, the press and the radio—will all be considered as means for attaining this end... Art will always be the expression and the mirror of the aspirations and realities of an epoch.”
With this demand the alchemists of Germany’s Nazi period started tinkering with their fires and crucibles. Dr. Paul J. Goebbels as minister of propaganda and Alfred Rosenberg as high philosopher of the movement were, through their newly powerful positions, to be considered by many observers as the administrative leaders for a great cultural purification. What did Dr. Goebbels’s mirror show? What did Rosenberg’s philosophy force from the brewing crucibles?
Recalling the quickly working purposes of these men... tearing and thrusting into the whole structure of the German nation..., dictating there, meddling there, four forms of expressing culture come to mind: architecture, music, literature and drama.
Using sources available, these seem to be cultural-social forms of art powerfully obvious to see, to hear and to be evaluated with some degree of assuredness. The art forms themselves are ones designed to be available for mass consumption. Subtle, philosophical evaluations may be inferred for political purposes today, but the most valuable result is to express and question clearly what can be thought when one peers into these mirrors of Hitler’s Reich.
Prof. Henri Lichtenberger, director of the Institute of Germanic Studies at the Sorbonne in the 1930s, wrote in a volume published in 1937: “The Germany of today contains sources of culture which are of primary importance, and there is nothing to indicate that they are destined to disappear in the near future.”1 This was an opinion not often written at the time. The professor, however, then retracted a bit of his statement in an added footnote. The culture in its time and place was and is controversial, even for intellects to judge. Architecture in Nazi Germany
“Architecture has always found its noblest problems and achieved its greatest manifestations in works which served a people’s life or a people’s religion.”—Talbot Hamlin
As symbols purported to be used as forces toward national unity of the state, public structures in Germany were built to catch the eye, to excite and overwhelm the visual experience of the observer. By 1940 basilicas, stadia, recreation parks, concert halls, open-air theaters, military barracks and workers settlements had been built in abundance in order to symbolize the State. The double “Ewige Wache” temple at the entrance to the Koenigsplatz in Munich was built in monumental, neo-Greek style. The quadrangles of its colonnades enclosed classic urns: A pagan effect of massive simplicity. The House of German Art, Munich, rose as if another great pile of Greek appearance were to be a “Holy of Holies” for nation and folk.2   
The Bauhaus at Dessau, internationally famed school of Gropius, Van du Rohe, had been suspended... The radical imagination of this school had been proscribed. Tall, neoclassical columns stood in front of the monumental Reich’s Chancellery in Berlin. Nevertheless, the claim was to provide modern, functional fenestration and gallery arrangement.3
The Air Ministry in Berlin was a prototype for all large office structures to be built. A grand effect to cause awe—simple solid geometric appearance to show stability: architects, Wilhelm Kreis and others, under the command of Albert Speer designed and built with obvious magnitude. (Vide. The former Stalinallee in Berlin.)
And yet churches were built. Christ Church in Goerlitz-Rauschwalde, built in 1938, is traditional in treatment: the parallel of a clean Pennsylvania barn. Luther’s stark world of spirit was served up a polished mass of stones. (Looking, thinking, how one’s mind could be changed in its frames of reference, its “response to stimuli!”)
Many persons looking at photographs of the Memorial and Open Air Theater, at Annaberg, Silesia, may feel the majestic sense of empire leading to fire and catastrophe: but this is an afterthought.
The private homes traditional alpine lodge construction was continued. A. Holzheimer, E. Freymuth were two architects of these designs. Steep gables and enlarged casement windows were found throughout the whole nation. “The more derivative, theatrical version of the modern house elsewhere . . . ”4 Was not to be used in the Third Empire. And yet, a certain oneness, a “Gemuetlichkeit,” common to most of the homes can be seem on pages of Die Woche and the Berliner Illustrierte Zeitung published at that time. Sources found today repeat many of these types of private homes built in the 1930s.5
The “Autobahnen” are well known to the G. I. as architecture, perhaps the most successful uses of simplicity of line and stone texture in structures throughout the world are to be found in bridges still standing along the German superhighways. One as Hermsdorf, Thuringia, created a span of nobility across a piney gorge: nobility with nature’s help . . . an enduring “Fuehrerprinzip,” perhaps?
In looking at a photograph of a housing project of the 1930s at Zehlendorf, suburb of Berlin,6 one notices hand painted designs on each of several houses. In recalling rows of houses built in American suburbs, one wonders if the garages compensate for the lack of painting designs. Do forces for Unity succeed?
However, a periodical states: “Germany, as you may have noticed, has been building armament instead of homes and now finds herself short 3,000,000 units.”7
Dr. Goebbels’ chamber of culture contained seven divisions, one of which was directed by Peter Raabe, Chamber of Music. Raabe declared that people of the State must not be given a choice between good and bad music. Good taste must be cultivated. Music should be “Tuechtig, gut un Vaterlandstreu.” (Proficient, good and true to the Fatherland.)8
Performances of established music in the Third Reich were to continue in the same quantity as before the revolution of 1933. In the realm of Opera, the Berlin State Opera functioned without Jewish singers, instrumentalists, conductors and production staff members. Smaller opera companies continued with the State Opera, Hamburg, Hessian State Theater, Wiesbaden emphasizing fold operas with more pointed purpose and publicity: “Der Freischuetz, for example, newly evaluated for its folk meaning.”
World famous German singers, such as Marcel Wittrisch, tenor, and Tiana Lemnitz, soprano,9 performed throughout the Nazi period. Italian and French operas were performed as usual, mostly in German. Aureliano Pertile, famous Italian Tenor sang Wagnerian opera in Italy as well as in Germany. Dusolina Giannini, American soprano of Italian descent was successful, particularly as Madam Butterfly. The great Italian tenor, Beniamino Gigli, sang in both Axis countries as often as he was able to leave one for the other. Gigli’s popularity was expanded through his appearances in German films produced by Ufa in Berlin and Tobis in Vienna. For example, the Dresden premier of “Mutterlied” was reported in the London “Musical Times,” February 1938. During 1938 in Berlin a charity performance by two well-known singers of La Scala, Milan, C. Schuricht, conductor, was produced under the auspices of Dr. Goebbels, the Italian Ambassador and various German and Italian officials. The proceeds were donated to the Winterhilfswerke of that year.10
Less serious music was called “Unterhaltungsmusik” and “Hausmusik.” (Conversation and family)
Johann Strauss, Karl Milloecker and Franz Lehar were represented as often as ever. Two favorite singers of light opera constantly in demand were Peter Anders, tenor, and Erna Sack, soprano.
Franz Lehar himself conducted a performance of The Merry Widow, (“newly embellished with additional melodies”) at the Charlottenburg Opera house, Berlin.11
New music was written in profusion and the most publicized efforts were in the field of opera. Werner Egk, born 1901, wrote Die Zaubergeige, 1936, and Columbus, 1941. A ballet by Egk, Joan Von Zarissa, was written in 1940.12
H. Trantow’s opera, Odysseus bei Circe, appeared during the Brunswick Festival Week, 1938.13 Carl Orff, born 1895, a well-known composer in the United States today, wrote the operas Die Klug and Der Mond: Carmina Barana in 1938, and the pageant Catulli Carmina in 1943. Carmina Burana was written, reportedly, for the Hitler Youth.
An example of new symphonic music, H. Zilcher’s fourth symphony was first performed in February 1938 with approval from critics and audience.14 During the 1930s in the United States it had become the politically accepted opinion among many music critics, such as H. Weinstock, Deems Taylor and Olin Downes to refer to the famous composer Richard Strauss as a worn down mechanism and sadly attenuated talent feeding on its former glories.15
Today, Richard Strauss is acknowledged as one of Germany’s greatest composers. Scholars and critics of discrimination and discernment have discovered fascinatingly unique expressions of progressive sound-design in Strauss’s later operas and orchestral works. Recordings are now produced with ecstatic blurbs about his later works.*
Contrary to prevalent reports in the United States of the 1930s, Strauss produced with great fecundity and merit. Among operas of great interest today Strauss composed Die Schweigsame Frau, 1935, Daphne, 1937, and Capriccio, 1941.16 (In 1936, the old man wrote his hymn for the Olympic games.)**
Richard Strauss produced new music using his inventive orchestration with the human voice, words and instruments making sounds never heard before with no apparent constriction from Raabe’s office. “Sprechgesang,” (speech-song) a difficult treatment of opera and song experimented with for years, had been successfully accomplished.
In the field of popular music for dancing, the band leader most successful was Peter Kreuder. Old recordings of the period may be found under the Polydor and Telefunken labels—in particular the German tango was very popular throughout Europe.
A short appraisal of the dance during this period would find reference to a “Dance Olympiade” at Berlin, 1936, 17 and numerous performances of standard and classic ballet. A school of dance more contemporary, even liberally progressive in concept was taught by Mary Wigman at Dresden, Leipzig, and later, Berlin, through the 1930s. The Swiss dancer, Trudi Schoop, frequently performed her modern dance forms.18 Kurt Jooss, German choreographer and dancer, toured Europe continually; his troupe frequently appeared in the United States. 19
In October 1938, B. Schott, and Soehne announced that a new periodical, “Deutsche Musikzeitung,” was to be published headed by the composer Hans Pfitzner, the conductor Wilhelm Furtwaengler, and the pianist, Walter Gieseking.* As a publication, something in print, this project would appear to have been planned as a useful medium of indoctrination for Dr. Goebbels’ office. [Print is static, quite permanent; even though paper copies could be destroyed, words, somehow do, in spite of that, reach discriminating, literate eyes.]
The great plan was to weave an enduring tapestry of State Culture well scrutinized, then regulated, thus forming a strongly enforced fabric. Literature must appear in type face that should further the Germanic root-Spirit; ideally in ancient, Gothic “Black letter” or “Fraktur.” During the twentieth century, eyes throughout the western world are accustomed to varied forms of Roman print. The Third Reich demanded continuance of the established practice of using old styles of type for certain works; but for all-German works, words, . . . as though in print; were to be mirrors of philosophy based strongly upon such as those of Moeller an den Bruck, historian, died 1925:
What he (van den Bruck) and his fellows consider to be politically desirable is clothed in the goal of destiny and mission . . . 20 
Various books had been burned in dramatic and flamboyant bonfires after the 1933 German revolution. The apparent goal of Destiny was to be furthered in many ways ... using “Black letter,” purged by fire of un-German ideas—fact or fiction.
For “Entertainment” music, athletics, motion pictures and plays for the masses continued to be produced in profusion.
But literature, a more permanent, more powerful method of planned expression, might stir up vigorously more erudite members of the state, might be stimulating for nervous university students. Carefully govern the printed word, the pen, more thoroughly, more drastically . . . ?
Frahtur, nevertheless, books appeared published by Walter de Gruyter and Co., Berlin, in clear Roman print. In 1936, Strecker and Schroeder Verlag, Stuttgart, printed “Im Lande des Gada,” (wandering in southern Ethiopia) composed in Dodot-Antigua type, bound with a modernistic nonobjective cover design.
Ideology nevertheless, E. von Salomon, the internationally famous biographer, remained in the Reich—not joining the Nazi Party.21 Nevertheless, Hans Fallada, master of sarcasm gently formed into quiet satire, stayed to write “Wolfe unter Woelfen” in 1937. H.H. Ewers, an interpreter of the Grotesque, remained at home (no record of works after 1928, though, is to be found.)22
Perhaps such men as Rudolf binding, writer of old-fashioned knightly spirit objected to the New Order of Spirit but he wrote “Natur und Kunst” in 1939. The novelist Paul Alverdes wrote “Das Zweigesicht” in 1938. The novelist of peasant life treated in Low-German dialect, F. Griese, wrote “Die Wagenburg” in 1935. F. Thiess, the essayist on nature and culture, on interpretations of the soul-psyche, continued to be published.23
For a large number of the famous and older interpreters of the soul-psyche of their native land, the fires of purification under Dr. Goebbels’ crucibles were dangerous and intolerable. The experiments, they thought, were turning gold into lead. Thomas Mann had slipped safely out of the laboratory, quickly, Carl von Ossietsky, a writer whose name was known throughout Europe became the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize of 1935, left his country after a bitter, physically tortured battle with the Reich’s new regime. Following this, Hitler forbade Germans by law from accepting the Swedish awards. *
This nation of overwhelming output in imaginative and scholarly writing, a nation of philosophers, of artists, such as Goethe, Schiller, Kant, Lessing, Nietzsche and Hoelderlin, seemed by news agency reports, to be shriveling literarily; to contain a few writers, their books written within a dark age . . . a dungeon.
Yet, Erich Kaestner, writer of adventurous children’s books, of charming sweet-sour scepticism and satire, continued with “Georg and die Zwischenfalle” in 1938. The poet Hans Carossa won the Frankfort Goethe prize in 1938 after his collected works had appeared in 1937. A poem of Carossa’s “Who Shall Tell Us Today?” although declaimed before Hitler Youth meetings, seemed harmless to one qualified authority, who wrote that, “There is little direct evidence regarding his (Carossa’s) opinion of the regime.”24
“Inexplicably,” according to the politically accepted values of leading authorities generally stated in the free world,” the most famous figure of German literature for the previous half-century, Gerhart Hauptmann (Nobel Prize in literature 1921), remained at home in Silesia and wrote a novel Der Schuss im Park
mmmmmm “Der Schuss im Park,” 1942. *
The meaning of Destiny and the Mission within German Literature mmmm at that time might have been explained in Dr. Rosenberg’s books, but today one may find that all the readers and certainly all the writers of the Third Reich were not sure of definite meaning, nor were they all filled with parochially doctrinaire products for Hitler’s “Mission.” Martin Spahn, German historian, wrote to the effect that there were no national boundaries to the Reich’s culture but actually an area of Middle-European thought.25 Hardly had this been written, than in 1941, mass transportation of populations was forced by the Nazis . . . 26 experiment, paradox?
The writers who stayed, who are given comparatively small space in current encyclopedias and anthologies, may grow in the esteem of critical opinion as time passes; they may equal in respect or surpass in recognition those who left Germany during the thirtiemmm 1930s . . . Careful appraisal, after emotions have cooled, may find value in those who remained after Hitler had dismissed Arnold and Stefen Zweig, Lion Feuchtwanger, Franz Werfel, Emil Ludwig . . . Future frames of reference may find it politically necessary to regard the period as H.O. Burger expressed it: a 12-year space of fatal, tragic-hybrid proceedings.27
Van den Bruck had written long before—that what he envisioned as the coming revolution “Is the dawn of a new mentality and a new self knowledge. It is this; or—it is our doom.”28 The paradox of continuing valuable musical achievement coexisting with supposed less valuable literary achievement—the uneven production of each of the arts—within the German nation of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party seems to this writer to be a strange and yet as valid a motive for distrust for didactic interpretation and criticism as are the paradoxes of those who interpret the terminology of the party’s name itself.
During the middle 1930s the facade of the Schiller theater in Berlin was altered and provided with a more severe and stark effect.* Public entertainment had to be offered as bread and circuses provided “eternally” with ingredients, controlled quite rigidly, to be used for . . . to try Dr. Goebbels’ laboratory experiments.
Subsidies from the government were increased. Independent, unsubsidized management of large and small theater groups practically disappeared.29 Communications increased from the Propaganda Ministry to the heads of theater groups, but actual Nazi party propaganda in entertainment, offered all segments of the public, was sporadic and usually unobtrusive until the war. Unlike literature for sale, entertainment for sale involved performers, interpreters who timelessly known to be temperamentally intractable, rebellious and individualistic. The great majority of non-Jewish performers in the Drama stayed on after 1933, and lived according to their own personalities and styles. Because of their popular following . . . “Dr. Goebbels was far too astute not to have known “what’s in a name ...? An actor’s contribution to the structure of the Reich was considered so essential that he could practically write his own ticket “30
Still, the face of German legitimate drama was altered and the inner workings of this form of art were to feel the effects. All Jewish personnel was proscribed. Max Reinhardt and his spectacular productions left the country quickly. Elizabeth Bergner and Francis Lederer “escaped” with many other performers. The western world and Soviet Russia were to welcome these people and receive their reports of the Nazi Theater for years after 1933. Their stories are well known in America and have been repeated in detail.
The classics were performed for the more educated element of the public in all of the State theaters. Shakespeare, Ibsen and Chekhov were produced as new and carefully organized Theater libraries were built.31 The Head of the Theater library organization was Josef Gregor, Richard Strauss’ librettist. Major Theater groups were the Berliner Volksbuehne, Berliner Staatstheater and the Deutsches Theater. Of the internationally known directors remaining in Germany, Hanns Johst became President of The German Poet’s Academy and Drama Director of the Berlin State Theater.32
Juergen Fehling, an outstanding director according to Freedley and Reeves’ History of the Theater, found much new work before him . . . specializing in such as “King Lear” and Lenz’s “Soldaten.”
The most internationally praised actor to remain in serious drama throughout the Nazi period was Werner Krauss, noted for his astounding versatility both in stage and film work. Paula Wessely, Hilde Thimig, of the noted Thimig family, Kaethe Haack and Kaethe Dorsch shuttled back and forth from Berlin to Vienna.33
In passing, skepticism might be caused concerning such opinions as those of Ossia Trilling when she stated that “During the Nazi regime hardly one serious play and certainly none from the democracies had been staged.”34
New plays were written, among them Richard Billinger’s “The Giant,” 1937, filmed as “The Golden City,” Curt Langenbeck’s “Henry the Sixth,” 1936, and “The Sword,” 1940.35 Gerhart Hauptmann, supposedly known to well-schooled United States High School students through “The Sunken Bell” and “The Weavers,” wrote his “Hamlet in Wittenberg,” 1935, and began an ideology, finished after the war, with “Iphigenia in Delphi,” 1941. Two well-qualified authorities in the field, Freedley and Reeves, state that “He, (Hauptmann) is the finest German dramatist since Goethe.36 Information available is dubious concerning Hauptmann’s personal ideology, if in conflict with the Nazi regime; he died in 1946.
Dr. Goebbels’ office had little success in editing the Passion Play pageants at Oberammergau—only in the staging of tribalistic and paganistic pageants, such as rallies at Nuremberg did the banners fly and political actors declaim: and Hermann Goering had enhanced his dramatic presence with advice from his second wife, Emmy Sonnemann, a former film player. Such profoundly philosophical pageants as a choral work,” Symbol of the Flag,” by K. Schurtze, “In which the bad worker’s complaints ware silenced by the good worker’s assurance that if they work with their hearts, they will be free,”37did not, it seems, appeal to the box-office potential of the German mind and pocketbook for repeatedly successful consumption.
But the appeal of drama, like the appeal of music, held on until the bitterly burning end of the demolished alchemists’ laboratory”: American soldiers found posters still plastered to shaking walls in shattered Berlin . . . announcing performances scheduled for April 1945.38
The Soviet film “Potëmkin” was declared by Dr. Goebbels to be a working model for the enormous facilities of German film production: however, the Propaganda Minister did not force the grinding-out of monotonous, violently Nazified motion pictures.39 “Battleship Potëmkin,” produced in 1925, was an awe-inspiring film depicting the collective spirit of sailors in revolt helped by the good townspeople of Odessa during the bloody Russian change of government after the first World War. It remained to be proved that German audiences would pay for such entertainment as this in quantity.
Munich produced the first films under Nazi rule—and with “Hitlerjunge Quex,” written under the supervision of the party, an indirect, carefully treated, subtle appeal to the generalized German youth found expression. Direct political arguments were rare after 1933.40
Leni Riefenstahl directed and edited almost the entire output of films produced in pageant or documentary form for propaganda effect. The supreme achievement for this remarkable woman was the “Triumph of the Will,” 1937. Richard Griffith, Executive Director at the National Board of Review of Motion Pictures in New York, (1948) compared Riefenstahl with the great G. W. Pabst and the famous Sergei Eisenstein.41
  With carefully psychic use of subtle inference, rather than blatant flay-waving, few actual documentaries were injected with exclusively Nazi ideology in a heavy-handed way—even throughout the war. Glorification of Germanic patriotism and armed forces appeared more frequently after September 1939, in the form of campaign films, such as “Feldzug Im Polen” and “Sieg Im Westen” (campaign in Poland-- Baptism of fire and victory in the West). The first of these carefully manipulated news compilations, although not necessarily direct political propaganda, functioned as a strategic weapon of intimidation upon countries to be overrun subsequently. Expanded newsreels, forty minutes in length, after 1940 became a second feature on every domestic program.42
German fiction films and musical films during the Third Reich era were generally produced as innocuous entertainment. Certain famous directors of post-World War I films noted for supposed social progress accommodated themselves to the Goebbels scheme. The most noted director to cause controversy and consternation for his switch over was G. W. Pabst, who returned to Germany from France at the outbreak of war, edited “Feldzug im Polen,” and directed “Paracelsus,” with Werner Krauss in the leading role.43
Pola Negri returned from America and became a star of Third Reich films. (“Mazurka,” ca. 1935), Lil Dagover, Zarah Leander, Paul Hoerbiger, Paul Wegener, Lilian Harvey and Emil Jannings appeared continually.
Ufa and Tobis, with affiliated firms, were the largest film companies in production during the 1930s. Bavaria, the last independent production company, was absorbed into the State trust by 1938.
The apparent lack of all-out Nazi film propaganda may be explained, in part, by the existence of an economic policy within the State trust planned to produce entertainment (films) as an export item, useful as a means of peaceful penetration for good will, particularly in South America.44 “Das Unsterbliche Herz,” (The Immortal Heart), ca. 1938, a life of the inventor of the pocket watch, was a technically superior film noted for the appearance of Leo Slezak, famous old operatic tenor. “Der Tag Nach Der Scheidung,” (The Day After the Divorce) ca. 1939, was an example of the Hollywood product in harmless German comedy form.
In reference to government interference and manipulation of film distribution, direct evidence of Nazi dictatorial policies over German film products may no doubt be found—even as evidence has been found proving the suppression of John Huston’s last U.S. Army film Let There Be Light, 1945, by the United States War Department. 45
The German nation of Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party prepared a social organism for culture and prepared a machine for war at the same time. The leaders of Nazi Germany may or may not have planned a machine for the enormous war which developed. Preparations were not successful.
Those things which remain to be seen, to be heard and to be evaluated, produced as German culture during the 12-year Nazi period, prove the existence of Architecture controversial in taste, music of growing critical esteem, literature presumed to have been in a shadow of former greatness, drama performed with traditional German competence and written with mediocrity according to current accepted criticism.
Those forms of culture did exist—in more quantity than the average American may have been allowed to know they existed, certainly in better quality. That this period was a garden of culture behind a munitions factory is not evident: that this period was a desert of culture behind the factory is not evident
Example: The Hitler regime may have tried to impose Dr. Raabe’s definition of “Good” music upon the mass population of Germany. Dr. Raabe’s public may not have had the freedom to choose cheap, badly written pseudo primitive, somehow-arranged noise to hear in quantity ad nauseam. The victorious Western Nations may have imposed de-nazification upon music authoritarians, and may thus have given the population of one third of the former Reich the freedom to choose what they will. Today the population of the former Reich may have the freedom to diversify into new, alien, strongly delineated taste-classes—choosing the “culture,” arts and music their peer groups deem “Good.”... (cool?) 1998.
Endnotes
1 H. Lichtenberger, The Third Reich, p. 182.
2 Germany Library of Information, N.Y., N.Y. A Nation Builds, 1940, p. 5.
3 Ibid, p. 17.
4 Ibid, p. 18.
5 Postcard from Hannover, 1958.
6 Op. Cit. p.103.
7 The Architectural Forum. Sept. 1939, p. 200.
8 “Music in Nazi Germany”, Article, M. Bell, Musical Times, London, Feb. 1938, p. 99.
9 Names verified through Der Brochaus encyclopedia. F.S.U. Library.
10 Musical Times, London, Feb. 1938, p. 146.
11 Die Woche. Jan. 1939.
12 Der Brockhaus.
13 Musical Times. London, Feb.
14 Ibid, p. 146.
15 i.e. Baker’s Biographical Dictionary of Musicians, Sloninsky, ed.
16 Die Woche, 1939, issue not in library: Der Brocckhus verification.
17 Der Brockhaus.
18 Ibid.
19 J. Parker, ed., Who’s Who In The Theatre, 9th ed.
20 Roy Pascal, article, The Third Reich, Unesco and eds., p. 348.
21 H.R. Crippen, Germany: A Self Portrait, p. 104.
22 Der Brockhaus.
23 Ibid.
24 Crippen, op. cit., p. 376.
25 M. Spahn, Das Reich und Mitteleuopa,1940, inside cover.
26 H.C. Meyer, Mitteleuropa in German Thought and Actions, 1815-1945, p. 320.
27 H.O. Burger, Annalen der Deutschen Literatur, p. 813.
28 M. van den Bruck, Germany’s Third Empire eng. Ed. By E.O. Lorimer, 1934, p.23.
29 I.G. Freedley, J.A. Reeves, A History of the Theatre, p. 533.
30 G.W. van Loon, “Bavaria: Showcase of Democracy,” article, Theatre Arts, Aug. 1947, p. 61.
31 Freedley, op. cit., p. 533.
32 Lynton Hudson, Life and the Theatre, p. 89.
33 Freedley, op. cit., p. 642.
34 Andrew and Trilling, International Theatre, p. 139.
35 Verification of plays, dates, Der Brockhaus.
36 Freedley, op. cit., p. 510.
37 L. Hudson, Life and the Theatre, p. 89.
38 Freedley, op. cit., p. 625.
39 Paul Rotha, The Film Till Now, p. 585.
40 Ibid, p. 587.
41 Ibid, p. 591.
42 Ibid, p. 593.
43 Ibid, p. 584.
44 Ibid, p. 587.
45 Rotha, op. cit., p. 501.
Bibliography
Andrew, J., and O. Trilling, International Theatre, S. Low, Ltd., London, 1949. ooo
Der Brockhaus. Encyclopedia. F.A. Brockhaus. Weisbaden. (1957)
Burger, H.O. Annalen der Deutschen Literatur. J.B. Metzler. Stuttgart. (1952)
Crippen, H.R. Germany: A Self-Portrait. Oxford University Press. N.Y., London. (1944)
Freedley, J.G., J.A. Reeves. A History of the Theatre. Crown Publishers, Inc. New York. (1955)
German Library of Information. A Nation Builds. Germany Library of Information. New York. (1940). (F.S.U. lang. Lab.)
Hudson, L. Life and the Theatre. G.G. Harrap, Ltd. London. (1949)
Lichtenberger, H. The Third Reich. Greystone Press. New York. (1937)
Meyer, H.C. Mitteleuropa In German Thought and Actions. 1815-1945. Nijhofff. The Hague. (1955)
van Loon, G.W. “Bavaria: Showcase of Democracy,” Theatre Arts. Theatre Arts Inc. New York. (August 1947)
Moeller van den Bruck, H. Germany’s Third Empire. (Eng. Ed. E.O. Lorimer). Allen and Unwin Ltd. London. (1934)
Parker, J. (Ed.). Who’s Who in the Theatre. Ninth Edition. I Pitman. London. (1939)
Pascal, R., “H.M. van den Bruck,” Unesco, et al., The Third Reich, Praeger, Inc., New York, 1955.
Rotha, Paul. The Film till Now. Vision Press, Ltd. London. (1949)
Slonimsky, N. (Ed.) Baker’s Biographical Dictionary of Musicians. Fifth Edition, G. Schirmer, Inc. New York. (1958)
Spahn, M. Das Reich Und Mitteleuropa.
The Architectural Forum. (Editorial-news column) Rogers and Manson, Boston. (Sept. 1939)
Bell, M., “Music in Nazi Germany,” Musical ,. Novello, Ltd., London, Feb. 1938. ????xxxx
Musical Times, Novello, Ltd., London, news columns, Feb. and Sept. 1938. 
|
