Performing the Nation in Interwar Germany

Transcription

10.1057/9780230274778preview - Performing the Nation in Interwar Germany, Nadine Rossol
Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to npg - PalgraveConnect - 2017-01-16
This page intentionally left blank
Performing the Nation
in Interwar Germany
Nadine Rossol
Sport, Spectacle and Political
Symbolism, 1926–36
© Nadine Rossol 2010
All rights reserved. No reproduction, copy or transmission of this
publication may be made without written permission.
Any person who does any unauthorized act in relation to this publication
may be liable to criminal prosecution and civil claims for damages.
The author has asserted her right to be identified
as the author of this work in accordance with the Copyright,
Designs and Patents Act 1988.
First published 2010 by
PALGRAVE MACMILLAN
Palgrave Macmillan in the UK is an imprint of Macmillan Publishers Limited,
registered in England, company number 785998, of Houndmills, Basingstoke,
Hampshire RG21 6XS.
Palgrave Macmillan in the US is a division of St Martin’s Press LLC,
175 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10010.
Palgrave Macmillan is the global academic imprint of the above companies
and has companies and representatives throughout the world.
Palgrave® and Macmillan® are registered trademarks in the United States,
the United Kingdom, Europe and other countries.
ISBN 978–0–230–21793–5 hardback
This book is printed on paper suitable for recycling and made from fully
managed and sustained forest sources. Logging, pulping and manufacturing
processes are expected to conform to the environmental regulations of the
country of origin.
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.
A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress.
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10
Printed and bound in Great Britain by
CPI Antony Rowe, Chippenham and Eastbourne
No portion of this publication may be reproduced, copied or transmitted
save with written permission or in accordance with the provisions of the
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, or under the terms of any licence
permitting limited copying issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency,
Saffron House, 6-10 Kirby Street, London EC1N 8TS.
Für Emma
This page intentionally left blank
List of Illustrations
ix
List of Abbreviations
xi
Acknowledgements
xii
Introduction
1
1 Bodies and Urban Space: Parades, Marches and
Demonstrations 1890s–1920s
‘When the Germans learned to demonstrate . . .’:
Demonstrations in Imperial Germany
The republic and parades: Expressing republican
spirit or militaristic principles?
‘A black-red-gold storm in German Cities’:
Interpreting urban space
13
14
18
25
2 Sports and Games 1925–1928
Frankfurt in 1925: The Workers’ Olympics
Cologne’s Kampfspiele in 1926: Sport and the nation
‘Turnvater Jahn’ and republican festivities in August 1928
34
35
42
49
3 Staging the Republic: Constitution Day Festivities in
1929
‘Staging the Republic’: Ideas, concepts, problems
Flags, masses and parades: August 1929
A republican mass spectacle: Performing unity
58
59
66
71
4 Republican Nationalism: The Rhineland Celebration in
1930
The republic and nationalist themes
The Rhineland as part of festive representation
The Rhineland mass spectacle in 1930
80
81
85
90
5 Party Rallies and the Thingspiel in the Third Reich
Nazi Party Rallies: Staging the Volksgemeinschaft
The Nazi Thingspiel: A National Socialist theatre form
vii
102
103
108
Contents
viii Contents
113
6 The Death of the Spectacle in the mid-1930s
The festive play at the Olympic Games in 1936
The death of the spectacle in the mid-1930s
Territorial unity in 1938: The sporting festival in Breslau
121
122
129
133
7 ‘Like 100 years ago . . .’: Local Festivities in Weimar and
Nazi Germany
Constitution Day celebrations at local level
The Reichsbanner and its festivities
Reforming popular taste: The Nazis and local celebrations
139
140
145
150
Conclusion
158
Notes
166
Bibliography
204
Index
222
The Loreley and the Thingspiel: Rhine romantic
and spectacles
1.1 Illustrierte Reichsbanner Zeitung, 21.8.1926, title page: Der
Tag der Hundertausend in Nürnberg. Courtesy of Verlag
J.H.W. Dietz Nachf
1.2 Constitution Day Celebration 1928. Courtesy of Institut
für Stadtgeschichte Frankfurt am Main
1.3 Der Heimatdienst, IX, no.3, February 1929, title page: Zum
Jubiläum der Deutschen Nationalversammlung
2.1 Workers’ Olympics 1925. Courtesy of Institut für
Stadtgeschichte Frankfurt am Main
2.2 Kampfspiele 1926. Courtesy of Carl und Liselott
Diem-Archiv, Cologne
2.3 Kampfspiele 1926. Courtesy of Carl und Liselott Diem
Archiv, Cologne
2.4 Illustrierte Reichsbanner Zeitung, 26.5.1928, no. 21.
Courtesy of Verlag J.H.W. Dietz Nachf
2.5 Der Heimatdienst, VII, no. 15, 1. Augustheft 1928, Friedrich
Ludwig Jahn, 11.8.1778
3.1 Illustrierte Reichsbanner Zeitung, 22.8.1925, no.34, Einst
und Jetzt: Ein ‘Volksfest 1913’ in Berlin, Verfassungsfeier
der Republikaner 1925 in Berlin. Courtesy of Verlag J.H.W.
Dietz Nachf
3.2 Festschrift zur Bundesverfassungsfeier Reichsbanner
Schwarz-Rot-Gold 10-11. August, Berlin 1929 (Berlin, 1929)
cover
3.3 Deutsches Kunstarchiv im Germanischen
Nationalmuseum, Nürnberg, NL Redslob, I,B-240, Das 12
Uhr Blatt, 12.8.1929, no.187. Courtesy of Deutsches
Kunstarchiv im Germanischen Nationalmuseum,
Nürnberg
4.1 Illustrierte Republikanische Zeitung, 9.8.1930. Courtesy of
Verlag J.H.W. Dietz Nachf
Nationalmuseum, Nürnberg, NL Redslob, Festspiel zur
Rheinlandbefreiung. Courtesy of Deutsches Kunstarchiv
im Germanischen Nationalmuseum, Nürnberg
ix
21
27
28
39
46
48
50
55
62
69
75
84
93
List of Illustrations
x List of Illustrations
94
116
117
While every effort has been made to trace right holders, if any have been
inadvertently overlooked the publishers would be pleased to make the
necessary arrangements at the first opportunity.
Nationalmuseum, Nürnberg, NL Redslob, Festspiel zur
Rheinlandbefreiung. Courtesy of Deutsches Kunstarchiv
im Germanischen Nationalmuseum, Nürnberg
5.1 Loreley Thingspiel site 1935/36. Courtesy of
St. Goarshausen Archiv
5.2 Loreley Thingspiel arena completed. Courtesy of
St. Goarshausen Archiv
AdsD
BArch Berlin
BLHA
DAF
DDP
DNVP
DVP
FRG
GDR
GNM, DKA
GStAPK
IRZ
KdF
LAB
NL
NSDAP
PSK
RAD
RM
SA
SPD
Archiv der sozialen Demokratie
Bundesarchiv Berlin
Brandenburgisches Landeshauptarchiv Potsdam
Deutsche Arbeitsfront (German Labour Front)
Deutsche Demokratische Partei (German
Democratic Party)
Deutschnationale Volkspartei (German
Nationalist People’s Party)
Deutsche Volkspartei (German People’s Party)
Federal Republic of Germany
German Democratic Republic
Germanisches Nationalmuseum Nürnberg,
Deutsches Kunstarchiv
Geheimes Staatsarchiv Preußischer Kulturbesitz
Illustrierte Reichsbanner Zeitung/ later: Illustrierte
Republikanische Zeitung
Kraft durch Freude (Strength through Joy
organisation)
Landesarchiv Berlin
Nachlass
Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei
(National Socialist German Workers’ Party)
Provinzial Schulkolleg
Reichsarbeitsdienst (State Labour Service)
Reichsmark
Sturmabteilung (Nazi stormtroopers’
organisation)
Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschland
(German Social Democratic Party)
xi
List of Abbreviations
One of the nicest tasks of writing a book is to thank all those who have
contributed to its completion. My first debt is to Anthony McElligott,
who supervised my PhD thesis on which this book is based. As he
will know best, his unfailing confidence, academic mentoring, moral
support and friendship have helped me immeasurably. I could not
have wished for a kinder and, at times, more challenging mentor who
made sure that I would only give my best. For all that I would like to
thank him.
Over the years, I had the pleasure of discussing my research with a
number of people whose suggestions have helped me to form my ideas.
Many of them have shared my research in Berlin with me. I am grateful
to David Meeres, Christoph Jahr, Susanne Kiewitz, Ute Krickeberg and
Jens Thiel. Special thanks are due to Tina Dingel for her good-humoured
moral support. Christian Welzbacher and Bernd Buchner share my fascination for the Reichskunstwart and have inspired me with their own
works. Bernd Buchner generously took the time to read and comment
on the PhD thesis. I have benefited greatly from his knowledge on Social
Democratic symbols. For their insightful comments on the manuscript
undoubtedly turning this into a better book, I am particularly grateful to
Moritz Föllmer, Anthony McElligott, Matthew Potter, Willemijn Ruberg
and David Welch.
When I started my PhD in the History Department at the University of
Limerick in 2002, I experienced the light-hearted companionship of the
extraordinary postgraduate community there. Friends and colleagues in
the History Department found time to proof read pieces of my work
and provided practical help when it came to juggling academic tasks.
My thanks go to all of them.
Thanks also to Emmanuelle Bossé, Willemijn Ruberg and Claudia
Siebrecht for their companionship in the past years. Rachael Powell and
Babette Pütz have accompanied my work with their interest and friendship ever since I have met them in St Andrews. In Germany my friends
Andrea Schlüter, Anja Sager and in particular Dorothea Scigala Ostrek
have contributed more than they might be aware of to the completing
of this study.
My book would not have been possible without the great assistance of
numerous archivists and librarians in Berlin, Bonn, Cologne, Frankfurt
xii
Acknowledgements
xiii
am Main, Koblenz, Leipzig, Nuremberg, Potsdam and St. Goarshausen.
I would like to thank Dr Hans-Georg Golz (Bundeszentrale für politische
Bildung), Mareike Malzbender (Dietz Verlag), Werner Bonn (Archiv
St. Goarshausen), Dr Birgit Jooss (Deutsches Kunstarchiv im Germanischen Nationalmuseum Nürnberg), Michael Winter (Carl und Liselott
Diem-Archiv Köln) and Irmgard Bartel (Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung Bonn).
I had the pleasure of presenting parts of my work at the German
Historical Institute in London, the Centre for Historical Research in
Limerick, the University of St Andrews, the German Studies Association
conference in St Paul and the research seminar of Heinrich A. Winkler
at the Humboldt University Berlin. The participants of these seminars provided further thoughtful comments of which I have benefited
greatly.
I was very fortunate to have received generous funding for my work.
Plassey Campus Centre in Limerick and the Irish Research Council for
the Humanities and Social Sciences supported me with postgraduate
scholarships. The Faculty of Humanities at the University of Limerick
helped with a one-year fee waiver and a number of conference grants.
I am particularly grateful for the support and the sustained interest in
my work of the Irish Research Council for the Humanities and Social
Sciences (IRCHSS). A two-year postdoctoral fellowship granted by the
IRCHSS allowed me to complete my book and embark on a new research
project.
This book is dedicated to my little goddaughter and niece Emma. As
much as for Emma the book is for my entire family whose encouragement, warmth and humour have helped me tremendously. Despite the
constant absences I inflict upon them since my undergraduate years in
Scotland, I can count on their unconditional support for my academic
journeys. I know that this is not a small matter.
Acknowledgements
Writing on Weimar and Nazi Germany, with an eye to political culture,
means first of all dealing with a number of images and assumptions
closely linked to both periods. The term ‘Weimar culture’ evokes a set of
mental snapshots. Some of them are of the stunning Marlene Dietrich,
the modern architecture of the Bauhaus, or Charleston-dancing girls in
short dresses. Breathtaking cultural prosperity stands in sharp contrast
to political turmoil and economic depression. In these images Weimar
Germany is crisis-ridden and exciting at the same time. The failure of
the republic and the sense of an intensive, but all too short, experiment in republican democracy and cultural modernity in Germany still
inspire scholars writing on Weimar to devise book titles such as Dancing on the Volcano or Promise and Tragedy.1 However, we need to keep in
mind that the cultural admiration of 1920s Germany is in part a post1945 phenomenon.2 After the collapse of the Nazi regime, the limelight
of Weimar culture shone even more brightly. Historians have helped to
create these impressions, too.3 In addition, the condemnations of the
alleged political shortcomings of the republic need to be placed in the
context of the late 1940s and early 1950s when ‘learning from Weimar’s
mistakes’ became the guideline for reconstructing Germany’s shattered
political system.4
It is this division of the Weimar era into spectacular culture on the
one hand and disastrous politics on the other that has long impeded
scholars from concentrating on an area in which the fusion of culture and politics was practised—republican state representation.5 The
attempts by the young Weimar Republic to promote its democratic
state-system to the German population with the help of symbols, monuments and festivities have long been neglected in historical research.
Instead, republican representation has been negatively contrasted to
allegedly more successful Nazi festivities.6 The claim that the republic
1
Introduction
never reached the hearts and minds of its citizens is added to the long
list of Weimar’s shortcomings. Once again, the republican experience is
placed in ‘the antechamber of the Third Reich’.7
Indeed, it is Nazi propaganda that provides us with the next set of
images illustrating some of the difficulties we are faced with. Scenes
from Leni Riefenstahl’s films on Nazi Party Rallies or photographs of
thousands of people waiting for the arrival of the Führer are part of
our collective memory of the Third Reich. Whether or not we have personal experiences of the Nazi regime is irrelevant. In fact, images of the
Third Reich seem to be gaining, rather than losing, appeal. It is quickly
forgotten that they were mostly the result of staged and rehearsed
performances and were created to be used as pieces of propaganda.8 Historical studies, which question the effectiveness of Nazi propaganda and
caution against overstating its impact, have not yet been able to change
commonly held perceptions. The Third Reich’s propaganda machinery
is considered to be masterly in its seductive and manipulating allure.9
Walter Benjamin’s concept stressing the use of aesthetics in politics has become commonplace in interpretations of Nazi representation, especially with regards to festivities, celebrations and spectacles.10
‘Gesamtkunstwerk of political aesthetics’ or ‘formative aesthetics’ are
terms used to analyse festivities in the Third Reich.11 They suggest that
the Nazis developed a specific style for their festivities with a deliberate
focus on aesthetics, symbols, decoration and festive set-up. This alleged
distinctive Nazi style is emphasised even more by positively contrasting it to the supposedly sober and boring celebrations of the Weimar
Republic. The trinity of manipulation, seduction and political aesthetics
is difficult to break up.
My study challenges the notion that the Nazis invented the use of
aesthetics for the staging of their mass events and argues instead that
the time span from the mid-1920s to the mid-1930s can be considered
as a whole with regard to the development of political aesthetics and
festive culture. A stress on rhythm, moving bodies and national community characterised many mass events in the republic and strongly
influenced festivities, parades, sporting activities and spectacles commissioned by the republican state in the Weimar years. When the National
Socialists came to power in 1933, they continued and expanded many
of the previously applied festive styles. Consequently, by the mid-1930s,
the closing point of my book, the public had been well accustomed to
the use of aesthetics in mass-staged events by political organisations and
by the state alike. In fact, at the end of the period covered in my study,
representational forms based on mass involvement in particular mass
2
3
plays—which had previously been so popular—were no longer believed
to express the Zeitgeist anymore. The seven chapters of the present work
follow a broad chronological outline. Commencing with an overview
on demonstrations in late Imperial Germany, their focus shifts to festive
events of the mid- and late 1920s and eventually to Nazi festivities of the
mid-1930s. In addition to the chronological order, I concentrate on individual themes closely linked to the development of ceremonial customs
and festive aesthetics. Discourses relating to festive choreographies,
mass staging and theatrical performances shape this book.
For the Weimar Republic, the stark contrast between difficult political
and economic circumstances and enormous cultural productivity led to
a whole range of negative crisis metaphors.12 However, recent works on
Weimar Germany have started to suggest more open approaches to the
period. Scholars have shown that contemporaries attached multilayered
meanings to the term ‘crisis’ which were sometimes positive, linking
‘crisis’ to new opportunities and options in the future.13 New approaches
to the Weimar Republic have not only challenged the negative crisis
concept—so closely linked to the notion of a ‘doomed’ republic—but
also focused on cultural history more than previous works. This does
not mean breaking away from political history but rather combining
both areas.14 Thomas Mergel has shown in his 2002 study on parliamentary culture in Weimar Germany how a cultural history approach
can shed new light on the study of politics.15 This is applied for the
areas of republican representation and political culture, too. Different
political milieus are analysed with greater interest in issues of cultural
identities.16 While older studies on political symbols and festivities in
Weimar Germany have mainly examined opposing political groups forging their public celebrations and symbolic representation against each
other,17 recent works have started to shift the focus away from the political extremes.18 Studies concentrating on the efforts of the Weimar state
and republican organisations to publicly present the young democracy
to the population have suggested more open and, indeed, more positive approaches to the allegedly boring, sober and timid representative
efforts in the Weimar years.19 In addition, republican political culture
on the ground—carried by democratic parties and other republican
groups—has received more nuanced attention than simply portraying
it as sandwiched between the political extremes.20
After this outlook on research trends, we want to concentrate more
closely on issues of aesthetic representation and festive performances as
part of the political culture of the 1920s and 1930s. While festivities,
spectacles and parades were already used by the monarchy to present
Introduction
and communicate its politics to the public, an essential change in style
and representation of politics occurred after the First World War.21 Bernd
Weisbrod argues that the war experience and its perception had created
a crisis for previously established symbolic forms of politics resulting
into a political style that stressed the visual, the performative and the
dramatic.22 The rhetoric of all political affiliations promised salvation
in the future and in so doing diverged more and more from political
reality. Furthermore, the potential opponent was demonised leading to
the dramatising of political decisions.23 Wolfgang Hardtwig takes up
this important focus on visual, performative and aesthetic aspects of
political culture for the interwar years but he largely excludes the supporters of Weimar democracy from this development. He claims that
the democrats stayed far behind the medial possibilities of their time to
visualise and personify politics.24
Taking a more nuanced approach, I will show that state representation in 1920s Germany echoed modern cultural developments with
a stress on three areas: the visual, the inclusive and the spectacular.
Both mass entertainment and elite culture in the Weimar Republic were
largely ‘a culture of the visual’;25 and the same holds true for the republic’s state representation, which was also characterised by a particular
‘inclusiveness’—that is, official encouragement to participate actively in
public festivities and great state occasions. In addition, there was an
emphasis on the overall impression of representative events, as can be
seen in the ways in which they were planned and staged. This is what
I mean by the ‘spectacular’ aspect of representative culture in Weimar
Germany. Clearly these elements were not limited to the representative
matters of the Weimar state but used by political parties as well as by the
Nazi state after 1933. In fact, the philosopher Peter Sloterdijk considers a
public performance culture as a common denominator for various political factions, including Weimar Germany’s democrats, in the interwar
years. He writes:
From expressionism to Marlene Dietrich’s spectacular legs in the film
The Blue Angel, from the bloody comedy of the Hitler putsch in 1923
to the performance of the Three-Penny-Opera, from the impressive
funeral ceremony for Walther Rathenau in 1922 to the travesty of
the Reichstag fire in 1933 . . . the constant crisis everyone talked about
was a good director creating spectacular effects.26
The time frame suggested in my study, 1926 to 1936, might seem
surprising at first and requires further explanation. Research on early
4
5
twentieth-century Germany has begun to challenge the legitimacy
and importance of conventional political breaks—such as 1918, 1933
and 1945—for developments in German history. Some works have
shifted the turning points to the end of the First World War and the
beginning of the second one arguing that the interwar years qualify as
a distinctive time period.27 Other scholars extend the boundaries even
further to the Imperial period either from 1914 to 1945 or, more creatively, from 1916 to 1936.28 This is not done to deprive the Weimar
Republic of its distinctiveness or to crush it between Imperial and Nazi
Germany, but rather meant to sharpen the eye for continuities and discontinuities. Hence more fluid boundaries between political state forms
are proposed. However, the areas of state representation, public rituals
and mass festivities are still often neglected in this development.
I take the efforts of the Weimar state and of republican organisations
to visually present the new democracy to a mass audience as the starting
point for my study. It was not until the mid-1920s that these attempts,
often prepared earlier, but postponed due to financial, political and economic instabilities, eventually bore fruit. Although the ‘stable middle
years’ of the republic were not as stable and peaceful as sometimes suggested, the lack of direct political threats to the existence of the Weimar
state created breathing space in which new representative methods and
concepts were tried out. Therefore, the mid-1920s constitute a good
starting point for this book. Similarly a decade later, in the mid-1930s,
changes occurred again. This time the inclusion of the public in mass
spectacles, hailed as a key principle of successful festivities and often
wrongly interpreted as a feature introduced by the National Socialists,
started to lose its appeal.
I have already referred to the increased interest in recent historical
research on cultural matters including visual history, identity formation
and national memory.29 Linked to this development, we are also witnessing a ‘performative turn’ in historical studies. Peter Burke’s insightful essay ‘Performing History: The Importance of Occasions’ offers an
overview on the various areas that can be fruitfully examined with
greater attention to the notion of performance. They range from the
study of emotions and the examination of political language to the focus
on festivals and theatrical performances.30 As much as the concentration on performance can be applied to the study of text, for example
the performance of emotions in letter writing, it is often understood as
an approach with its main focus on actions, symbols and rituals. It has
become a normal part of historical analysis for scholars working on the
medieval and early modern period but for the twentieth century there
Introduction
still remains much to explore using the significant insights that a closer
examination of public performances can offer.31
In my study, I concentrate on public performances in the form of
spectacles, parades, political assemblies and sports activities.32 These
different strands of a public performance culture shaped the early
twentieth century.33 The limitations of examining festivals, spectacles,
parades and assemblies lie in the very nature of these events. They were
unique experiences affecting participants and spectators in ways which
written sources as well as visual ones can only partially capture. Consequently, the various political and cultural meanings which the organisers inscribed into these performances become particularly important to
offer the ‘intended’ interpretative framework for the audience.
Many concepts discussed in relation to theatrical productions and
public performances play an important role in my study showing that
visual, performative and spectacular aspects were essential not only for
theatre directors and choreographers but also for public representations
of the state and its political message. Theatre directors, dance choreographers, artists and actors debated whether spatial reforms of their
stages would lead to different ways of staging their theatrical productions. The importance of rhythmic movements was discussed as much
as the more active inclusion of the audience.34 In fact, the theatre triggered and responded to contemporary discourses on the body, on spatial
conceptions and on modern technology as well as on the relationship
between the masses and the individual.35 We will see that many of these
issues influenced the planning of those responsible for the staging of
public festivities from the mid-1920s onwards.
My book centres on five mass spectacles. Chapter 1 provides an
overview on changes in the staging of parades and demonstrations in
Germany from the 1890s to the mid-1920s. In focusing on peaceful
street demonstrations of the working class in the Kaiserreich, Chapter 1
illustrates the importance allocated to the participants’ behaviour and
to the route the demonstrations took through the urban environment.
Later the chapter concentrates on the Weimar years and examines how
republican organisations and the Weimar state interpreted urban space
for the republican cause. Chapter 2 offers a comparative analysis of
two mass-staged sporting events in the mid-1920s: the socialist Workers’ Olympics in 1925 and the bourgeois Kampfspiele (combat games)
in 1926. Despite the different political ideologies, the choreographies
were strikingly similar. Chapter 2 will also illustrate that the republican state used sports to complement its festivities aiming at increasing
their popularity. Moving to the late 1920s, Chapter 3 examines different
6
7
ways of ‘staging the republic’ with a particular focus on a mass spectacle
commissioned and financed by the Weimar state in 1929 as part of its
annual republican celebration. This chapter traces how organisers and
planners attempted to present the spectacle as an aesthetic expression
of republican democracy. While Chapter 4 examines another mass spectacle commissioned by the republic in 1930, it shows nationalist instead
of republican overtones. The ‘liberation’ of the Rhineland in the summer of 1930, namely the withdrawal of foreign troops from the area,
was celebrated with a mass play that was nationalist in contents and
innovative in its staging. The themes of national regeneration and territorial wholeness were at the centre of the play. These four chapters also
illustrate a development in the bodily expressions used at public performances. Parades and sporting activities were eventually, as Chapters 3
and 4 show, incorporated into the extended framework of mass
spectacles.
The following three chapters, from Chapter 5 to Chapter 7, concentrate on the Third Reich. Chapter 5 offers a short overview on the staging
of Nazi Party Rallies and focuses in more detail on the Nazis’ efforts
to create their specific National Socialist mass theatre, the Thingspiel.
Applying many of the principles characteristic of experimental theatre
reforms of the Weimar years, the Thingspiel movement only flourished
in the early years of the Nazi dictatorship and ended in the mid-1930s.
The construction of the Loreley Thingspiel stage at the Rhine will exemplify the monumental ideas behind the project as well as its failure.
Chapter 6 concludes the examination of mass spectacles with a look at
the festive play staged at the opening ceremony of the Berlin Olympic
Games in 1936, one of the last spectacles of its type to be performed in
the Third Reich. Furthermore, the chapter examines the sporting festival in Breslau in 1938 bringing together the important themes of sports
and territorial unity. Finally, Chapter 7 shifts the focus to local festivities and shows that very few of the concepts characterising mass-staged
events had an impact on local level. Local festive styles remained largely
unchanged. Members of republican organisations in the 1920s and Nazi
propagandists in the 1930s attempted to reform local festivities echoing the same demands relating to the discipline of the participants, the
tasteful decoration of the venue and, above all, the avoidance of Kitsch
and light entertainment.
Several key themes run through the chapters illustrating continuities
between the Weimar and the Nazi period. First of all, spatial dimensions
of festivities, parades and spectacles were debated in various forms in
the time period under consideration here. Political connotations of the
Introduction
(often) urban environment in which the festive event took place were
immensely important. Urban space was interpreted and reinterpreted by
different political groups aiming at imprinting their political message(s)
upon this environment. Meanwhile, efforts to reform the actual space
of performances, for example moving from theatre houses to open-air
stages, were taken on board by most organisers of festivities regardless
of their political conviction. Next to the importance of spatial issues,
the theme of national regeneration through the restoration of territorial wholeness dominated discourses on celebrations, festivities and
spectacles. This seemingly nationalist topic was at the centre of almost
all festive performances in the 1920s and 1930s ranging from sporting
activities particularly welcoming German participants from ‘occupied
areas’ over republican spectacles celebrating the Rhineland ‘liberation’
to Nazi Party Rallies stressing Großdeutschland.
Although all the festive performances examined in my study used
the aesthetic appeal of the masses, their political connotations differed
substantially. When commenting on mass events, republican organisations wrote delightedly of mass support for the young democracy. The
Weimar state interpreted mass participation in festivities as resembling
a community of equals capturing the main principle of democracy in
this way. In the Nazi dictatorship, mass participation was presented as
the support of the ‘people’s community’ for Hitler. While political interpretations of the masses differed, its aesthetic appeal—when structured,
ordered and organised—applied to the entire period from the mid-1920s
to the mid-1930s.
The order of disciplined bodies making up geometric shapes or
forming—through simultaneous movements—the impression of one
national body fascinated many. It was also a well-established part of popular entertainment in both Weimar and Nazi Germany. Films and revues
presented orderly and disciplined bodies in dancing groups or in filmic
mass scenes.36 To add to popular entertainment, disciplined bodies were
an essential element of working-class demonstrations and parades since
the early twentieth century. Connected to disciplining bodies was disciplining the behaviour of those taking part in festive events. As much
as these festive forms appealed throughout the 1920s and 1930s, we
will see that there was also criticism on them. Ordered and disciplined
movements were criticised as resembling militaristic drill by some. Nevertheless, it was only in the mid-1930s when the fascination with
orderly formations of collective mass bodies came to an end.
To be sure, there existed an international dimension to the aesthetic elements and performative styles that will be examined here
8
9
for Germany. A focus on mass choreographies and spectacles, on welltrained bodies and disciplined participants, and on sports and aesthetics
characterised festive staging in democracies and dictatorships alike in
the 1920s and 1930s, both in Europe and the USA. Similarities and reciprocal influences have been examined for totalitarian regimes such as
Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy which demonstrate that
Italy served as a role model when it came to the staging of festivities.37
Simonetta Falasca-Zamponi argues that aesthetic considerations were
central to the construction of Italian fascism. This included the shaping of the disciplined fascist man both as an individual and as a part of
an orderly crowd.38 For Soviet Russia, Malte Rolf and others have analysed festivities in detail. Sport parades played an important role in them
presenting the trained bodies of athletes as visions of the new man in
the country’s future.39 A comparison of festivals and celebrations in dictatorships including Italy, Russia and Japan can be found in the 2006
special issue of the Journal of Modern European History.40
However, it was not just dictatorial regimes that influenced each other.
Public performance culture in the early twentieth century ranged from
reform ideas in theatre staging, the novelty and freshness expressed in
modern dance to the ever-increasing emphasis on inclusive and visually
appealing mass events. Already the international connections between
artists, theatre directors, choreographers and dancers meant that these
developments did not remain confined to one country.41 The theatre
historian Erika Fischer-Lichte shows that mass spectacles of the interwar
years can be interpreted as universal attempts of searching for a solution
when confronted with a crisis scenario. She argues that mass spectacles
in Europe and the USA were a form of political theatre characterised by
a combination of theatrical elements and political rituals that aimed at
inclusion, community and collective identity, regardless of the political
state form of the country.42
Still, not many studies have focused on the aesthetic forms, reference
points and representative means of democracies. The dictum that political aesthetics belong to the field of totalitarian regimes seems to be a
long lasting one. The fact that democratic states also need to communicate and ‘perform’ messages to the public has only recently begun to
influence historical studies. For Germany, the National Socialist legacy
in this area is hard to shake off.43 However, works on the signs and symbols of democratic parliaments have made a beginning in this field.44
In her innovative study on body and dance culture in the early twentieth century, Inge Baxmann suggests that the formation of an orderly
and disciplined national body—symbolised through mass spectacles,
Introduction
parades and processions—had been long established in Germany and
France relying on similar rituals and festive means. Unlike the Weimar
state that needed to inscribe political meaning(s) in mass spectacles,
France possessed an established national festive culture in which bodily practices stood for republican attributes and national community.
Baxmann writes: ‘Exercises of well formed bodies and synchronised
movements were expression of the orderly masses that had been transformed into the state’s citizens. Gymnastic exercises and games were
part of the political staging representing the opposite of the asocial, violent masses . . .’45 Clearly, discussions erupting in Germany in the 1920s
and 1930s on the inclusiveness of festivities, political connotations
of spectacles, the participation of the audience and the representative
devices of mass performances were not confined to Germany.
∗
∗
∗
Before we focus on parades and demonstrations examined in Chapter 1,
some background information important for the whole study should
be provided. While the name of the Nazi propaganda minister Joseph
Goebbels can be placed into context by many, his predecessor in the
Weimar years is less well known. It was the art historian Dr Edwin
Redslob (1884–1973) who was responsible for giving cultural and artistic shape to republican state representation and, in so doing, making the
republic visible to the population. After the end of the First World War
and the collapse of the monarchy, a democratic state was introduced
to the German population for the first time. To deal appropriately with
the challenges of republican state representation, a new state position,
the Reichskunstwart, was created in 1920. The small office was linked
to the Reich Ministry of the Interior. Edwin Redslob was appointed as
head of the office and the first, and only, Reichskunstwart. Redslob’s
office was dissolved when the Nazis came to power. While the office of
the Reichskunstwart was generally forgotten after 1945, Edwin Redslob
is remembered most for his activities after the Second World War. With
others, he founded the newspaper Der Tagespiegel and was one of the
founding fathers and acting rector of Berlin’s Free University to name
his most important initiatives.46
In the Weimar years, the Reichskunstwart was to be involved in all
areas of cultural state representation. This included the creation of new
state symbols, the staging of state celebrations and the erection of monuments. Redslob helped to shape the public face of the republic. In
practice, the work of the Reichskunstwart was made difficult by limited
10
You have reached the end of the preview for this book /
chapter.
You are viewing this book in preview mode, which allows selected pages
to be viewed without a current Palgrave Connect subscription. Pages
beyond this point are only available to subscribing institutions. If you
would like access the full book for your institution please:
Contact your librarian directly in order to request access, or;
Use our Library Recommendation Form to recommend this book to
your library
(http://www.palgraveconnect.com/pc/connect/info/recommend.html),
or;
Use the 'Purchase' button above to buy a copy of the title from
http://www.palgrave.com or an approved 3rd party.
If you believe you should have subscriber access to the full book please
check you are accessing Palgrave Connect from within your institution's
network, or you may need to login via our Institution / Athens Login page:
(http://www.palgraveconnect.com/pc/nams/svc/institutelogin?
target=/index.html).
Please respect intellectual property rights
This material is copyright and its use is restricted by our standard site
license terms and conditions (see
http://www.palgraveconnect.com/pc/connect/info/terms_conditions.html).
If you plan to copy, distribute or share in any format including, for the
avoidance of doubt, posting on websites, you need the express prior
permission of Palgrave Macmillan. To request permission please contact
rights@palgrave.com.
preview.html[22/12/2014 16:51:21]

Performing the Nation in Interwar Germany

Transcription

Similar documents

Nominationen in der Übersicht

Energie

Yatiawinaka La Paz Markana

English in Japan in the Era of Globalization

German Writers and the Politics of Culture

Seeing Hitler`s Germany: Tourism in the Third

Seeing Hitler`s Germany: Tourism in the Third

Court Culture in Dresden: From Renaissance to

Surviving Hitler`s War