Exile and Literature in the Prague German Magazine Die Wahrheit
Abstract
78
Full text
Exile and Literature in the Prague German Magazine Die Wahrheit* Štěpán Zbytovský Charles University, Prague, Department of Germanic Studies— Institut pro studium literatury stepan.zbytovsky@ff.cuni.cz SYNOPSIS This article shows how the topic of exile and exile literature was presented in the Prague magazine Die Wahrheit after Adolf Hitler came to power. Although Die Wahrheit was an expressly proCzechoslovak magazine, it focused on problematic aspects of the situation of German émigrés in the country, especially writers and other cultural actors. The article follows three interpretive models (Heinrich Heine, the ‘best Germany’, and ‘positive nomadism’), belonging to discursive formations in which the debate on the situation of exiles took place, shaping their self-understanding and ideas about possible solutions. The magazine’s critical attitudes towards the relationship between artistic exile and the Czechoslovak state are revealed on the example of debates about the (non) performance of Ferdinand Bruckner’s drama Die Rassen in Prague. KLÍČOVÁ SLOVA / KEYWORDS Německý tisk; exil; Československo; Praha; Die Wahrheit / the German press; exile; Czechoslovakia; Prague; Die Wahrheit. DOI https://doi.org/10.14712/23366680.2021.2.6 Even before Adolf Hitler came to power, some German literati and cultural activists sought refuge in Czechoslovakia to avoid increasing pressure from the institutions already controlled by the Nazis and the terror of the SA units.1 Starting in February 1933, however, the stream of refugees increased (even though their total number in * 1 OPEN ACCESS ! " This study is part of the research project ‘On Cle! Ground. Die Wahrheit Magazine as Cultural (Political) Medium in Interwar Prague’, supported by the Czech Science Foundation GACR (Project Reg. No. 20-00790S). The beneficiary of the grant is the Centre for Literary Research (IPSL), Prague. is applied primarily to many of those born in the Czech lands, for instance Alice RühleGerstel (1894 Prague — 1943 Mexico City) who spent the years 1932–1934 in Prague, including her inner break with the Communist Party. She describes the fates of the expatriates in her novel Der Umbruch oder Hanna und die Freiheit (wri en in 1938, published in 1984); cf. Friedrich (2012).
ŠTĚPÁN ZBYTOVSKÝ 79 the country never exceeded 40002), including an auspicious number of artists and intellectuals, such as Theodor Lessing, Oskar Kokoschka, Bertolt Brecht, Oskar Maria Graf, and Hermynia zur Mühlen, as well as Thomas and Heinrich Mann and others. Their names3 would soon come to characterise the idealised depiction of the Czechoslovak Republic as asafe haven from Nazism and important birthplace of the ‘antifascist front’ (Veselý 1983, p.26–29). However true it may be that German émigrés4 played arole in the cultural and political life of the Czechoslovak Republic and Central Europe during this period, and in the auxiliary work of various committees and commissions (Čapková— Frankl 2012, p.100–169), the existing academic literature also highlights the lack of asylum laws and generally uncoordinated state policy on refugees. By virtue of these shortcomings, some émigrés— cultural figures and others who were believed to offer agreater contribution to the economy— received certain privileges, while the bulk of ‘ordinary’ émigrés found themselves in agenerally dismal and uncertain situation (Čapková— Frankl 2012).5 Moreover, the rising antiSemitism in Czech society (Frankl 2010) had an impact on the situation of Jewish refugees, who made up asignificant proportion of the total number. Some Czechoslovak media organisations were quick to follow the story of the émigrés— and, crucially, sympathise with their perspective—, including the Praguebased German-language magazine Die Wahrheit (1921–1938), established by Wilhelm Barta and published by Adalbert Rév starting in 1923.6 It can be considered one of the most important expressly pro-Czechoslovak German-language periodicals published in Prague, second only to Prager Presse. Die Wahrheit published articles, surveys, and critical commentaries focusing on national reconciliation in Czechoslovakia and Central Europe, as well as such topics as Jewish culture and identity, the idea of pan-Europeanism, and pacifism. With acertain degree of promotional self-stylisation (and exaggerated claims regarding its uniqueness and mass popularity), the magazine reminded readers of its agenda in a1925 New Year’s editorial: On the rugged ground that political, national, social-dogmatic, and racial specialists are striving to occupy for their more or less dubious special purposes, and in this tumultuous epoch of the process of state building, which is still far from over, this universal, independent magazine has shown asteadfastness and appeal, the reasons 2 Čapková— Frankl (2012, p.32) point out that this was only asmall portion of the 33,000 German citizens who resided in Czechoslovakia in the 1930s. 3 Later communist Czechoslovakia highlighted the names of communist protégés such as Fritz Erpenbeck, Friedrich Wolf, Willi Bredel and others. This ideological filter is probably most evident in Gertrude Albrecht (1964). 4 In line with most of the period statements in the magazine, the term ‘émigré’ is used herein, even though it is apparent that they were mostly expatriates leaving Germany after having already experienced, or continuing to face, the real threat of persecution by the Nazi regime. 5 On prominent émigrés, cf. Čapková (2018); the case of the Mann brothers is presented by Lange (2021); the situation of visual artists in Czechoslovak exile is dealt with by Rokytová (2013). 6 The magazine was published weekly in the years 1933–1934, later as adecimal and fortnightly. OPEN ACCESS
80 SLOVO A SMYSL 37 for which are to be sought entirely outside of the customary journalistic means of promotion. […] Die Wahrheit is the only paper in Central Europe that stands for abroad pacifism that is not tied to any platform, while simultaneously striving for domestic and international reconciliation. […] Die Wahrheit […] has won over broad swathes of the population of all nationalities with its idea of practical work for peace, and has gained recognition for this activity from all people of sound judgment far beyond the borders of the Czechoslovak Republic. And it will persistently continue to follow this path, aiming at the fruitful conciliation of the interests of all members of this political system, bound together by destiny, without losing sight of the goal, which is called Europe (W1925, 1: 1).7 From 1933, the magazine followed the topic of German émigrés in Czechoslovakia, covering its social and financial aspects, as well as the cultural context and implications for the magazine’s own situation. Besides its local contributors, namely Georg Mannheimer, Paul Leppin, Julius Mader, Alfred Fuchs, Arthur Heller, Emanuel Rádl, and others, expatriate journalists and writers, including Justin Steinfeld, Julius Epstein, Grete Livius, Oskar Kokoschka, or Manfred Georg, published their articles and partially assisted on the editorial board. There were also articles by notable German exile figures in other European countries: for instance, Heinrich Mann, Joseph Roth, Helmut Klotz, and Magnus Hirschfeld. Finally, the magazine also focused on the topic of literature in exile from France, Austria, Switzerland, and Holland, in addition to Czechoslovakia. This paper explores several topics related to literary exile, which was frequently covered by the magazine and which became an important theme in the public discourse of the time. It will leave aside some highly polemical and expressly political debates concerning editorial choices at the magazine, such as the one in 1933–1934 that followed the publication of articles by (and an interview with) Otto Strasser, leader of the Black Front. FIRST VIEWS AND CONFRONTATIONS The topic of exile— or emigration, as the magazine usually referred to it— first appeared in asurvey announced on 23March 1933. In the 8April issue, contributions by leading representatives of German and Czech intellectual life in Czechoslovakia were published under the title Die Emigration in der Tschechoslowakei (‘Emigration in Czechoslovakia’). Authors included Franz Bacher, chairman of the syndicate of local German journalists,8 Otokar Fischer, translator and professor of German studies at 7 For more detailed information on the agenda of the magazine, see Zbytovský (2019a). The articles from Die Wahrheit are listed below under the names of their authors. In the study, they are indicated by the Wsiglum, the year of publication, the issue’s number, and the page. 8 Bacher (1884 Prague— 1945 Oświęcim) was the editor of Deutsche Zeitung Bohemia and was chairman of the Reichsgewerkschaft der deutschen Presse, asyndicate of German press in Bohemia, in 1919–1938. In 1931 he was co-opted as an MP in the Czechoslovak National Assembly, representing the German Labour and Election Association (DAWG). OPEN ACCESS
ŠTĚPÁN ZBYTOVSKÝ 81 Charles University, Emanuel Rádl, biology professor and philosopher, Alfred Fuchs, amember of the Government Presidium’s press department, and Ludwig Winder, chairman of the German writers’ association Schutzverband der deutschen Schri"steller in der Tschechoslowakei. All participants called for support of émigrés from the Third Reich. In his article, Bacher reminded readers of the many examples throughout history of people who were expelled from their native country and rehabilitated by subsequent generations. For those directly involved, he points out, it was even more crucial to resettle in an environment that gave them the strength to stand up to tyrants during the period of exile: #e countries and cities that take persecuted talents under their wing and give them the opportunity to continue their activity thus earn themselves aplace of honour in history. Alot of great and beautiful things have already been created in exile, and the glory of these achievements fell back on those who welcomed the refugees and created the conditions to enable them to continue in their work (W1933, 7–8: 7). In his opinion, it falls on the ‘guests’ themselves, however, to follow the principle of ‘not blithely exposing the host to embarrassing situations’ (ibid.), which may perhaps be related to diplomatically problematic political actions and positions.9 Fischer expressed his hope that Czechoslovakia would provide arefuge especially for German intellectuals who followed the spiritual tradition of the Weimar classics— ‘the Europeanism of Hölderlin, Heine, Nietzsche, the social tradition of Georg Büchner’ (ibid.). In return, he expected them to show active loyalty to the state, its Slavic majority, and to the Czech and Slovak language and education. Fuchs’s short reply emphasised the need for the broadest acceptance of all who have suffered for democracy— at the very least because abroad democratic offensive is necessary, not only adefensive stance against the Nazis. Winder, on behalf of the Trade-Protection Society of German Authors (Schutzverband deutscher Schri"steller), declared his support for the freedom of literature and offered practical help to everyone who needed it. However, he warned of difficulties that later proved to be substantial for the émigrés in the Czechoslovak Republic: But it would be irresponsibly reckless to make any promises to the German Reich writers who are now seeking asylum in Prague, because the prospects for making aliving for awriter who se$les here as aforeigner are miserable. #e newspaper offices are overcrowded, and the film industry for the time being is hardly an option. #ere is no major German-language publisher in Czechoslovakia (W1933, 7–8: 8). Emanuel Rádl took asimilar position but followed it much further. He first expressed his concern that discussion of this topic was premature (he initially doubted whether immigration from Germany to Czechoslovakia would be significant, but it soon 9 The Czechoslovak state especially considered the relationship with communist émigrés precarious, since their anti-democratic agitation could strengthen local radical tendencies and discredit the country in the international context. Cf. Čapková— Frankl (2012, pp.36–46, 88). OPEN ACCESS
82 SLOVO A SMYSL 37 proved to be the case). Yet he also called for unconditional acceptance of the refugees as guests of the Czechoslovak state. Considering the fate of Russian and Italian émigrés in Czechoslovakia as awarning, he then indicated two possible ways in which the situation could viably develop. Either the refugees would return to Germany soon after ‘emotions subside’, or they would ‘become fully assimilated in the new state and simply forget about Germany’ (ibid.). He characterised Czechoslovak culture, policy, and ‘spiritual structure’ in terms of its ‘constructive spirit’ and focus on what was ‘possible and practical’— wholly different from the German context, where the last generation of intellectuals were forced to take the position of asimple negation or even ‘destructive struggle’ against the nation’s majority: ‘This is why our friends from the German Reich will encounter greater reservations, among the Czechs as well as the Germans of our country, than they might have expected’ (ibid.). Moreover, according to Rádl, the Czechoslovak public (understandably, in his opinion) was not content simply to denounce the Nazis but tried to uncover the reasons for the defeat of ‘progressive forces’ in Germany, and he acknowledges that ‘the majority of the German nation supports the National Socialists’ (ibid.). Though Rádl in no way supported opposition to the refugees, aposition typically motivated by nationalist or even antiSemitic resentment, he openly advocated for realpolitik considerations based on the apparently broad support enjoyed by the Nazi regime in Germany at the time. This support undoubtedly strengthened the position of the German state in its pressure to restrict migration or even have the refugees repatriated.10 In any case, the magazine was one of the first publications to open the topic of German exile in Czechoslovakia to critical discussion. The ‘outer’ perspective of the local authors prevailed, along with manifestations of the principal sympathies. This was also confirmed in many articles, which soon directly or indirectly described the existential and social plight of the refugees. In aJuly 1933 article entitled ‘Vademecum für den Verkehr mit Emigranten’ (‘Vade mecum [handbook] for dealing with emigrants’), an author writing under the pseudonym Alfeus11 responds to the rising tensions among certain elements of Czechoslovak society vis-à-vis the influx of refugees. For anyone overcome by irrational feelings of anger or annoyance upon meeting an émigré in the street, he recommends making aconscious effort to imagine elementary scenes from the émigré’s life. By temporarily transforming your ‘settled self’ into a‘nomadic self’, he argues, it should be possible to ‘take aheadlong leap from the solid battlement of your calm, safe, bourgeois existence into chaos’ (W1933, 14: 14) consisting in various persecutions (including ahorde of SA-men ransacking your apartment), followed by an insecure existence in exile, and leading eventually to the total loss of identity— the moment when you no longer recognise your own face. The irritable or even hostile atmosphere 10 For the repatriation of the refugees, see Čapková— Frankl (2012, pp.62–71). 11 Alfeus published numerous commentaries in the magazine, as early as 1928, on the political situation in Germany and Czechoslovak-German relations, as well as social critique and literary topics. This pseudonym has not yet been reliably verified; most probably it was the aforementioned Alfred Fuchs (1892–1941), once astaunch supporter of the Czech Jewish movement, and one of the most prominent converts to Catholicism after 1921. He also contributed to České slovo, Tribuna, Přítomnost and other periodicals. OPEN ACCESS
ŠTĚPÁN ZBYTOVSKÝ 83 faced by émigrés is also mentioned in the article ‘Emigranten. Was uns eine Emigrantin schreibt’ (‘Emigrants: what one émigré writes to us’) signed F.M.,12 consisting in acollage of interviews and statements allegedly overheard in the waiting room and dining room of one of Prague’s auxiliary committees.13 All of them illustrate the existential plight faced by many émigrés, consisting especially in starvation and abasic unwillingness to accept the social role of the unprivileged (as arefugee), along with the tensions, frustrations, and passivity that result from these conditions. This is expressed with acertain irony by one unnamed young refugee: ‘One should write abook’, ayoung émigré insisted to his neighbours at the table, ‘the title: “How Should One Behave as an Émigré?” Point one: be modest, but not humble; point two: be cheerful, but not exuberant; point three: dress neither shabbily nor well. Who thinks this book should be wri$en?’ He meets the laughter of afew with satisfaction, calling out: ‘Vote!’ And, when nobody answers: ‘As Ialways say, émigrés don’t have the slightest sense of initiative.’ (W1933, 14: 14) The discussion on emigration in Die Wahrheit was carried out predominantly by émigrés who had settled in France and other countries rather than those who ended up in Bohemia. Just as with other social topics in previous years, Die Wahrheit tried to present the views of its foreign correspondents. The second issue of August contained three such articles. Emil Julius Gumbel, aformer professor of mathematical statistics from Heidelberg and long-term critic of the Nazi movement who had emigrated to Paris in 1932, contributed with his reflections on ‘Das Kernproblem der Emigration’ (‘The core problem of emigration’). Though he himself was from aprominent Jewish family in Württemberg, he draws attention to the fact that the totalitarian Nazi terror was not just acase of the consistent application of anti-Semitism, but a‘struggle against the entire class of German workers and all liberal and humanistic traditions of the German culture’ (W1933, 16: 3). Mere political protest and charitable assistance to German émigrés was not enough to defeat Nazism. It would be necessary to involve the émigrés directly in the ‘work’ of democratic countries, in order to return the benefits they enjoyed by emigrating. In his article, Hans Wendt14 focuses on aphenomena of the first stage of the Nazi regime: namely, the idea of ‘émigrés in Germany’ who moved from one part of the country to another to escape persecution or the threat of liquidation, and either anonymously or using counterfeit documents tried to overcome the existential crisis. Some, fleeing persecution for their political vocation, were able to continue with their work. According to Wendt, émigrés in Germany were in amore perilous situa12 The same initials were used in the Prager Presse by the literary critic Franz Meller. 13 Die Wahrheit paid attention to their work relatively often, especially to that of the Demokratische Flüchtlingsfürsorge established in March 1933 by Kurt Grossmann (cf.Becher 1992). 14 This was the pseudonym of the Dresden-based communist writer and musician Helmut Weiß (1913–2000), who by 1933 had succeeded in organising the smuggling of forbidden communist literature from Prague to Germany, but later fled to Russia, where he became the subject of Stalinist persecution and spent the years 1937–1947 in agulag. OPEN ACCESS
84 SLOVO A SMYSL 37 tion than their counterparts in Switzerland or Czechoslovakia, but they were in abetter position to organise Germany’s internal resistance against the Nazis: Eighty thousand people are stuck in concentration camps. #ousands somewhere abroad. #e unnoticed third army, which is not wri$en or talked about, should not be forgo$en. When the big clean-up comes, the émigrés inside Germany will present Hitler with the bill. #is bill is long (W1933, 16: 6). Nazi totalitarianism, tragically, was exceedingly effective at eliminating these ‘inner’ émigrés, and domestic political resistance generally.15 After the war, the term ‘inner emigration’ (innere Emigration) was immediately applicable to quite adifferent phenomenon: the attitude of writers who were critical of the regime but withdrawn from public life, or who skilfully camouflaged their criticism, including such figures as Frank Thieß and Walter von Molo. Paradoxically, it was due to the phenomenon of domestic emigration that the expatriates led by Thomas Mann would end up ‘paying the bill’ (cf. Weinberg 2020; Grosser 1963). The French actor Charles Boyer,16 Thomas Mann’s favourite actor and friend, contributed to the magazine by collecting statements by German literati on their experiences as émigrés. In addition to the Mann brothers, Boyer quotes Lion Feuchtwanger and Arnold Zweig, emphasising their positive attitude to France as acountry striving for peace. Such an attitude is the result of aclear distancing from Hitler, as well as efforts to overcome the German prejudice towards the French. Boyer apparently saw this as an inspiration for the strengthening of French-American ties and for the clarification of the relationship between American artists and politicians and the Third Reich: ‘These are words which would not be unnecessary in the United States— or elsewhere in the world’ (W1933, 16: 6). The varying political positions and social networks in which these authors moved provided the basis for the diversity of opinions with which Die Wahrheit prompted public debate on the topic of exile in Czechoslovakia in 1933. Even though left-wing and Zionistic contributions prevailed, we will see how this underlying diversity gave rise to several fruitful polemics. An apparent milestone in the public debate on German exile in Czechoslovakia in 1933 was the death of the philosopher and journalist Theodor Lessing after his assassination by two local Nazi sympathisers in Mariánské Lázně (cf. Čapková 2003). Die Wahrheit, for which Lessing was aregular contributor in the last months of his life, had published an essay by Lessing with the title ‘Deutschland und seine Juden’ (‘Germany and its Jews’) in July of that year. It was aZionist’s passionate confession 15 At the beginning of 1934, Julius Epstein in his article Hoffnung auf Prosperität? estimated that these ‘domestic’ émigrés (using the notion of ‘innere Emigranten’) in Germany numbered 100,000 (W1934, 1: 5). 16 Charles Boyer (1899–1978) was involved in anti-Nazi journalism after Hitler’s seizure of power in Germany, and especially promoted French-American rapprochement. He was awarded an Honorary Oscar Certificate for his involvement in 1943. He was in close contact with many German literati and shortly after the publication of the article in Die Wahrheit, he was cast as the lead role in Fritz Lang’s first exile film, Liliom (1934). OPEN ACCESS
ŠTĚPÁN ZBYTOVSKÝ 85 of his affinity for Germany and German culture. The magazine mentioned Lessing’s death and published his last text just two days after his passing, 2September 1933, followed by anumber of articles relating to him in subsequent issues. Kurt Gerte, in his emphatic article ‘Mörder unter uns!’ (‘Murderers among us!’), appealed for aworldwide offensive against the Nazis, whose actions could no longer be seen as an internal sovereign state matter, but as an immediate threat: ‘World, stand up … Defend yourself, while there is still time. The plague is at your gates … The Middle Ages are on the way … the stakes are already burning … Who will be next? Rise up, oh world! […] Send them to hell! There is still time. Tomorrow may be too late’ (W1933, 20: 4). This warning against realpolitik cautiousness was in contrast to the dominant reaction to Lessing’s murder in Czechoslovakia, which saw it rather as areason (or perhaps as apretext) for reducing support for German émigrés. With the approaching winter of 1933/34, which would bring further suffering to the émigrés, there were numerous invectives in the Czech press against keeping foreign citizens in acountry whose economy had not yet recovered from amajor crisis. At the session of the Foreign Committee in Parliament in November, Foreign Minister Eduard Beneš voiced his opposition to these sentiments, stating that the right of asylum was closely linked to the democratic order of astate whose founding was directly connected to the exile of T.G.Masaryk and others, and that Czechoslovakia would be praised in the future for the support it provided to political refugees (Beneš 1933, p.2). Despite its frequent criticisms of the slapdash manner in which the Czechoslovak state dealt with the refugees, Die Wahrheit also expressed its appreciation at moments for the state’s openness and support. On 28October 1933, it published an open letter by Grete Livius17 to President Masaryk which thanks him, on behalf of some 1200 refugees living in Czechoslovakia, for providing safe haven. However, the text also expresses apprehension that matters could change at the demand of some members of the public and press: Let our expression of gratitude today be combined with the plea: permit us further to sojourn and to be active in this atmosphere— for the sake of mutual benefit and the mutual exchange of ideas— until once again, for us, too, the hour of return has come. #en we will not forget what the Czech people have done for us! (W1933, 27: 3) However, the discourse on emigration that unfolded in the magazine did not only include commentaries, news, appeals, and expressions of gratitude concerning the real situation of the German émigrés in Czechoslovakia. It also offered various interpretive models and frameworks for the self-understanding of the exiles themselves. 17 Despite every effort, the author was unable to determine the real identity of this apparent pseudonym. It is apparent that she lived in Berlin before her emigration. She published in Die Wahrheit in 1933–1934. Articles entitled Wiedersehen mit einem reinrassigen Germanen (W1933, 13: 7–8), Emigrant in Prag (W1933, 23: 6–7) and Frau in der Emigration (W1933, 25: 10) are examples of her texts published before this letter of thanks. OPEN ACCESS
86 SLOVO A SMYSL 37 MODEL 1: HEINRICH HEINE In an issue of Die Wahrheit dated 15July featuring several articles on the topic of exile, the editorial board make aremarkable reference to Heinrich Heine as archetypal figure of the German literary exile. Under the title ‘Heine aus dem Exil’ (‘Heine from exile’)— the poet spent the last 25 years of his life as an expatriate in Paris— they quote apassage from Heine’s preface to the first volume of his collected texts, Der Salon (‘The salon’; 1834–1836): Love of freedom is adungeon flower, and only in prison does one feel the value of freedom. #us the German love of the fatherland arises only at the German border, particularly upon the sight from abroad of German misfortune (W1933, 14: 9). As Dieter Schiller (1999) and Hartmut Steinecke (2008, pp.45–68) have shown, for the literati and journalists in exile in 1933–1945, referring to Heine was away of applying their own experience to afamiliar pattern that made their situation meaningful. At the same time, Heine provided alink between the various exile streams, as he was recognised as an authority by both liberal and left-wing émigrés (Steinecke 2008, p.46). Moreover, he offered not only an identifying connection with the broader canon of German culture, but also aconcept of Germany not limited to the territory of the state. The passage quoted in Die Wahrheit is reminiscent of Heine’s well-known quote, ‘We ourselves are Germany’ (W1933, 14: 9), which, in the context of the anti-Nazi exile, saw numerous variations, the most famous of which was articulated by Thomas Mann upon his arrival to New York on 21February 1938: ‘Where Iam, there is Germany’ (Boes 2019, p.3). This thesis can therefore be found in Heine’s original version— applied for the first time, as far as the author is aware, to the context of the exile of the Third Reich by Die Wahrheit. The magazine would later publish aspeech delivered by Max Brod at what was perhaps the most prominent meeting of exiles, the Internationaler Schri"stellerkongreß zur Verteidigung der Kultur (‘International Congress of Writers in Defence of Culture’; 21–25June 1935 in Paris), where Brod characterised Heine as afigure of identification (Brod 1935). After all, the Heinrich Heine Prize, established two years later in Paris, was awarded until 1939 as the most prestigious literary award for Germanlanguage exile literature. Heine, however, was also quoted as avoice warning of the inhospitable nature of exile, asentiment that could be found in Die Wahrheit at atime when it was far from usual in the Czechoslovak press. On 1August 1933, it published another passage from Heine’s Salon, namely from the text ‘Über die französische Bühne— Zweiter Brief’ (‘About the French stage— Second letter’): […] it is precisely the secret curse of exile that we cannot really feel at ease in the atmosphere of foreign lands, that we always stand isolated with the native way of thinking and feeling we have brought with us […], that we are continuously hurt by moral or rather immoral phenomena, the local population has long since been reconciled even with having lost, by force of habit, every sense for it, like for the natural phenomena of their country … Alas, the mental climate abroad is as inhospitable for OPEN ACCESS
ŠTĚPÁN ZBYTOVSKÝ 93 while, prose was featured only incidentally, and later appeared in anew section, Das gute Buch.23 The theatre section not only presented the views of émigré or politically involved theatre; it also covered, with some exceptions, what was happening in Prague’s German theatres and important events in Czech theatres.24 Steinfeld repeatedly wrote about the difficulties faced by German theatres in Prague when mounting production of anti-Hitler plays. What he and others stressed in the magazine, looking at that aspect and the overall situation of German theatre in Czechoslovakia, is best illustrated by adiscussion which he opened in early March 1934. Under the title ‘Deutsches Theater und Deutsche Gesandtschaft’ (‘German theatre and Germany’s diplomatic mission’), Steinfeld at first describes the situation of German dramatic art in Prague: Regardless of the extent to which it has been possible, and taking into account various factors of dependency, to preserve asafe refuge [Zufluchtstätte] of freedom for the German theatrical arts there is still the possibility here to cultivate an art which does not fall under the yoke and bridle of theories hostile to the stage and practices diametrically opposed to art (W1934, 9: 10). The initial perspective is therefore fully based on exile (‘safe refuge’), even while it does not relate to the individuals but to dramatic art itself. But Steinfeld’s claims, according to the author himself, were never wholly fulfilled, if only for the fact that live theatre is never quite free from societal ‘trends’. In the case of the Neues Deutsches Theater (New German Theater), however, he describes asituation— only ‘slightly exaggerated’— in which the far from perfect dramaturgy furnished by its management was supplemented with ‘auxiliary dramaturgy’ by the German Embassy in Prague. He claims that public, as well as unofficial, pressure, had brought about increasingly ‘Goebbels-like measures’ (ibid.), an allegation he substantiates with reference to three recent events. The first was the replacement of adirector who was acitizen of the German Reich and had directed aplay by an unnamed German author who refused to toe the line. The director allegedly refused to direct the play, stating that he would lose the opportunity to work in Germany (it was in fact Kästner’s 23 What is remarkable is Georg Mannheimer’s highly positive review of Der Teufel wildert, anovel by the well-known Sudeten writer Hans Watzlik. Mannheimer presented it as aproof that ‘not everything appearing in publishing houses of the Third Reich is regimeconformist twaddle’ (W1933, 32: 6). He appreciated the Šumava patriot as an excellent writer, able to depict asuggestive atmosphere. However, the novel is sometimes referred to as one of the most farcical books by an author who, in 1931, had received the Czechoslovak state award, but was shortly after to become an official of the Sudeten German Party and later the regional representative of the NSDAP. 24 In November 1933, Julius Mader praised ‘the unique spectacle for eyes and ears by the literary clowns’, meaning Jiří Voskovec and Jan Werich, and the book issue of the play entitled The Donkey and His Shadow, performed by their Osvobozené divadlo, and their ability to ‘crack their whip over the cruellest fooleries of our days’ (W1933, 29: 13). In dignified remembrance of 50 years of the Czech National Theatre (W1933, 31: 11–12), he also drew attention to the dramaturgical narrow-mindedness of the mainstream Czech theatre scene and the boycott which was only replaced with ameagre involvement of German drama. OPEN ACCESS
94 SLOVO A SMYSL 37 Pünktchen und Anton, performed in the weeks before Christmas 1933 under the direction of the Prague German Hanuš/Hans Burger; the premiere was covered by Steinfeld; see W1933, 36: 13ff., W1934, 5: 14). The second event happened during aproduction of Nestroy’s farce Zu ebener Erde und erster Stock (‘On the ground floor and first floor’), to which the director Julius Gellner added several new lines. The actor Hans Götz disagreed with them and had the Embassy issue astatement confirming that he had been compelled to deliver aline about how easily red changes to brown. The most important case, mentioned by Steinfeld in greater detail, concerned the anti-fascist play Die Rassen by the Austrian-German playwright of Jewish origin, Ferdinand Bruckner (born Theodor Tagger). Not long after Hitler seized power, Bruckner left Berlin to take up residence in Paris, and began writing Die Rassen, aplay unveiling the mechanisms of the Nazis’ early persecution of Jews, leading many (even welleducated) people to view the world through the lens of the Nazi racial formula. The play was accepted for the repertory of the Neues Deutsches Theater,25 only to be withdrawn after afew rehearsals in February. In his article, Steinfeld attributes cancellation of Die Rassen to pressure exerted by the German Embassy, which informally prohibited actors with German citizenship from performing in Bruckner’s play. Steinfeld adds, ‘we will not tolerate any tampering with the repertoire from the side of brown houses’ (W1934, 9: 11), and appeals to the theatre’s artistic management subsidised by the Czechoslovak state to allow artists who ‘believe they must prioritise nationalistic and fascist considerations over artistic ones’ to act elsewhere (meant: in the Third Reich) where ‘conditions so barbaric towards art prevail’ (ibid.). In response to Steinfeld, Fritz Fleischer published an article in Die Wahrheit on 17March saying that ‘Prague today represents the primary German free and liberal theatre stage and, especially in ademocratic state like the Czechoslovak Republic, appears also to have the vocation to fulfil ademocratic, liberal cultural mission’ (W1934, 11:8). He asks why the attitudes concerning the Third Reich are different in Prague than those in Zurich, where an intense official protest against the premiere was made by the local German Consul General, yet the play was performed without changes and was asuccess. The topic raised by Steinfeld was reintroduced in mid-March by an editorial in the Prague German-language newspaper Sozialdemokrat, using the same arguments. Moreover, the topic made its way into the Czech press, and was further developed by acontributor to the Czech revue Přítomnost under the pseudonym Visitator. In his look back at the history of German theatre in Prague, the author is generally critical of the predecessors of Paul Eger, now the director, for having paid so little attention to Czech drama as well as plays by German authors from Czechoslovakia.26 After Eger came to office in 1932, however, this ceased completely, which the author ascribed to 25 Bruckner had originally planned concurrent premieres in Zurich, Prague, and Vienna, but eventually it was performed on 30November 1933 only in the Schauspielhaus in Zurich. The playwright was also in contact with Czech actors, but Frantisek Goetz, dramaturge at the National Theatre, rejected the play, referring to its political explosiveness and likely problems with state censorship (Schneider 1999, p.425). 26 It needs to be said that both Mader’s aforementioned view concerning the repertory of the Czech National Theatre and this assessment of repertories of German theatres in Prague were justified. OPEN ACCESS
ŠTĚPÁN ZBYTOVSKÝ 95 alack of courage and to aconventional approach to the repertory. On the contrary, he argues, theatre should in fact be ‘ascene of home culture’ (Visitator 1934a, p.206) of German and Czech provenance, ‘and primarily the scene of democratic orientation, regardless of whether or not it upsets Dr. Goebbels’ (ibid.). Eger’s response to this criticism was published on 11April in Přítomnost (Eger 1934), drawing attention to the recent performances of operas by Jaroslav Křička and Hans Krása, the planned staging of dramas by Robert Saudek and Max Brod, and collaboration with the opera of the Czech National Theatre. He also questions the political reasons for changing the director of Kästner’s play, as Friedrich Hölzlin, who had been asked to direct the play, stated no such reasons and, most importantly, played the main double role in the play. As regards the case of Bruckner’s Die Rassen, Eger gives his own account of the circumstances which led to the withdrawal of the play: namely that consideration for the actors’ possible engagements in Germany resulted from the uncertainty of state subsidies, which the land administration cut by more than half for 1934, while those from the state were still not at all certain in April. The last straw was the requirement from the Prague Police that the play be staged with the full cast before acommission, which would decide whether it would be permissible or not. The theatre obviously could not take the risk of preparing the play in its entirety only to see it withdrawn. Eger sent asimilar response to Die Wahrheit, as Steinfeld mentions in the theatre section on 28March, interpreting it in arather unconventional manner: ‘The fact that the management of aPrague theatre virtually wants to hold the aegis over aNazi embassy could easily lead to derailment’ (W1934, 12–13: 18). Aletter from areader signed R.G. in the same issue suggests that actors-émigrés be hired instead of those who, considering their possible engagements in the Reich, might influence the theatre’s repertory. Eger’s letter in Přítomnost was accompanied by aresponse from Visitator, who vehemently protests against the reduction of the land and state subsidies, and supplementing his previous objections with the precise numbers on Czechoslovak nationals and foreigners in the opera and drama ensembles of the Neues Deutsches Theater. The suggestive subheading ‘Ensemble Made Up of 75.5% Foreigners’ indicates ashift towards the protectionist argumentation used by the Czech nationalist press of the time (which Přítomnost undoubtedly did not belong to) to strengthen the impression that the local labour market was threatened. According to Visitator, foreigners (half of which were German citizens) were given precedence over Czechoslovak artists ‘of the same value’. His main standpoint was that, as early as 1918, the management of the German Theatre had long failed to fulfil its ‘obligation to the country and state’ (Visitator 1934b, p.240), meaning that this obligation was systematically left out of the repertory as well. It logically followed that neither the people nor the state showed an interest in theatre that the theatre deserved. Eger’s concerns regarding the possible ban were subsequently confirmed with the only performance of Bruckner’s play in Czechoslovakia, namely at the Jung-Jüdische Bühne in Brno on 12May 1934, which was banned immediately after the premiere (Schneider 2005, p.98). The circumstances of the ban were described in greater detail by Friedrich Hofreiter (probably apseudonym) in Die Wahrheit. An employee of the nearby German consulate in Brno visited the première, claims Hofreiter, and subseOPEN ACCESS
96 SLOVO A SMYSL 37 quently filed aprotest with the Brno Police headquarters based on his report, stating that the play presented Jews as adistinguished race and Germans as inferior, thereby violating friendly relations between Czechoslovakia and Germany. That the Czechoslovak police chose to ban the play is contrasted by Hofreiter to the actions of their Swiss counterparts when faced with similar protests filed by the consul in Zurich, and to the situation in Paris, where no protest was filed and where doing so would be ineffective anyway. Hofreiter’s report thus highlights the unwillingness or inability of the Czechoslovak state institutions to resist similar pressure. At the beginning of June, with aview to the end of the theatre season, Steinfeld not only severely criticises the penultimate première of the German Theatre— the comic opera Terze$ zu viert by Leo Lenze (‘as the temperature rises the quality of theatre falls’)— but also offers aretrospective view of the discussion on Bruckner’s Die Rassen and similar polemics: #eatre must be preserved for the sake of art. #eatre must help art make it through ablatantly materialistic age to reach an age more favourable to art. If you see theatre as athing in itself and art as something that serves as abackdrop for that thing in itself, then it goes wrong. #at’s confirmed now. #e German theatre in Prague, instead of giving SOS signals from the doldrums, would have to demonstrate its necessity and indispensability by an unusual act. Alarm! Alarm! Culture is in danger! (W1934, 22: 10) Judging by the theatre reviews in subsequent volumes of the magazine, from the point of view of Die Wahrheit, the Neues Deutsches Theater only partially fulfilled these requirements, and even more frequent appearances by German actor-émigrés in the following years could not make up for its failure (Schneider 1996, p.50). Far greater appreciation was shown for the productions put on by theatre group Studio 1934— established in spring 1934 by the émigrés Hedda Zinner and Fritz Erpenbeck drawing inspiration from the theatre techniques of Emil František Burian’s Czech theatre D 34— and for the guest performances of Erika Mann’s revue Die Pfeffermühle. CONCLUSION We are far from knowing which opinions and commentaries expressed in the debates outlined here are more or less in line with the actual situation as it was faced by various demographics and institutions: i.e. the position of émigrés in the Czechoslovakia and elsewhere in Europe, the specific situation of Jewish refugees and their concept of themselves, the attitudes of the Czechoslovak state, and that of diplomatic and cultural institutions in Czechoslovakia towards émigrés and their anti-Nazi creative work. However, we may claim with certainty that Die Wahrheit had aconsiderable influence on the formulation and intermediation of the primary interpretational patterns that helped one to understand the meaning and purpose of exile artists as individual characters, and of exile as awhole (taking ‘Heine’, ‘the best of Germany’, and nomadism as examples). At the same time the magazine helped to map out and OPEN ACCESS
ŠTĚPÁN ZBYTOVSKÝ 97 describe the circumstances which in Czechoslovakia influenced (or in fact distorted or prevented, as was the case with Bruckner’s Die Rassen) the way in which exile literature and especially drama reached their audience. As regards the polemic on the dramaturgy of the Neues Deutsches Theater, and the allegations that it was expected to express— or actually expressed— ideas formulated by representatives of Nazi Germany, we find that the views circulated by Die Wahrheit helped the public reflect on acomprehensive array of contexts in which these cultural forms existed, thereby uncovering the mechanisms of the ‘hybrid’ pressure from Germany on politically relevant culture in Czechoslovakia. Even though in many cases Die Wahrheit criticised the Czechoslovak government’s policy towards the refugees and the relevant state legislation, the main appeal, in the case of Bruckner’s play, was aimed at the Neues Deutsches Theater as the key German cultural institution in Czechoslovakia. Its aim was to clarify and strengthen the relationship to the democratic state and the new definition of its own role towards Germany as agreat cultural and political entity, and, primarily, to the new definition of its own artistic identity in courageous creative endeavours. During the first half of 1935, number of articles on the situation of émigrés and exile artists in Die Wahrheit decreased, and they appeared only rather scarcely later (there were numerous articles, however, on the topic of the unequal treatment of émigrés seen as prominent, or inconvenient in other respects).27 The topic thus shifted toward the implicit sphere of the problematic context, which Die Wahrheit punctually covered in relationship to specific events. It is possible that the growing phenomenon of politically and existentially motivated emigration from Germany played arole in this, as did the increasing diversity, which gradually made it impossible to grasp exile and exile literature as awhole. Translated by Hynek Zlatník and Steve Coleman. 27 In 1935, in addition to articles on Masaryk in exile (Lev Sychrava: T.G.Masaryk als Emigrant [W1935, 7: 4]) and the special treatment given to prominent émigrés (Sander, Martin-Christian: Prominente Emigranten [W1935, 14: 9], acontroversy was posted between Felix Langer and Justin Steinfeld about the change in the public’s view of emigrants (Langer, Felix: Der entwertete Emigrant [W1935, 8: 9]; Steinfeld, Justin: Der ‘entwertete’ Emigrant [W1935, 9: 9f.]). In the spring of 1937, Manfred Georg warned against the overweening self-esteem of exile literature (Georg, Manfred, ‘Von der Aufgabe deutscher Literatur in der Emigration’ [W1937, 11: 8]; on Georg’s life and activities in exile, cf. Borrmann 2014). OPEN ACCESS
98 SLOVO A SMYSL 37 LITERATURE Albrechtová, Gertruda: Zur Frage der deutschen antifaschistischen Emigrationsliteratur im tschechoslowakischen Asyl. Historica 1964, no.8, pp.177–233. Alfeus [= Alfred Fuchs?]: Vademecum für den Verkehr mit Emigranten. Die Wahrheit 12, 1933, no.14, 15.07., p.14. Anonym: Ins vierte Jahr! Die Wahrheit 4, 1925, no.1, 01.01., p.1. Bacher, Franz— Fischer, Otokar— Fuchs, Alfred— Rádl, Emanuel— Winder, Ludwig: Die Emigration in der Tschechoslowakei. Eine Rundfrage der ‚Wahrheit‘. Die Wahrheit 12, 1933, no.7–8, 08.04., pp.7–8. Becher, Peter: Kurt R.Grossmann und die Demokratische Flüchtlingsfürsorge. In: idem— Peter Heumos (ed.): Drehscheibe Prag. Zur deutschen Emigration in der Tschechoslowakei 1933–1939. Collegium Carolinum, Munich 1992, pp.53–63. Beneš, Edvard: Friede und Versöhnung. Prager Presse 13, 1933, no.307, 09.11., pp.1–2. Boes, Tobias: Thomas Mann’s War: Literature, Politics, and the World Republic of Letters. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY, 2019. Borrmann, Jennifer: Liberaler, Pazifist und streitbarer Cineast. In: Rolf Aurich— Wolfgang Jacobsen (eds.): Manfred George. Journalist und Filmkritiker. Edition Text+Kritik, München 2014, pp.11–69. Boyer, Charles Louis: Deutsche Intellektuelle im Exil. Die Wahrheit 12, 1933, no.16, 15.08., p.6. Brod, Max: Heine und die deutsche Romantik. Die Wahrheit 14, 1935, no.20, 10.07., pp.4–5. Čapková, Kateřina: Theodor Lessing— vom Außenseiter zum Symbol der antinazistischen Opposition. Theresienstädter Studien und Dokumente 10, 2003, pp.11–32. Čapková, Kateřina: Zuflucht für Prominente. Die Tschechoslowakei und ihre Flüchtlinge aus NS-Deutschland und Österreich. In: Detlef Brandes— Edita Ivaničková— Jiří Pešek (eds.): Flüchtlinge und Asyl im Nachbarland. Die Tschechoslowakei und Deutschland 1933 bis 1989. Klartext, Essen 2018, pp.75–88. Čapková, Kateřina— Frankl, Michal: Unsichere Zuflucht. Die Tschechoslowakei und ihre Flüchtlinge aus NS-Deutschland und Österreich 1933–1938. Böhlau, Wien 2012. Eger, Paul: Oduchu pražského německého divadla. Přítomnost 11, 1934, no.15, 11.04., pp.237–239. F. M.: Emigranten (Was uns eine Emigrantin schreibt). Die Wahrheit 12, 1933, no.14, 15.07., pp.14–15. Frankl, Michal: Antisemitism in Bohemian Lands. In: Hans-Christian Petersen— Samuel Salzborn (eds.): Antisemitism in Eastern Europe: History and Present in Comparison. Peter Lang, Frankfurt am Main 2010, pp.29–45. Friederich, Jutta: Alice Rühle-Gerstel (1894–1943)— Eine in Vergessenheit geratene Individualpsychologin. Königshausen & Neumann, Würzburg 2012. Grebing, Helga— Wickert, Christl (eds.): Das „andere Deutschland“ im Widerstand gegen den Nationalsozialismus. Beiträge zur politischen Überwindung der nationalsozialistischen Diktatur im Exil und im Dritten Reich. Klartext, Essen 1994. Grosser, Johannes Franz Gottlieb (ed.): Die große Kontroverse. Ein Briefwechsel aus Deutschland. Nagel, Hamburg 1963. Gumbel, Emil Julius: Das Kernproblem der Emigration. Die Wahrheit 12, 1933, no.16, 15.08., pp.3–4. Heine, Heinrich: Heine aus dem Exil [quote from Heine’s Salon]. Die Wahrheit 12, 1933, no.14, 15.07., p.9. Jellinek, Fritz: Joseph Roth und die jüdischen Emigranten. Diskussion über: Joseph Roth „Der Segen des ewigen Juden“. Die Wahrheit 13, 1934, no.37, 15.09., p.5. Kilcher, Andreas: Die Sprache der Literatur. Zur Erfindung der „jüdischen Literatur“ im 19.Jahrhundert. Naharaim 4, 2010, pp.274–286. Kisch, Guido: Deutsche Literatur in hebräischer Uebersetzung. Zeitschrift für die OPEN ACCESS
ŠTĚPÁN ZBYTOVSKÝ 99 Geschichte der Juden in Deutschland 6, 1936, no.4, pp.238–244. Klaus, Hans: Franz Werfel las in der „Urania“ aus seinem neuen Roman: „Die vierzig Tage des Musa Dagh“. Die Wahrheit 12, 1933, no.31, 25.11., p.14. Kohn, Paul: Der Segen des ewigen Juden am Ziel. Die Wahrheit 13, 1934, no.37, 15.09., pp.5–6. Lange, Peter: Prag empfing uns als Verwandte. Die Familie Mann und die Tschechen. Vitalis, Praha 2021. Livius, Grete: Frau in der Emigration. Die Wahrheit 12, 1933, no.25, 14.10., p.10. Lunzer-Talos, Victoria: Der Segen des ewigen Juden. Assimilation und Exil. In: Mira Miladinovic Zalaznik— Johann Georg Lughofer (eds.): Joseph Roth: europäischjüdischer Schriftsteller und österreichischer Universalist. Conditio Judaica, vol.82. De Gruyter, Berlin 2011, pp.23–39. Mann, Heinrich: Der Sinn dieser Emigration. Die Wahrheit 13, 1934, no.17, 28.04., pp.3–4. Mannheimer, Georg: Der Fluch des ewigen Juden. Eine Antwort auf Joseph Roths Artikel: „Der Segen des ewigen Juden“. Die Wahrheit 13, 1934, no.36, 08.09., p.6. Mannheimer, Georg: Heinrich Mann: „Der Sinn dieser Emigration“. Die Wahrheit 13, 1934, no.17, 28.04., p.11. May, Markus: Flucht ohne Ende. Joseph Roths Poetik des Exils. In: Hans Otto Horch— Hanni Mittelmann (eds.): Exilerfahrung und Konstruktionen von Identität 1933 bis 1945. Conditio Judaica, vol.85. De Gruyter, Berlin 2013, pp.119–132. Rokytová, Bronislava: Dost tichého šepotu. Exilová výtvarná scéna vČeskoslovensku (1933–1939). PNP, Praha 2013. Rosenbaum, Michael: Die Sendung des Judentums. Diskussion über: Joseph Roth „Der Segen des ewigen Juden“. Die Wahrheit 13, 1934, no.38, 22.09., p.5. Roth, Joseph: Der Segen des ewigen Juden. Zur Diskussion. Die Wahrheit 13, 1934, no.35, 30.08., pp.4–5. Roth, Joseph: Briefe 1911–1939, ed. Hermann Kesten. Kiepenheuer & Witsch, Köln 1970. Roth, Joseph: Die Juden und die Nibelungen. In: Joseph Roths Werke. Vol.3: Das journalistische Werk 1929–1939. Kiepenheuer & Witsch, Köln 1989, pp.521–526 [orig. Das Neue Tage-Buch (Paris), 18.08.1934]. Roth, Joseph: Hotelwelt. In: Joseph Roths Werke. Vol.3: Das journalistische Werk 1929–1939. Kiepenheuer & Witsch, Köln 1989, pp.2–31 [orig. Frankfurter Zeitung, 20.02.1929]. Roth, Joseph: Schlußwort zum „Segen des ewigen Juden“ oder: Jedermann ohne Paß. Die Wahrheit 13, 1934, no.40, 06.10., pp.3–4. Scheichl, Sigurd Paul: Juden auf Wanderschaft— 2009 neu gelesen. In: Mira Miladinovic Zalaznik— Johann Georg Lughofer (eds.): Joseph Roth: europäischjüdischer Schriftsteller und österreichischer Universalist. Conditio Judaica, vol.82. De Gruyter, Berlin 2011, pp.11–21. Schiller, Dieter: Heinrich Heine als Leitfigur in der Exilpublizistik 1933–1945. In: Joseph A.Kruse— Bernd Witte— Karin Füllner (eds.): Aufklärung und Skepsis. Internationaler Heine-Kongreß 1997 zum 200. Geburtstag. Metzler, Stuttgart 1999, pp.666–676. Schneider, Hansjörg: Die Kleinen neben den Großen. Deutschsprachige Bühnen im Prag der dreißiger Jahre. Exil. Forschung— Erkenntnisse— Ergebnisse 16, 1996, no.1, pp.46–58. Schneider, Hansjörg: Ferdinand Bruckners Stücke auf Prager Bühnen. Zu einem Briefwechsel mit zwei tschechischen Theaterleuten. Zeitschrift für Germanistik. Neue Folge 9, 1999, no.2, pp.423–430. Schneider, Hansjörg: Zeitbilder eines scharfsinnigen Chronisten. Zu Ferdinand Bruckners Exilstücken und Aufführungen in Prag. Miscellanea theatralia 2005, pp.391–400. Steinecke, Hartmut: Heinrich Heine im Dritten Reich und im Exil. Schöningh, Paderborn 2008. Steinschneider, Moritz: Juden— Jüdische Literatur. In: Johann Samuel Ersch— Johann Gottfried Gruber (eds.): Allgemeine Encyclopädie der Wissenschaften und Künste in alphabetischer Folge. Vol.2: H–N. Brockhaus, Leipzig 1850, pp.357–358. OPEN ACCESS
100 SLOVO A SMYSL 37 Steinschneider, Moritz: Die hebräischen Übersetzungen des Mittelalters und die Juden als Dolmetscher. Kommissionsverlag des Bibliographischen Bureaus, Berlin 1893. Stössinger, Felix: Assimilation und Zionismus. Die Wahrheit 13, 1934, no.38, 22.09., p.6. Veselý, Jiří et al.: Azyl vČeskoslovensku 1933–1938. Naše vojsko, Praha 1983. Visitator: Kčemu je pražské německé divadlo. Přítomnost 11, 1934a, no.13, 28.03., pp.204–206. Visitator: Velectěný pane řediteli. Přítomnost 11, 1934b, no.15, 11.04., pp.239–240. Weinberg, Manfred: Die „Große Kontroverse“ wiedergelesen. Brünner Beiträge zur Germanistik und Nordistik 34, 2020, no.2, pp.81–96. Wendt, Hans [= Helmut Weiß]: Emigranten in— Deutschland. Die Wahrheit 12, 1933, no.16, 15.08., pp.5–6. Zbytovský, Štěpán: „Auf zerklüftetem Boden“. Europäismus und Judentum in der Prager Zeitschrift Die Wahrheit. In: Marek Nekula (ed.): Zeitschriften als Knotenpunkte der Moderne/n. Prag— Brünn— Wien. Winter, Heidelberg 2019a, pp.179–196. Zbytovský, Štěpán: Georg Mannheimer. Ein Mitteleuropäer zwischen Deutschjudentum, Zionismus und Tschechoslowakismus. In: Walter Pape— Jiří Šubrt (eds.): Mitteleuropa denken. Intellektuelle, Identitäten und Ideen. De Gruyter, Berlin— Boston, 2019b, pp.223–244. OPEN ACCESS