Theatre in Europe under German Occupation provides a detailed and thorough study of the artistic, financial, and ideological investment Nazi Germany made in theatrical production throughout German-occupied Europe. Anselm Heinrich's theoretical underpinnings include the New Theatre Historiography movement influenced by scholars such as Thomas Postlewait and Bruce McConachie. This interdisciplinary approach involves examining theatre in its political, socioeconomic, and cultural contexts, and Heinrich focuses on the interplay and creation of meaning between the stage and audiences during the Nazi era. Offering a broad overview of Nazi policy and goals, the book focuses on how the government used repertoires, funding, and control to implement a comprehensive cultural plan in all parts of the expanded German Reich. The author examines Nazi dramaturgy and production practices through detailed studies of individual institutions, thereby demonstrating the significant investment the Nazi leaders made for facilities, staff, and production values. It is the first study to discuss Nazi attempts to establish a European theatre under German leadership as a whole and disputes several previously made assumptions: (1) that there was a split between Nazi theatre policy for East versus West Europe; (2) that Nazi-controlled theatres failed and left no legacy; and (3) that Nazi cultural policy failed because theatres refrained from producing the official political repertory.

After Chapter 1, which serves as the book's introduction, Chapter 2, “Discourses,” and Chapter 3, “Origins of German Theatre Practice,” discuss Nazi artistic philosophy and policy, which adamantly rejected the decadence of Weimar Republic modernism in favor of a return to the Weimar classicism of Schiller, Lessing, and Gottsched. This turn recognized the role of theatre in forming culture and educating the German people in nationalistic ideals. Heinrich also focuses on the well-established theatrical traditions in areas formerly part of Germany or Austria prior to the end of World War I. He notes the strong tradition of German-language theatre touring throughout Europe and the many permanent German-language institutions from the early seventeenth century on that had impacted areas that became independent after the Great War. These institutions advantageously allowed the Nazi government to build onto preexisting structures.

Chapter 4, “Occupation,” forms the heart of the book. This well-researched chapter covers the full range of institutions operating throughout the occupied lands, all of which answered to Berlin during the war. The establishment of state-funded German-language theatres and opera houses were of the utmost importance to the Nazi government. Heinrich states that this cultural war was no less important than the military campaign, since it provided occupied lands with institutions dedicated to the highest level of moral, political, and artistic production. The establishment of professional performing arts institutions was intended to entice Germans to settle in occupied areas, to entertain existing populations, and to show Germany to the world as a cultured nation. The chapter provides detailed evidence from many producing companies to explicate a general overview of Nazi programming with specific examples from individual organizations. The astonishing level of subsidized funding provided by the Nazis included major investments made in facilities, stage lighting, scenery, and costumes. This level of financial support reflected the top-down assumption that German culture should be a permanent aspect of the occupied territories. The government created fully professional companies by hiring substantial administrative and artistic staff and forming large resident companies of actors and musicians. The substantial government subsidies meant increased repertoires, more elaborate productions, and large-scale performances focused on Shakespeare, Schiller, Goethe, Verdi, and Wagner. The government continued to subsidize and promote high artistic standards throughout the war, despite audiences’ decreased demand for classics in favor of more pedestrian comedies, farces, and operettas by German playwrights and composers.

In Chapter 5, “End and Aftermath,” Heinrich explains that theatres throughout occupied Europe officially operated until late 1944. In fact, companies were planning their 1944–5 seasons even after closings were announced. Despite the imminent loss of the war, producers assumed that theatre closures were temporary and that the government would persist in supporting the arts even after September 1944. Amid the panic in the air, the Nazi government strove to provide an atmosphere of normality with regard to bureaucratic procedures. The author demonstrates that the government practiced a combination of stubborn refusal to accept political realities and belief that superior German cultural institutions would remain for all time.

Theatre in Europe under German Occupation demonstrates the critical role performing arts played in Nazi Germany's war effort. Although Goebbels's desire to have National Socialist plays form the backbone of a new German repertory never materialized, Heinrich shows that the repertory (at first dominated by classical German, Greek, and Shakespearean works, and later by “light fare”) did not undermine the Nazi's goals nor indicate a failure in dramaturgy, as stated by writers such as Konrad Dussel. Rather, the commitment to professionalism, quality productions, and the creation of a state-directed repertory throughout Europe that played to full houses indicate a successful program that strategically influenced and streamlined repertories. Heinrich asserts that the production of “the same Carl Laufs comedy, August Hinrichs farce, or Franz Lehár operetta all over Europe … seemed a powerful symbol of German might,” making it problematic to play down the success and usefulness of popular theatre (238). Ultimately, Heinrich believes that cultural output and National Socialism cannot be separated, countering Bettina Schültke's assertion in Theater oder Propaganda? that theatre during the era had little impact. As this study usefully demonstrates, this period, which is often considered artistically fruitless, merits further study.