SOURCE: Rothfeder, Herbert P. “Amt Schrifttumspflege: A Study in Literary Control.” German Studies Review 4, no. 1 (February 1981): 63-78.

[In the following essay, Rothfeder discusses how the totalitarian government of Nazi Germany deployed bureaucracy on national and local levels to effectively censor literature it considered problematic.]

Modern totalitarian dictatorships have developed the practice of censorship into a highly refined art. Through an interlocking network of party and state agencies, the opponents of the regime are denied a forum for expressing their views, while at the same time, ideology consistent with the government in power is fostered. The effectiveness of censorship depends on the interaction of the central organization with its local representatives. The largest, but certainly not the most powerful literary control agency in Nazi Germany was Amt Schrifttumspflege (Office for the Propagation of Literature).¹ Because its operations encompassed such a wide range of activities, a study of this comparatively unknown organization throws more light on the workings of censorship in the Third Reich.

The origins of Amt Schrifttumspflege can be traced back to 1932, when the Landesleiter (Provincial Director) of the Kampfbund für deutsche Kultur² (Fighting Association for German Culture; KfdK), Hans Hagemeyer,³ established a Buchberatungsstelle (Book Advisory Office) in the city of Nuremberg. Hagemeyer and his staff selected books from current German literature which were considered ideologically suited for National Socialist readers, compiled the titles into mimeographed lists which were distributed to members of the local KfdK as well as the other Party agencies within the Gau.⁴ The activities of the Book Advisory Office remained limited to the Gau until February 1933. At that time, Hagemeyer approached Alfred Rosenberg, Director of the Kampfbund, with the suggestion that operations of the Buchberatungsstelle be extended throughout Germany. Rosenberg eagerly seized upon this idea and authorized negotiations with other interested agencies. Three organizations, The German Book Publishers' Association, the Ministry of the Interior, and the Propaganda Ministry, expressed a willingness to participate in the formation of a national Buchberatungsstelle. After protracted negotiations, the participants agreed to establish a national literary evaluation agency to be named the Reichsstelle zur Förderung des deutschen Schrifttums (Office for the Advancement of German Literature).⁵ On 16 June 1933, the Reichsstelle officially began its operations in Leipzig, and on 1 August 1933, its headquarters was transferred to Berlin. Hans Hagemeyer was confirmed as its director.⁶

During the remainder of 1933, the Reichsstelle performed its tasks without any difficulty. However, the situation changed abruptly in February 1934, when Alfred Rosenberg was appointed Beauftragter des Führers für die Überwachung der gesamten geistigen und weltanschaulichen Schulung und Erziehung der NSDAP (Plenipotentiary of the Führer for the Supervision of the Entire Intellectual and Ideological Training and Education for the NSDAP:BUE).⁷ Joseph Goebbels in his capacity as Minister of Propaganda attempted to wrest control of the Reichsstelle from Rosenberg. Goebbels undoubtedly realized that this literary control office would be of inestimable value in his propaganda activities and, simultaneously, it would deprive Rosenberg of a firm base upon which to build his organization. Consequently, Goebbels issued an order which removed Hans Hagemeyer from his position as director of the Reichsstelle and substituted Dr. Heinz Wismann, chief of the Abteilung Schrifttum (Literary Section) in the Propaganda Ministry. Rosenberg, of course, refused to accept this as a fait accompli. He informed Goebbels that his order was invalid since the Reichsstelle was neither a party nor a state agency, but part of the Kampfbund and therefore did not fall under Goebbels's jurisdiction.⁸ Rosenberg then referred the entire question to Rudolf Hess, Deputy of the Führer, for final adjudication. Hess upheld Rosenberg's contention and by 24 March 1934, the Reichsstelle was firmly in Rosenberg's grasp.⁹

In order to discourage any further attempt by Goebbels to gain control of the Reichsstelle, Rosenberg created the Abteilung Schrifttum (Literary Section) within the BUE and placed the Reichsstelle under its jurisdiction. Within a few years the Reichsstelle was completely merged with the Abteilung. As the tasks of the Abteilung increased its official designation was changed; it became Hauptstelle in 1936, and Amt in 1938, and in 1943, was rechristened Hauptamt Schrifttum. By this maneuver, the Reichsstelle became a de facto party organization, indisputably within Rosenberg's sphere of influence.

The principal task of Amt Schrifttumspflege was the propagation of National Socialist literature. The Amt's activities were, therefore, focused on three objectives: the evaluation of current German literature, the promotion of those books found to be ideologically compatible with National Socialist doctrines, and the control and supervision of literature with the Party at the Gau and Kreis levels.

The task of reviewing and evaluating current German literature was centered in the Zentrallektorat (Central Reviewing Section) which performed the administrative functions necessary to keep the system in operation, e.g. it processed the personnel records of the reviewers, acted as a liaison office between the reviewers and the publishers, and prepared the book reviews for publication. Although it dealt with a large group of individuals and handled endless paperwork, the staff of the Zentrallektorat only numbered between five and ten full-time employees.¹⁰

The actual process of evaluation was carried by Hauptlektoren (Chief Reviewers), Vorlektoren (Preliminary Reviewers), and the Lektoren (Reviewers). The chief reviewers headed a Hauptlektorat which represented a particular category of subject matter, e.g. Music, Folklore, Colonial Literature, etc.¹¹ They were recommended to the BUE by the party or state agency which was responsible for that field. If Rosenberg approved the choice, he personally confirmed the appointment of the Hauptlektoren to their positions. The Hauptlektoren, in turn, named the preliminary reviewers and the reviewers to their staff with the approval of the head of Amt Schrifttumspflege. The names of the Vorlektoren and Lektoren were never revealed to the public at large. It was felt that they would be besieged by irate authors and publishers whose books had been rejected. The three types of reviewers, it should be noted, worked for the BUE on a part-time basis and received no regular salary. Occasionally, the reviewer would receive an honorarium if his review were published in the Amt's official journal, Die Bücherkunde.¹²

The reviewing process began with work of the Vorlektor; he scanned the available bibliographies and official journals of the book trade and selected those books which appeared to be of significance to the party.¹³ Lists of these books were forwarded to the Zentrallektorat which ordered complimentary examination copies from the publishers. When the books were received a member of the Zentrallektorat sorted them out according to subject matter and sent the appropriate volumes to the proper Hauptlektor. He then designated a Lektor on his staff to review a particular work. After the Lektor on his staff had evaluated the book, he returned it to the chief reviewer who submitted it to the Zentrallektorat for editing. The reviewing process was expected to take four weeks but a special subsection, Eillektorat, could have special evaluations prepared within two weeks.¹⁴

Once the reviews had been edited and processed by the Zentrallektorat, there were several ways they might be made known to the literary world. The first possible use was their inclusion in Die Bücherkunde. During the course of the year, several hundred positively evaluated books appeared in this magazine, and each month the reviews of a different Hauptlektorat were featured in order to give the reader an overall view of the Amt's work. It should be pointed out that Die Bücherkunde was not expected to be read by the general public, although anyone could subscribe to it, but was directed toward those persons connected with literature and the book trade. Authors, librarians, and publishers were expected to use it as a guide in their work. It was hoped that the publishers would only publish approved books, the authors would write them, and the librarians add them to their collections.¹⁵

If a book review failed to appear in the Bücherkunde proper, it might be found in the Gutachtenanzeiger, a monthly supplement of the Bücherkunde. Unlike the evaluations which were to be found in the parent magazine, those in the supplement were not complete reviews but merely listings of authors and titles. The Gutachtenanzeiger not only included positively approved works, but also books that had been disapproved. No reasons were given for approval or rejection of a given item. Moreover, the recommended books were subdivided into sections for fiction and nonfiction, collected works, translations from foreign languages, and magazines.¹⁶ The Bücherkunde and its monthly supplement taken together were meant as a guide for those in the party and state who were concerned with literary problems.

The reviews which appeared in the Bücherkunde and the Gutachtenanzeiger represented only a small percentage of the works evaluated by the Amt. It was therefore deemed necessary to publish a yearly compilation, the Jahresgutachtenanzeiger which would contain evaluations not previously printed. This publication was issued between 1936 and 1941, and on the average, 2,500 titles were included. The books were arranged alphabetically, by authors, and at the end of each volume a statistical table, by categories of subject matter, recorded those works which had been approved or rejected. The Amt did, in fact, develop a rather precise system for the evaluation of books. In addition to the positive and negative ratings, the following categories were established: “Absolutely positive,” “of limited interest,” “innocuous,” “with reservation,” and “absolutely negative.” The Jahresgutachtenanzeiger were considered classified documents (streng vertraulich) and were meant for the sole use of party and state agencies engaged in literary work as well as the German publishers.

The Lektoren of the Amt employed exceptionally strict criteria for their evaluations. The following chart will give some indication of the severity of their judgments.¹⁷

Subject		1936		1937		1940		1941
	P	N	P	N	P	N	P	N
Geopolitics	41	48	96	46	98	23	83	5
History	80	92	54	58	91	44	91	10
Modern Literature	70	64	91	90	116	47	62	13
Theology	14	217	1	16	14	25	6	7
Belles Lettres	317	289	232	275	355	329	355	194
	522	710	474	485	674	468	597	229
P = positive
N = negative

The BUE realized that unless the authors and publishers were made aware of their errors, a continuous flow of unacceptable literature would issue forth. The Amt was willing to make available to the publishers condensed versions of its book reviews. From 1933 to 1939, the publishers received an unsolicited endorsement of their books if the books were positively evaluated. These could be used for advertising purposes on the payment of a fee equivalent to five times the retail price of the book. The publishers could not amend the endorsement in any manner and had to publish it as written; it was expected that the Amt would receive credit as the agency that issued the evaluation.¹⁸ A publisher whose books had been disapproved could, upon making the proper representations, obtain a copy of the review for his own edification. In 1939, the Amt altered this procedure; if a publisher wanted to examine a review, be it positive or negative, he had to request the Amt to send it to him, but he could not use it for advertising purposes.¹⁹

The Amt also developed additional methods for promoting positively evaluated books. It compiled its so-called “Dienst am Schrifttum.” This was a listing of suitable books, arranged by author and title, and appeared in the official journals of the book trade. The “Dienst am Schrifttum” was also directed toward the daily press; all newspapers were encouraged to reprint these lists in their book review sections. If a book was considered of special importance, the Amt permitted the publisher to record this fact on the title page of the book, so that prospective purchasers would know it was ideologically and technically approved by the BUE.²⁰ As far as official party literature was concerned, the BUE made its wishes known through the NS-Bibliographie published by the Parteiamtliche Prüfungskommission zum Schutze des NS-Schrifttums (Official Party Evaluating Commission for the Protection of National Socialist Literature; PPK).²¹

All books and articles which were deemed proper and approved by the BUE for party training installations and party members had a star placed before their titles. Books which received positive evaluations were generally those which correctly extolled National Socialist doctrine, glorified Germanic virtue, or demonstrated the inherent superiority of the Nordic race over the remainder of Europe. Technical and scholarly works were judged primarily on their proper interpretation of National Socialist ideology rather than on their factual content.

One novel which received the plaudits of the review was Die Schwaben-Margret by Ines Widmann.²² It was considered a model of didactic excellence and was heartily recommended for inclusion in everyone's library. The book's central plot was concerned with the trials and tribulations of a Carinthian German peasant family at the end of the First World War. Ines Widmann described in minute detail the heroic exploits of the Carinthian Germans in their “war of liberation” against their Slovene neighbors. She carefully emphasized the devotion the Germans had for their land and the sacrifices they were willing to endure to protect it.

Although the book would have been given a positive evaluation for its treatment of the above subjects, there was still one additional feature which pleased the reviewer. The author had demonstrated the evils of interracial marriage (Blutmischung) by clearly developing the character of the heroine, Schwaben-Margret. Schwaben-Margret was born under an ill omen; she was the offspring of a German father and a Slavic mother, and her downfall was directly attributed to the weakness inherited from such a union. It was no wonder that the book was so highly praised.

The same criteria that applied to novels and other forms of fiction were also applied to technical and scholarly works. Heinrich Franke's Ostgermanische Holzbaukultur und ihre Bedeutung für das deutsche Siedlungswerk is a case in point.²³ The reviewer was astounded at Franke's complete lack of familiarity with the literature in the field and especially of the more recent publications. Moreover, the author's knowledge of archaeological techniques rested on shaky ground and numerous factual errors were cited. Yet, with all these defects, the book had one saving grace, Franke had come to the proper conclusion: racial origins determined the manner in which buildings were constructed. The reviewer, even after noting the above weaknesses, was willing to recommend the book provisionally. Once the technical details were corrected, there was no reason not to recommend the book fully.

If the two works cited above were acceptable to the reviewers, what types of books were deemed unfit for the German public? During the latter part of 1933, the Reichsstelle began to circulate to select party and state organizations lists of books of which it disapproved. Undoubtedly, the Reichsstelle wanted to prove that it had a legitimate reason for existing and tried to demonstrate that the criteria it employed in evaluating literature was not too severe. The books which appeared on these lists fell into two general categories: books which expressed ideas hostile to the party, and those which might embarrass the party.

Alhard Gelpke's Geheimnisse eines freien Journalisten was a book considered dangerous to the party.²⁴ The author, a Swiss journalist, did not place much store in the Nazi theory of “blood and race,” and also believed that Hitler would cause the ruin and complete isolation of Germany. Furthermore, Gelpke suggested that a solution for Germany's unemployment problem was a substantial reduction in the birth rate, a policy directly counter to official Nazi doctrines. The reviewer stated that such concepts were absolutely unacceptable to the party, and therefore Gelpke's book could hardly be recommended for public consumption.

While Gelpke's books might have raised doubts as to the wisdom of certain Nazi policies, Dr. Hompf's Reich und Religion presented a different type of problem.²⁵ Dr. Hompf desired only one thing from the Nazi regime: the complete eradication of Christianity from Germany and its replacement by a unitary Germanic religion. The destruction of Christianity was also the aim of both Hitler and Rosenberg, but the reviewer saw a distinct danger in permitting this book to be distributed to the general public. If it received the endorsement of a party agency, certain elements of the population might feel the book espoused the official party position on the question of religion; and the fact that the publisher claimed to be a publishing house for National Socialist literature would have lent credence to such a view. It was too early for the party to show its hand on this matter, and therefore the book was not only not recommended to the public, but the Reichsstelle succeeded in having it banned. Here we have the strange phenomenon of having a book rejected which agreed with Nazi doctrines, but whose wide circulation would have sorely embarrassed the party.

These four reviews are, of course, only a sample of the many thousands that were turned out by BUE's evaluators. The reviews demonstrate the real concern of the Reichsstelle: to eliminate all books which might damage the image of the party, and to promote literature that positively expressed National Socialist doctrines. The difficulty faced by the evaluators is perhaps best summed up by the statement: “The typical Nazi author always tried to cover up his lack of ideas … by a spate of words which sounded impressive and meant nothing.”²⁶

The evaluation of current German literature represented only part of the activities of Amt Schrifttumspflege. Another important task was that performed by Hauptstelle Auswertung (Evaluation Section) which prepared bibliographies of ideologically approved books for both party and state organizations. One of its basic series was the so-called “Hundred Books for National Socialist Libraries.” This series was supposed to be used by librarians as a guideline for the reorganization of their libraries along National Socialist lines. If these recommended books were included in every party and state library, Nazi propaganda would find wide dissemination throughout Germany's reading public.

During the course of the years, at least six such lists were issued and apparently they attained a large circulation. Each list of one hundred books was divided into special sections, e.g. National Socialism and ideology, prehistory and history, and war and post war, etc. As might be expected, the writings and speeches of the party leaders occupied a prominent place in these bibliographies. Nevertheless, they were not limited to books written by party leaders or famous Nazi authors but included the writings of Bismarck, Ranke, and Clausewitz. These books, therefore, not only extolled Nazi doctrines, but also exhibited nationalistic overtones.

Another series published by the Hauptstelle was the Schrifttumsbeitrage zur weltanschaulichen Schulungsarbeit (Bibliographies for Ideological Training Activities). The purpose of this series was to provide the training installations of the party with readily available reference materials for the preparation of courses. Each bibliography was centered about a particular theme, e.g. some phase of the party's development, a current political or social problem. For the convenience of training officers, every book was carefully annotated so that they could choose the appropriate work needed for a special phase of training. Originally, it had been planned to issue twenty of these bibliographies, but the evidence on hand indicates that only ten were ever published.²⁷ Although the bibliographies were primarily meant for the party, they were distributed free of charge to book dealers who requested them.²⁸

Hauptstelle Auswertung was also responsible for the editing and the publishing of the classified Verzeichnis jüdischer Autoren (Index of Jewish Authors). This index, which consisted of seven parts, was an alphabetical listing of 13,000 Jewish authors, individuals married to Jewish literary personalities, and those associated with Jewish authors whose works appeared in the German language. The project apparently began in 1933 or 1934, and the first of the seven parts appeared in 1938, the last in 1939. Amt Schrifttumspflege planned to make periodic additions to the Index as new information became available. Moreover, it was eventually hoped that a complete listing of all works written by those who were mentioned in the Index could be published. The objective of this series, of course, was to give the librarians in Germany an authoritative list of authors whose books were considered unacceptable to the party. Once it was in the hands of librarians, it would be a simple matter to have the disapproved books removed from the open shelves.²⁹

During the course of the war, Amt Schrifttumspflege began a new series. In January 1940, Rudolf Hess authorized the BUE to edit and publish a series to be entitled “Schriftenreihe der NSDAP.” The “Schriftenreihe” was to be divided into eight subgroups, each representing a specific propaganda theme, e.g. “Deutsche Wehrkraft,” “Europäische Politik,” “Erlebter Krieg,” etc. The series was supposed to serve a dual purpose: to justify the war in the eyes of the German nation and to acquaint the general public, and especially the armed forces, with the problems facing the country. By August 1944, more than five million books of this series were purchased or distributed to the armed forces.³⁰

The activities of the Zentrallektorat and Hauptstelle Auswertung helped create the basic guidelines by which the BUE hoped to purge German literature of all hostile writings and replace them with ideologically proper National Socialist ones. No matter how prodigious the effort of these two sections might be, they would have had little effect unless their guidelines were placed in operation. This problem must have been evident to Rosenberg, who early in the BUE's existence, arranged for the appointment of local representatives of Amt Schrifttumspflege.

The Amt was the only BUE office which had local representatives; this undoubtedly contributed in large measure to whatever success the Amt achieved. The Gauschrifttumsbeauftragte (Plenipotentiary for Literary Affairs in the Gau) was selected by Rosenberg in conjunction with the Gauschulungsleiter on whose staff they served; and the Gau representatives, in turn, named their counterparts at the Kreis level. In order to insure the uniform execution of its literary policies, the Amt designated its Hauptstelle Einsatz as the section which was to supervise the Gau representatives as well as the Lektoren of the Zentrallektorat.³¹

The records of one Gau are available for the years 1936-37; they concern the activities of August Belz, the Gauschrifttumsbeauftragte of Baden. From the reports submitted by Belz, the primary task of the Amt's Gau representatives appears to have been to secure the widest possible dissemination of the catalogues, indices, and other literary materials issued by the Amt.³² Furthermore, the Gau representatives were responsible for conducting advertising campaigns for magazines and books that the BUE felt should have a greater circulation. It is not surprising that among the magazines being recommended were those published by the BUE offices, e.g. Die Bücherkunde, N-S Monatshefte, and Germanenerbe, official organ of Rosenberg's Amt Vor-und Frühgeschichte. No precise figures were given as to the total sales, but the reports indicated that the purchases were considered satisfactory. Moreover, Belz tried to have party organizations purchase books approved by the BUE. During the period December 1936 to February 1937 a total of 15,000 such books were ordered.³³

The major problem faced by Belz, and probably the others, was finding qualified personnel to fill the local Kreis offices. From August 1936 (the first of Belz's reports which are available), to March 1937, approximately one-third of the local positions remained vacant; this meant, of course, that the BUE's literary program could not be uniformly carried out. Belz's relationship to the various party organizations seems to have been quite satisfactory, and the only cases of friction that were reported were with representatives of Goebbels's Reichskulturkammer. Unfortunately Belz was not very specific as to the exact difficulties, but apparently Goebbels's local agents attacked the BUE's literary policies and especially the Bücherkunde.³⁴

The Gauschrifttumsbeauftragte, it should be pointed out, was not a full-time employee of the Amt, but performed his duties on a part-time basis. The paperwork must have been heavy, because Belz had to make a monthly, a quarterly, and undoubtedly a semiannual and an annual report. As time progressed, these reports became less and less detailed and the final ones were almost blank pieces of paper. It would indicate that either nothing of importance was transpiring or Belz had gradually lost interest in his work. Then, too, it is quite possible that the work load had increased to such a point that it was impossible to find time to fill out routine reports.

The reports from Baden, therefore, only give a limited picture of the activities the Gau representatives carried out. There is, however, on hand a quarterly summary of the activities of the remaining thirty-nine Gaue. This survey indicated that a continued process of reevaluating the collections of party and state libraries was in progress. Libraries used the Index of Jewish Authors to rid their holdings of allegedly subversive literature and then the Amt's other catalogues and the Gutachtenanzeiger to restock their collections. Several Gau representatives conducted courses for libraries and owners of lending libraries to acquaint them with the proper National Socialist attitude toward literature.³⁵

Each Gau, moreover, conducted workshops and training seminars for its own Kreis officials and the Politische Leiter of the party. The Gau and Kreis representatives served as advisors to local and state governments on questions dealing with library problems. They helped select books which were to be distributed as Christmas presents to party members, drew up lists of books which libraries were to purchase, and they aided local schools in choosing their texts. Furthermore, the Gau and Kreisschrifttumsbeauftragten performed special tasks for the Gestapo and Propaganda Ministry, and in some areas they reviewed books for libraries to see whether they were suitable as acquisitions.³⁶

Although the BUE made substantial progress in reorienting party and state libraries, there was one area in which National Socialist guidelines had absolutely no effect: in those libraries controlled by the churches. In order to understand the problem that confronted the party, it is necessary to return to the conditions in Gau Baden. In the 1,670 school districts of Gau Baden, there were a total of 1,205 libraries, exclusive of party libraries. The German churches operated 1,132 of these and spent a combined sum of 192,000 RM for the purchase of books during 1937. On the other hand, there were only 73 libraries controlled by the towns and municipalities. The latter could be directly influenced by the party, and plans had been instituted to establish 81 additional ones, but red tape, administrative bungling, and jurisdictional problems forestalled concrete action.³⁷

The churches had no intention of willingly following the guidelines laid down by the party. The party's only alternative was to move forcibly against the church libraries, seize them, and destroy the unwanted books. This, however, could be accomplished only if the population was willing to support the party's action; and in Gau Baden, at least, the population would brook no interference with the churches. Belz reported that whenever party members spoke against the Roman Catholic Church the peasants, especially the women, would pelt them with rotten vegetables and therefore all overt attacks upon the Church had been abandoned. The party concentrated its efforts on converting the youth to National Socialist ideals.³⁸

The hostile attitude displayed by Baden's Catholic population toward the party's efforts to destroy the Church's influence increased rather than decreased with the passage of time. As the war progressed and the German armies suffered serious reverses the power and the influence of the Roman Catholic Church expanded enormously. Consequently, the BUE's ideological program as well as the party's political indoctrination efforts gradually lost their effectiveness.³⁹

The success of Amt Schrifttumspflege's operations is difficult to assess. There can be no question that no effort was spared to make the results of the Amt's work known to as large a number of party members as possible. It is also true that through the activities of local representatives, unacceptable books were gradually being cleared from both party and state libraries. Nevertheless the BUE was never able to eliminate completely all unsuitable books even from party controlled libraries, let alone from church and state institutions. In 1941, a partial search of lending, school, and party libraries turned up a total of 736,321 books that were deemed unfit for party members to read. Among the authors still found there were: Heinrich Heine, Theodore Herzl, Emil Ludwig, and Karl Marx.⁴⁰ Furthermore, one type of library which continually turned up ideologically unsound books was the factory library (Werkbucherei). Robert Ley, head of the Deutsche Arbeitsfront, was supposed to be responsible for the proper maintenance of these libraries. Apparently, Ley and other party officials did not take the admonitions of Amt Schrifttumspflege too seriously.⁴¹

The fact that Rosenberg and the party could not control every library in Germany meant that books which did not meet National Socialist standards were still being read. Although the Lektoren of Amt Schrifttumspflege rejected a large percentage of current German literary production, Rosenberg did not have the power to prevent the publication of such books. In exceptional cases he could request the Propaganda Ministry to ban them. If a publisher chose to publish a book that was not endorsed by the BUE, he could do so. These factors made it unlikely that the BUE would accomplish its goal in the field of literature.

Notes

1. An abbreviated discussion of the activities of Amt Schrifttumspflege appeared in Dietrich Strothmann's Nationalsozialistische Literaturpolitik (Bonn, 1960). Since Strothmann did not have access to the relevant German documents, he was unable to examine the Amt's operations in detail. The purpose of this article is to correct this deficiency.

2. The Kampfbund für deutsche Kultur, founded by Alfred Rosenberg in January 1929, was an organization devoted to the dissemination of Nazi cultural propaganda throughout Germany. It was hoped that many nonpolitical Germans could be brought into the party by showing that the Nazis were staunch defenders of traditional German culture. For a survey of the Kampfbund's activities, see Hildegard Brenner, Die Kunstpolitik des Nationalsozialismus (Hamburg, 1963), pp. 7-21.

3. Johann Gerhard Hagemeyer was born on 30 March 1899 near Bremen. He studied husbandry and economics at a technical college in Jena, and in 1932, was appointed a Gauwirtschaftsberater and a Stadtrat in Nuremberg.

4. Bernhard Payr, Das Amt Schrifttumspflege (Berlin, 1941), pp. 9-10.

5. “Stenographischer Bericht über die Verhandlungen in der Hauptversammlung des Börsenvereins der deutschen Buchhändler zu Leipzig am Sonntag den 14. Mai 1933, 9 Uhr im Deutschen Buchhändlerhaus zu Leipzig,” May 14, 1933, in Börsenblatt des deutschen Buchhandles (hereafter cited as Börsenblatt), C (Jun. 15, 1933), 436; “Bericht über die Entwicklungsgeschichte der Reichsstelle zur Förderung des deutschen Schrifttums,” Jun. 22, 1933, National Archives Microcopy T-580 (hereafter cited as T-580), roll 981, folder 220; Rosenberg to Goebbels, Mar. 6, 1934, National Archives Microcopy T-454 (hereafter cited as T-454), roll 74, frame 770.

6. Hagemeyer to Rosenberg, Mar. 26, 1934, T-454, roll 68, frames 1246-7; Payr, p. 10.

7. Völkischer Beobachter (hereafter cited as VB), Feb. 1, 1934, p. 1. For the circumstances leading up to the establishment of the BUE, see Herbert P. Rothfeder, “A Study of Alfred Rosenberg's Organization for National Socialist Ideology” (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Dept. of History, University of Michigan, 1963), pp. 55-77; Reinhard Bollmus, Das Amt Rosenberg und seine Gegner (Stuttgart, 1970), pp. 54-71.

8. Rosenberg to Haegert (Ministerialdirektor in the Propaganda Ministry), Jan. 31, 1934, T-454, roll 74, frames 779-80; Rosenberg to Haegert, Feb. 12, 1934, ibid., frames 777-8; Rosenberg to Goebbels, Mar. 6, 1934, ibid., frames 768, 772-3.

9. Rosenberg, “Anordnung 1/34,” Apr. 10, 1934, T-580, roll 27, folder 211; Rosenberg to Bouhler (Mar. 24 1934, T-454 roll 78, frame 814.

10. Hellmut Merzdorf, “Das Zentrallektorat der Reichsstelle zur Förderung des deutschen Schrifttums,” VB, Apr. 25, 1935; “Organisationsplan der Dienststelle des Beauftragten des Führers für die Überwachung. … 1941,” Dec. 22, 1941, T-454, roll 34, frames 518-19.

11. For a complete list of the Hauptlektoren and Hauptlektorate, see “Die Hauptlektoren,” Die Bücherkunde, IV (Dec. 1937), 752; Strothmann, table 3, p. 435.

12. Payr, “Dienstanweisung Nr. 1 für die Lektoren der Reichsstelle zur Förderung des deutschen Schrifttums,” Dec. 9, 1935 (hereafter cited as “Dienstanweisung”), pp. 1-2, National Archives Microcopy T-81 (hereafter cited as T-81), roll 12, folder 9; Payr, pp. 16-17.

13. The Vorlektor was also responsible for the evaluation of manuscripts. In 1933, the Reichsstelle invited authors to submit their manuscripts to a prepublication censorship. After a period of three years it was decided to discontinue this service, because of the five thousand manuscripts evaluated, 90 percent were found to be totally unusable; of the remaining 10 percent, only 1 percent were considered suitable for publication. Payr, pp. 19-20; Börsenblatt, CIII (Aug. 18, 1936), 719; ibid., CIII (Aug. 22, 1936), 726-7.

14. As might be imagined, the Amt had issued an elaborate set of instructions to guide reviewers in their work. For the full set of guidelines, see “Dienstanweisung,” pp. 1-47, T-81, roll 12, folder 9.

15. For a detailed description of what the Amt expected from its official journal, see “Wem dient die Bücherkunde,” Die Bücherkunde, II (Sept. 1935), Edition A, 306-8 and II (Oct. 1935), Edition A, 338-9. By 1939, Die Bücherkunde had reached a circulation of 9,000 copies a month. With the outbreak of the war, this figure gradually dropped to 8,000, and by 1944, the journal appeared only bimonthly.

16. The guidelines for reviewing magazines are to be found in “Dienstanweisung und Arbeitsrichtlinien für Zeitschriftlektoren des Amtes Schrifttumspflege,” Lektorenbrief, III (Sept.-Oct., 1940), p. 11, in T-81, roll 12, folder 9.

17. NSDAP, Reichsstelle zur Förderung des deutschen Schrifttums, Jahresgutachtenanzeiger 1936 (Bayreuth 1937), pp. 129-32; NSDAP, Reichsstelle zur Förderung des deutschen Schrifttums, Jahresgutachtenanzeiger 1937 (Bayreuth 1938), pp. 139-42; NSDAP, BUE, Amt Schrifttumspflege, Jahresgutachtenanzeiger 1940 (Bayreuth 1941), pp. 175-80; NSDAP, BUE, Amt Schrifttumspflege, Jahresgutachtenanzeiger 1941 (Bayreuth 1942), pp. 148-52.

18. Payr, p. 20; “Mitteilung der Reichsstelle zur Förderung des deutschen Schrifttums,” in Börsenblatt, CI (Sept. 27, 1934), 848. For an example of a publisher's evaluation form, see “Gutachten für Verleger,” T-454, roll 68, frame 1185.

19. Payr, pp. 19-20; Payr to Verlag Hase und Koehler, Jun. 25, 1941, T-81, roll 45, frame 48208.

20. Börsenblatt, CI (Jun. 24, 1934), 663-4.

21. For an example, see NS-Bibliographie, I (Jan. 1936), 5. The PPK was established in April 1934 as a means of preventing the misuse of the party's name and its doctrines in literature. In January 1936, the PPK began publishing the NS-Bibliographie which contained lists of approved literature for party members to read.

22. (Stuttgart 1936), reviewed in Die Bücherkunde, IV (Apr. 1937), 223.

23. (Breslau 1936), reviewed in ibid., IV (May 1937), 284.

24. (Winterthur 1933), evaluation in Bücherkunde der Reichsstelle zur Förderung des deutschen Schrifttums, No. 11, 1933, in T-454, roll 68, frame 1285.

25. (Stuttgart 1933), evaluation in Bücherkunde, No 11, in ibid., frame 1294.

26. William Schütz. Pens under the Swastika (London 1946), p. 31.

27. For a complete list of all proposed bibliographies, see Strothmann, p. 441.

28. Vogel (head of BUE's library) to Deutsche Buchhandlung Alfred Fritizsche, Aug. 16, 1941, T-81, roll 47, frame 49551.

29. Payr, pp. 25-6.

30. Hess, “Anordnung A/6/40,” Jan. 19, 1940, T-454, roll 74, frame 1040; Hagemeyer, “Übersicht über die Arbeit vom Amt Schrifttumpflege,” Jul. 16, 1943, ibid., roll 66, frame 946.

31. Payr, pp. 28-9. Hauptstelle Einsatz acquired one additional function during the war. On 23 November 1940, it was authorized to carry out the “Büchersammlung der NSDAP für die deutsche Wehrmacht.” By 1943, it had collected 35,971,745 books which formed 151,277 libraries. Ibid., p. 32; Rosenberg to Hitler, Jun. 3, 1943, T-454, roll 69, frame 910.

32. One way the Gau representative executed this task may be seen from the use made of the Buch-Hinweis published by the BUE's library. Each month the library compiled a list of current writings which it considered significant and sent these to the Gau representative, who was supposed to recommend them to party members. The Gauschrifttumsbeauftragte then took the books he felt were most relevant and forwarded these to the Kreis officials. Periodically, a complete list of all books recommended by the BUE's library was issued. NSDAP, BUE, Amt Schrifttumspflege, Hauptstelle Auswertung, Bücherei der Dienststelle, Buch-Hinweis, No. 2 (Feb. 1940), in T-81, roll 21, frames 19037-9; Belz to Kreisschrifttumsbeauftragten in Baden, Feb. 19, 1940, ibid., frame 19002; Belz, Buch-Hinweis, No. 2 (Jun. 1940), ibid., frames 19024a-26.

33. “Tätigkeitsbericht der Landesdienststelle Baden über den Monat Februar 1937,” Feb. 5, 1937, p. 1, ibid., roll 118, frame 139182. One book which the Gau representative tried to have party members purchase was Robert Sutrm's Europa brennt, Moskau am Werke (Bayreuth 1937). It should be noted that the publisher of this book, Gauverlag Bayrische Ostmark, was the same publisher who published the Bücherkunde. No doubt financial, as well as ideological, considerations were involved.

34. “Tätigkeitsbericht der Landesdienststelle Baden für den Monat August-September 1936,” Sept. 28, 1936, p. 1, T-81, roll 118, frame 139204; “Tätigkeitsbericht der Landesdienststelle Baden über den Monat November 1936,” Dec. 18, 1936, pp. 1-2, ibid., frames 139194-5; “Tätigkeitsbericht der Landesdienststelle Baden über den Monat März 1937,” Apr. 21, 1937, p. 1, ibid., frame 139177.

35. “Gesamt-Arbeitsbericht der Gauschrifttumsbeauftragten aller 40 Reichsgaue für das 1. Vierteljahr 1939 (Monate Januar-März),” 1939, pp. 2, 4, 7, 12-13, 22, ibid., frames 139064, 139066, 139069, 139074-5, 139084.

36. “Gesamt-Arbeitsbericht,” pp. 1, 5, 12, 15, ibid., frames 139063, 139067, 139074, 139077.

37. “Arbeitsbericht des Gauschrifttumsbeauftragten von Baden für die Monate Oktober-Dezember 1937,” Jan 7 1938, p. 6 ibid., frame 139155.

38. “Arbeitsbericht des Gauschrifttumsbeauftragten von Baden für die Monate Juli-August-September-Oktober 1937,” Oct. 26, 1937, p. 6, ibid., frame 139163.

39. Schill (Kreisleitung Buchen, Gau Baden) to Gauschulungsamt Baden, 1941, in John S. Steward, Sieg des Glaubens (Zurich 1946); Schill to Gauschulungsamt Baden, Dec. 18, 1941, ibid., pp. 37-8; Schill to Gauschulungsamt Baden, Apr. 19, 1944, ibid., p. 47; ibid., pp. 61-2, 89-90, 93-4.

40. Bouhler to Alle Mitglieder des Reichsausschusses für Schul-und Unterichtsschrifttum, “Rundschreiben Nr. 1,” Apr. 11, 1941, p. 7, T-454, roll 70, frame 502.

41. Strothmann, p. 57, n. 39.