Stanley Burnshaw review Friedrich Wolf’s anti-war drama based on the mutiny aboard the Austro-Hungarian ship Cattaro during World War One.

‘Sailors of Cattaro: The Most Important Play in New York’ by Stanley Burnshaw from New Masses. Vol. 13 No. 13. December 25, 1934.

IN JANUARY, 1918, six thousand sailors in the Austrian fleet were stationed in the Bay of Cattaro, an inlet of the Adriatic Sea. They were thoroughly sickened by four years of war, virtually trapped in outmoded vessels, miserably clothed and fed. Their officers, on the other hand, caroused freely, expropriated provisions belonging to the crew, disregarded their needs and deprived them of the right to air their grievances. Learning of the heroic anti-war strike of the Vienna workers, the crews laid plans to seize the ships as a means of stopping the war. On February 1 they mutinied, placed their officers under guard and hoisted the red flag.

Several years later Friedrich Wolf, a German playwright exiled for being a Jew, recorded the sailors’ uprising in a play following closely the actual facts. Produced in most of the European capitals, Sailors of Cattaro had been offered to several New York producers (among them the Theatre Guild and the Group Theatre) only to be rejected. It remained for the Theatre Union to recognize the significance of this play both as an anti-war weapon and as drama.

As dramatic writing Sailors of Cattaro (Civic Repertory) goes beyond both Peace on Earth and Stevedore, being richer and firmer in characterizations, and broader in its immediate implications. Although it never produces the genuine thrill of the final scene of Stevedore, Sailors of Cattaro creates some of the most acute emotional moments in the contemporary theatre, and these it builds up solidly out of the suffering flesh and blood of sailors desperate to put an end to their condition, to stop the war, and strike a blow for a workers’ world.

After a first scene (on the flagship Saint George) which provides the background for the uprising the excruciating insolence of the Lieutenant, the complaints of the men and their determination to take matters into their own hands–scene two by judicious use of parody produces an intensification of the opposing forces. And when the Captain gently chides the Lieutenant for acting hastily rather than “psychologically” the full basis for the mutiny has been masterfully established. With one of their number ordered to the fortress, the crew selects the Captain’s birthday as a fit time for seizing power. Their strategy works perfectly. They go wild with joy as they pull down the Imperial war banner and hoist the red flag of victory.

But the second phase of the work menaces their achievement. Success now depends on the solidarity of all the ships in the bay as well as cooperation from the rank and file in the naval base at Pola. A Sailors Council, hastily selected, delegates power to the original leader of the uprising (bo’sun Rasch) but causes delays which twice prevent the ship from sailing safely out of the bay. Meanwhile the naval administration has lost no time countering with fresh “reliable” troops, bottling up the bay with submarines and isolating the Saint George from radio communication. The Imperial Navy finally sends its ultimatum: restore the imprisoned officers to full power, in which case complete amnesty will be granted, or the ship will be blown up by 10 p.m. Three of the Sailors Council refuse to listen, but the majority, traduced by false assurances and unwilling to die for their cause, finally capitulates. The red flag is lowered; four of the insurgents are led off to execution.

No abstract of the action could possibly convey the emotional impact of the play or its meaning in terms of ideological conflict. A half dozen masterly dramatic touches solidify the action, and secondary threads tighten and color the dramatic fabric. There is one failure which comes to mind when considering the play in retrospect: never does one get the feel of masses of men marshalled in rebellion and collaborating in decisions. There are six hundred sailors aboard the Saint George: one misses the physical impact of these human masses overjoyed with victory or menaced by frustration.

One is tempted to discuss several important problems provoked by the play, but this is impossible in a review of this length. Nevertheless the conflicts in tactics growing out of the problem of leadership during the crisis demand some comment. Stonawski (aviation pilot), the clearest thinker among the men, realizes that ideologically undeveloped sailors must learn the “trade of government” as they have learned the trade of sailoring. In his quiet way he attempts to convince Rasch that the existence of a Sailors Council does not mean that “they shouldn’t have a leader? God damn it, some one has to be at the wheel!” His clarity disarms the former ensign who is willing to throw the whole council in irons if it would bring success: that would be to replace one set of goldstripers with another. But his central analysis, a point which carries the explanation of the whole conflict, is never given the emphasis it requires: that the difficulties are not inherent in the Sailors Council as an institution but rather in this particular Sailors Council which is not a real council at all, being composed of men indiscriminately selected who neither see the whole picture nor appreciate what the strike really means. We wish Stonawski’s clarification had been better emphasized for the sake of politically inexperienced audiences which stand a fair chance of branding the institution of collective decision impracticable and ruinous.

The real error, however, was made by Wolf in having posed the problem as he did. He has failed to indicate the need for politically developed leadership, such as the Bolsheviks gave to the revolting sailors and soldiers of Czarist Russia. As Wolf’s play stands it reveals the influence of “Austro-Marxism,” which differed in principle and tactic from the Marxism of the successful Bolsheviks. They realized that in every revolutionary endeavor leadership must be delegated to politically clear individuals and groups guided by principles and tactics of the revolutionary vanguard.

Certain bourgeois critics have criticized Michael Blankfort’s adaptation as being sometimes “too literary.” The present reviewer wishes that these critics would compare Friedrich Wolf’s version with the present production, for the allegedly “scholarly” passages are Wolf’s (in Keene Wallis’ translation.) Blankfort has considerably clarified and intensified the original, particularly in the characters of Stonawski and Toni (whose chief reason for revolt was his hunger to see his young son).

The production as a whole is admirable. Mordecai Gorelick’s single set, used with variations throughout the play, is nothing less than magnificent. As the central character Tom Powers is impressive, and there are brilliant performances by Charles Thompson (the scab sailor), Robert Reed (Maté), James MacDonald (Lieutenant), and Howard da Silva (Sepp). Indeed the members of the crew are convincing individuals at intervals mastering or mastered by their situation.

The Sailors of Cattaro is by far the most important play in New York. It is also the most engrossing and inspiring anti-war drama that this reviewer has seen.

PDF of full issue: https://www.marxists.org/history/usa/pubs/new-masses/1934/v13n13-dec-25-1934-NM.pdf