Politics and Aesthetics: Influence of Power and Politics on Architecture in Nazi Germany

Politics and Aesthetics Influence of Power and Politics on Architecture in Nazi Germany Joe Curtis

INFLUENCE OF POWER AND POLITICS ON ARCHITECTURE IN NAZI GERMANY Hitler believed that “one should have the feeling one is visiting the master of the world” (A. Hitler, quoted in Dovey, p. 55). Master can be defined as ‘gaining control’ according to the Oxford Dictionary (Oxford Dictionaries | English, 2017). Architecture, believed to be one of Hitler’s fetishes, was utilised to show the growing power and wealth in Germany, as well as being exploited as a form of propaganda and intimidation for the Nazi party. Hitler had a vision for Germany and how its architecture should look, as well as how it should be promoted. However, he faced many difficulties before achieving his vision. This essay will look into the architectural conflicts between the Nazi’s and the modernists of the Bauhaus over their desired aesthetics for creating architecture which represented Germany. I will also consider whether architecture was intentionally used as a tool of manipulation and propaganda. Finally, I will briefly look into Germania, Hitlers ‘monstrous’ plan for Berlin. Then finally, I will evaluate whether Hitler was successful in creating a style of architecture which represented the growing power of the Third Reich, considering whether it was influenced by the politics at that time.

NAZI ARCHITECTURE vs MODERNIST ARCHITECTURE: “Hitler singled out architecture for special attention” (Lane, p147). During the 1930’s, as Chancellor of Germany, Hitler “spent up to a day a week working on architectural matters” (Dovey, p57). From this, it is evident that Hitler particularly scrutinised architecture, for it was him who believed that architecture was a “vital index of national power and wealth” (Lane, p147). From this brief introduction, it is clear that Hitler, a political figure, was heavily involved within architecture. In 1934, after the passing of Paul Troost, former favourite architect of Hitlers, Albert Speer, a young architect of his time was appointed chief architect of the Nazi party. Alongside working with Hitler, Speer was responsible for designing Hitler’s vision of Germany.

Ancient Rome, an era remembered for its imperial power, was a precedent for Hitlers vision for Germany. "Hitler wanted to create ancient Rome, and Speer did his best to provide it" (Sudjic, p21). Using the ruins of Rome as inspiration, Hitler wanted his architecture to outlive the Reich, believing that “architecture had inspirational inertia which would carry a national spirit through periods of decline, and retain its meaning in decay” (Dovey,p57). It was intended that the architecture would outlive the Reich and even after 1000 years would remain as ruins, as instruments of the power of Nazi Germany. Termed as the “theory of ruin value’” (Dovey, p57), Speer theorised that the power of architecture “transcended any utilitarian or instrumental purpose” (Dovey, p59).

Therefore, when designing buildings for the Reich, Speer designed within the Romanesque Neo-classical style, a style which was particularly admired by Hitler. The admiration of the style developed due to “its timeless values of imperial power” (Dovey, p.57), power which Hitler wanted.

However, Hitlers vision of transforming Berlin into Rome was under threat due to the modernist movement. "Hitler and many of his early supporters were motivated by an assortment of resentments and fears of modernity, as represented by capitalism and socialism, Jews and other outsiders" (Ladd, p134). Architects such as Mies van der Rohe and Adolf Meyer were under scrutiny by the Nazi party due to creating ‘un-German’ buildings. By implementing theoretical theories and research as well as the modernist styles of the Bauhaus, the Nazi party labelled their work as ‘degenerate art’ due to what they believed their work represented.

In 1919, Adolf Meyer, the current office boss of the firm of Walter Gropius, was appointed as a master at the Bauhaus school, and research soon shifted away from aesthetics to functionality. His research primarily focussed on user requirements as well as other research conducted within the school which focussed on spatial implementation of intellectual decision. This research was soon implemented within to the architecture designed by the Bauhaus and modernist architects, for example the use of flat roofs. The justification to the use of flat roofs, according to Nuttgens, is due to the opinion that “flat roofs are convenient because they make possible a totally free plan" (Nuttgens, p268). However, traditionalists, such as Albert Speer, kept to the tradition of the pitched roof with his designs so that it did not look ‘un-German’. It could be argued that due to the shift in research of aesthetics at the Bauhaus school to user requirements, the aesthetic qualities of their buildings were less significant. From this pioneering research it is commonly known today that the Bauhaus are known for their architectural advancements, which could arguably mean that the architecture created by Speer was inferior. However, this was unlike the Nazi party, who primarily focussed on the aesthetics of architecture, to keep in line with Hitlers vision and Speer’s ‘theory of ruin’. Nazi propaganda newspapers such as the ‘Anhalter Tage Zeitung’ began generating public controversy over modernist architectural issues such as flat roofs. “Tear down the oriental glass palace of the Bauhaus" (Sudjic, p27), a demand published in Anhalter Tage Zeitung during 1932. However, as soon as the school was under Nazi occupation, "a pitched roof was added, presumably in the interests of making it look more German" (Sudjic, p28). The Nazi’s feared the modernist architects such as Mies whose "influence was worldwide"(Nuttgens, p272) unlike the Nazis.

Figure 1: Bauhaus School, (Robert, 2010)

Another key debate regarding the Germanic architectural style was the use of materials. During the 1920’s, prior to the uprising of Hitler, Mies “designed projects for houses and skyscrapers of glass and steel” (Nuttgens, p273). Steel, a new material at the time, allowed for quick assembly of buildings and costed significantly less than iron, a material which was commonly used within long-span designs to achieve large spaces. This was unlike Nazi architecture which was "solid, sensible buildings with traditional materials like stone and wood" (Ladd, p234).

However, according to Sudjic, "Nazi propaganda embraced both the idealised thatch and half-timber of the German peasant cottage" (Sudjic, p27) as well as the "simple unadorned steel and glass" (Sudjic, p27).

Buildings such as the Chancellery, which was designed and constructed in 1938, was only achieved with hiring two competing contractors as well as the use of the concentration camps. Which, according to the Architectural Review, “concentration camps were factories with their logic just as ruthless” (Architectural Review, 2017), factories full with innocent civilians whom are intimidated by the power of Hitler and forced to work to supply building materials for the capital in order to survive.

Concluding this section of the essay I believe that Hitler and the Nazi’s were blinded by their view of creating architecture resembling ancient Rome and made several contradictions on what comprises German architecture. Hitler, a man who wanted to create pure German architecture, could have utilised the methods of the Bauhaus, an architectural school based in Germany. Instead, he used the ruins of Rome as a precedent. The pioneers of the modernist movement originated from Germany itself, and created a style which is now highly regarded as a success. Due to much of Speer’s work being demolished after the war, little remains of Hitler’s vision, a vision which was intended to symbolise Germany as a powerhouse, but now remembered nothing more than a symbol of shame.

PROPAGANDA AND INTIMIDATION: PROPAGANDA: Propaganda defined as “information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a political cause or point of view.” (Oxford Dictionaries | English, 2017), was a design requirement of some of Hitler’s buildings. Architecture was designed with three principles, which have their own place within propaganda value; these include didactic, symbolic and theatrical. A structure, commonly known for being designed to be used as as a method of propaganda, is the Zeppelin Field.

‘Zeppelinfeld’ or in English ‘Zeppelin Field’, was designed by Speer in 1933 as his first major architectural assignment. It was specifically designed as a form of propaganda for the Nazi party, and as a space to hold functions such as rallies, which were used to promote the power and views of the Nazi party. The proposed building went “beyond the scope of original commission” (Speer, p165). Up to 90,000 people were able to parade within the enclosed space with dimensions of 290 x 312 metres.

Regarding the Grandstand, the “extreme economy of artistic and technological devices and the beauty of proportions and materials, make the Grandstand an authentic piece of classicism” (Speer, p165). By exceeding the limits caused by propaganda, “the young architect had created an authentic spatial masterpiece" (Speer, p175).

INTIMIDATION: “Visibility, legitimation, seduction and intimidation” (Dovey, 1999, p.65).

Words used by Kim Dovey which amplifies the power and intimidation of the era of the Nazi Architecture. Intimidation, defined as “to frighten or threaten someone, usually in order to persuade them to do something that you want them to do” (dictionary.cambridge.org, 2017), was a principal aim of the architecture created by Speer. The new Chancellery, commissioned in 1938 exemplifies this intended principal. The 400 metre long building was designed with ‘useless’ voids and gigantic chambers which were enhanced with smaller spaces to make state officials feel belittled under the power of Hitler. 230 metres of the building was carefully organised to eventually lead to Hitler’s study.

“On the walk from the entrance to the reception hall, they will get a taste of the power and grandeur of the German Reich" (A.Hitler quoted in Sudjic, p17). The Nazi architecture was intentionally designed to make official visitors feel small and insignificant, in an attempt to eventually surrender their power to the Reich. A key example of this is President Emil Hácha, the third president of Czechoslovakia. "I had so belaboured the old man that his nerves gave away completely, he was on the point of signing, then he had a heart attack", (A.Hitler, quoted in Sudjic, p18). The heart attack, believed to be have been caused by the 230m long walk

within the Chancellery as well as the intimidation of Speer’s architecture, meaning the “architecture had apparently done all that Hitler had expected of it" (Sudjic, p18).

Figure 2: Hall of Marble, (Hoffmann, 1939)

When analysing whether Hitler and Speer were successful in creating architecture as a tool for propaganda and intimidation, I believe they were successful. Looking at Hácha as an example, he suffered a heart attack within the Chancellery shortly after arriving at Hitler’s office and before signing Czechoslovakia’s surrender to the Reich. It was known that Hácha was suffering from a weak heart. But, it could be argued that it was not the intimidation of the Chancellery that caused the heart attack, but the whole visit to Germany or even illness, as it is not known what condition Hácha’s health was at the time. However, it is questionable whether Hácha signing over power to the Reich was "an attempt to save his own skin or to spare his country from futile bloodshed remains a sharply contested issue" (Sudjic, p15). I believe Hácha could have been a test for Hitler and Speer to see how a frail, intimidated old man would react to the architecture.

GERMANIA: Hitler's personal view of 1930’s Berlin was "a city that held little attraction for him" (Ladd, p134), therefore he initiated a plan which would redevelop the capital. To initiate this plan he began constructing provisional buildings which would later be demolished, like the new Chancellery. “The constructed Chancellery was but a provisional building, a prelude to the

larger transformation of central Berlin, which was to be renamed ‘Germania’ and was developed largely in secret by Speer from 1936 to 1942� (Dovey, p61) [see figure 4 for model masterplan]. It could be argued that the Chancellery, a building which broke many architectural records, was intended to be the initiation of Germania and acted as an example of what Hitler and Speer could achieve. An example record being that the central gallery was twice the volume compared to the Hall of Mirrors in Versailles. However, the Chancellery was soon to be replaced with the Fuhrer Palace in 1950.

Figure 3: The New Reich Chancellery in Vossstrasse, (O.Ang., 1939)

Figure 4: Germania Model, (Das Bundesarchiv, 1939)

Germania, now nothing more than a grand plan of Hitler and Speer’s ambitions for the Reich, was a vision of “signifying the turn of history” (Vale, p62). "Speer was given the power to create a north-south axis, centrepiece of the capital" (Ladd, p136). The change in axis, in the view of Speer would have made “Paris only a shadow” (Speer quoted in Dovey, p62). The newly designed axis was to be lined with new buildings with the grand classical style. These buildings ranged from government offices, corporate headquarters, theatres and shops, which were intended to “display the power and glory of Greater Germany" (Ladd, p136). A large number of these buildings were planned for Hitler and his regime.

The redevelopment of Berlin would have "out scaled every effort at architecture and urban design that the world has ever known" (Vale, p25).

According to Speer, “visitors would be overwhelmed or rather stunned, by the urban scene and the power of the Reich” (Dovey, p63). However, according to Vale, the "Nazi plans for Berlin envisaged nothing short of a preposterous shrine to power and nationalism" (Vale, p27). Although, these two sources are similar in argument, the quote from Speer referred to in Dovey, would have been a biased opinion. As a member of the Nazi party, Speer would have believed that the power portrayed in the new Berlin was nothing more than a facade that portrays the recovery and reuprising of the Reich. Unlike Vale who, as well as many others, would believe that this was a method of intimidation from evaluating Hitler’s past architectural projects.

Two of the major architectural pieces within the plan for Germania, are the ‘Arc De Triomphe’ (Triumphal Arch) and the ‘Grosse Halle’ (Grand Hall) [see figure 5] had “been sketched by Hitler in prison during 1925’ (Vale, p63). This is evident that Hitler had imagined the possibilities of reimagining Berlin prior becoming Chancellor in 1934.

At the end of the axis was to be a 20 hectare plaza named either the ‘Square of the People’ or ‘King’s Plaza’ which was going to be enclosed by Government buildings and a purpose built palace for Hitler, named ‘Fuhurer Palace’. The northland end of the square would have been "dominated by an enormous hall capped by a dome 825 feet in diameter, rising to a height of 954 feet" (Ladd, p137), this hall being the Grand Hall.

The Grand Hall, the centre piece of Hitlers Germania, was proposed to have a “volume… sixteen times that of St. Peter's cathedral in Rome" (Ladd, p137), another architectural achievement of Hitler and Speer’s work.

Figure 5: Model of Grande Halle, (Das Bundesarchiv, 1939)

The scale model created by Speer not only shows the vast scale of the Grand hall but it also shows how it “dwarfs the Reichstag - no doubt an intended effect" (Ladd, p137). Many existing buildings, mainly apartment blocks were demolished in preparation of Germania, however "one existing building that would remain on the grand boulevard was the Reichstag" (Ladd, p136). Although Hitler "despised the institution, and he vetoed Speer's proposal to demolish it" (Ladd, p136), he admired the architecture of the Reichstag. However, according to Speer, the Reichstag “in no way signified that Hitler meant the German parliament to play an important part in the exercise of power" (Speer quoted in Vale, p27). The scale of the Reichstag compared to the Grand Hall was an effect to amplify Hitlers succession to power compared to the old German Government.

The overall aesthetics of Germania kept in line with Hitlers’ personal taste of Neo-Classical architecture, as well as fulfilling it’s intended purpose of being didactic, symbolic and theatrical, but would have also adhered to Speer’s ‘Theory of Ruin’. "At each stage of Berlin's development, the ruling regime has imprinted signs of this power on the architecture" (Vale, p24), an imprint now lost due to the demolition of Speer's work after their defeat in World War II. Overall, I believe that Hitlers idea for Germania did not fully consider the architectural style but was more concerned with how the user feels. I believe that Hitler did not consider the architecture of that time, considering he labelled Mies Van Der Rohe’s architecture as ‘un-german’ and so unsuitable for the Reich, although it was the contemporary style at the time. But if it was his policy to create a city for the future should he have not implemented contemporary architecture within Germania?

Following the similar concept to Le Corbusier’s future city. Arguably, Hitler

wanted to create architecture which would last beyond the Reich in ruin value, which could only be achieved by the neo-classical style.

CONCLUSION: Overall, I believe that the architecture designed by Albert Speer, if constructed, would have exceeded Hitlers expectations. The architecture was intended to intimidate opposers of the Reich and represent power, which was clearly achieved in the designs that were built, such as the new Chancellery. As already quoted in the essay, Speer's work “transcended the limits of mass propaganda, the young architect had created an authentic spatial masterpiece" (Speer, 1985). It is important to remember that this was Speer’s first major architectural assignment and is known as one of his most significant works. However, it should not be forgotten that Hitler, a political figure and architectural admirer, had one vision, a vision to create a state of power and intimidation. Although not a qualified architect, I believe that Hitler was principally the architect behind Speer's work. This is supported by the regular conversations held with Hitler as well as sketches that Hitler drew in prison. As well as the fact that “Hitler spent hours pouring over plans and models for the new capital” (Ladd, p135), possibly as a politician declaring his verdict or as architectural admirer. This consequently proves that architecture during the Nazi reign was influenced by the politics.

REFERENCES: BOOKS:

Dovey, Kim. Framing places: mediating power in built form. Routledge, 1999. [Chapter 5: Take your breath away: Berlin, p.55-68] Ladd, B. (2008). The Ghosts of Berlin. 1st ed. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, pp.127-174.

Lane, B. (1985). Architecture and politics in Germany, 1918-1945. 1st ed.

Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.

Nuttgens, P. (1997). The Story of Architecture. 2nd ed. Phaidon, pp.266-273.

Speer, A., Krier, L. (1985). Albert Speer, Architecture 1932 - 1942. 1st ed.

[New York, NY]: Monacelli Press.

Sudjic, D. (2014). The Edifice Complex; How the Rich and Powerful Shape the World. 1st ed. New York: Penguin Books, pp.12-48.

Vale, L. (2008). Architecture, power, and National Identity. 2nd ed.

Routledge.

Images: Das Bundesarchiv (1939). Berlin.- Transformation of the Reichshauptstadt Berlin. [image] Available at: http://www.bild.bundesarchiv.de/crosssearch/search/_1492863513/?search[view]=detail&search[focus]=28 [Accessed 22 Apr. 2017].

Das Bundesarchiv (1939). Berlin.- Transformation of the Reichshauptstadt Berlin. [image] Available at: http://www.bild.bundesarchiv.de/crosssearch/search/_1492867868/? search%5Bview%5D=detail&search%5Bfocus%5D=30 [Accessed 22 Apr. 2017].

Hoffmann (1939). Hall of Marble. [image] Available at: http:// www.bild.bundesarchiv.de/cross-search/search/_1493345197/? search[page]=228 [Accessed 22 Apr. 2017].

O.Ang. (1939). The New Reich Chancellery in Vossstrasse. [image] Available at: http://www.bild.bundesarchiv.de/cross-search/search/ _1493345197/?search[page]=220 [Accessed 22 Apr. 2017].

Robert, N. (2010). Bauhaus, Dessau, Germany. [image] Available at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/naterobert/4682696561 [Accessed 25 Apr. 2017].22 Apr. 2017].

INTERNET: Architectural Review. (2017). Albert Speer (1905-1981). [online] Available at: https://www.architectural-review.com/rethink/reputations/ albert-speer-1905-1981/8637474.article [Accessed 27 Apr. 2017].

Dictionary.cambridge.org. (2017). Intimidate Meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary. [online] Available at: http://dictionary.cambridge.org/ dictionary/english/intimidate [Accessed 22 Apr. 2017].

Oxford Dictionaries | English. (2017). Master - Definition of Master in English | Oxford Dictionaries. [online] Available at: https:// en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/master [Accessed 19 Apr. 2017].

Oxford Dictionaries | English. (2017). Propaganda - Definition of Propaganda in English | Oxford Dictionaries. [online] Available at: https:// en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/propaganda [Accessed 19 Apr. 2017].

BIBLIOGRAPHY: Books: Lupfer, G., Paul, J. and Sigel, P. (2003). Architectural Theory: From the Renaissance to the Present. 1st ed. Koln: Taschen, pp.722-751.

Markus, T. (1993). Buildings & Power: Freedom & Control in the Origin of Modern Building Types. 1st ed. London: Routledge.

Sudjic, D. and Jones, H. (2001). Architecture and Democracy. 1st ed.

London: Laurence King.

Internet: ArchDaily. (2017). The Unbuilt Nazi Pantheon: Unpacking Albert Speer's "Volkshalle". [online] Available at: http://www.archdaily.com/806680/ unbuilt-nazi-pantheon-unpacking-albert-speer-volkshalle-germaniajonathan-glancey [Accessed 17 Apr. 2017].

WORSLEY, G. (1992). Architecture: How to be Classical without being crude: The austere. [online] The Independent. Available at: http:// www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/art/news/architecture-howto-be-classical-without-being-crude-the-austere-tradition-followed-byfrancis-1548821.html [Accessed 17 Apr. 2017].

Video: Visions of Space, Albert Speer: Size Matters, 02:00 29/09/2008, BBC4, 60 mins. https://learningonscreen.ac.uk/ondemand/index.php/prog/ 001D40F1 (Accessed 19 Apr 2017) Lecture: Doucet, I (2017), Building and Power, University of Manchester, 27/2/17, Lecture 7 for Politics and Aesthetics.