![Sample our Geography journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5937/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Geography.jpg"})
Abstract
Adolf Hitler constructed his Nazi ideology as a universal worldview aimed at the German Reich's eastward expansion; the ‘Generalsiedlungsplanung Ost’ programme was officially launched in 1940. The forcible establishment of multiple administrative units in 1938/1939 created the conditions for an architecture that would serve the totalitarian regime. Thus began an enormous planning process and the targeted institutionalization of urban development and spatial planning and research. This programme included not only German government agencies and research institutions specifically established or reorganized for this purpose, but increasingly also involved communal politics and independent or government architects. The author pursues the thesis that this Germanization concept, formulated within the framework of the ‘Generalsiedlungspläne Ost’, allowed the relevant agencies to increase their influence or eliminate any opponents. From this basis, the study identifies the role that GBI (Generalbauinspektor) for Berlin Albert Speer, his architects, and local architects played in the planning process in Czechoslovakia and Poland, and analyses the architectural evidence of the Nazi rulers’ Germanization and colonization policies. The initial comparison of the urban planning models applied in ‘Großreich Deutschland’ with those in the annexed regions in today's Poland and Czech Republic offers relevant arguments related to this far-reaching sociological and architecture–historical topic.
Acknowledgements
The present paper is based on a lecture given in Warsaw on 18 February 2015 and sponsored by the German Historical Institute (DHI). It presents several of the author's selected habilitation theses for discussion. The subject is being worked on at the Institute for Art History, Architectural History and Monument Preservation, Bern University, Switzerland (director Prof. Dr Bernd Nicolai). Thanks go to the director of DHI Warsaw, Prof. Dr Miloš Řezník, for extending an invitation, to Prof. Niels Gutschow for his critical reading and to the anonymous reviewers of this journal.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
Notes on contributor
Dr Richard Němec is Research Assistant of the Institute for Art History, Architectural History and Monument Preservation, Bern University (Switzerland). His present-day habilitation research focuses on the planning and designs of Nazi regime's urbanist and architectural strategies. He has published one book and written about 25 scientific studies on urban planning and designs of late medieval architecture.
Notes
1. Hitler, Mein Kampf, 732. An edition is being prepared for publication in 2016 by the Institute for Contemporary History in Munich; project team headed by Dr Christian Hartmann.
2. AP Poznań, archival fonds no. 299, I/9, Raumordnung und Landesplanung, sign. 385, Letter from Heinrich Dürr, consultant at the RfR, to Paul Fliether, dated 16 April 1942, Luxembourg, 1–16 (pag. as 18–20).
3. On Meyer's comprehensive authority, see Münk, Die Organisation des Raumes; Herzberg, Raumordnung im nationalsozialistischen Deutschland; and Heinemann et al., Wissenschaft, Planung, Vertreibung (catalogue on exhibition by German Research Foundation). Umlauf's personal papers are preserved at the Archives of AM TUM, sign. uml-1-1 (Schriftlicher Nachlass), uml-2-1 (Stadtplanungen). This collection contains multiple documents donated to the museum by Umlauf, although they provide only rough information on the period covered here.
4. Meyer, “Planung und Ostaufbau” and Meyer and Blohm, Landvolk im Werden. The subject was also covered in issues 3–4, 1941 of Raumforschung und Raumordnung, which contains numerous illustrated articles, in particular: Böckler, “Die Gestalt der deutschen”; Boehm, “Die Gestalt der Städte”; Reichow, “Grundsätzliches zum Städtebau”; cf. Umlauf, “Zur Stadtplanung” with map of ‘Eastern-German town foundings’. Compare to statement by Josef Umlauf in: Madajczyk, Vom Generalplan, 553–7, appendix no. 41, 1986, 12 January. Statement by Prof. Umlauf on “Die Liebe zur Landschaft,” Part III.
5. BArch, R 49/157, 1–21, with maps. Covered in: Boberach, Reichszentralbehörden, regionale Behörden, 173–4. Last published in: Madajczyk, Vom Generalplan, 3–14, doc. no. 1, 1940, April–May, Berlin. The planning documents and the relevant maps for the development of the eastern territories that were prepared by the main planning division of the Reichsführer-SS have not been published.
6. Cf. also the photographs in: BArch, R 49/Bild-0022–0025, 0705, 0971, Reichskommissar f. d. Festigung deutschen Volkstums, Ausstellung Planung und Aufbau im Osten. There is not enough space here to go into detail on all the leading figures of the Nazi regime.
7. From the extensive literature, cf. Mącior-Majka, Generalny Plan Wschodni, esp. 109–204; Piechowski, My i Niemcy, 107–62; Wasser, Himmlers Raumplanung im Osten, esp. 47–71; Müller, Hitlers Ostkrieg, esp. 83–114, with documents, 115–211; and Benz, Herrschaft und Gesellschaft, 72–82. Also, Madajczyk, Generalna Gubernia w planach hitlerowskich, esp. 93–109.
8. Addressed by the planning authority in Vienna. AP Poznań, archival fonds no. 299, I/9, Raumordnung und Landesplanung, sign. 385, 1–3 (pag. as 149–51), Letter from Andreas Tröster, Land-Use Planning Authority in Vienna, Ostmark, dated 23 Nov. 1942, to general consultant for spatial planning Richert, cited from 1–2.
9. Reproduced in: Himmler, “Richtlinien für die Planung.”
10. Wetzel was head of the advisory office of the NSDAP Office of Racial Policy, an agency that stood in competition to the RSHA/RKF. Detailed information on the other involved National Socialists: Münk, Die Organisation des Raumes, 58–65 and Herzberg, Raumordnung im nationalsozialistischen Deutschland, relevant entries, esp. 112–19.
11. Madajczyk, Vom Generalplan, 50–81, doc. no. 16, 1942, 27 April, Berlin. Stellungnahme und Gedanken von Dr Erhard Wetzel zum Generalplan Ost des Reichsführers SS, citation from 60, 75.
12. Madajczyk, Vom Generalplan, 133–4, doc. no. 28, 1942, 12 June, Führerhauptquartier. Letter from Reichsführer-SS to Ulrich Greifelt (head of an RKF regional office) with notes on ‘General Plan East. Legal, economic and territorial foundations for developing the East’, with request to prepare a comprehensive settlement plan, citation and paraphrase in main text, 134.
13. Madajczyk, Vom Generalplan, 235–55, doc. no. 71, 1942, December, Berlin. Materials for General Settlement Plan – Territorial and population calculations, documents for a General Settlement Plan – basic figures and maps.
14. BArch, R 43-II/604, folio 27–28, point 3; available at: http://www.europa.clio-online.de/site/lang__de-DE/ItemID__203/mid__12211/40208773/Default.aspx.
15. Fremund and Král, Die Vergangenheit warnt, 59–73, doc. no. 6, Prague, 31 August 1949, with two appendices, paraphrase in main text from p. 64; cf. report from 5 October 1940, in which Hitler accepts K. H. Frank's recommendation to destroy the Czechs’ national existence; and Fremund and Král, Die Vergangenheit warnt, 88–9, doc. no. 12, Prague, 5 October 1940; Fremund and Král, Die Vergangenheit warnt, 96–7, doc. no. 15, Prague, 15 October 1940, General Erich Friderici, Reich Protector's Wehrmacht representative on the Hitler-approved Germanization principles [sic!] in the Czech lands.
16. In office as Deputy Protector: 27 September 1941 to 30 May 1942. Heydrich was also head of the RSHA.
17. Fremund and Král, Die Vergangenheit warnt, 122–33, doc. no. 19, 1941, 2 October, Prague. Reinhard Heydrich's speech on the Principles of the National Socialist ‘New Order’ in Europe, citation from p. 127.
18. Jarmer, Ordnung des deutschen Lebensraumes, 1–34, with Organization of Reich and land-use planning including area of authority, 9–10. On page 9, Jarmer emphasizes that the Sudetenland represents a separate Reich Governor District and that the Protector has already established an office for spatial planning in the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia. Cf. Jarmer, “Verwaltung und Raumordnung” and Kerrl, Reichsplanung und Raumordnung.
19. Fremund and Král, Die Vergangenheit warnt, 145–8, doc. no. 22, 1942, 4 February, Prague. Speech by Reich Deputy Protector Reinhard Heydrich on the planned ‘Germanization’ of the Protectorate's population. On Central Place Theory, see Christaller, Die zentralen Orte. For an alternative theory, see Feder, Die neue Stadt. Feder lost his position Reich Commissioner for Settlement and was made a professor, after which his influence was limited to theoretical studies.
20. See note 19 above.
21. For an analysis of the land office: Hořejš, “Collaboration among the Böhmisch-Mährische.” For a contemporary view of Kladno: Knapp, Die Industriestadt; analysis: Hořejš, “Kladenská kolonie ‘Siedlung’”; on Jihlava: Hořejš and Němec, “Urbanismus a architektura Jihlavy.” The Wischau development was previously unknown; cf. materials in the SOkA Vyškov, archival fonds AM Vyškov, II, sign. 841–902.
22. Fremund and Král, Die Vergangenheit warnt, 162, doc. no. 30, 1944, 23 March, Berlin. Decree by Reichsführer-SS as the generally authorized representative for Reich administration regarding the confiscation of land for settling ethnic Germans.
23. The relevant sources, in particular Abschließender Bericht zur Arbeit der Planungskommission, can be found in Prague's National Archives (NA, archival fonds ZÚ, inv. no. 462, cat. no. 291, Zhodnocení práce plánovací komise, 1–33, here 8). A partial assessment was done by Hořejš, “Plánovací komise.” Reichsgesetzblatt (RGBl.) I, 1937, 103, Erlaß über einen Generalbaudirektor für die Reichshauptstadt, Berlin, 30.1.1937.
24. Tamms, “Niemeyer Reinhold.” Niemeyer previously discussed the eastern territories in several lectures (Niemeyer, “Deutschland und der osteuropäische Raum”). The information by Durth about the Niemeyers position on Albert Speer's Task Force for Reconstruction (Arbeitsstab Wiederaufbau) in 1943 must be corrected (cf. Durth and Gutschow, Träume in Trümmern, 53–74). The office provided information on Niemeyer's successor (NA, archival fonds ÚŘP-ST, inv. no. 1979, sign. 109‐4/596, box no. 41, 21.8.1941).
25. Hruška, “K ukončení činnosti Státní.” Responding to the occupants’ demands, Hruška prepared a plan for redesigning the town hall (Šustek, Měsíční situační zprávy Josefa Pfitznera, 13–25, doc. no. 1, Bericht über die Tätigkeit vom 1. Jänner bis 20. Feber 1940, p. 18, sec. 1); cf. Fierlinger, “Plánovancí komise pro”; Urban, “Regulační plán Prahy.”
26. NA, archival fonds ZÚ, inv. no. 462, cat. no. 291, an assessment of the work of the planning commission. A description of the internal situation and a more detailed listing of the division chiefs and staff can be found in: Hořejš, “Plánovací komise,” 45–6.
27. One exception is the first and last large-scale tender for Berlin's university city (cf. Dittrich, Ernst Sagebiel, 237 and Jacob, Emil Fahrenkamp, 362–78).
28. Věstník hlavního města Prahy 46, no. 11 (1939), 154, quoted from: Míšková and Šustek, Deník Josefa Pfitznera, 76, here on the occupants’ relationship to the city's Czech representatives, managed by mayor Otakar Klapka.
29. NA, archival fonds ÚŘP-ST, sign. 109-4/1053 (Reproduced in: Míšková and Šustek, Deník Josefa Pfitznera, 283–8, doc. no. 7, Letter to senior civil servant Gies dated 31 October 1939, citation from p. 287.
30. See Němec, “Architektura a ideologie.”
31. NA, archival fonds ÚŘP-ST, sign. 109-4/1050, reproduced in: Šustek, Měsíční situační zprávy, 104–25, doc. no. 8, Activity report by Deputy Mayor Josef Pfitzner for the time from 1 April to 31 May 1941, here appendix A/1, 121–119, 10 July 1941, report by Watter to Frank on the deputy mayor's activity.
32. NA, archival fonds NSM, sign. 110‐4/188, box no. 24, notation from 9.12.1941, Prague. The problematic relationship is described in detail in Míšková and Šustek, Deník Josefa Pfitznera, 21–9.
33. Von Berlin nach Germania, 46, doc. no. 7, note by Speer from Obersalzberg, 16 July 1940. Some of Hitler's meeting minutes with Berlin's municipal administration from 1933 to 1935 have been published in: Dülffer, Thies, and Henke, Hitlers Städte, 88–116.
34. Compare to the areas of interest of the GBI in the Berlin region: BArch, R 4606/420, correspondence with the Brandenburg Regional Planning Authority, October 1937 to June 1942; also BArch, R 4606/421, Correspondence with the Potsdam District President, December 1937 to February 1941; BArch, R 4606/3274–3435, Planned construction outside of Berlin.
35. As established by law. RGBl. I 1937, 1054–5; RGBl. I 1940, 1387. Speer was 31 years old when he took GBI office, and was chosen over experienced urban planners and architects such as Hermann Jansen from Berlin or Paul Schmitthenner from Stuttgart.
36. NA, archival fonds ÚŘP-ST, inv. no. 1979, sign. 109-12/124, Program for the Prague visit by the General Building Inspector on Thursday 4 December 1941. Albert Speer's first planned visit for 13 April 1940 was cancelled (NA, archival fonds ÚŘP-ST, inv. no. 1979, sign. 109-6-71, box no. 114, in a letter from Jarmer to Undersecretary Fischer dated 22 April 1940).
37. NA, archival fonds ÚŘP, sign. 114-3-17/116-176, reproduced in: Kárný, Milotová, and Kárná, Deutsche Politik im, 201–8, doc. no. 65, 30 December 1941, Heydrich's 17th report to Bormann on the situation in the Protectorate, here p. 204, sec. 6.
38. Photographic documentation is stored at: NA, archival fonds NSM, sign. 110‐9/11.
39. Wunderlich was born in Karlsbad (Karlovy Vary), studied at Prague's German Technical University, and elaborated his dissertation on the redevelopment of Karlsbad (see StA MMKV, collection of plans, Regulierungsvorschlag für den ‘Weltkurort’ Karlsbad, Arch. Ing. Hermann Wunderlich, Prag im Jahre 1931), and was made a professor at the university – by then already as a member of the NSDAP. He ended his career as Head of Construction at Kaufhof AG in Cologne. The commission's second vice president was Alois Mikuškovic.
40. The planning documents are stored at: IPR, archival fonds FMU, sign. 47.001–47.054. Cf. Šustek, Měsíční situační zprávy, 81–90, doc. no. 6, sec. 4, Activity report by Deputy Mayor Josef Pfitzner for the time from 29 September to 28 October 1940; Šustek, Měsíční situační zprávy, 204–22, doc. no. 11, sec. 5, Activity report by Deputy Mayor Josef Pfitzner for the time from 1 October to 30 November 1941, 210.
41. NA, archival fonds ÚŘP-ST, inv. no. 1312, sign. 109-4/1066, box no. 59, Letter from Planning Commission president Niemeyer to the Permanent Secretary dated 12 March 1941; Duplicate of Niemeyer's official position sent to regional governor Freiherr von Watter dated 5 March 1941, subject: Regulation of Kampa, re: letter dated 27 Febr. 1941, 1–15, citation from p. 13 (also BArch, R 4606/3390, folio 92 et seq.).
42. Niemeyer invited the architects Blum from Hanover and Halter from Munich (NA, archival fonds ZÚ, inv. no. 462, cat. no. 291, Zhodnocení práce plánovací komise, here 9). Cf. Fojtík, “Ještě jedno ohlédnutí”; Hruška, “Pražská rychlodráha,” with designs; as well as a still-apolitical report from Hruška, “O pražskou rychlodráhu” and Nový, “Dopravní otázky velkoměsta.”
43. A strictly source-based work on ‘Organisation Todt’ is still missing. Cf. BArch, R 65, R 4601; partially covered in: Boberach, Reichszentralbehörden, regionale Behörden, 372–3, as well as Hartmannsgruber, Die Regierung Hitler, 86–90, no. 20, General Inspector for German Roadways to the Minister of Finance, 13 October 1934.
44. Reproduced in: Hruška, “Dálnice v česko-slovenském státě”; Lídl and Janda, Stavby, kterým doba nepřála, 13; NA, archival fonds ZÚ, inv. no. 462, cat. no. 291, Zhodnocení práce plánovací komise, 12.
45. Cf. Schwalm-Theiss. Theiss & Jaksch, 116 and Potočár, “Österreicher bauen,” 110–12.
46. Boniver, “Paul Schmitthenner.” The plans called for the demolition of ca. 2/3 of existing buildings, for the most part from nineteenth century, as well as the creation of a new St. Mary's Square. The project was not implemented, and so the northern wing remained untouched, but it was destroyed by the Wehrmacht in the last days of the war in May 1945 (cf. Frank, “Raumkunst, Typus, Monument,” esp. 115, as well as 167, cat. no. 117). The planned redevelopment has been the subject of study for several years (cf. “K ideové soutěži na přestavbu Staroměstské radnice”).
47. See note 41 above. On the actual percentage of the German-speaking population and its electoral participation, see Adam, “Prag ist und bleibt.”
48. NA, archival fonds ZÚ, inv. no. 462, cat. no. 291, Zhodnocení práce plánovací komise, 16–21.
49. This sensitive question was first (and concurrently) explored in: Němec, “Architektura a ideologie,” 542–71 and Hořejš, Protektorátní Praha, 72–85.
50. Archives of K. H. Frank from March 1939 to April 1945 as well as part of Frank's private archives from 1936 to 1940. The collection is completely digitized (http://www.badatelna.eu; NA, archival fonds ÚŘP-ST). For more on the find and the question of its being kept secret (or not), see the collection's administrator Monika Sedláková in introduction of the find book.
51. Diefendorf, “Planning for the Mark”; on Hořejš see note 23 above; and Potočár, “Österreicher bauen,” 110–12.
52. Kerrl had a comprehensive professional profile. Cf. Kerrl, “Die Reichsarbeitsgemeinschaft für Raumforschung,” including a session of RfR on 16 December 1935, Berlin, 133–4.
53. Cf. the RfR's organizational chart from 1939 (BArch, R 113/2030; evaluated in: Herzberg, Raumordnung im nationalsozialistischen Deutschland, 40).
54. See note 35 above.
55. NA, archival fonds ÚŘP-ST, inv. no. 1979, sign. 109-6/71, cat. no. 114, Letter to the Permanent Secretary dated 3 Nov. 1939, with addendum.
56. BArch, R 3/1733, 19 February 1941, Albert Speer to the NSDAP's National Treasurer (Ministry for Armaments and War Production), reproduced in: Dülffer, Thies, and Henke, Hitlers Städte, 78.
57. SOkA Liberec, archival fonds AM Liberec, inv. no. 39, cat. no. 40, town council meeting from 20 February 1940, Gd 276/38,79; SOkA Liberec, archival fonds AM Liberec, inv. no. 39, cat. no. 40, town council meeting on 7 March 1940, Gd 276/38,80. Cf. Kerl, “Grundsätzliches zur Neugestaltung.”
58. This study must be approached selectively. Posen here acts simply as an example. On the comprehensive plans, see the author's future habilitation thesis (see Acknowledgements).
59. BArch, R 113/0412, RfR, several drafts.
60. The relevant archival materials on the redevelopment of Berlin are scattered and only partially included in: Von Berlin nach Germania, 38, doc. no. 1, Decree for General Building Inspector for the German capital, also 42, doc. no. 4 (Organigram); partially evaluated in: Larsson, Die Neugestaltung der Reichshauptstadt, 22, with relevant initialled statements by Adolf Hitler; Engel, Moderne, Reaktion, Wiederaufbau, 214–39; and Willems, Der entsiedelte Jude, 20–69.
61. BArch, R 4606/476, folios 110–230; evaluated in: Engler, Die Finanzierung der Reichshauptstadt, esp. 416–18.
62. Cited from: Von Berlin nach Germania, 32. Schäche constructed the conception of ‘Germania’, which is not supported by the contemporary sources.
63. The author has decided not to give a complete list of the relevant documentation, and instead refers to the catalogues and bibliographical resources (KVK, Opac ZI, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek München, etc.).
64. Cf. Harlander, Zwischen Heimstätte und Wohnmaschine and Rosenberg, Architekturen des “Dritten Reiches.”
65. Cf. the National Socialist statement by: Gollert, Warschau unter deutscher Herrschaft.
66. BArch, R 4606/3420–3422, Würzburg. Umgestaltung.
67. Reichow, Die autogerechte Stadt.
68. Feder, Die neue Stadt and Christaller, Die zentralen Orte. Compare Kegler Karl: Zentrale Orte. Geschichte einer ‘Theorie’ zwischen NS-Staat und Bundesrepublik. 1930–1960, Diss. RWTH, ms., Aachen 2011.
69. The author presented this differentiation as part of a lecture given on 18 February 2015 at DHI Warsaw.
70. Groß, Sonnen und Brunnen, 157–8 (evaluated in: Gutschow, Ordnungswahn, 43–51); cf. BArch, R 4606/3420, The governor of the Province of Hesse-Nassau to GBI, Albert Speer, 1 Nov. 1940.
71. Critically elaborated in: Gutschow and Klain, Vernichtung und Utopie, 26–7, tables 34–40, published the planning maps discussed here.
72. Cf. a relevant positioning in: Kohlrauch, “Warschau im Zweiten Weltkrieg.”
73. Gollert, Warschau unter deutscher Herrschaft, 237. On the era's definition of ‘Lebensraum’, see note 2 above.
74. Szarota, “Alltag in Warschau,” 74. Cf. Diefendorf, “Warsaw as a Jewish.”
75. Madajczyk, Vom Generalplan, 297–9, doc. no. 99, 1947, 29 June, Nuremberg. Sworn statement by Prof. Dr Konrad Meyer-Herling, here 298. Cf. Madajczyk, Vom Generalplan, 285–6, doc. no. 92, 1944, 8 August. Letter from Herbert Backe to Prof. Dr Konrad Meyer on cessation of planning work.
76. Madajczyk, Vom Generalplan, 299–307, doc. no. 100, 1947, 10 December, Nuremberg. Minutes from interrogation of Prof. Dr Konrad Meyer by the American military tribunal I, case VIII, citation from p. 307.
77. Critically elaborated in: Heinemann et al., Wissenschaft, Planung, Vertreibung, 17–26, 35–6, with listing of DFG-funded projects related to Generalplan Ost 1941/42 (see note 3 above).
78. Cf. entries in: Handwörterbuch der Raumforschung und Raumordnung.
79. See note 8 above.
80. Further work is needed on both the ‘objectives’ of the Nazi regime's urbanist and architectural strategies and their ‘consequences’. It is too early for a synthesis, the first step must involve the study of source materials.