Senior Individual
Issy Trapnell-Hoyle, 16
Year 12, Waldegrave School
What should happen to Nazi Architecture in modern Germany?
In recent years, there has been increasing debate among Germans over what the fate of architecture built under the Nazi Regime should be. As many buildings constructed under Hitler’s rule begin to fall into an irreversible state of disrepair, German public opinion is divided over what to do with the derelict structures. Some believe such buildings should be restored as a stark reminder of the atrocities committed by their creators, while others want any structural remnants of the Nazi ere to instead be left to decay as a symbolic gesture of Germany’s desire to move forward as a nation.
The term ‘Nazi Architecture’ refers to the architecture of the Hitlerian Third Reich in Germany between 1933-1945 (Nazi architecture, 2006). Characterised by its often colossal scale, Nazi architecture used elements such as flat roofs, lack of superfluous decor and uniformity to promote and enforce the ideals of Hitler and the National-Socialist regime by presenting "an impression of simplicity, uniformity, monumentality, solidity and eternity," (Wikipedia, 2021) which is how the Nazi Party wanted to appear. While there were many architects responsible for designing buildings in Nazi Germany, none were quite as influential as Albert Speer, ‘the ‘Chief Architect’ of the Reich’ and one of ‘the most trusted members of Hitler’s inner-circle’ (Gordillo, 2014), who documented the aims and purpose of Nazi architecture through his post-war memoirs.
Mirroring the overall aims of the totalitarian Nazi regime, Speer described in his memoirs how Nazi architecture was designed and built with political motivations to leave people ‘overwhelmed, or rather stunned, by the urban scene and thus the power of the Reich’ (Gordillo, 2014). The political motivations behind Speer’s designs and Hitler’s fixation on resurrecting new buildings in Germany on a giant scale, can again be seen in Hitler’s desire to ‘beat’ other nations architectural achievements, as Speer describes ‘I found Hitler’s excitement rising whenever I could show him that at least in size we had ‘beaten’ the other great buildings of history’ (Gordillo, 2014). So, if during the reign of Hitler and National-Socialism, Nazi architecture existed as a form of expressing control and dominance, what should happen to the Nazi buildings still standing in a completely changed and forward-facing modern Germany?
Germany is not the only country to currently be grappling with the controversial history of some of its architecture. For example, here in the UK many have called for the removal of statues of figures such as Cecil Rhodes, whose statue stands at Oriel College, Oxford, reasoning that statues of such figures, who arguably supported systems of oppression, have no place in modern Britain (Race, 2021). So, while Germany is not the only country to have a difficult architectural history, for a multitude of reasons, perhaps including how relatively recently it occurred, the debate around the fate of the country’s controversial historical architecture seems to be one of the most heated. It could be argued that the growing market for what is known as ‘Dark tourism’ in Germany (Ledsom, 2020) is responsible for the increasing fierce debate in recent times over what should happen to surviving Nazi buildings. ‘Dark tourism’ is defined as ‘tourism to sites associated with tragedies, disasters, and death’ (Collins, 2021) and from that definition it is therefore simple to see how Nazi architecture and buildings could create such a lucrative market for ‘Dark tourism’. Those in favour of preserving the architecture of the Third Reich for this purpose argue that visiting sites such as those built by the Nazi Regime is necessary because ‘they’re important places for us to reflect on and try to better understand the evil that we’re capable of’ (Sampson, 2019) while those who are against preserving Nazi architecture for the purpose of ‘Dark tourism’ often point to the disrespectful behaviour of tourists at many sites of historical reflection (Faiola, 2017).
The many arguments for and against the preservation and renovation of Nazi architecture and what should happen to it are well illustrated by the debate over the fate of the Nazi party rally grounds in southeast Nuremberg. Attracting around 250,000 visitors each year (Llana, 2016), the Nazi party rally grounds are a popular attraction for both German and foreign tourists alike. In recent years, the grounds reached a key point in their existence where ‘if nothing is done, the site will one day be too dangerous to visit’ (Llana, 2016). What should be done in response to this was a contentious topic of discussion between both residents and historians. Many argued that doing nothing and allowing the rally grounds to crumble would be the best response because ‘seeing it crumble is the boldest message that Germany could convey’ (Llana, 2016) while others argued allowing it to do so would create the ‘mythical ruin’ Nazi Architect Albert Speer wanted the rally grounds to one day become. Another key factor that was considered when discussing what should happen to the rally grounds and Nazi architecture more widely was the possibility of a renovated site being used as a meeting place for Neo-Nazi groups which, in a Germany that has seen a marked increase in far-right and anti-immigrant sentiment in the last decade (Deutsche Welle, 2016), is an issue that must be seriously considered when thinking about renovating former Nazi sites.
Ultimately, the decision was made to ‘preserve’ but not ‘restore’ the rally grounds (Hickley, 2019), allowing visitors to still see the site safely while not creating a new gathering place for Neo-Nazis or individuals with similar ideologies. While this is an appropriate solution for the site in Nuremberg would it work for all Nazi buildings? The answer, like Germany’s ongoing relationship with it’s history, is complicated. While the German effort of ‘Vergangenheitsbewältigung’, or dealing with the past, is very much ongoing there is also a sense of a need to move forward as a country. This suggests there is not one way to deal with the architecture of the past, but instead that a balancing act that must be performed on a case-by-case basis to ensure the history behind the buildings is remembered while still allowing Germany to be defined by its actions as a nation in the present.
