The Nazi Phantom: A Journey Following the Relics of the Third Reich

Nazi Architecture After 1945: Some Theoretical Perspectives

After the War, Nazi architecture, became the topic of comprehensive research. This research increased the amount of information available about public and official buildings, but normally overlooked the architecture and design of the everyday life of the Third Reich. The gaps between the monumental and colossal public architecture which evoked fascination and the banal ordinary architecture may explain this focus. Research into the architecture of the Third Reich focused mainly on the architects and the reasons behind the choice of style. Most architectural historians have claimed that Nazi architecture was not unique at all. It lacks aesthetic value, having mainly copied earlier styles (mainly Neo-Classicism), and was therefore described as “non-architecture”. The Nazi designers, architects and planners were described as opportunists who were quite happy to replace modern and avant-garde architects like those active in the Bauhaus (Miller-Lane, 1985; Scobie, 1990; Taylor and van der Will, 1990).

It is therefore not surprising that the center of attention after 1945 was mainly on the styles which the Nazis had hoped to destroy, such as the Bauhaus (Wingler, 2002; Irmas, 1997). In recent decades, however, this focus has shifted to the architecture of the concentration camps and to dealing with the complex issues of preservation which have become acute in an era of Holocaust denial. Concentration camps have been a major topic of research since the end of the War. Professionals from a variety of fields have dealt with various aspects of the preservation of the concentration camps, not just because of the nature of these sites, but also because concentration camps function as “ghettoes of memory”; the fact that they were geographically separate from the places where life went on made them, paradoxically, easer to deal with (Jaskot, 2000; Katz, 2004).