NAZI Germany; Fascist Italy: How architectural built form was used as a weapon to coerce allegiance of the people to Fascist ideals
After the devastation of the First World War, many countries were left to reconsider their position in the global ranking of power, many impregnated with a desire to rectify the disappointment, anger and destruction that was felt by nations. Germany and Italy were left economically scarred and as a result felt as though a ruling government was needed that, above all else, prepared and supported the people through armed conflict and economic downturn. It was during the 1920s that Fascism came into prominence in Europe, creating a new form of authoritarian nationalism, placing importance on uniting class systems under the shared allegiance of interest in the success of the nation.[1] Conversely, Walter Benjamin radically claimed that, Fascism could better be described as an “aesthetisation of politics.[2] Such sentiment is not without value, as architecture became a tool to project the ideals of Fascist political parties, recreating national identity and allowing a backdrop for political processions and congregations. Subsequently, building became a therapy which helped to house those who were dislocated from the war as well as persuasive utensil to reaffirm fidelity to the political elite.
Both Germany and Italy aligned in their artistic views to reject the international style of modernity, which ultimately saw a disconnect from traditional roots, and, instead looked to re-embody neo-classical architectural elements vivid in the architecture of Ancient Rome and Greece. During both dictatorships, classical architectural elements were stripped back and simplified to create a new reinterpretation, somewhere between traditional and modernist. Critics however, have suggested that monumental stripped classicism was the international architecture typology of the 1930s, and therefore not a new invention of totalitarian Germany or Italy. Whilst this may be the case, the present study does not take interest in who, or what country initiated the styles evident in Fascism regime architecture, however, argues that such built forms were used as weapons to create a united front to subscribe to the bureaucracy of the dominant totalitarian power. More importantly, by deconstructing and contrasting the House of German Art and Zeppelinfeld built during NAZI control with Casa Del Fascio and Palazzo della Civilta Italiana under Fascist Italy, it is concluded that there is no one set fascist architecture, despite there being similarities between each architectural regime.
The National Socialist German Workers' Party or Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, (NSDAP) came to power in 1933 when Adolf Hitler became Chancellor of Germany.[3] NAZI Germany differed greatly from other Fascist regimes, with the main ideology of the party focused on racial theories of Aryan Greek-Nordic superiority and anti-Semitism, pushing far-right politics into syncretic territory[4].
However, it was prior to his chancellery, and rather veritably during imprisonment in the 1920s that Hitler wrote Mein Kampf, a manifesto-come-biography, which began to outline his future architectural intentions for Germany.[5],[6] Hitler himself declared in 1935 that art is “the greatest direct influence upon the masses of people.”[7] Successively, Hitler obsessed in the notion that rule over the arts and architecture would lead to rule over the people and nation (Fig. 1).[8]
Such ideologies emanated during an opportunistic period when the German people had an inferiority complex from defeat in the First World War, sensitive towards a disposition of distrust, irresolution and weakness.[9] The word propaganda has popularly become synonymous with the NAZI regime, and rightfully so, as Hitler intelligently played on the instability of the people in order to strengthen the recruitment of people to aligning political views[10]. Furthermore, Hitler outlined his aspirations of world domination stemmed from an immense attachment to the Roman Empire.[11],[12] hoping to employ political propaganda in order to create a magnitude fitting for historicism, emulating the rule of Caesar.[13]
In line with the sentiment that there is no one true Fascist architecture, there is also no definitive Nazi architecture of the 1930s.[14] This study proclaims that there are two clear discourses of architecture during the NAZI regime juxtaposed in order to visually represent a clear hierarchy of power (Fig. 2 & 3) [15]; the monumental neo-classicism deployed for political and civic building typologies, which will be the focus of this study and Volk architecture, which ties the vernacular German language into residential typology.
Hitler’s hatred for the Modern Movement was expressed from the early 1930s onwards and saw the closure of the Bauhaus School in 1933, with the emigration of Modernist Architects such as Erich Mendelsohn, Walter Gropius and Ludwig Mies van de Rohe to England and the U.S.A. [16],[17] His critisms against the Modern movement ranged from the impermanence of design which engaged flat leaking roofs and peeling white plaster, to the unsuitability of modernism for large civic spaces and procession.[18] Fortunately, the stance against Modernism was an easy sell to the people of Germany who were also afraid of the Modern Movement’s capability of reducing labour due to the inherent industrialised style.[19]
Rather, the NAZI regime employed a neo-classical vocabulary as it was believed this style had pre-embedded notions of eternalisation, dominance and stability due to affiliation with alternative political powers, especially the rule of Julius Caesar and Augustus in the rise of the Roman Empire, as can be seen in the works of the Pantheon (Fig. 4).[20],[21] Imported German stone was used to convey this typology, additionally creating a permanence to the materiality of buildings and increasing the German determination, strength and confidence in the employment of skilled workers during extraction.[22]
It was in the simplification of the classical elements such as columns and porticoes that the NAZI architectural style gained clarity, for Hitler believed that “to be German, is to be clear”.[23] A design language was developed which heralded the use of repetition, symmetry, rectilinear and verticality, to elucidate a visual representation of power, strength, importance and rule (Fig. 5).[24] Ornamentation and function became one of the same, with pillars reduced to structural members, in order to again reinforce clarity and stability in the political party.[25]
As previously mentioned, buildings also took on the role as backdrops to processional celebrations and political rallies, and as such, architecture was designed to integrate axial alignment for parade, solidity and permanence in materiality, clarity through plan, power through verticality and discipline through repetition.[26]
Yet another fundamental in the design of political NAZI architecture was the central and elevated position of the Fuhrer so as to assimilate Hitler with God (Fig. 6).[27] It isn’t a stretch to suggest that Hitler saw himself in this light either, as in many plans of Berlin and Munich, he replaced church buildings with political administrative buildings, metaphorically suggesting that nationalism was equal to religion.[28]
The House of German Art, or Haus der Deutschen Kunst, in Munich was the Third Reich’s first civic building to embody NAZI monumental architecture (Fig. 7). Designed by Paul Ludwig Troost prior to his death in 1934, many of the aforementioned elements of design were incorporated including a stripped classical Doric order for the 22 frontal columns, a flat roof, restrained ornamentation, repetition, symmetry and a perpendicular axial processional.[29] Horizontality and verticality are stressed so as to ensure that the power of the party is seen to be both vast and immense.
However, when in comparison to Zeppelinfeld Arena, built in 1934 by architect Albert Speer, who also oversaw the completion of Haus der Deutschen Kunst after Troost’s death, NAZI insignia takes a prominent central position with either the use of the Swastika or Reichsadler, both symbolic of victory, courage and ruling dominance (Fig 8).[30]
Holding over 340,000 spectators, the grandeur of the building could be felt by all. Moreover, interestingly, it was during Mussolini’s visit that the arena was transformed into a cathedral of light, where upwards of 130 shafts of light were projected over 25,000 feet in the sky to create an overpowering spiritual aura, much like light was used in the cathedrals of the Gothic period.[31] In this sense, Hitler again was linking allegiance to the party with religion.
Whilst it is not the focus of this study, it is highlighted that Volk architecture was in complete contrast to the monumental civic buildings of Germany, instead rooted in NAZI Regional Vernacular “blood and soil” design to encourage healthy family life and reinstall faith in the nation. It is important to note that such decisions were not free of political motif, as it was believed that if a purity was maintained in residential and small scale community buildings, with the machine aesthetic being dropped for fear of dislocation of families, there would be an encouragement to procreate and ensure further Aryan generations.[32]
Benito Mussolini, leader of the Party Nazionale Fascista (PNF) began his career as the democratic elected Prime Minister of Italy from 1922, if only shortly, until 1925 when he adopted a dictatorship regime for the country.[33] Much like Germany after the First World War, Italy was left in economic uncertainty and spiritual upheaval, and as such, Mussolini soon personified the beacon and saviour of Italy.[34]
Much like Hitler, Mussolini too connected with Ancient Rome and more personally with Augustus, and as such had no intention to break with tradition like international Modernists, as he respected classical architecture thoroughly.[35] Much later than the appearance in Germany, it was 4 years into Mussolini’s reign that the Modernist style swept through Italy, bringing a refined simplification and abstraction to the designs of the neo-classical past.[36] Unlike Hitler however, Mussolini expressed no interest in the arts or architecture and instead relied heavily on the designs of commissioned architects. It is argued that due to Mussolini’s disconnect with the arts and the dislocation of wartimes, a consistent and clear Italian Fascist Architecture was never founded. In fact, Mussolini never truly defined Fascism in any finite manner.[37],[38]
In 1920s there was much debate over what language would best underpin the ideologies of Italian Fascist party.[39] Contrary to Hitler, since Mussolini did not seem to favour either Traditionalism or Modernism, Fascist Italian architectural discourse generally centred on the classical abstraction of form, and the simplification of elements such as arches, columns and pilasters, fostering a link between traditional Italy and progressive modernism.[40],[41],[42] Much like Germany, the use of emblems such as insignias, murals and fasces, was encouraged to create a brand and identity of the party.[43]
Whilst there wasn’t one clear style of the Fascist regime in Italy, The Italian Rationalist movement was the most successful architectural style evident during this time. Beginning with 7 graduate architects who were overwhelmingly dissatisfied with the schooling programme, and who together united in their desire to return to the order of neoclassicism.[44] The group was largely influenced by the work of Le Corbusier in the 1920s, seeing his work through a traditional lens, and as such, Rationalism was fashioned from the combination of classical symmetry, with the anti-decadent reinterpretation of arches, columns, cornices and trabeation. This, they believed represented a continuation from history, and a progression for the Italian people.[45],[46] Designs that Mussolini agreed to commission under the Fascist regime aimed to regain national pride and patriotism, with the logic of structural and functional elements elucidating a sense of order and clarity.[47] Materiality, such as the use of locally quarried travertine and marble, like the architecture of the Third Reich, created a linkage to the permanence, durability and stature of the governing body.[48]
In 1932 Guiseppe Terragni won the commission to design a Casa Del Fascio (headquarters of the local Fascist party) in Como (Fig. 10). Terragni’s plan incorporated Modernists ideals of light, centrality and connection to the urban, and played with notions of openness and enclosure, completely rethinking the classical portico.[49] Of his own design, Terragni writes he considers the, “Mussolinian concept that Fascism is a glasshouse into which everyone can peer…no barrier, no obstacle, between the political hierarchy and the people.” Much alike the transcendental display of light during Mussolini’s visit to Zeppelinfeld Arena, Casa Del Fascio utilises decoration to create an enlightened ambience and a feeling of power and distinction.[50] Furthermore, Mussolini cleverly restricted cultural activities such as newspaper, radio and film to the usage of patrons at the Casa Del Fascio, and as such created more reasons for civilians to subscribe to party ideals.[51]
It was in 1935 that steel supply drastically depleted and as such the Modern aesthetic was again reinterpreted in Italy to return to tradition methods of construction.[52] As such the 1938 Palazzo della Civilta Italiana, designed by Giovanni Guerini, Ernesto La Padula and Mario Romano, was faced in stone, however, still utilised the modernist invention of reinforced concrete structure (Fig. 11). The building had strong frontality, displaying the Rationalist style through the abstracted arch form that repeated over 6 levels.[53]
19 July 1944 marked the end of the Fascist regime in Italy and the liberation of the people. Fortunately, the buildings of the reign survived the end of the regime, unlike those built during NAZI occupation in Germany.
When considering the work of Rationalist architects in the Fascist Italian rule or official appointed NAZI regime architecture during Germany occupation, both styles exuded a sense of stripped classicism, blending influence from Ancient Rome with the progressive simplicity and clarity of Modernist design.
Whilst at difference stages both Mussolini and Hitler declared their apathy or distaste for the modernist movement, respectively, Fascist architecture during these two dictatorships had a definite sense of modernity imbued into the designs. It is also evident that both regimes employed design strategies such as monumentality, materiality and scale to create a sense of power and dominance as the overruling political party. One set Fascist architectural style cannot be concluded upon, as the styles evident in both regimes were reliant upon their views of the political parties’ stance in the greater global discourse. As such, the architectural style emerging from NAZI Germany tried to emulate social utopia, set for exponential expansion, where Italy’s model however, was more concerned upon restoring patriotism and a greater sense of Italian-ism.
Both Hitler and Mussolini in their later years began to rework plans for Berlin and Rome respectively, seeing the complete remodel of the city based on the blend of the new style of architecture with the ancient relics of the nation. Unfortunately, plans were never materialised as the concentration of war took a greater toll on the people, political parties, and as such, architecture also.
[1] Clark, Toby. Art and propaganda in the twentieth century : the political image in the age of mass culture, (New York : Harry N. Abrams, 1997), 48.
[2] Ibid., 49.
[3] Curtis, William J. R. Modern architecture since 1900, (Oxford : Phaidon, 1987), 352.
[4] Clark, T., 51.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Welch, David. Nazi Propaganda: The Power and the Limitations, (Florence : Taylor and Francis, 2014), 49.
[7] Curtis, W. J. R., 351.
[8] Adam, Peter. Art of the Third Reich, (New York : Thames & Hudson, 1992), 207.
[9] Thies, Jochen. Hitler's Plans for Global Domination: Nazi Architecture and Ultimate War Aims, (Berghahn Books, 2012), 33.
[10] Ibid., 35.
[11] Adam, P., 209.
[12] Thies, J., 65.
[13] Adam, P., 211.
[14] Curtis, W. J. R., 351.
[15] Ibid., 357.
[16] Adam, P., 214.
[17] Curtis, W. J. R., 352.
[18] Ibid., 354.
[19] Adam, P., 212.
[20] Ibid., 225.
[21] Curtis, W. J. R., 356.
[22] Thies, J., 73.
[23] Adam, P., 227.
[24] Curtis, W. J. R., 353.
[25] Adam, P., 227.
[26] Curtis, W. J. R., 353.
[27] Adam, P., 236.
[28] Thies, J., 79.
[29] Clark, T., 51.
[30] Adam, P., 234.
[31] Ibid., 279.
[32] Ibid.
[33] Kirk, Terry. The architecture of modern Italy (New York: Princeton Architectural, 2004), 69.
[34] Ibid., 71.
[35] Curtis, W. J. R., 360.
[36] Schumacher, Thomas L. The Danteum : architecture, poetics, and politics under Italian fascism, (New York, N.Y.: Princeton Architectural Press, 1993), 31.
[37] Kirk, T., 73.
[38] Ghirardo, Diane Yvonne, "Italian Architects and Fascist Politics: An Evaluation of the Rationalist's Role in Regime Building," Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, 109, (1980): 109.
[39] Ibid., 110.
[40] Schumacher, T, L., 33.
[41] Kirk, T., 713.
[42] Curtis, W. J. R., 360.
[43] Kirk, T., 75.
[44] Ibid.
[45] Ghirardo, D, Y., 118.
[46] Kirk, T., 77.
[47] Ibid., 75.
[48] Curtis, W. J. R., 360.
[49] Ibid., 361.
[50] Ghirardo, D, Y., 118.
[51] Curtis, W. J. R., 364.
[52] Kirk, T., 100.
[53] Ibid., 100.