Talk:Nazi architecture

"The Speer of Hamburg"
Would be great if there would be an English article about Konstanty Gutschow. Use Deepl for translation. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konstanty_Gutschow https://www.ndr.de/kultur/geschichte/chronologie/Hitlers-Hafen-Die-Nazi-Plaene-fuer-Hamburg-,hitlershafen101.html https://www.ndr.de/kultur/geschichte/chronologie/hitlershafen101_page-2.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8109:B40:2258:A990:E820:A369:6186 (talk) 11:03, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Untitled
I'm sorry but this article needs significant editing. It could be cut for length, and the first half uses opinion that is unsubstantiated in most cases and reads, overall, like an essay. --Dolyaie (talk) 09:18, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Very well written, thorough article. Has anyone thought of a FA nomination, or might it be too long? --Impaciente 08:22, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

It could be shorter. The section on slave labour is too speculative and not close enough to the topic for an encyclopedia article. --213.39.207.184 16:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Interesting article. Alexander 007 02:20, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Okay, how long have you been reading at the Nazi Architecture webpage for awhile now ?

Who do we report 69.192.205.46 too for deleting the full Nazi Architecture webpage ??

Report vandalism here: WP:VIP. Alexander 007 18:15, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Romanesque
I removed Category:Nazi architecture from Category:Romanesque architecture and User:Endurance told me:
 * Nazi architecture is quite Romanesque please to your research before blindly deleting references. Endurance 01:40, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I read quickly the article and see no mention and no relation to Romanesque. It could be argued that it is a variant of Neoclassicism, but if it is viewed as a branch of Romanesque, please state that in the article with an explanation. --Error 00:29, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Since when have the Greeks been the "alleged ancestors of the Germans"?

The Nazi's attempted to create a link between the Germans and the Greeks; however, this was a falsehood. Please read the Nazi architecture webpage for more information.

For a number of reasons, this, to me, reads far more like an essay than an encyclopedia article.

Also unimpressed with this section "Speer's style was assimilating the international 1930s style of public architecture, which was then being pursued as a modernising classicism. This is in direct contrast to Peter Adams's attempts to separate Nazi art from the Zeitgeist and present it as something that can be looked at through only the lens of Auschwitz. This is trying to establish by default a thesis that ugly regimes must produce ugly buildings and such regimes are so evil that everything they produce must be evil or third-rate. The reality was that destroying to build anew was a standard polemical gesture of the Modernist movement and the styles chosen were not unlike the ones being used at the time." Source? Whose scholarship is this? And the "Peter Adams" link identifies his real name as Peter Adam... 81.108.134.217 (talk) 22:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Copyright problems of associated articles
This is just a quick note to inform any interested parties that many articles related to this one were found to be copyright violations and have been blanked. Specifically, Das Schwarze Korps, House of German Art, Neville Henderson, Zeppelin field, Lustgarten and Thingplatz had to be blanked, and Ordensburg faced significant reversion. It is unfortunate that so much material was copyrighted, and I hope free content can be created to replace the lost articles. LizardWizard 05:16, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Update: User:WritersCramp has rewritten Das Schwarze Korps. Thanks! LizardWizard 19:10, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Category Architecture
As this article is placed in both Category:Architectural styles and Category:Architectural history there is no need to put it into the uber Category:Architecture, which we are trying to cleanup. -- Dogears 00:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Please list the problem architecture and provide a citation to it's removal. Cordially SirIsaacBrock 21:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Much of this entry is directly quoted from the Scobie text rather than paraphrased or cited in quotations. It should be removed.

Nazi Construction
This bit needs serious cleaning up. A number of the links link to the same building, and a number of the buildings were built long before the Nazi era.


 * Please list the problem architecture and provide a citation to it's removal. Cordially SirIsaacBrock 21:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Accuracy of List of Builders
I wouldn't exactly call Mies van der Rohe one of "Hitler's builders":


 * Nazi political pressure forced Mies to close the school, a victim of its previous association with socialism, communism, and other progressive ideologies. He built very little in that decade (his major built commission was Philip Johnson's New York apartment), his style rejected by the Nazis as not "German" in character. He left his homeland reluctantly in 1937 as he saw his opportunity for future building commissions vanish, accepting a residential commission in Wyoming and then an offer to head an architectural school in Chicago. (from Mies van der Rohe)

I have removed him from the list. Perhaps someone should check the other names. Selfinformation 22:59, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Fritz Hoger
Why is Fritz Höger in the list? He supported the Nazis and he practised architecture in Nazi Germany, but that does not in any meaningful sense make him a "Nazi architect". Has the author got a source for this? Höger's style was expressionist, not neo-classicist or völkisch. Höger failed to gain an appointment as a state architect under the Nazis. --213.39.207.184 16:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * "The Word in Stone" - pg. 60, 113 & 152 Porky Pig 17:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Heinrich Tessenow
I removed Tessenow from the list of Hitler's builders because he never built anything for the NSDAP. "Tessenow [...] did not participate in the construction the the great national-socialists buildings, even though Speer tried several times to obtain his collaboration" in REICHEL, Peter, La fascination du nazisme, Paris, Odile Jacob, 1993, p. 316. My bad translation from french, but the book exists in English. Icitonpere (talk) 19:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Tessnow was an associate and assisted Speer. Although Tessenow repudiated National Socialism, and one source identifies him as Jewish, unlike a score of his colleagues he remained in Germany through the course of World War II, protected by his former student. Speer intervened with the Minister of Education on Tessenow's behalf to preserve his academic position. Tessenow verified this on his deathbed in 1950. Chessy999 (talk) 21:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The fact Tessenow could keep his academic position does not mean in any way that he built anything for the nazi party. Leon Krier, in Albert Speer Architecture, a book for which he did extensive interviews with Speer himself, state Tessenow did not build for the nazi regime. Barbara Miller Lane, in Architecture and Politics in Germany, says the same thing. Peter Reichel, cited above, says it too. Help me, if you are that knowledgeable: what document cites an evidence of Tessenow architectural activities during the Third Reich, that these scholars have not read? Icitonpere (talk) 22:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * He assisted Speer, which in reality kept him alive. Chessy999 (talk) 23:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Architects never work alone, except on very small scale project. If not a single architectural project can be put under his name, he should not be in that list. If Tessenow had wanted to build for the nazis, he could have done it; but he did not want, and he did not, period. To know if he draw or not, if he counseled or not Speer does not really matter; he simply did not build. So i will remove him again. And if you stubbornly put him back there, bring some DOCUMENTED evidence, please. This would help your credibility. Icitonpere (talk) 23:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Peter Behrens
Peter Behrens "achieved success under the Third Reich" in REICHEL, Peter, La fascination du nazisme, Paris, Odile Jacob, 1993, p. 317. Icitonpere (talk) 19:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Behrens became associated with Hitler's urbanistic dreams for Berlin with the commission for the new head quarters of the AEG on Albert Speer's famous planned north-south axis. Speer reported that his selection of Behrens for this commission was rejected by the powerful Alfred Rosenberg, but that his decision was supported by Hitler who admired Behrens's St. Petersburg Embassy. Behrens and the academy helped his cause by reporting to the Ministry that Behrens had early joined the then illegal Nazi party in Austria on May Day of 1934. Chessy999 (talk) 20:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Behrens actually did built a model for the Berlin Plan coordinated by Speer, the AEG Building, which was to be on the Great Avenue, in front of the Hermann-Göring building. Is that not enough evidence of architectural activity? (model illustrated in Lars Olof Larsson, Albert Speer - Le plan de berlin, Bruxelles, Archives d'architecture moderne, p. 98, 100.)Icitonpere (talk) 22:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes Chessy999 (talk) 23:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Images?
This article is definitely in need of some illustrations... I'm not an expert, but I think an article on architecture should at least provide some examples. Selfinformation 12:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Check the articles history, there use to be many old pics, but the administrators deleted them. Porky Pig 17:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Contents
Why does the "contents" frame appear in the middle of the article? Selfinformation 13:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * to the left side for me SirIsaacBrock 22:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I mean not at the beginning, vertically... Selfinformation 01:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

One Picture?!?!
For the love of god this is a very long and detailed article but there is only one relativly small picture of the top of a piller to illustrate the point!? Come on whoever spent so much time writing the article can most certainly find images of it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.246.51.216 (talk • contribs).


 * Given that Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, it might be better to put some work into the article yourself rather than criticizing others who have already put a lot of effort into it. Your time is most certianly better spent helping to improve the article rather than complaining about the work of other people.  So go ahead and contribute photos to the article.  Just make sure their use on Wikipedia does not violate Copyrights. --Skeezix1000 12:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Images and copyright issues
I see that there is a call going out here for images. I have some, but here is the issue. One of my books, A Nation Builds: Contemporary German Architecture was published in 1940 by the German Library of Information, NY NY and the other, Architektur Und Bauplastik der Gergenwart by Werner Rittich was published by [as far as I can tell] Rembrandt-Verlag G.M.B.H., Berlin in 1938. I have tried to track down and/or figure out the copyright issues here and am sort of ending up at some sort of Fair Use listing - but i need help on this. So, feel free to pich in, drop me a line or something. Carptrash 18:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic or something, I guess
This page reads much more like an essay (which, I presume, it started out as) than as a Wikipedia article. I think the paragraphs and need to be broken up and the wording made less longwinded. Vorratt 22:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

agreed--Dolyaie (talk) 09:21, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I would cite problems that go beyond the "essay style". Much of the language praises the architecture as successful and seems to imply that Nazism (or at least its city planning) would have "worked" just like Roman architecture "worked". That's an interesting point, if someone with expertise can be cited. It doesn't seem to be proper for a wiki article to endorse such a claim. -- Murfmensch

Ruin value
There's a separate article titled "Ruin Value" not linked to anywhere here; I concur with the comment on its talk page:

"I believe it does warrant its own page, however, but certainly the lion's share of the information should be moved here with a "Main article:" tag in its place."

Coughinink 11:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Done Jkatzen (talk) 16:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:NaziArch2.jpg
Image:NaziArch2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 18:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:NaziArch3.jpg
Image:NaziArch3.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 18:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:NaziArchBreker2.jpg
Image:NaziArchBreker2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 18:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:German pavilion 1937.jpg
Image:German pavilion 1937.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Wiktionary
For your interest there is Nomination For Deletion vote for Nazi architecture at Wiktionary. Green Squares (talk) 09:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

U-Bahn station Thälmann-Platz
It does not seem correct that marble from the Reich Chancellery was used to build the U-Bahn station "Thälmann-Platz" (?). Can anyone confirm this? EriFr (talk) 22:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I can't find the source right now, but I do recall reading that in one of the books I read recently. srushe (talk) 09:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll add the fact that the U-Bahn station at Mohrenstrasse is build with marmor from the former Reich Chancellery. 79.136.63.144 EriFr (talk)


 * Is this true? The article for Mohrenstrasse says otherwise.  Pm06420 (talk) 03:42, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Comparision to the German Lemma
I had been working on the German lemma Architektur im Nationalsozialismus and just was asked to compare it with what youre doing here. Seems we have two completely different approaches. I would like ot summarize shortly what seems to be different and ask you for a feedback. BR --Polentario (talk) 18:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) The english lemma tries to set up a holistic view "The Nazi architeture", the german version his much more about the polyratic aspects and the developements of different tendencies within time, organizations and sector (e.g. the SS versus state, industry and defence, KdF and barracks etc)
 * 2) The german lemma has much more about the follow up of some of the Nazi concepts within postwar germany, it can be shown that a big amount of plannings and technology deliberations of the Wiederaufbaustab, a expert circle lead by Rudolf Wolters during the war was used in Post war germany, however minus the power projecting aspect - you seem to focus especially on the megaplannings of Speer for Hitler, but the much more realistic approach of the Wiederaufbaustab is lacking
 * 3) The German side has much more pics and specifies plannings for different cities and goes down on the single construcion level, you - dont shoot me -  have built up an awful lot of text!
 * 4) I personally miss some eyeopeners from German literature, so e.g. was the planning and execution of the Atlantic wall highly expressionist, Christoph Hackelsberger compared the style of the fortresses there with the Goetheanum in Dornach, the Reichsautobahn construction and especially the landscape planning was a major push for ecology and especially geobotanics as a science with Alwin Seifert as a leading ecology flagholder before and after 45, the main technology for wind energy used nowadays (globally) was developed by Ulrich W. Hütter in close cooperation with the SS in Weimar so on. The technical challenges and solutions developed are quite interesting but not yet a focus in the english lemma.
 * 5) Finally, I lack a sort of nowadays legacy, some of the main buildings have been released from allied military control and been handed over to the German loacal governements in the last decade, inclusing Obersalzberg and the Ordensburg Vogelsang and discussion how to use them in the future are quite recent.

Führer
Personally, I feel that the article should refer to Hitler as Hitler, rather than as "Führer." I understand that the writer is likely not actually acknowledging Hitler as his or her Führer, but it just seems distasteful, as well as a POV issue....PurpleChez (talk) 04:39, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Can one just change that or is there some form of approval needed? (new to wikipedia) Bloubok (talk) 17:02, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Effect
The entire Nazi architecture is actually a kind of cemetery architecture for everyday life. Clear, straight lines with stylized elements united in symmetry. Fire bowls, bows, which are almost always used in crypts. Ornaments in stone that look like coffins of decorative moldings.--Kanjawe (talk) 07:50, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Original Research?
The first section, and the three that follow simply do not cite sources and read far less like an encyclopedia article and more like someone's reasearch paper. 68.183.202.217 (talk) 14:57, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree - can someone please help? I'm not an SME in this topic. Regards, DPdH (talk) 06:58, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

More citations to sources are needed
Hi all, as the topic is potentially controversial (being related to Nazism, which in turn is considered controversial) and given that for such a long articles there are only about 40 inline citaitons, I've tagged the article as "refimprove" and will add "citation needed" tags wherever I find a potentially "controversial" or "original research-like" paragraph. Hope this will help improve this interesting article. Regards, DPdH (talk) 06:57, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Clean up
This article is a bit verbose and needs some clean up in the areas of style, grammar and formatting. Encyclopedic style also needs to be worked on; parts of this sound like a documentary. We should at least stick a few "cleanup" templates in here. — ʀoyoтϵ 01:33, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

too ambiguous
I don't think that this sentence - or the tag for that matter- belong.
 * "The new building style may have been intended to give the idea to the rest of the world and to the unconverted Germans that the era of the thousand-year Reich had dawned."

Any sentence that starts with "may" sort of begs the question, "Or may not?" Carptrash (talk) 20:49, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Tone is pro hitler
Several sentences have a tone supporting hitler and worse some guess what further expansion of the horrid empire would mean. Very uncouth. Very gross. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.21.95.46 (talk) 06:34, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Please point out which sentences you are referring to. Copy & paste works well for that.Carptrash (talk) 07:12, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Cite book
Will there be objections if I revert all refs to format (Harvard style)? Carlotm (talk) 22:51, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Copyvio
Large passages in this article are copied from Scobie, Hitler's State Architecture and Taylor, The Word in Stone. These additions appear to date from a long series of edits by User:WritersCramp (25k 2005-05-28 through 06-13), User:Endurance (6kb in 2005-07-06 through -16). Another big block of text comes from the initial version of this article written by User:Rsloch and including no sources. (20k, 2004-03-23). A quick look shows that much of the text from these three contributors is still in the article, which was 72k long before I started removing copyvios. That is, potentially (25k+6k+20k)/72k = 71% of the article comes from these contaminated or unsourced edits. This problem was already noted in this Talk page in 2005 for related articles and for this one in 2007. User talk:WritersCramp also shows a pattern of bad behavior, including around copyvios.

I am afraid this means that the article needs to be deleted and started from scratch. It just won't be possible to disentangle the copyvios and text derived from the copyvios from the clean text. Sadly, many other editors have worked on the article since these copyvios were added. But I don't think it will be possible to save their work. --Macrakis (talk) 19:04, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I was working around a new lead which can be read as follow:

Nazi architecture was the unchallenged expression in buildings and city planning of the idea of total supremacy of the Nazi regime over the German Volksgenosse (people) reduced to an obedient and mindless element framed within a military formation. To this end the Nazi regime adopted a rigid, linear, static, symmetric and antimodernist style, overwhelming in its absurd dimensioning, to build a propagandistic, and in the same time pedagogical, eternal stage for the regime celebrations.

Where architectures had to solve more functional and less celebratory tasks, the hyperbolic neoclassicism was usually abandoned for solutions deemed representative of an expressionistic Germanic style: use of stone or, at least, of rugged surfaces, minimization of glass surfaces and metallic element, steep roofs were the main characteristics of this second approach, not related to ancient classical examples but immersed in a so-called German meltpot.

Their efforts were quite successful; in the years 1934-1943 Nazi Germany was flooded by countless new constructions and buildings, and projects about city planning which would have been carried out if only they would have won the war. Certainly the pathological fanaticism in architectural planning shown by Hitler played a significant role: all the most important projects were brought forward by the tasked architect always under the direct supervision of Adolf Hitler. The leading protagonists of the Nazi style were architects Paul Troost, Ludwig Ruff, Hermann Giesler, Wilhelm Kreis, Clemens Klotz, Roderich Fick and in particular Albert Speer who was the first to bring in his projects that particular architectural feature of political belligerence which became typical especially of Nazi celebratory architecture.


 * If it can be the basis for a total revision, replace the current lead and avoid deleting the page. Carlotm (talk) 04:11, 30 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is generally more descriptive and less interpretative than the text above. The WP editorial voice eschews expressions like "absurd dimensioning", "hyperbolic neoclassicism", and so on, no matter how much we may agree with them. Interpretation like that is typically reported on, not adopted as an editorial position. Also, there's been a lot of work on Nazi and Italian Fascist architecture since 1963, when Brenner was writing. --Macrakis (talk) 04:33, 30 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Hundreds of editors have participated in this article and there are many citations from legitimate sources. I am placing the article back.  If you want to participate and improve the article you are free to do so, deleting the article is unacceptable to me and the many editors that have written the article over the past ten-years.  Cheers IQ125 (talk) 22:18, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately all those editors failed to notice that the bulk of the text is at best in entirely the wrong style and tone, and at worst plagiarism and/or copyvio. I agree it needs a ground-up rewrite. EEng (talk) 02:55, 7 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Beyond the plagiarism/copyvio, this article seems to be about the theory of Nazi architecture as interpreted by certain authors, and doesn't even bother to talk about particular buildings or urban designs. It is an essay, not a WP article. --Macrakis (talk) 20:21, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It is a bit, er... abstract. EEng (talk) 23:14, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Somewhat essay-like tone
It's scattered, but it's there in such passages as
 * " Fundamentally, it was decadent baroque comparable to the style that accompanied the decline of the Roman Empire. Thus, in the realm of architecture, as in painting and sculpture, Hitler really remained arrested in the world of his youth: the world of 1880 to 1910, which stamped its imprint on his artistic taste as on his political and ideological conceptions."
 * This paragraph was copied from Inside the Third Reich, p42. MER-C 13:38, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

It's a bit much sometimes. EEng (talk) 02:39, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * "Thus, buildings like the Congress Hall in Nuremberg and the Volkshalle in Berlin, inspired by the Colosseum and the Pantheon, respectively, were not merely symbols of tradition, order and reliability, but signaled a far more sinister intention on the part of the autocrat who commissioned them: a return to Roman ethics, which recognized the natural right of a conqueror to enslave conquered peoples in the most literal sense of the word, a right already made manifest even within the sphere of architecture by the creation of concentration camps, whose inmates were forced to quarry the stone for the Reich's buildings"

Um, it looks like my concern is the same as the one in the just-prior thread, so I've merged them. EEng (talk) 02:41, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

And "inseminated with the seed" has got to go. EEng (talk) 02:42, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Article reset
Having come across this article as a patrolling administrator at Copyright problems (after some time ago moving this article from CSD this because it needed more thorough evaluation), I note:
 * The paragraph starting with "Inevitably, after Hitler's defeat, the colossal dimensions of his buildings tended to be seen, as they were by Speer in his memoirs" appears to have been copied from Hitler's State Architecture p136. (Google Books shows the entire sentence, but only that sentence at any given time. You'll get the best results for 10-word passages.)
 * The paragraph "Symbolism, graphic art and hortatory inscriptions were prominent in all forms of Nazi-approved architecture" was copied from The Word in Stone p13.
 * The paragraph "A notable feature of these rallies was that they were often held at night with spectacular light effects, such as powerful search" was copied from Hitler's State Architecture p72.
 * The paragraph "Had Hitler achieved all his political and military aims and had his successors consolidated and perhaps even expanded his territorial gains" appears to have been copied from Hitler's State Architecture p136.
 * The paragraph "The use of forced labour on building sites both in Rome and in the provinces was a normal Roman practice." appears to have been copied from Hitler's State Architecture p137.
 * The paragraph "Hitler was quite fond of the numerous theatres built by Hermann and Ferdinand Fellner, who built in the late baroque style" was closely paraphrased from Inside the Third Reich p41-42.

Given that I've verified copying from the books above, I've reset the article to a stub. The general essay-like tone also suggests copyvio. The history had to go because the suspect content was, essentially, the whole article. Further edits also need to be removed, because the article remains a derivative work (see also FAQ/Copyright). MER-C 13:08, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 01:00, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Context of architecture
I added two paragraphs about how the architecture differs from Classism, citing a psychological study that found people reacted differently to Nazi buildings than typical examples of Classism. I also added a section about the context under which the buildings were created. Part of the history of the architecture was that the buildings were built for reasons beyond aesthetics––they were also helping the Nazis exterminate people by providing more situations for forced-labor. It's important to consider on this page because Nazi architecture was not just a style, it was an entire political system. Goldrider (talk) 09:51, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: History of Modern Design
— Assignment last updated by Antje Gamble (talk) 19:51, 27 March 2023 (UTC)