Reconstruction of Munich After WW2, Research Paper Example

War reeks devastation on many things, among them architecture. In the path of war destruction of monuments, churches, and houses is inevitable. During World War II Munich, Bavaria was destroyed and reduced to rubble, debris, and carved out houses from Allied bombs. Since this destruction however, Munich has managed to have a revival in its architecture and rebuild itself. Now, the city stands as one of Europe’s main landmarks to vacation in large part due to a collective effort of progressive politics propelled by a desire to restore an old world mentality that Munich so hardily represents. This paper will expound on Munich before, during and after the war in the area of architecture.

Before World War II, Munich stood as an impressive hub of art and architecture and was considered one of the best European cities for art (as well as archived pieces). During World War II however the city (which had closed its museums during the war) suffered much damage from Allied bombings. Adolf Hitler (who was an art enthusiast) thought that removing the city’s artistic treasures would someone show a weak Nazi regime, kept artworks in their respected museums and galleries to show a united front against opposition. If Hitler were to remove the works of art, then it would have been like saying that he was anticipating failure and would then lose support for his political regime.

Instead of moving artworks to new locations, Hitler had Nazi photographers document and record artworks and architecture, all before the city’s massive bombing by Allied troops in April 1945. In the Bavarian palace before the bombs detonated and leveled the city, Nazi commanders instructed soldiers to cut portraits from the frames of photos hanging in the Gallery of the Wittelsbach Family and to cache these portraits, making the gallery empty of its long-standing art. Architecture that was still standing after April fell to decay, erosion, and hard winter and spring rains for over a decade. After 60 some odd years Munich is having a renaissance due to the finely documented and archived Nazi photographs taken of the city before the bombs and erosion (Huyssen 13). One such place the “shell grotto” is one such reconstruction story. Built in the 1550’s the place was celebration of man’s genius in architecture: Bavarian shells decorate the palatial walls and fronts of buildings and with the god Mercury overseeing it all with wine, and mermaids watching it all. After the Allies bombed the palace, there was no reconstruction funds set aside to build up the city, however, people in the town took it upon themselves to gather seashells (the same Bavarian seashells that had adorned the palace before the bombing) and donate them to the reconstruction.

Like the Bavarian palace the scenic Odeonsplatz was transformed after the bombing in the 1950’s, “this is one sight of Munich which you may still appreciate as before the war; for while many buildings are empty shells, the facades still remain, and the general effect has not been lost” (Koshar 154). Political powers got together and tried to restore what Odeonsplatz was before the war, “Widespread public support existed for the repair of the Cologne cathedral” as well as the cathedral’s many Romanesque churches around Munich (Koshar 154). Although the cathedral didn’t bear the brunt of the bombing, one of the more prominent flying buttresses acquired a “massive hole” (Koshar154) as well as a smattering of debris; casualties of war.

One of the more notable reconstructed buildings in Munich is the Central Ministry Building formerly known as the Ludwistrate and now known as the Agricultural Ministry. This was a Florentine style building constructed around the 13^thcentury and was one of the first buildings in Munich to suffer from damages during World War II. The building was hit hard during of the 17 bombings of the city but despite this devastation was one of the buildings chosen for reconstruction. The history of the site encompasses demolish of a previous building during the Third Reich to make way for Nazi construction, “In 1937 the architect Leo von Klenze’s beautifully proportioned [building]…was leveled was leveled to make way for a more ‘monumental’ building” (Koshar 172). During the progress of reconstruction there was descent on whether or not to reconstruct certain buildings (most notably ones constructed during the Third Reich) but a consensus was made. There were notions as to how to handle reconstruction and some dissent was voiced as to “decided to restore the building with traces of wartime damage left in place in much the same manner that the architect Hans Dollgast had reconstructed the Alter Pinakothek, a famous Munich museum” (Koshar 194). The GDR (German Democratic Republic) leadership chose a brave, new approach involving turning the derelict buildings into a “memorial to the victims of war and fascism” (Koshar 194). Architect Herman Henselmann headed this project and ensured that plans followed the original designs of buildings, which included the “granite monolith, although the crucifix placed on the rear interior wall by the Nazis was removes as was the original floor plan,” (Koshar 194). There was debate over the inscription on the rear wall; while some wanted to quote the poet Bertold Brecht, others decided it would be best to highlight the reason for the war and the reason for the reconstruction which is to honor the memory of the people and so the rear wall inscription reads “to the victims of fascism and militarism” (Koshar 194). Reconstruction was still going on well in the latter half of last century, and the GDP was presented with a gift “the addition of the East German state symbol (a hammer and compass embraced by a Germanic oak wreath); an internal flame housed in an imposing glass cube; and urns for the Unknown Soldier and the Unknown Resistance Fighter as well as for earth from nine concentration camps, and nine World War II battlefields” (Koshar 194). This “facelift” wasn’t just for reconstructive purposes but was also put in place to reunify the city and give it back its “authority” (Koshar 194).

When the time came to put the city back together again people were faced with the decision to either bulldoze the entire city’s buildings and start from scratch (so massive was the destruction) or to rebuild on top of pre-existing structures that were still standing albeit half-heartedly. Munich citizens voted to rebuild their town according to the Nazi photographs in the archives. The rebuilding paid strict attention to regulations and adhering to these photographs. Munich still has that old world feel to it, which in large part has to do with rebuilding instead of making something new, and not having shopping centers or malls in the city centre. There were many other forces involved, however, in reconstructing Munich.

Munich was reconstructed through practical and economic reasons, and adhered to specific specifications such as “free market economic forces, local building codes and zoning regulations as well as an absence…of a federal reconstruction law” (Rosenfeld 30). The business of reconstruction fell to political factions but also, and mainly, to local groups. In the early stages of Munich’s reconstruction these local groups made their voice heard through adamant support for “the citizenry’s traditionalist tendencies” (Rosenfeld 30-31) which account for the façade of the city today as an old world example.

During a council meeting in Munich it was decided that old world preservation should be adhered to and as such the Meitinger Plan of 1945 was instituted. This plan “made historic preservation a top priority. The plans main advocate and namesake Karl Meitinger stated “we must attempt to salvage as much from the spirit …of our beautiful city of Munich for the new era so that tradition is not torn down; we must ensure that what is characteristic of Munich is saved and preserved” (Rosenfeld 31), and thus began the comprehensive reconstruction. Rosenfeld goes on to state that part of the enthusiasm of reconstruction was due in large part to promote tourism as a boost to the failing economy of Munich after the way. Thus, the reconstruction worked two-fold; on a restorative for art and architecture and on a restorative level for the economy.

Further attempts and success of reconstruction continued in Munich with the establishment of the Kulturebaufond in 1946. A council got together and decided that a curatorial board should be instituted to preserve Munich’s treasured buildings “via the collection of private contributions from local citizenry” (Rosenfeld 31). The citizens of Munich responded zealously. The Kulturebaufond would eventually even receive donations from Nazi party members as an attempt at absolution for the crimes they committed during the war and to clear their guilty conscience; “it is safe to conclude that at least some of the support for reconstruction was motivated by the desire to escape guilt for the Third Reich” (Rosenfeld 31).

The reconstruction of Munich in large part has to do with the political atmosphere after World War II. After the war, starting around 1948, Munich political leaders were more liberal and focused on labor and promoted the Social Democratic Party. One of the first orders of business was to ensure the integrity of the town and this had a lot to do with upholding Munich’s traditions. One such tradition is steeped in great food. Leaders feared that after the war, fast food chains would fill in the blanks of the missing restaurants around Munich because they were cheap to build, and because the generated tourism, jobs, and helped with the economy in a quick turn-around kind of way. This was not to be the case however; as Munich’s Viktulien Square still has that old world market feel with stalls and small restaurants and this is all thanks to a government subsidiary helping to control rent (Eckert 153).

Munich’s reconstruction however was not done completely to scale or upheld all of the nuances of the previous city, in fact it was not reconstructed with a uniform conformity. Although a majority of the major buildings in Munich were reconstructed according to old Nazi catalogued photographs, “others [buildings] were partially rebuilt, while some were left as ruins” (Rosenfeld 32). While the buildings that were reconstructed were done so to exact specifications to the building’s pre-war state, while partially reconstructed buildings were of course only partially rebuilt, and the buildings left in ruins were left just like that. Each of these three stages was intended to present a different stage of mourning to the citizens in Munich after the devastation they witnessed in the war.

The exact reconstruction, “can be seen as physical manifestations of the inability to mourn” (Rosenfeld 32). By reconstructing buildings in this manner, traditionalist in Munich were making a statement that some people refused to recognize their loss and in so doing were able to deny the war completely and the atrocities committed during the war: “Instead, they [citizens] adhered to the comforting self-deception that reconstructing ruins symbolized the unbroken continuity of the city’s cultural soul” (Rosenfeld 33). Buildings that were partially reconstructed served to showcase the effects of war as the missing parts of buildings were put back from other parts of other destroyed buildings. By putting rubble in place of new material the reconstruction was making a statement that the buildings “visually represented the war’s destruction and integrated it into the city’s identity” (Rosenfeld 41). For the buildings that were left as ruins they served as markers of guilt and memory.

Munich isn’t just a city that was reconstructed with an old-world feel in mind for restaurants but also pedestrians. Since Munich is a tourist attraction it behooved the city to keep pedestrians in mind when reconstructing itself. Munich’s town-center is in fact closed to automobiles and this has in turn created great space for walking and biking (the city has a plethora of bike lanes). In fact, the same street grid that existed before the war was kept in tack during renovations (Hayden 234). Munich’s citizenry aided in the city’s reconstruction to a large degree especially with physically helping out as well as setting up institutions. Munich was rebuilt in order to show that humanity progresses despite set backs from wars. What makes Munich special is that it reconstructed its city in three parts: complete, partial, and ruins. Each part makes a statement to the citizens and the tourists that visit the city each year: that war has three phases, denial, set back, and loss.

Works Cited

Eckert, Astrid. The Struggle for the Files: The Western Allies and the Return of German Archives After the Second World War. Washington, D.C. and New York: German Historical Institute: Cambridge University Press, 2012.

Hayden, Dolores. The Power of Place. Urban as Public History. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1995.

Huyssen, Andreas. Present Pasts. Palimpsests and the Politics of Memory. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2003.

Koshar, Rudy. From Monuments to Traces. Artifacts of German Memory, 1870-1990. Berkeley, CA: California University Press, 2000.

Rosenfeld, Gavriel D. Munich and Memory. Architecture, Monuments, and the Legacy of The Third Reich. Berkeley, CA: California University Press, 2000.