Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T07:27:39.235Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Konstanty Gutschow and the Reconstruction of Hamburg

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 December 2008

Jeffry M. Diefendorf
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Symposium: Continuity and Change in Germany after 1945
Information
Central European History , Volume 18 , Issue 2 , June 1985 , pp. 143 - 169
Copyright
Copyright © Conference Group for Central European History of the American Historical Association 1985

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

This group of articles grew out of papers presented at the meeting of the Western Association for German Studies (now German Studies Association) in Madison, Wisconsin, in October 1983. They have been revised and expanded in varying degrees, but preserve to some extent the characteristics of oral presentation.

1. See Petsch, Joachim, Baukunst und Stadtplanung im Dritten Reich (Munich, 1976)Google Scholar; and Dülffer, Jost, Thies, Jochen, Henke, Josef, Hitlers Städte: Baupolitik im Dritten Reich: Eine Dokumentation (Cologne, Vienna, 1978).CrossRefGoogle Scholar The histories of Hamburg planning and architecture, on the other hand, tend to overlook any contribution made by the planners of the Nazi period to postwar reconstruction, as if the past is simply best forgotten. For example, Hebebrand, Werner in Hamburg und seine Bauten 1929 bis 1953, Architekten, - und Hamburg, Ingenieur-Verein, eds. (Hamburg, 1953), 63.Google Scholar

2. Schumacher moved to a cottage in Lüneburg in 1933, where he lived out the war. His dismissal by the Nazis gave him the aura of a martyr. I suspect, however, that his ouster was due more to personal differences than to ideology. In June 1938, he wrote a letter to Gutschow, explicitly praising his proposals for redesigning Hamburg, and he remained in contact with Gutschow during the war, even addressing a seminar with Gutschow's coworkers in 1944. Schumacher only lived a couple of years after the war, but his advice was highly prized and he has remained a kind of cultural hero to Hamburg. See Staatsarchiv Hamburg/Bestand Architekt Gutschow/A30:Letter from Schumacher to Gutschow, June 18, 1938, and Archiv für Städtebau Konstanty Gutschow/“Nachrichten für unsere Kameraden im Felde,” published by Gutschow's office between November 1941 and February 1945. Schumacher's speech is covered in numbers 27 and 28, August and September 1944. Henceforth, I will refer to the Hamburg Land and city archives as SA, and the collection Architekt Gutschow as AG. Other collections in the archive will be cited fully. The Archiv für Städtebau Konstanty Gutschow (henceforth ASKG) refers to the private papers and library of Gutschow, to be found in the family home in Hamburg, to which Mrs. Konstanty Gutschow and Niels Gutschow kindly gave me complete access. In addition, Niels Gutschow read a draft of this paper and pointed out a few inaccuracies, for which I am most grateful. For planning in Hamburg in the 1920s and 1930s, see Ockert, Erwin, “Der Hamburgisch-Preussische Landesplanungsausschuss,” in Hamburg und seine Bauten 1929 bis 1953.Google Scholar

3. In November 1946, Gutschow wrote: “Ich bin der Partei weder gezwungen noch aus opportunistischen Gründen beigetreten, sondern in der ehrlichen Überzeugung, damit einer guten Sache zu dienen. Wenn ich mich damit zum nationalsozialistischen Gedankengut bekannt habe, so habe ich hierunter vor alien einen erkläarten Sozialismus, Planwirtschaft und Verehrung der Kräfte des Bodens und der Heimat verstanden. Aussenpolitische, nationalistische im Imperialismus ausartende Tendenzen habe ich immer als Deutschland unangemessene Süchte und Massstabslosigkeiten abgelehnt.” He joined the SA, since he no longer considered it “als eine politische Partei.” Subsequently he did not appear in uniform, did not use the normally obligatory “Heil Hitler” greeting in his office, and did not attend obligatory party meetings, even though his winning the competition led to the award of the rank of Sturmführer. In his office he never inquired about the political convictions of his employees, and in fact he employed a number of former SPD members who had lost their jobs elsewhere. In short, he was basically an apolitical technocrat. This sets him apart from, say, Hermann Giesler, the architect for Munich, or even Speer. Gutschow's apolitical character was attested to by 37 colleagues who wrote on Gutschow's behalf in 1946, and the same was asserted strongly in interviews with Rudolf Hillebrecht and Arthur Dähn, two former employees of Gutschow who supported the Social Democrats and who had important careers after the war. See ASKG/ folder on denazification; Gutschow, “10 Jahre Architekt 1935–1945,” mimeo sent to former colleagues in memory of fallen comrades in April 1946; interviews by author of Hillebrecht, Hanover, May 8, 1982, and of Dähn, Hamburg, May 11, 1982

4. Gutschow met with Hitler only once, when the model for Hamburg was displayed in the Chancellory. Hitler turned against Gutschow soon thereafter, though Gutschow was defended by Speer. See ASKG/Erklärung by Rudolf Wolters, denazification folder, Oct 2, 1946. The Hamburg archives contain several folders of drawings for different versions of the bridge and skyscraper, for example SH/AG/A202, A347, A361, and A362. See also the printed “Erläuterungsbericht, Elbufergestaltung Hamburg” by Gutschow for the basic plans of 1939.

5. This according to Hans von Hanffstengel, who worked in Gutschow's office from 1937 to 1939 before going to Giesler's office in Munich. In October 1941, Hanffstengel told Rudolf Hillebrecht, who worked in Gutschow's office, of Hitler's comments. Hillebrecht in turn told Gutschow. Niels Gutschow provided me with a copy of Hillebrecht's letter to Konstanty Gutschow, dated October 16, 1941. Hitler s remarks were clearly recalled by Hanffstengel in an interview by the author in Nuremberg, July 31, 1982.

6. Hamburgisches Verordnungsblatt, May 4,1939. The financing of Gutschow's office and the project was rather complicated. The budget was paid out of a special city account, but the city treasury in turn received a kind of tax rebate from the Reich so that in the end the city only paid for 28% of the total cost of the Neugestaltung project and other activities of Gutschow's office. See SH/Finanzbehörde I/Report of August 9, 1948.

7. For organizational charts and personnel, see SH/AG/A1 and A5.

8. See the “Generalbebauungsplan 1940,” Hamburg, 09 1, 1940Google Scholar, text and map. It is typical for Gutschow's methods, and quite unlike what was going on in Berlin and Munich, that over 300 copies were printed and distributed to various government offices, private architects, and interest groups for comment and criticism. It was never Gutschow's idea simply to impose his ideas on the city, even though he undoubtedly could have done so. He felt, however, that effective implementation of any set of plans would require the full cooperation and support of all major groups in the city. See SH/AG/ volumes A122, A126, and A128 for minutes of dozens of meetings and copies of position papers submitted on the project by individuals outside Gutschow's office.

9. See SH/AG/A118 and A119 for “Arbeits- und Zeitpl”

10. Already in 1937, Hans Bahn, the director of the Historic Preservation Office of Hamburg, had proposed the creation of a preservation zone on the Cremoninsel (an “island” on the edge of the harbor created by a ring canal). The proposal called for a radical renovation of everything in the area except the historic buildings, and though the Reichsstatthalter had approved the idea, the fate of this area was in fact still up in the air as Gutschow's plans for the city were being formed. Indeed, between 1939 and 1942, it was reported that 21 valuable buildings in the proposed zone had been demolished because they were considered unsafe. SH/Denkmalschutzamt 32/Bahn to Witt, President of Kultur- und Schulbehörde, Nov. 10, 1937, and 38/Jan. 5, 1938; H. Becker (Verwaltung für Künst- und Kulturangelegenheiten), “Denkschrift zur denkmalpflegerischen Planung und Gestaltung der Cremoninsel,” Hamburg, 1942, in SH/Wohnwirtschafts u. Siedlungsamt/29.

11. SH/AG/A250: Architektenwettbewerb und weitere Planungen für die Gestaltung der Ost-West-Strasse, 1939–1942; Konstanty, , Gutschow, , “Zum Wettbewerb um die Hamburger Innenstadt,” Baurundschau 39 (1949).Google Scholar

12. The basic principles of the “garden city” movement, which had been born in England, had been taken over both by progressive German architects but also by the protagonists of Blut und Boden. See Petsch, , Baukunst und Stadtplanung im Dritten Reich (Munich, 1976), 185ff.Google Scholar

13. SH/AG/A43/C20: “Wohnplatz und Arbeitsplatz sowie die Pendelwanderung der Erwerbstätigen in Hamburg” by Dr. Ing. Winkelmann, May 1941, and critical comments by Gauobmann Rudolf Habedank, Aug. 12, 1941 and Senator Carl Werdermann, Aug. 30,1941. In the area of the Elbe project, Gutschow organized an enormous study of the 224 blocks that would be affected. For each block, the study described all buildings and open spaces, listed the owners, number of households and inhabitants, subrenters, the age of inhabitants, occupation and place of work, rent levels, and the value of each property in terms of the frozen 1935 value and in terms of fire insurance replacement value. There are also photos of each building. This huge sociological study has never been exploited by scholars. It is to be found in SH/AG/A92b and at the end of Section A.

14. See SH/AG/volumes A337–341. City owned and run housing firms administered 10,715 of the 26, 535 social housing units that existed in 1940. As bombs began to rain on Hamburg, these social housing firms took over some of the responsibility for repairing damaged housing, and at least until some time in 1944, reconstruction was going on alongside the destruction. After the war ended, the social housing firms took the lead in new housing construction.

15. See SH/AG/A92a–96, with a list of the parcels in A95. This list includes previous owner, purchase price, and date of purchase. A survey completed May 3, 1940, listed 108 Jewish-owned properties in or near the project area. Gutschow recommended acquisition of 67, noting that the rest “ist vom städtebaulichen Standpunkt aus uninteressant.” (Volume A92a) The listed purchase price, whether the property was Jewish-owned or not, was usually the market value according to the 1935 price freeze. Needless to say, Jewish property owners did not actually receive full value for their property. See SH/Finanzbehörde I/410–15–2/3 and Finanzbehörde I/410–8/161, both Ablieferung 1970, for documents on compensation after the war (Wiedergutmachung). According to Hamburger Adressbuch of 1955, at least seven of the formerly Jewish properties had city-owned social housing projects built on them by that time.

16. ASKG/“Erfahrungsbericht des Amts für kriegswichtigen Einsatz 1941/42; SH/AG/B23: confidential report of Baupolizeiamt, July 31, 1942. The latter report lists 22,781 workers employed in the building industry. Of these, 17,415 were Hamburg natives, 722 from other parts of Germany, 2,831 were foreign workers, and 1,813 prisoners of war. However, another report of July 17,1942, lists 8,627 non-German workers in the building industry, broken down by nationality. Eighteen nationalities are listed, including 2,223 Danes, 2,012 Dutchmen, 1,678 Italians, 880 from the East, 759 from Belgium, 652 from France, and 6 Americans. A useful study of the use of foreign labor is Edward L. Homze, Foreign Labor in Nazi Germany (Princeton, 1967). Gutschow complained to the Reichsstatthalter that the Danes did “miserable work,” and he requested that French POWs or civilian workers be recruited in their stead. SH/AG/B23: Niederschrift über die Besprechung am 14. Januar 1942 beim Reichsstatthalter.

17. After a visit to the Rhineland in March 1943, Hillebrecht was appalled by the lack of organization and planning in the Rhenish cities. There, he felt, the population was close to nervous collapse. SH/AG/B23: Aktenvermerk, March 7,1943, Betr. Erfahrungsaustausch luftkriegsbetroffener Städte am 2.3.43 in Duisburg (28 pp.).

18. SH/AG/B23: Minutes of meetings of June 19, 1941. The in-fighting between agencies in the Third Reich is notorious. It was primarily in the area of housing construction that Gutschow came in conflict with the Hamburg branch of the Deutsche Arbeitsfront (DAF), which, on the national level, was supposedly responsible for social housing construction. Gutschow felt that the kind of housing being constructed by Wilhelm Tegeler, head of the local Wohnwirtschafts- und Siedlungsamt and DAF representative, was shoddy and wasteful. One official under the Generalbevollmächtigte für die Regelung der Bauwirtschaft (Todt) recommended that Gutschow arrange the confiscation of forty truckloads of cement sent to Tegeler's architect friend. An as yet unexplained question about building materials in Hamburg is what happened to the bricks produced at the Neuengamme concentration camp. In 1938 the SS created the camp at the site of a brick factory that had been closed for years. The factory was modernized and automated, and in April 1940, a contract was signed between the SS and the city for the purchase of from 20 to 40 million bricks per year. Presumably these were to be used in the Neugestaltung. However, Hillebrecht has assured me that no Neuengamme bricks were ever used for any project directed by Gutschow's office, nor were they used in Autobahn construction. It was not so much that there was a moral objection to using the bricks; they were not hard enough and were of an off color. A group of Hamburg film makers currently working on a film about Neuengamme have likewise been unable to find out where the bricks went. Perhaps they were used by the DAF, though DAF was experimenting with concrete prefabricated housing. On this camp, Johe, Werner, Neuengamme: Zur Geschichte der Konzentrationslager in Hamburg (Hamburg, 1982)Google Scholar; and interview of Hillebrecht by author, June 25, 1983.

19. SH/AG/B23: Niederschrift über die Besprechung am 14. Januar 1942 beim Reichsstatthalter.

20. SH/AG/B23: Aktenvermerk, May 12, 1943, Eindrücke aus der Besprechung am 7·5.43 mit Ministerialrat Steffens in Berlin.

21. SH/AG/B136: “Gründsatze für die planmässige Vorbereitung der Wohnungsbau-vorhaben nach dem Kriege,” prepared by Dr. Wagner, Geschäftsführer beim Reichs-kommissar für den sozialen Wohnungsbau, for meeting of Dec. 3, 1941.

22. A recent examination of the Arbeitsstab is in Durth, Werner, “Der programmierte Aufbau,” Bauwelt 48 (12 28, 1984): 378–90.Google Scholar The core of the Arbeitsstab was made up of about 20 architects and planners, though clearly it was mostly planners from northern Germany who participated most actively, as was logical given the transportation difficulties of 1944. Munich, for one, did not take the Arbeitsstab very seriously. Giesler delegated Hans von Hanffstengel to attend meetings of the group because von Hanffstengel had previously worked in Gutschow's office. Interview of Hanffstengel by author, Nuremberg, July 31, 1982.

23. ASKG/“Richtlinien für die Statistik und Darstellung der Schäden in den zerstörter Städten,” printed July 15, 1944, and distributed with a cover letter from Gutschow July 27.

24. SH/AG/A44: Schriftenreihe D and also ASKG.

25. ASKG/Briefwechsel: Gutschow to Wortmann, Aug. 9, 1944.

26. ASKG/Wiederaufbauplanung zerstörter Städte/i. Allgemeines/8. Blaue Durchschläge: Verteilerlist of Nov. 25, 1944; Gutschow to Wolters, January 17, 1945. On No vember 22, 1945, Gutschow had also written to Ministerialdirigent Steffens in Speer's ministry to complain that the continued construction of villas and single-family homes for “Prominenten” was a wasteful diversion of resources.

27. Minutes of these meetings were found in ASKG/Arbeitsstab Wiederaufbauplanung or were made available by Hans von Hanffstengel of Nuremberg.

28. ASKG/Arbeitsstab Wiederaufbauplanung, “Wohnungsbau nach dem Kriege,” August 1944. Also in SH/AG/A44/D22. Gutschow's interesting comment on the English was elaborated on by Hillebrecht, who stated that Gutschow's office regularly received clippings from English newspapers, presumably via Lisbon, on developments in city planning. They were fascinated by and strongly approved of the approach embodied in the English town planning act of 1944, which gave very broad powers to planners. Moreover, when the English occupation authorities arrived after the war's end, they found a group of planners in Hamburg fully versed in English planning methods.

29. Ibid. In a commentary of July 22, 1944, one author noted that “die Mietskaserne [“rental barracks,” the term used to describe the universally disliked slums that characterized much of the housing of Berlin and other industrial cities] ist die typische Wohn-und Erscheinungsform des privatkapitalistischen Gestalters und sollte als solche schon mit aller Vorsicht genossen werden.” See SH/AG/A44/D27. Hetzelt was noted for his design of Göring's Karinhalle and the Italian embassy in Berlin.

30. SH/AG/B23: report of Direktor d. Baupolizei, December 1, 1943. Over 50% of all housing stock was destroyed. Some public discussion of reconstruction was taking place. The Hamburger Tageblatt ran a series of articles on the subject, beginning in November 1943, which dealt most with the question of whether one should rebuild in a new style or in some way imitate the past. Ulrich Nabel urged building in a contemporary style, though what actually remained of old building should be preserved. “To make'kitsch' with imitations of the past would be unworthy and a testimony of weakness,” Nabel wrote. (“Soll Alt–Hamburg wiedererstehen?” Nov 15, 1943.) Fritz Schumacher (“Zur Alt–Hamburg-Frage,” Jan. 17, 1944), agreed that mere imitation would be bad, but the situation was a complex one, and in some cases a historically-true reconstruction of a complete ruin might be appropriate. For new buildings, it would also be important that materials and scale fit in with existing historic buildings.

31. SH/AG/A134 and A135.

32. SH/AG/A44/D1: “Zu den Vorskizzen für den Generalbebauungsplan 1944 und Wiederaufbauplan,” Jan. 10, 1944.

33. ASKG/Hamburger Wiederaufbauplanung 1944/45/4: Auftragsbearbeitungen 1–13; and presentations published in “Nachrichten für unsere Kameraden im Felde,” the “house journal” of Gutschow's office. Many of the participants in the planning process were active city planners after the war. Many of the basic premises, such as “Auflockerung” and “Durchgrünung,” were common to most planners of the 1920s and 1930s in Germany. See Oelsner, Gustav, “Wandlungen der städtebaulichen Grundsätze,” in Hamburg und seine Bauten 1929–1953.Google Scholar

34. SH/AG/A44/D4: Plan for Stadtteil Eilbeck, Feb. 2, 1944. According to Hamburg's StatistischesJahrbuch of 1970, 25, 540 persons lived in the rebuilt area. In the Skizze Generalbebauungsplan 1944 (Manuskript Plassenburg) (SH/AG/A44/D38), Gutschow called for “a reduction of irresponsibly high population densities in those areas in which there has always been a communist electorate.” Unhealthy population densities, in other words, were reflected not only in higher disease rates but also in politics.

35. ASKG/Hamburger Wiederaufbauplanung 1944/45/6: Generalbebauungsplan 1944, Erste Skizze, Äusserungen der Mitarbeiter, with marginal comments by Gutschow.

36. There are two documents for this presentation: SH/AG/A44/D38: “Skizze Generalbebauungsplan 1944,” July 1944 (Manuskript Plassenburg); and ASKG/“Hamburger Generalplanung,” Referat im Rahmen der 3. Arbeitsbesprechung des Arbeitsstabes Wiederaufbauplanung zerstörter Städte in Wriezen am 16./17. September 1944. For a comparison of the 1940 and 1944 plans, see Haack, Annemarie, “Der Generalbebauungsplan für Hamburg 1940/41 und 1944,” Uni HH Forschung 12 (1980).Google Scholar

37. SH/AG/A44, D3: “Verwertung von Trümmem,” Sept. 1944, and D37: “Hamburger Hauptbahnhof,” October 9, 1944.

38. ASKG/E5: Verkehrsverbessenmgen, Aug. 23, 1945.

39. SH/AG/A45/E9:“Wiederherstellungsgebiete,” Sept. 1945.

40. Gutschow supported his call for a new building law by basing his argument on anessay by Obersenatsrat Bahnson of the Baurechtsamt dated September 1, 1945, entitled “Gesetze zur Durchführung des Wiederaufbuaes.” In fact the ideas presented were quite in line with the discussions of building law that had been going on within the Arbeitsstab during the war. For a brief introduction to the history of city planning law in Germany, see Albers, Gerd, “Das Stadtplanungsrecht im 20. Jahrhundert als Niederschlag der Wandlungen im Planungsverständnis,” Bauwelt 71 (1980): 485–90.Google Scholar

41. ASKG/“Wiederaufbau Hamburg,” folder number 271001, “Die Arbeitsweise beider städtebaulichen Planung,” Denkschrift no. 1, Oct. 1945, by the Arbeitsausschuss Stadtplanung. Comments also to be found in ASKG/E9:Wiederherstellungsgebiete. See also the work plan in SA/Baubehörde I/B2/Wiederaufbauleitung/E9: Wiederherstellungsgebiete, August 8, 1945.

42. SH/Baubehörde I/B1: “Abschlussbericht der Sonderabteilung ‘Wiederaufbauleitung,’” October 2, 1945.

43. Stenographische Berichte der Bürgerschqft zu Hamburg, Session 2 (03 8, 1946): 14–16.Google Scholar

44. See ASKG/Entlassungsakten, letters bound together with a copy of the denazification questionnaire, July 20, 1947. The 37 letters of reference are from 1946. From a statement made by SPD delegate Klabunde in the city legislature (Stenographische Bericht, closed session of May 22, 1946, p. 117), it appears that important members of the city government also objected to the charges being made against Gutschow.

45. See SH/Finanzbehörde I/21–690–1/1 and 21–690–1/3; SH/Senatskanzlei II/611. 60–3 for the relevant reports on the financial transactions of Gutschow's office.

46. Interview of Klaus-Dieter Ebert, Erster Baudirektor fur Städtebau der Baube-hörde, by author, Hamburg, May 10, 1982.

47. For Gutschow's work in Hanover, see ASKG/“Aufbau zerstörter Wohnviertel,” July 1, 1951, and “Wohnviertel bei der Neustädter Kirche Hannover,” Aug 28, 1953.

48. Archiv der Hansestadt Lübeck/Hauptamt 15u/1–B5IIg/“Tagung der Baureferenten niedersächsischer Städte in Hamburg am 26. November 1945, Sitzungsbericht.”

49. Hamburg, Hansestadt, “Skizzen zum Generalbebauungsplan, 1947,” Hamburg, 1948.Google Scholar

50. Meyer-Ottens, Otto, “Zum Aufbau der Stadt Hamburg,” Baurundschau 37 (special issue, “Hamburg im Wandel” 1947): 472Google Scholar. Similar sentiments were expressed in Meyer-Ottens, , “Einführung in die Probleme des Generalbebauungsplanes,” Stadtplanung in Hamburg: Gedanken zum Wiederaufbau, Schriftenreihe des Bundes Deutscher Architekten, no. 6 (Hamburg, 1948).Google Scholar

51. Hans Berlage, “Grundgedanken der Stadt- und Landesplanung Hamburg,” ibid.

52. See Dähn, Arthur, “Hamburg, dicht am Ozean: Eine Gesamtschau der Aufgaben, Problem und Leistungen,” Neue Bauwelt 5 (1950)Google Scholar, and Dähn, “Rund um den Michel: Ein Blick über Hamburgs Baugeschehen,” ibid., for summaries of progress. For details, see Hamburg, Baubehörde der Hansestadt, “Hamburgs Bautätigkeit 1948/49,” Schriften zum Bau-, Wohnungs- und Siedlungswesen, 1 (1949).Google Scholar Baubehörde der Hansestadt Hamburg, “Grundsätze der Landesplanung und des Wiederaufbaues in der Hansestadt Hamburg,” ibid. 9 (1951), and Baubehörde der Hansestadt Hamburg, “Das Baujahr 1951/52 in Hamburg,” ibid., 13 (1952). In addition, Hamburg also passed a strong reconstruction law based on the so-called Lemgo draft written by Johannes Göderitz. After the war planner in Braunschweig, Göderitz had also worked with Gutschow's Arbeitsstab during the war.

53. A similar conclusion was reached by Haack, , “Der Generalbebauungsplan für Hamburg 1940/41 und 1944,” Uni HH Forschung 12 (1980): 89.Google Scholar In his Baukunst und Stadtplanung im Dritten Reich, Petsch argues that “the highest laws of National Socialist architecture are not the fulfillment of functions and the formal and constructive organization of real needs but rather the desired goal is ‘the creation of political consciousness’ through the architectural work of art.…” (206). Gutschow was much more interested in real needs and basic urban functions than political consciousness. For the anti-urbanism of the Nazis, see Taylor, Robert R., The Word in Stone: The Role of Architecture in the National Socialist Ideology (Berkeley, 1974), 250ff.Google Scholar

54. ASKG/Entlassungsakte, Appendix 37, Oct. 29, 1946.

55. When Hillebrecht and Arthur Därin sent Gutschow a copy of their book, Fundamente des Aufbaues: Organisatorische Grundlagen, Schriftenreihe des Bundes deutscher Architekten, no. 4 (Hamburg, 1948)Google Scholar, they inscribed to “Unserem ‘Führer’ freundlichts überreicht von den alten Mitarbeitern.”

56. Gutschow, Konstanty, “Zum Wettbewerb urn die Hamburger Innenstadt,” Baurundschau 39 (1949): 143.Google Scholar

57. Interview of Albert Speer by E. Jack Neuman, Heidelberg, Jan 4, 1977, p. 50 of transcription. Mr. Neuman kindly made transcriptions of the interviews available to me.

58. See Dyckhoff, Peter, “Manhattan an der Elbe,” Stern, no. 36 (09. 1, 1983).Google Scholar