Was Albert Speer a phoney?

Fuinseog

He was one of Hitler's best friends, yet claimed he tried to assassinate him. He referred to Hitler as a criminal yet served him loyally. The man appears to be a mass of contradictions.

marcsignal

Slippery customer, poacher turned gamekeeper imo.

Goering was putting up a fight at the Nuremberg Trials, and it looked, at one stage, as if the whole thing was in danger of going tits up.
Speer, on the stand, accepted a collective responsibility for the crimes of the regime. This knocked Goering from his pedastal, and completely undermined his hold over the other defendants.

Speer got jail time, and his subordinate Fritz Saukel got the rope.

anyone else get that wiff ???

Mahatma coat

I maintain that Speer was a Classic Pragmatic Psychopath, he really didnt give a Rattilin F*** about anyone else except Albert Speer, remember that he didnt sign up with the NSDAP until they were a well established force in Germany, he seems mainly to have been concerned with his Vanity projects in the beginning, and towards the end as Armaments Minister it would seem that he revelled in the challenges of increasing Military output whilst the Reich was being bombed to oblivion.

He and the Fuhrer had a Strong friendshipbased IMO on the birds of a feather principle

Watch him on the 'World at War' doccos, he comes across as charming but distant.


That said I really like some of his architectural designs, but then I'm a sucker for big Square imposing structures.

marcsignal

Mahatma coat wrote: »

I maintain that Speer was a Classic Pragmatic Psychopath, he really didnt give a Rattilin F*** about anyone else except Albert Speer

well yeah, he certainly knew how to look after No.1. I reckon he coldly saw the writing on the wall during the trial, and safely assumed they wouldn't be getting asbos, but the full monty, in most cases. He was a shrewd man. Although, when it comes down to the wire, who, put in the same position, wouldn't do whatever they could to avoid the rope? He was either very ruthless, or the worst kind of traitor, whatever way you want to look at it.

ejmaztec

He should be nominated posthumously for an Oscar.

marcsignal

ejmaztec wrote: »

He should be nominated posthumously for an Oscar.

I think he played the court, and the Psychologist G M Gilbert like a banjo.

Mahatma coat

I dunno about calling him a Traitor, Treason implies loyalty o something other than Alber Speer's continued existance.

Pragmatisim would be the word I'd use, He didnt join the NDSAP until it was pecieved by him to be advantageous to Albert Speer, He turned a blind Eye to the Forced Labour Camps because it Benefited Albert Speer, he Befriended Hitler because it Benefited Albert Speer, he Turned on his Former allies because Percieved Contrition benifitted Albert Speer.

There may be a case for explaining the actions of other members of the regime who Believed that what they were doing was of Benefit to the Greater good of the German people, but in Speers case I would doubt he ever thought past his own self interest.

jonniebgood1

Mahatma coat wrote: »

That said I really like some of his architectural designs, but then I'm a sucker for big Square imposing structures.

Totalitarian art was impressive. The stand off at the 1937 world exhibition in Paris was a sign of things to come. Speers entry for Germany stood against the Soviet entry (Boris Iofan) in front of the eifel tower. The similarities between the 2 entries are obvious from photos.




Speer was a very clever man, a real opportunist. In 'Albert Speer: His Battle With Truth' by Gitta sereny, his life is intricatly examined. It is heavy going but she suggests that he was hiding past experiences that he had, even from himself.

marcsignal

Architecture has certainly featured highly in the Speer family. Despite who his father was, it didn't seem to thwart his sons ambitions.
Albert Jr. has made a major contribution to some of the buildings/stadia for the Quatar 2022 World Cup

Interesting I thought.

Blisterman

Weird coincidence to see this thread, since I've literally just finished his book "Inside the Third Reich".

The impression I got throughout was of a man desperately trying to create a positive legacy for himself. His ignorance of the concentration camps seems pretty unbelievable.

And apparently photos of Hitler's bunker contradict Speer's description of a ventilation inlet he could have poured cyanide into.

Interesting nonetheless to get an insight into Hitler's personality.

Morlar

His architecture was very impressive, as were his Cathedral of Light and management of the Nuremberg events. To my tastes there is certainly no soviet equivalent, nor does his work fit into some kind of generalised 'totalitarian including communist architectural school'. His wartime organisational abilities in managing production output were, by all accounts, very impressive. Despite massively increasing air-raids he was consistently able to increase munitions output.

His book is also one of the most interesting of that period. His refusal to lay waste to Germany (by the scorched earth destroying of infrastructure) in the final weeks, and the fact that he (apparently) clearly stated this to Hitler personally also stand in his favour. I think from the final weeks of the war he was in 'personal survival' mode and remained that way throughout the rest of the Nuremberg trials. I think in the final analysis he went with the flow when it suited him, and was astute enough and ideologically flexible enough to do what was required in order to survive the post-war period. I don't think he was ever that much of a real nazi to begin with. I'd imagine there were a lot of people at all levels who fit that category.

jonniebgood1

Morlar wrote: »

His architecture was very impressive, as were his Cathedral of Light and management of the Nuremberg events. To my tastes there is certainly no soviet equivalent, nor does his work fit into some kind of generalised 'totalitarian including communist architectural school'.

There are many equivalents and comparisons between the 2. Also there are many similarities between the 2 countries in how the movements were for a short period of time. We need to look at many unrealised works to see how the architects of the era sought to achieve power through their architecture. This is true for both countries. For Germany we have Speers plans for Germania and the Nuremburg (Zepellin field). The dominant vertical emphasis in these is repeated in almost all of speers architecture. This simplest of traits is also evident in all of the Vysotki in Moscow (google stalins seven sisters if you are not familiar with these). It is also seen in unrealised works of other totalitarian era proposals from Soviet Russia such as the massive palace of the Soviets or the works of the vesnin brothers or Leonidov's heavy industry building. Similar examples can be seen in earlier Soviet works of Konstantin Melnikov from the mid 1920's to mid 1930's. In actual fact totalitarian architecture in many countries is quite easily defined by a small number of features such as impressive physical size, details features/ statues, emblems of regime, vertical columns, use of lighting, etc. This is true not just in Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia but in many other totalitarian regimes. Germany and Russia are just the best known of these.
The insistence on totalitarian architecture in both countries was developed at the behest of the leaders, Stalin and Hitler and followed roughly the same timeframe although lasting slightly longer in the USSR. The insistence on this type of style also came at the expense of more acclaimed architectural styles, Soviet realism in USSR and the Bauhaus School in Germany. These are well established opinions. The Bauhaus school is still relevent in modern architectural styles but was closed by the Nazi's http://www.germanculture.com.ua/library/weekly/aa022101a.htm
Socialist realism was widely acclaimed but many of its Architects were isolated by Stalin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konstantin_Melnikov .


Zeppelin field- vertical emphasis of columns combined with impressive physical bulk


Novosibirsk Opera and Ballet Theatre has the same characteristics

Mahatma coat

an argument could be made re Totalatarian Architecture that the simmilarities lie in the fact that a lot of it is heavily influenced by Roman Architecture, the High pillars and comanding stone presence of the buildings, however there are generally clear distinctions in the styles of the Nazi's and the Soviets.
I would se the architecture of the regimes as a reflection of their ethos
most of the Nazi stuff is Big facades concealing rather minimalst structures which lack depth, the Soviet stuf by comparison whilst also unnescessarily Big in nature is a lot more cluttered internaly.

jonniebgood1

Mahatma coat wrote: »

an argument could be made re Totalatarian Architecture that the simmilarities lie in the fact that a lot of it is heavily influenced by Roman Architecture, the High pillars and comanding stone presence of the buildings, however there are generally clear distinctions in the styles of the Nazi's and the Soviets.
I would se the architecture of the regimes as a reflection of their ethos
most of the Nazi stuff is Big facades concealing rather minimalst structures which lack depth, the Soviet stuf by comparison whilst also unnescessarily Big in nature is a lot more cluttered internaly.

What were the clear distinctions?

They (Hitler & Stalin) essentially wanted to express the strength of their nations through their buildings

laoch na mona

he only cared about himself if he was Russian he would have worked for stalin
his legacy is all he cared about imo

Blisterman

Mahatma coat wrote: »

an argument could be made re Totalatarian Architecture that the simmilarities lie in the fact that a lot of it is heavily influenced by Roman Architecture, the High pillars and comanding stone presence of the buildings, however there are generally clear distinctions in the styles of the Nazi's and the Soviets.
I would se the architecture of the regimes as a reflection of their ethos
most of the Nazi stuff is Big facades concealing rather minimalst structures which lack depth, the Soviet stuf by comparison whilst also unnescessarily Big in nature is a lot more cluttered internaly.

Ironically Roman architecture was also used in many of the early United States public buildings because they saw Rome as the first true democracy.

Goes to show how the same thing can be interpreted two completely opposing ways.

Morlar

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

........ see how the architects of the era sought to achieve power through their architecture. This is true for both countries. For Germany we have Speers plans for Germania and the Nuremburg (Zepellin field). The dominant vertical emphasis in these is repeated in almost all of speers architecture. This simplest of traits is also evident in all of the Vysotki in Moscow (google stalins seven sisters if you are not familiar with these).

The fact that the NSDAP movement sought to project power and status with it’s architectural projects, coupled with the fact that this was also a desire of the communists does not therefore establish that the architectural style of both regimes are similar.

The example you pointed to of the seven sisters was a) built post-war finishing in 1953, b) doesn’t really look similar to any of the iconic Third Reich structures or plans.

I think you are muddling classical Roman influence with commonality between the regimes in terms of style or structure. In short the TR ones were superior, they were cleaner and more classical looking, less cluttered. It’s also interesting to note that the TR ones were built with longevity in mind, they were designed so that when the fell to ruins a thousand years down the road there would be no ugly rusting iron struts sticking out of the ruins.

If you can point to any side by side comparisons for each of these I would be interested to see them (aside from the opera house one you posted which seems a poor copy). I would also include the orchestration and stage management of the Nuremberg rallies as a key factor in this:
Here are some Third Reich architectural examples, this includes finished projects and projects interrupted by or scheduled for after the war (also the rallies)

Nuremberg Rallies:







Munich Ehrentempel (parts of this survive but overgrown) :



Germania:








Olympic Stadium :



Reichs Chancellery :








...

Morlar

...
Zeppelin field:





Cathedral of Light :







Kongresshalle (not Speer) :



There are more examples here :

http://www.darkroastedblend.com/2009/02/totalitarian-architecture-of-third.html

To see what they look like today, this is an excellent reference site :

http://www.thirdreichruins.com/

jonniebgood1

Blisterman wrote: »

Ironically Roman architecture was also used in many of the early United States public buildings because they saw Rome as the first true democracy.

Goes to show how the same thing can be interpreted two completely opposing ways.

The architecture of both Rome and more often ancient Greece is often linked to many subsequent styles. I have often read how Nazi architecture was influenced by classical Roman Architecture. The reason for this is that all these styles are linked to the principles behind the 'golden mean'. Just about every building built even nowadays links back to this. If you see a building which looks odd, it is most likely built with disregard to this mathematical ratio.

jonniebgood1

Morlar wrote: »

The example you pointed to of the seven sisters was a) built post-war finishing in 1953, b) doesn’t really look similar to any of the iconic Third Reich structures or plans.

I think you are muddling classical Roman influence with commonality between the regimes in terms of style or structure. In short the TR ones were superior, they were cleaner and more classical looking, less cluttered. It’s also interesting to note that the TR ones were built with longevity in mind, they were designed so that when the fell to ruins a thousand years down the road there would be no ugly rusting iron struts sticking out of the ruins.

If you can point to any side by side comparisons for each of these I would be interested to see them (aside from the opera house one you posted which seems a poor copy). I would also include the orchestration and stage management of the Nuremberg rallies as a key factor in this:
Here are some Third Reich architectural examples, this includes finished projects and projects interrupted by or scheduled for after the war (also the rallies)

...

The seven sisters were built with the idea of showing the world how powerful mother Russia really was. This monumentalism was similar to what occured in Hitlers time. As I said already the period of this style lasted longer in USSR, until Stalins death. It ended in Germany in 1945 obviously. That they ended in these years shows that they were both forced styles rather than natural developed styles as per the examples of Bauhaus and Soviet realism.
If you want a comparison to the nuremburg rallies then I suggest the over the top parades through red square. Direct comparisons between projects are always going to be a more difficult thing although elements can be compared. The easiest comparison is the Soviet and Nazi pavilions from the 1937 paris expo. see images:
Soviet pavilion by Iofan.

German pavilion by Speer

I am not particularly bothered to argue which is better, Nazi or Soviet monumentalist Architecture- it would seem a bit churlish. Both were indicative more of the wishes of their leader rather than anything else. In other words they were the Architectural manifestation of 2 evil regimes.

Mahatma coat

I really dont get how you see simmilarities btwent those two designs besides the obvious, they're both stone and kinda tall

the German pavilion espouses an air of authoritarity and dominance with its echos of Roman design, the clean crisp lines and the eagle on top all echo the Nazi ethos

The soviet pavilion is more 'modern' it has many lines and is somewhat confused and unnescessarily complex. couple that with the Freakin Huge Statue of Patriotic soviets on top espousing the Soviet Ethos of Harmony and hard work

These are two very different designs meant to represet two very diferent philosophies

Morlar

You have already posted those 2 pavilion pictures.

Aside from vague generalities like ... 'vertical lines'. . . . 'desire to project power' . . . there are no concrete (hehe), meaningful comparisons between the TR architectural ethos & style and Stalinist/Communist architecture. Certainly not the flagship TR projects and anything communism was producing at that time. I would also reject the notion that the mayday parades had any meaningful comparisons to the Nuremberg rallies.

Mahatma coat

That Cathederal of lights photo reminds me

Why did no one take some of The Americans aside and remind them about it whenthey first did this

jonniebgood1

Morlar wrote: »

You have already posted those 2 pavilion pictures.

Aside from vague generalities like ... 'vertical lines'. . . . 'desire to project power' . . . there are no concrete (hehe), meaningful comparisons between the TR architectural ethos & style and Stalinist/Communist architecture. Certainly not the flagship TR projects and anything communism was producing at that time. I would also reject the notion that the mayday parades had any meaningful comparisons to the Nuremberg rallies.

Generalities are what form an Architectural style. Whether you call it monumentalism or totalitarianist architecture it is a recurring style. If some people here see a reason to deny the similarities then that is there own business. I have studied these styles for almost 12 years and the similarities are fascinating given the ideological differences between the 2 regimes.

If someone wants to tell me they are 2 distinct styles (as per mahatma's earlier post) they need to point out the differences between the '2' styles as opposed to simplistic statements such as saying the german buildings were better quality.
So what were the distinctions then?

jonniebgood1

An opinion on the 1937 pavilions similarities

In Paris in 1937, the enormous marble-clad Soviet pavilion was crowned with Vera Mukhina's iconic sculpture of a worker and peasant holding a hammer and a sickle. It faced the equally monumental pavilion of Nazi Germany, designed by Hitler's architect Albert Speer, in a symbolic confrontation that echoed the struggle between socialism and fascism then being played out in the Spanish Civil War. Inside the Soviet pavilion visitors were introduced to socialism's achievements in a series of halls containing tractors, automobiles, models of dams, industrial complexes and the new Moscow metro, statistics on economic growth and social welfare provision, and lots of socialist realist art. Exhibits on the 1936 'Stalin Constitution' highlighted the Soviet Union's purported democratic credentials, while a huge jewelled map of the Soviet Union wowed the public with its lavish use of rubies and diamonds. In contrast to other national pavilions, however, there were very few consumer goods on display, and those that were failed to make much of an impression on the French. The Soviet pavilion attracted enormous attention at the fair and drew around 20 million visitors, as did Germany's pavilion http://www.factotum.org.uk/projects/thefair/fair08.html

Architecture used as propaganda:

Repressive measures were not the only means used by Nazis or Soviet Communists to draw people into the collective effort. Both regimes sought to concert all efforts by "positive" measures. There were parallels here, too. Communists employ propaganda on a massive scale. Indeed, the language, the literature, the arts, and even the architecture is permeated with propaganda. Communists have long opposed the idea of "art for art’s sake." The practical meaning of this is that art exists for ideological, political, and propagandic reasons. They are equally opposed to food for food’s sake, tractors for tractors‘ sake, clothing for clothing’s sake, sports for sports‘ sake, and so on. Everything that is produced and brought into being is for the glorification of communism: production is for the statistics of production (gross national product, as we would say); victories of Soviet athletes show the superiority of communism; tractors demonstrate the progress of Russia under communism. Foreign newsmen are apt to be accused of spying when they take pictures in the Soviet Union. Their offense, one suspects, is that they may get such pictures published without the propaganda gloss which is necessary to "understanding" them.



The Nazis used propaganda as vigorously and extensively as any regime ever has. Joseph Goebbels undertook to see that every medium of expression was used to glorify the Aryan race, the German people, the Nazis, and Hitler. Nazis probably were much more successful in drawing the people into and making them a part of the propaganda than communists have been. German might became visible by way of goose-stepping soldiers marching through the streets or massing at some rally. But millions of Germans who were not in the army wore uniforms. Eventually, nearly all children belonged to the Hitler Youth between the ages of 10 and 18. There was the SA and the elite corps of SS in their uniforms. The ideal German, German history, and German exploits were depicted in song, in story, in film, on canvas and, if it could be done, in architecture. The Third Reich was supposed to last for a thousand years, a millennium, according to Nazi propaganda, and its enduring foundation was being laid by Hitler. http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/world-in-the-grip-of-an-idea-12-nazi-soviet-parallels-part-2/

And heres a book on the subject http://www.amazon.com/Totalitarian-Soviet-Fascist-Peoples-Republic/dp/0064332667

Morlar

Morlar wrote: »

You have already posted those 2 pavilion pictures.

Aside from vague generalities like ... 'vertical lines'. . . . 'desire to project power' . . . there are no concrete (hehe), meaningful comparisons between the TR architectural ethos & style and Stalinist/Communist architecture. Certainly not the flagship TR projects and anything communism was producing at that time. I would also reject the notion that the mayday parades had any meaningful comparisons to the Nuremberg rallies.

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Generalities are what form an Architectural style. Whether you call it monumentalism or totalitarianist architecture it is a recurring style. If some people here see a reason to deny the similarities then that is there own business. I have studied these styles for almost 12 years and the similarities are fascinating given the ideological differences between the 2 regimes.

If someone wants to tell me they are 2 distinct styles (as per mahatma's earlier post) they need to point out the differences between the '2' styles as opposed to simplistic statements such as saying the german buildings were better quality.
So what were the distinctions then?

If you are seeking to establish a theory the way to do it is not to challenge others to disprove it.

You need to put forward the case FOR the theory to begin with.

This is not to mention the fact that your theory is vague and ill defined.

Essentially it seems to amount to 'TR and communist architectural styles are very similair' - can you clarify if this is actually your theory ? If so what do you base this on ?

At least then the discussion can be clarified.

Whatever your theory is you have not even done this clearly, you are talking a lot of fluff which amounts to very little substance.

Some random points no one is debating :

a) Both regimes used architecture as a form of propaganda to project power
b) Both regimes to a greater or lesser extent used vertical lines in architecture


No one has particularly argued against those points. At the same time they are irrelevant in proving your theory.

Another non relevant point of similarity between the two regimes (architecturally speaking) is that both regimes put roofs on most of their buildings.

Points such as those do not prove your case and amount to a very different thing from saying you have established a case that others need to disprove.

You have accused other people of trying to deny the similarities, however the similarities you refer to are in the motivating factors behind the architecture, and have nothing to do with the architectural style itself. It could just as easily be argued that you are trying to downgrade the aesthetic merits of TR architecture while elevating Stalinist architecture to the same level, no ?

jonniebgood1

Morlar wrote: »

If you are seeking to establish a theory the way to do it is not to challenge others to disprove it.

You need to put forward the case FOR the theory to begin with.

This is not to mention the fact that your theory is vague and ill defined.

Essentially it seems to amount to 'TR and communist architectural styles are very similair' - can you clarify if this is actually your theory ? If so what do you base this on ?

At least then the discussion can be clarified.

Whatever your theory is you have not even done this clearly, you are talking a lot of fluff which amounts to very little substance.

Some random points no one is debating :

a) Both regimes used architecture as a form of propaganda to project power
b) Both regimes to a greater or lesser extent used vertical lines in architecture


No one has particularly argued against those points. At the same time they are irrelevant in proving your theory.

Another non relevant point of similarity between the two regimes (architecturally speaking) is that both regimes put roofs on most of their buildings.

Points such as those do not prove your case and amount to a very different thing from saying you have established a case that others need to disprove.

You have accused other people of trying to deny the similarities, however the similarities you refer to are in the motivating factors behind the architecture, and have nothing to do with the architectural style itself. It could just as easily be argued that you are trying to downgrade the aesthetic merits of TR architecture while elevating Stalinist architecture to the same level, no ?

You are essentially arguing that a recognised architectural style (by extension of arts) should be divided into 2 separate recognised architectural styles. Your argument is not based on reality. In any case it if way off the OP topic. If anyone is genuinely interested in Totalitarian art and architecture then it is a fascinating subject that has links even to modern say dictatorships. I recommend 'Totalitarian art', Igor Golomstock (previously linked) and particularly 'Melnikov: Solo Architect in a Mass Society' by S. Frederick Starr. A brief summary of the style is contained in Jonathan Glanceys 'Story of Architecture'.
That (I hope) is the end of my input on the subject.

Morlar

Third reich architecture and stalinist architecture are not the same thing & you have yet to establish any meaningful stylistic similarities.

Saying they have matching motivational factors, 'the use of architecture as a propaganda method to project power and status', this is a given.

However this clearly is not proof of your point that they are stylistically similar, or even that they are artistically at the same level.

You have failed to respond to any of the points raised in every single post that disagrees with you so far, instead you throw booknames and pavillion references back into the thread repeatedly.

I will ask you again - if they are so similar point to a few side by side examples where one iconic, prestige project of the TR period matches the communist style of the same timeframe ? This excludes the isolated instances of temporary pavillion designs from the 1937 worlds fair, (if you think that is proof of your point then you are mistaken).

Blisterman

Well I'd give one important similarity as being that they are both characterised by exaggerated scale, as can be seen in most of the photos above.

By contrast, most other classically inspired architecture strove to be of human scale and proportion.

Morlar

Blisterman wrote: »

Well I'd give one important similarity as being that they are both characterised by exaggerated scale, as can be seen in most of the photos above.

By contrast, most other classically inspired architecture strove to be of human scale and proportion.

I believe the common feature of the use of oversized scale is to enforce the notion that the state that is vast and all powerful, it is beyond the scope of the tiny, powerless individual citizen.

Perhaps that's a common ideological feature, or even requirement of both regimes ?

Much as both regimes/ideologies (Nazism and Communinsm) have occasional overlap in terms of motivation or even function, both regimes were fundamentally different in character. Likewise with their architecture in my view. Certainly a similarity in style, taste or artistic level has not been established.

This (example above) would (I believe) fall under the previous category of ;

'use of architecture as propaganda to project power'

which is accepted to be a common motivating factor.

Stylistically it's not an element as such, the way both regimes used their architecture to project power and the style and character/ethos of the buildings are not the same. As mentioned there do not seem to be any instances where flagship /prestige architectural projects of the Third Reich period have a comparable Communist equivalent.

If there are any I would genuinely be interested to see them (pavillion entries notwithstanding) but the fact remains we are talking about 2 seperate and distinct styles that each have a character of their own.

Morlar

If you take it down in scale from the monster mega-projects to local buildings, there is still a distinct flavour which is hard to misidentify.

I am not talking about bland featureless, functional buildings devoid of architectural style (like a shed, barracks or an aircraft hanger).

I am specifically referring to buildings which would fit the category or 'Communist Architecture' or the category of 'Third Reich Architecture', not just ANY building of that timeframe from either territory.

By way of example I collect ww2 photo albums which often have pictures of buildings both in Germany and USSR, usually they are not captioned with information about where they were taken. I don't recall ever looking at an uncaptioned picture had to ask myself is that photograph showing USSR architecture or Third Reich ?

Likewise I spend time on collector forums where other photo collectors will also have pictures of unidentified cities and buldings, I don't recall there ever being an instance where people in any of those forums could not tell a piece of Communist Architecture from a piece of Third Reich Architecture. It's possible such examples exsist (outside the previously mentioned featureless buildings like aircraft hangers etc) but if they do I would say they are in the tiniest minority. I can not recall any at the moment.

. .

Here are a couple of examples of NSDAP Architecture and Communist Architecture, (please ignore the party symbols and idenfitying uniforms - it's clear which is which & that is not the point).

Would you agree that stylistically one type is far more sober and reflective, more in the direction of classical when compared to the other which is more overly action filled and dramatic ? Would you say they were different in terms of style, ethos and character ?

P.S. I chose these examples because they are both public buildings with 2 statues of men outside, also they have never been identified (middle one is Tannenberg, now in poland destroyed by the retreating Wehrmacht).

BlaasForRafa

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

The seven sisters were built with the idea of showing the world how powerful mother Russia really was. This monumentalism was similar to what occured in Hitlers time. As I said already the period of this style lasted longer in USSR, until Stalins death. It ended in Germany in 1945 obviously. That they ended in these years shows that they were both forced styles rather than natural developed styles as per the examples of Bauhaus and Soviet realism.

Your missing something important about the seven sisters. Stalin wanted to show the power of the soviet state to his own people, not to the outside world. Do you think the USA would give a crap about the Seven sisters when it had the Empire State Building, Chrysler Building and dozens of other skyscrapers in New York alone and thats not even counting Chicago, Philadelphia, Cincinnati etc.

The soviets were decades behind in skyscraper technology at this time, while the seven sisters were being built, the americans were building the United Nations building and the Lever House building, both examples of the International style which was heavily influenced by the Bauhaus style of Mies Van der Rohe and Walter Gropius.

Compare


To


They're both pleasing in their own ways but the soviet building is heavily over-engineered and way way behind in design terms. The story goes that Stalin was very impressed by pictures of the Manhattan Municipal building and ordered that his architects base the designs of the seven sisters on it. The Manhattan Municipal Building was built in 1913. Its also taller than any of the Soviet buildings

jonniebgood1

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Your missing something important about the seven sisters. Stalin wanted to show the power of the soviet state to his own people, not to the outside world.

I would say that it was aimed at both but if you have a source to show he was more concerned about internal views then feel free to post it.

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

They're both pleasing in their own ways but the soviet building is heavily over-engineered and way way behind in design terms. The story goes that Stalin was very impressed by pictures of the Manhattan Municipal building and ordered that his architects base the designs of the seven sisters on it. The Manhattan Municipal Building was built in 1913. Its also taller than any of the Soviet buildings

I dont think this is correct. I think a couple of the seven sisters were taller, certainly the Moscow state University is. It was the tallest building in europe until 1990 when a tower in Frankfurt passed it out.

For oversize structures see the proposed palace of the Soviets proposal


Size comparison of the statue of Lenin at the top

Morlar

To contrast those 'BIG' ones I'd recommend this clip (at fullscreen with sound) to get an idea of how the Speer/Hitler postwar architectural plans were all designed to come together :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOXmrVR00RI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOXmrVR00RI

Odd that this clip has only had 100 views as it is probably one of the best I have seen on this subject.
. . .

Here is another, it's a excerpt from a BBC Speer interview where he briefly mentions Germania :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1C56wwgNk0