Three New Deals Reflections on Roosevelts America Mussolinis Italy and Hitlers Germany 1933-1939 About the Author Wolfgang Schivelbusch winner of the Heinrich Mann Prize Germanys most prestigious nonfiction award is an independent scholar who divides his time between New York and Berlin. His books include The Railway Journey Disenchanted Night and The Culture of Defeat 0-312-42319-5 called a work of brooding brilliance by TheNew York Times. Read more Excerpt. Reprinted by permission. All rights reserved. IntroductionOn ComparisonsIn September 1946 Sigfried Giedion probably the most renowned historian of modern architecture gave a lecture before the Royal Institute of British Architects in London. The editors of the Architectural Review were so taken with Giedions ideas that they convened a symposium to discuss them inviting such leading architects and architectural historians as Walter Gropius Henry-Russell Hitchcock Gregor Paulsson William Holford Lucio Costa and Alfred Roth as well as Giedion himself. The symposium took for its title that of Gideons original lecture The Need for a New Monumentality. For the first time in the history of modern architecture the discipline was subjecting itself to fundamental self-criticism. The chief insight to emerge was that modernists in their struggle against the historicism of the nineteenth century had perhaps focused too exclusively on architectures technical functional side to the exclusion of the complex set of desires and expectations that transcends everyday utility and distinguishes architecture from mechanics or engineering. The people wrote Giedion want buildings representing their social ceremonial and community life. They want their buildings to be more than a functional fulfillment. They seek the expression of their aspiration for joy for luxury and for excitement. Monumentality consists in the eternal need of the people to create symbols that reveal their inner life their actions and their social conceptions. . . . This demand for monumentality cannot in the long run be suppressed.1 Most of the participants agreed that they should have been more receptive to such expectations in the years before World War II. In the wake of World War I modern architects had aspired to provide structural expressions of social revolution to the masses by and for whom it had been carried out. But the masses had never understood--much less liked--modern architecture. And during the Great Depression capitalisms period of crisis they were drawn to modernisms bitterest enemies National Socialism and Fascism because these offered them something they wanted and needed something that modernism had refused to provide them monumentality. The conflation of monumental--that is backward-looking neoclassical--architecture with the Third Reich and the other totalitarian regimes of the twentieth century reflects the political and ideological oppositions of the 1920s and 30s--as does the association of modern architecture with liberal democracy and the social-welfare state. The underlying assumptions entailed therein remained unquestioned into the 1970s. Even as late as the 1990s Bruno Zevi the Italian patriarch of modern architecture expressed disgust and contempt for an academic conference devoted to 1930s--read Fascist totalitarian--neoclassicism. In an article in the leading Italian architecture journal Larchitettura he accused the organizers of obfuscation ignorance arrogance and idiocy adding that the conference didnt deserve to be taken seriously because it promoted excrement shit vomit and spew.2 For decades critics ignored or chose to ignore the fact that neither Italian Fascism nor early Soviet Communism fit the paradigm. They also disregarded the affinities many leading practitioners of the modernist New Architecture movement in Germany--including Mies van der Rohe--had felt with Fascism during the initial years of the Third Reich. It took an entire generation after World War II before scholars as part of a general effort to locate Nazism within a wider historical context came to todays consensus that the earlier equations were too simplistic. Suddenly they woke up to the fact that neoclassical monumental buildings had been constructed in Washington Paris London and Geneva during the 1930s just as they had in Berlin Moscow and Rome. They recognized that Mussolinis program of architectural functionalism or rationalism was nothing other than an extension of modernism and that even the Third Reich the great exemplar of antimodern philistinism had taken a modernist approach when dealing with function rather than representation. They acknowledged that there had been architecturally modern Fascists and architecturally traditional liberals and that 1930s neoclassical monumentalism was just as widespread as the modernism that the Museum of Modern Art had dubbed the International Style in 1932. Instead of reducing neoclassicism to a side effect of totalitarianism scholars became more interested in how various national political and ideological systems applied what Giorgio Ciucci calls the specific aesthetics of power.3 Architectural historian Louis Craigs term government international sums up this style well as does Franco Borsis assertion that monumental architecture could signify equally the strength of the institutions in the democracies and the aggressive power of the state in the dictatorships.4 Critics began to ask why a majority of democratic nations in 1927 rejected modernist designs for the headquarters of the League of Nations choosing instead a neoclassical monumental one why the Third Republic in France built the neoclassical Palais de Chaillot for the 1937 Worlds Fair and why the architecture of Washington D.C. received a monumentalist infusion under Roosevelts New Deal. The answers were the same. Scholars gradually recognized neoclassical monumentalism--whether of the 1930s the Renaissance the French Revolution or the Napoleonic empire--for what it is the architectural style in which the state visually manifests power and authority. Although neoclassicism temporarily lost its hold with the rise of nineteenth-century liberal capitalism in which the state restricted itself to a supervisory role and allowed the private sector to determine architectural aesthetics it regained it in the twentieth century beginning with increased state regulation of the economy in the years before World War I continuing through the states mobilization of the economy during the war and culminating with its near-total intervention during the Depression.* The various state solutions to that crisis amounted to a defeat for liberal capitalism and a triumph for governmental authority. Both the revolutionary states of Bolshevism and Fascism as well as the reformist ones of the capitalist democracies needed an architecture that would tower on behalf of but also above the people like a temple inspiring trust respect and a quasi-religious sense of deeper meaning and community--while at the same time showing the rest of the world who it was dealing with. A concrete embodiment of the competition between political systems was the constellation formed by the three most spectacular buildings at the 1937 Worlds Fair in Paris. The monumental Palais de Chaillot for which the government of the Third Republic had torn down the old Trocadéro was strategically placed at the end of the central axis flanked by the massive pavilions of the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. The Palais symbolized Frances self-perception as a major power unwilling to back down before the two dictatorships or rather firmly holding center stage while shunting its rivals off to the sides.5 The primary sites for monumental construction and self-representation in the 1930s were capitals. Paris had already undergone a major monumental reconstruction under Georges-Eugène Haussmann in the 1860s and could thus be left relatively untouched. But in Germany the Soviet Union and Italy the regimes planned Haussmannesque transformations of Berlin Moscow and Rome. With varying degrees of radicalism roads were constructed and expanded and urban thoroughfares were laid out in widths previously reserved for city squares. Quaint old buildings derided by Mussolini as picturesque garbage were torn down to make room for colossi such as the Hall of the People in Nazi Berlin and the Soviet Palace in Moscow which aimed to set new records for height and volume.6 The Soviet Palace for instance was to stand over 1 345 feet tall crowned by a 229-foot statue of Lenin. Finally city planners implemented state measures concerning traffic and hygiene suggested by prominent Sovietophile architects such as Corbusier Gropius and Ernst May. These were plans of war as Lazar Kaganovich the man Stalin put in charge of the redevelopment of Moscow characterized the Soviet General Plan of 1935.7 The enemy that was to be eradicated was the laissez-faire architectural legacy of nineteenth-century liberalism an unplanned jumble of styles and structures. Not every regime pursued this struggle with the same resolve and nowhere was total victory achieved. Fascism made the least progress toward its stated goal--assuming it was meant seriously--of tearing down much of Romes medieval Renaissance and Baroque architecture and uncovering the antique city which would then be blended in with new monumental structures.8 Adolf Hitler and Albert Speers attempt to replace Berlin with a new Nazi capital called Germania was hardly more successful largely because military defeat interrupted construction before it could truly get under way. It was Stalinism that best succeeded in giving the national capital the desired face-lift. But even in Moscow the states most ambitious project the Soviet Palace was never realized. Washington D.C. saw a similar rash of construction projects. Most of the large-scale neoclassical buildings associated with the city of today were built between 1933 and 1939. They include the Federal Triangle the National Gallery the National Archives the Supreme Court Building various departmental and other government buildings the Smithsonian Museum complex and the Jefferson Memorial. In contrast to concurrent activity in Berlin Rome and Moscow and to Haussmanns remodeling of Paris seventy years earlier the basic layout of the city remained unchanged and no historical buildings were demolished. For more than a hundred years Washington had remained an impressive network of streets with a small village attached. What took place in the 1930s then was neither a war against the existing city nor a renewal based on the destruction of a previous urban layer but the architectural closing of empty spaces that had long been reserved for the construction of the capital. The work undertaken between 1933 and 1939 explicitly harkened back to a plan for Washington conceived in 1902 that plan in turn was based on one drawn up in 1791 at George Washingtons behest by architect Pierre Charles LEnfant who had fought with the Continental Army in the Revolutionary War. Raised at Versailles LEnfant brought to the job his childhood impressions of the Baroque palace gardens with their broad avenues and their interplay of straight curved and diagonal lines which yielded an impressive variety of perspectives. Architectural historian John W. Reps has described it as a supreme irony that an architectural style originally conceived to magnify the glories of despotic kings and emperors came to be applied as a national symbol of a country whose philosophical basis was so firmly rooted in democratic equality.9 It is no less ironic that the Baroque monumentality LEnfant imported from Europe to America allowed the city of Washington to make the transition to the twentieth century with far less destruction than in the European capitals. The vision for Washington essentially took a giant leap from pre- to postliberal monumentalism. Daniel Burnham the man behind the 1902 plan 10 summed up his philosophy in a curt imperative worthy of any of Hitler Mussolini or Stalins urban developers Make no little plans they have no power to stir mens souls.11***There are two lessons to be derived from the history of 1930s monumental architecture and its varying reception in the decades after 1945. The first shows how the same stylistic formal and technological developments--within architecture and elsewhere--can be used to serve radically different political systems. The second lesson demonstrates how poorly later generations are able to distinguish between form and content especially when the object of historical study as is the case with a defeated dictatorship elicits general condemnation. Little has changed since Hegels complaint about the flaw in abstract thinking that it cannot conceive of a handsome murderer. Around the time that simplistic equations of monumentalism and totalitarianism fell out of fashion historical research took a new direction. Fascism National Socialism and Stalinism were no longer seen as examples of sheer evil and the complexities of their economic social psychological and cultural structures came in for closer examination. Scholars discovered that Fascism and Nazism possessed alongside their repressive and murderous tendencies a social-egalitarian component and that the mass popularity of both regimes in the 1930s was due more to the latter than to the former. This scholarly recognition of the socialist side of National Socialism as well as the engagement with Nazisms belief that its racial doctrine entailed the promise of equality for all members of the German people or Volk seemed shocking only because that side of Nazism had been so fully suppressed after 1945. Much the same process--in reverse--was evident in reevaluations of U.S. history. The New Deal idealized as the heroic benevolent alternative to the regimes in Germany and Italy began to attract some criticism. Once historians were willing to consider the multiple components of National Socialism and Fascism instead of merely categorizing both as totalitarian they also began to look beyond the simplistic dichotomy of liberal democracy on the one hand and repressive dictatorship on the other. This new scholarly direction tended to dispatch the legend of Roosevelt as infallible statesman and invited discussion of the New Deal as a series of economic misadventures achieved through the force of mass propaganda and owing its success solely to Americas victory in World War II. Still these revisionist efforts to place the New Deal Fascism and National Socialism in a more differentiated historical context had little impact in all three cases the ideologically inspired visions of the past held sway. The existence of this more nuanced approach could have opened up possibilities for investigating the points of convergence between Fascist Italy Nazi Germany and the deromanticized New Deal. But only on the margins did historians risk these comparisons. In the 1970s there were occasional forays in this direction among American and German historians and in the 1980s among a small school of Italian academics interested in comparing Fascism and the New Deal.12 John A. Garraty a newcomer to the topics of both the New Deal and Nazism published an article in 1973 comparing Roosevelts programs and certain aspects of American political culture during his administration with those of the Third Reich. The affinities Garraty suggested were these a strong leader an ideology stressing the nation the people and the land state control of economic and social affairs and finally the quality and quantity of government propaganda. Garraty was careful to stress the obvious that to compare is not the same as to equate. America during Roosevelts New Deal did not become a one-party state it had no secret police the Constitution remained in force and there were no concentrations camps the New Deal preserved the institutions of the liberal-democratic system that National Socialism abolished.13 For all his careful distinctions however Garratys article published in a major American historical journal found little echo. The scent of sulfur surrounding Hitler and Mussolini was still too strong for historians to approach the facts directly and compare them.Critics in the 1930s did not have the scruples we have today of course they had no way of knowing the genocidal course history would take. They were much more susceptible to the appeal of movements that offered protection--even false protection--against chaos than they were positively attracted to democracy. Or to put it another way the defining historical moment for the mind of the 1930s was not the future defeat of Nazism in 1945 but the Great Depression in 1929. In the wake of global economic disaster there was no particular reason to prefer the political system most closely associated with capitalism--liberal democracy--to new systems that promised a brighter future. On the contrary people were more inclined to ask themselves whether democracy was inevitably doomed by the economic breakdown of liberal capitalism. Indeed the ideas discussed in Europes remaining democracies show how willing many people within the liberal camp were to try to save the situation by jettisoning liberal ballast. Some suggested reintroducing state-directed economies like those during World War I others proposed imitating various Fascist models. In 1933 Harold Macmillan the conservative MP and later British prime minister advocated a broad program of economic reforms that he described as orderly capitalism. Critics argued not without merit that such ideas amounted to corporatism the political system adopted by Italian Fascism.14 Europes democratic left was affected even more profoundly than its liberal center by Nazisms rise to power in Germany. While the leaders of Europes socialist parties were content merely to wring their hands over Hitlers success refusing to acknowledge any failings on their own part the younger party members and intellectuals were harshly self-critical. The most vocal anti-Fascists among the socialists were also those who called for socialism to learn from Fascism and National Socialism. Men like Stafford Cripps in England Marcel Déat and Barthélémy Montagnon in France and Henri de Man in Belgium were united in their contempt for the ossified party apparatus which they saw as having robbed socialism of its spirit and strength. To their minds it was no wonder that the masses that had once rallied behind socialism had been won over by Fascism. Not only had Fascism co-opted socialisms youthful vitality sense of purpose and readiness for conflict and sacrifice it had also united its followers in mass movements whose appeal extended beyond the proletariat.15 As the socialist dissidents saw it the task now was to retake from Fascism what Fascism had taken from socialism or as one might say to conclude the cycle of borrowing begun by Mussolini when he the once ardent socialist created Fascism as his new form of socialism.16***The specific lesson to be learned from Fascism and National Socialism was that it was possible to create a kind of national non-class-specific socialism. Marcel Déat envisioned a form of society that was not yet socialist but no longer capitalist organized into a strong centralized state that controlled capital without appropriating it.17 John Middleton Murry one of the most prominent internal critics of the British Labour Party was optimistic on the question of whether change would be democratic or dictatorial A government of national security which achieves the goal of economic separation of property and control is just as compatible with the preservation of the democratic form as fascist social transformation is with the conservation of political freedoms.Like many of his contemporaries in the early 1930s Murry did not see Fascism as a system that necessarily included repression and terror. For the unorthodox minority of the left Fascism was an intermediary path between socialism and liberalism whose initial propensity toward violence--on the analogy of the French and Russian revolutions--could be explained as the birth pangs of a radical new movement.18 Commentators freely noted areas of convergence among the New Deal Fascism and National Socialism. All three were considered postliberal state-capitalist or state-socialist systems more closely related to one another than to classic Anglo-French liberalism. Hitler Mussolini and Roosevelt were seen as examples of plebiscite-based leadership autocrats who came to power via varying but thoroughly legal means. No one of course failed to recognize the differences between the mass political parties of Fascism and National Socialism with their legions of paramilitary thugs and organized mechanisms of state repression and the pluralistic conglomeration that was the New Deal administration. Yet both liberal and Fascist commentators identified a number of similarities between the socially oriented policies of the New Deal and Fascist ideas of collective consolidation. The consensus among political scientists and economists of the time was that the United States under Roosevelt in the spring and summer of 1933 had in a process of voluntary consolidation transformed itself into a postliberal state. This synchronicity ended with Americas entry into World War II and the Allies victory over Fascism and National Socialism. Memories of the New Deals common roots with its enemies were repressed and postwar America was free to enjoy a myth of immaculate conception when it came to the birth of the liberal-democratic welfare state. Roosevelt no longer named in the same breath with Hitler Mussolini and Stalin posthumously became the patron saint of liberal democracy in its triumphant struggle against the forces of evil.Largely repressed as it has been a comparative perspective on the New Deal on the one hand and the Fascist and National Socialist regimes on the other may now be ripe for reconsideration. Certainly it can begin to provide answers to some of the questions that have persisted in the postwar years How did the New Deal manage to become so successful an alternative to the totalitarian regimes of the 1930s? And what accounts for the widespread allegiances these regimes inspired at least initially? To what extent was the New Deals effectiveness due to its ability to incorporate the very elements that rendered these regimes so popular--a new vision of the nation based on collectivism on economic and social planning and embodied both in a charismatic leader and in monumental public works? The features with which totalitarianism was later most closely identified--political pressure to conform repression state terrorizing of dissidents secret police units and concentration camps--were not the things that made these regimes desirable. The people were attracted by the feeling of being treated as equals instead of being ignored and by the sense that they no longer had to fend for themselves but rather could enjoy the protection security and solidarity afforded by the new classless community of the nation. The New Deal Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany all profited from the illusion of the nation as an egalitarian community whose members looked out for one anothers welfare under the watchful eyes of a strong leader. The intention here is not to suggest that the New Deals vision of national and social collectivism rendered America a version of the Italian or German models. Such an argument would be as absurd as claiming that Fascism and National Socialism were in fact liberal-democratic given their adoption of American methods of advertising and mass persuasion. To identify areas of commonality is not to argue for sameness. As Garrity enjoined to compare is not to equate.Copyright © 2006 by Wolfgang Schivelbusch Read more
AvailabilityIn Stock $8.02
So true
No one would believe we couold have a fascist constirutional republic.
comparison of 3 political cultures
Schivelbusch is an excellent analyst of political culture. He compares Roosevelts new deal with Mussolinis Fascism and H
A truly brilliant book!
This is a truly brilliant book. It highlights the fact that political and economic crises often produce similar results
Good analogy
This book was obviously the predecessor to Jonah Goldmans best selling Liberal Fascism. This is a quick study of reviewi

Products Like Three New Deals Reflections on Roosevelts America Mussolinis Italy and Hitlers Germany 1933-1939

Wedding Headpiece veil, Bridal Back Headpiece, Headpiece for updos, Grecian Hairpiece gold, Wedding Hair Vine, Leaf Halo- ANTHEIA

$295.06 $287.04 Higher

8oz Sandalwood Soy Candle, Scented Candles, Scented Candles, Wood Aroma Candle, Dad gift, relaxing, wood scents, man candle, for him, Mens

$16.95 $8.93 Higher

Custom Card Set ~ 5 FOR 18 ~ by FreshCardCo

$18.00 $9.98 Higher

Books in lockport, ny 14094

local business Books lockport ny 14094

Grace Episcopal Church Thrift Shop Thrift Stores

106 Lagrange St
Lockport, NY 14094
(716) 434-7010
local business Books lockport ny 14094

Lockport Public Library Libraries

23 East Ave
Lockport, NY 14094
(716) 433-5935
local business Books lockport ny 14094

Pulp 716 Coffee & Comics Coffee & Tea Bubble Tea Comic Books

45 East Ave
Lockport, NY 14094
(716) 201-1034
local business Books lockport ny 14094

Family Video Videos & Video Game Rental

76 East Ave
Lockport, NY 14094
(716) 433-7433
local business Books lockport ny 14094

Pathways Christian Bookstore Bookstores Religious Items Home Decor

6718 Lincoln Ave
Lockport, NY 14094
(716) 433-6049
local business Books lockport ny 14094

Nioga Library System Libraries

6575 Wheeler Rd
Lockport, NY 14094
(716) 434-6167

Boxing day sale name necklace,,Bridesmaid Gift, Engraved Jewelry,bar necklace, gold plate bar, gold necklace, gift idea, birthday gift

$21.54 $13.52 Higher

Blue mountain wall art, art prints, watercolor, poster, nature print, landscape print, home wall decor, forest art, mountain print, wall art

$10.22 $2.2 Higher

Octopus Septum Ring Rose Gold Sterling Silver Nose Ring Body Jewelry Piercing Bohemian Indian Ring Tentacle Boho Style 14g 16g 18g - SE035

$24.90 $16.88 Higher

Wrestling Keychain, Wrestling Coach Keyring, Team Keychain, Wrestling Team Backpack Keyring, wrestlers gift, Mom keychain, Wrestling gift

$12.95 $4.93 Higher

Barbell Decal | Fitness Decal | Women Fitness | Workout Decal | Crossfit | Vinyl Decal | Fitness Sticker | Car Decal | Water bottle Decal

$3.00 $5.02 Lower

Dandelion Ring - Romantic Wedding Band - 925 Silver Ring

$67.50 $59.48 Higher

Custom Hashtag Sign Cutout 15"Wx3"H inches, Personalized Hashtag Sign, Laser Cut Name Sign, Personalized Sign, Wooden Sign, Unique Hashtag

$25.25 $17.23 Higher

Personalized Burlap Print Housewarming Gift for Couple GPS Latitude Longitude Home Coordinate Sign New Homeowner

$15.95 $7.93 Higher

Pearl chandelier earrings Statement bridal earrings Pearl teardrop earrings Long vintage style Rhinestone drop Swarovski crystal jewelry

$120.00 $111.98 Higher

Wedding hanger, Bridal hanger, Personalized hanger, custom wire hanger, bridal hanger, bride gift, bridesmaids gift, wedding favors

$18.81 $10.79 Higher

FREE SHIPPING! Valentine Door Hanger - Happy Valentine's Day - Wreath - Wall Hanging - Door Decor

$53.99 $45.97 Higher

Better Together Cake Topper, Wedding - Anniversary - Valentine Day Cake Decor, Rustic / Country Wedding Topper, Wedding Keepsake, Ptoto Prop

$13.98 $5.96 Higher

Wedding Welcome Sign - Rustic Wood Wedding Sign - Sophia Collection

$25.00 $16.98 Higher

Cross Country Running decal-running decal-Runners-sports decal-school sport decal-customize decal

$3.50 $4.52 Lower

Wall Art Poster Forest Print Forest Wall Art Forest Art Tree Print Tree Art

$10.56 $2.54 Higher

I Still Do - Penny Keychain, Anniversary gift, Gift for Him, Husband Anniversary Gift, Personalized Gift For Him

$6.95 $1.07 Lower

Personalized Linen Wedding Gift, Wedding Decor, Wedding Song or Wedding Vows, Unique Anniversary Gift, Rustic Linen or Cotton Canvas

$46.00 $37.98 Higher

Guest Book, Wedding Guest Book, Rustic Weddings, Handcrafted Guest Book, Words of Wisdom, Shower Guest Book

$59.99 $51.97 Higher

Women's heart shaped stethoscope fleece jacket with Name and title- Nurse RN LPN- YOUR choice of color and font options CutiePatootie

$34.00 $25.98 Higher

CLEARANCE Bridesmaid Tumbler, Bridal Party Tumbler, Skinny Tumbler, Bridesmaid Gift WITH TITLES

$5.00 $3.02 Lower

Fan-made Handbook for the Recently Deceased Living and the Dead inspired personalized hardcover journal notebook

$10.34 $2.32 Higher

Personalized Bottle Opener Groomsmen Gift Personalized Wooden Bottle Opener Wedding Gift Favors Engraved Wood beer Opener Men Gift

$34.13 $26.11 Higher

Healing Crystals and Stones Gift Set/Includes 7 Chakra tumbles, Crystal Pendulum, Amethyst Cluster, Raw Rose Quartz, and Crystal Point

$27.20 $19.18 Higher

Wedding Gift, Wedding Gifts, Personalized Pillow, Newlywed Gift, Engagement Gift, Rustic Wedding Gift, Burlap Pillow, Gift for bride

$28.00 $19.98 Higher

Sterling Silver Leaf Branch Ring, Gold Leaf Ring, Rose Gold Leaf Ring. Layering Ring, Vine Ring, Laurel Ring, Nature Jewelry, twig ring

$8.00 $0.02 Lower

50 States Photo Map - A Unique USA Travel Collage

$69.00 $60.98 Higher

Wedding Arras Box and 13 Coins Silver Footed Heart Design Personalized Engraved

$42.75 $34.73 Higher