In February 1942, Budapest’s Palace of Art hosted a German exhibition titled “Autobahn und Wasserstraßen”. Organized by Fritz Todt, chief engineer of the Autobahn and the Third Reich’s first Minister of Armaments and Munitions (Milward 2015: 57–58), the exhibition’s displays focused on several areas of interest for both the Germans presenting the material and the Hungarians viewing it: the Danube River as a pan-European waterway, intra-European traffic patterns, and hydraulic engineering and shipping in Hungary. One of the civil servants tasked with preparing “Autobahn und Wasserstraßen” was Rudolf Hoffmann. During the initial stages of setting up the exhibition, Hoffmann became concerned that the importance of what the Germans were proposing would be lost on the audience. Perhaps they would fail to recognize the Nazi war effort – well underway by 1942 – as an important step toward replacing the old European order with something new and better. Perhaps they would fail to understand that European connectedness and a fundamental shift away from reliance on maritime transportation were the prerequisites for the new potential regime of rail, water and motorway consolidation on display in Budapest (Hoffmann 1942: n.p.). To make all of this clearer, Hoffmann designed some maps.
In his retelling of this exhibit in the pages of Raumforschung und Raumordnung (RuR), Hoffmann brags about the popularity of both the exhibition as a whole, and these maps in particular. Indeed, “Autobahn und Wasserstraßen” was largely seen as a successful exhibition – so successful that it was recreated in several other eastern European cities throughout 1942 and 1943, including Belgrade, Sofia and Bucharest (Kerschner 1944: 372; for more information about the exhibition in Bucharest, in particular, see Gruber 1943: 3–4). These maps are also an excellent example of how Germans interested in area research – and, specifically, contributors to RuR – understood the relationship between cartography and their national identity. The presentation of an ever-evolving Greater Germany, with flexible borders and an eye toward territorial expansion, dominates the maps of the RuR from the publication of its first edition through the Second World War. After the defeat of the Third Reich and the partitioning of Germany, a new territorial order required the re-creation of the German national map. Hoffmann, in fact, would contribute some of the first articulations of this new map in the pages of RuR – eleven years after presenting his alte/neue Europas in Budapest. As discussed at length below, Hoffmann’s maps, and many of the maps in RuR, reflect the context of Germany’s territorial reality: a reality that rapidly shifted from expansionism before and during the Second World War, to cartographic confusion in the immediate post-war years, and finally, by the mid-1950s, to a solidification of German territory into two separate and distinct nation states.
This paper focuses on how maps were utilized by the authors and cartographers who published work in Raumforschung und Raumordnung from its initial October 1936 edition through 1955. Originally established by the Nazi agronomist Konrad Meyer, RuR was meant to serve as a primary publication of the Reichsarbeitsgemeinschaft für Raumforschung (the Reich Association for Spatial Research, or RAG). Created in December 1935 with Konrad Meyer as its founding director, the RAG was committed to coordinating spatial research among the academic faculty in Nazi Germany so as to contribute to the centralized planning efforts of the Third Reich (Rössler 1987: 179–181). The material published in RuR did not always necessarily promote National Socialism, but the journal very clearly pitched itself to potential readers and contributors as a forum for Nazi ideas.1
While illustrations, graphs and (often aerial) photographs fill the pages of RuR, attention here will not primarily be paid to geographic depictions that fail to incorporate what Monmonier (1996: 5) identifies as the “three basic attributes” of maps: namely “scale, projection, and symbolization”. Adopting this understanding of a map, however, still leaves an incredible number of images to evaluate and assess. From the publication of its first volume through to the release of its thirteenth, the writers and editors of RuR included no fewer than 956 maps among their various editorials, academic articles, book reviews and featured essays (see Table A in online supplementary material for a detailed listing of the number of maps, by edition/date). These maps were authored by a variety of individuals and institutions, helpfully listed at the end of many RuR volumes by thematic category (along with the corresponding volume, edition and page number for each map). Typically, when utilizing a map from an outside source in an article, the author cited the source relied upon directly underneath the map used. Otherwise, as confirmed by the end-of-volume map listings, the editors of RuR attributed maps published in the journal to the author submitting the material for publication. As noted below, especially in the discussion of Reinhard Niemeyer, these attributions can sometimes be misleading.
The inability of RuR contributors to offer a uniform articulation of a German map is unsurprising; mapping Germany has been problematic since the inception of Germany as a national idea. German assertions of control over a Mitteleuropa date back to the 1848 revolutions and reached a fever pitch after the defeat of the Central powers in the First World War (Mingus 2017: 3). From the interwar period through the Third Reich, Germany’s territorial positioning allowed its citizens to understand their nation state, simultaneously, as both the dominant power in central Europe and as a victim of geographic circumstance. Depending on what was more convenient for any given political narrative, Germany could be described as a territory with ill-defined borders arbitrarily drawn by its enemies along the European continent’s periphery, or it could be portrayed as the only territory that could possibly produce a Volk capable of saving and unifying Europe (Schultz 2002: 354–355). Moreover, from 1938 through to the end of the Second World War, the Nazi government of Germany was in the process of planning and building a new Reich, territorially. It makes sense that RuR and other publications with ties to the Nazi regime would fail to offer their readers an unambiguous proposition of a mapped Germany. Cartographic ambiguity has often served as a useful strategy when remapping a new or altered nation state over the traditional boundary lines that previously divided Europe (Gugerli/Speich 2002: 100–101).
As the German military prepared to invade Poland in September 1939, so too did the editors and authors of Raumforschung und Raumordnung prepare images of Poland for academic dissemination. Indeed, Konrad Meyer, who remained editor of RuR through the July 1939 edition, was, already in 1938, charged with running the Planning and Soil Department of the Reichskommissariat für die Festigung deutschen Volkstums (the Reich Commission for German Resettlement and Population Policy). This brought him into close contact with Heinrich Himmler and, eventually, Generalplan Ost – the secret planning of German colonization in the Polish territories occupied by the Nazi regime. By the spring of 1941, Himmler appointed Meyer as one of the principal contributors to Generalplan Ost and, after the invasion of the Soviet Union in the summer of 1941, the subsequent planning of other eastern European territories (Barnes 2015: 195–196). Many geographers worked for Meyer on Generalplan Ost, (literally) plotting the Germanization of eastern Europe and the displacement (as well as, often, the murder) of the Slavs, Roma and Jews living there prior to Nazi occupation (Rössler 1987: 187). It seems almost predictable, then, that the focus of RuR would shift eastward as academics directly involved in its publication became more heavily entrenched in the very real application of Nazi Lebensraum policy.
Even before the August/September 1939 issue, though, contributors to Raumforschung und Raumordnung had routinely attempted to justify German claims to eastern European territory. One of the more interesting of these contributors was Reinhold Niemeyer. An urban planner with a particular interest in traffic patterns,4 Niemeyer contributed three featured articles to RuR: one focused on the eastern German city of Frankfurt an der Oder (Niemeyer 1937), one discussed traffic in eastern Germany (Niemeyer 1939), and a final essay that studied German expansion into eastern Europe (Niemeyer 1940). Niemeyer’s publications in RuR are a fascinating case study for two reasons. First, despite focusing – broadly – on the same geographic area, one can see interesting shifts in his cartographic choices from his first article in 1937 through to his final 1940 article. Secondly, he regularly appeals to the territorial history of Germany to justify German boundaries and/or expansion, mirroring the emphasis placed by Nazi leadership on earlier German empires.5
Those eight subsequent maps are something of a strange selection. Despite the title of Niemeyer’s series focusing on east Germany, several of the included maps do not do that. One depicts Russia (“Das russische Flußsystem”), another is cartographically centred on eastern Europe (“Wasserstraßen des Ostraumes”), while a third shows how goods flow – by water and rail – throughout the whole of the German nation state (“Die Güterströme auf Wasser- und Schienenwegen in Deutschland”). The five maps that do key in on parts of Germany’s eastern territory all zoom in on Berlin and its immediate surrounding area.6
In the spring of 1940, Niemeyer published his final essay in Raumforschung und Raumordnung. This essay combines three presentations Niemeyer had given in the autumn and winter of 1939 to the Deutsche Akademie für Städtebau, Reichs- und Landesplanung (German Academy for Town, National and Regional Planning). Niemeyer explains to the reader, in a kind of preamble, that he hopes his findings will help lay the groundwork for a study that the Akademie is undertaking on behalf of the Reichsarbeitsgemeinschaft für Raumforschung (RAG), and that this is not a comprehensive or complete piece of work. What is really fascinating about this introductory prelude to the journal article, however, is how forcefully Niemeyer insists that any information related to nation states along the borders of Germany exists solely to help draw conclusions about spatial planning in eastern Germany itself (Niemeyer 1940: 151). It makes sense that a German regional planner might make this claim, particularly after the September 1939 invasion of Poland, the outbreak of the Second World War and the continual aggressive posturing of Nazi foreign policy. It makes even more sense when one considers the maps selected to accompany the text of Niemeyer’s article.
Unlike several other maps included in this article, this particular map, titled “Die deutsche Wanderung nach dem Osten” (“The German Migration to the East”), has no legend. Instead, the map relies on a few different variants of arrow symbols to demarcate German penetration into eastern Europe. Note that the only territory with a border is an area meant to specify traditional German lands. While the East is ripe with natural water features, it is represented here as an otherwise blank space into which waves of Germans, during different time periods, moved and settled.
Niemeyer offers only one map characterizing the second wave of German settlement in eastern Europe. This second wave lasted, according to Niemeyer, from the 17th century through the 18th century – a period dominated by three “Great Colonizers”: Jean-Baptiste Colbert, Prince Eugen of Savoy and Friedrich the Great. Each leader consolidated state planning and infrastructure in their respective kingdoms, and each worked to expand their territorial holdings for the benefit of their homeland (Niemeyer 1940: 154–156). The sole map used to help explain this period of western European expansion is the aforementioned reprint of Fig. 24. The reprint is an exact copy of the map from Niemeyer’s first article in Raumforschung und Raumordnung, with two exceptions: the name of the map itself and an attribution of the information presented in the map to Roman Heiligenthal, a professor of state planning in Karlsruhe. The 1937 version of the map was given the title “Die Siedlungsgrenze Österreichs nach Südosten 1740” (“The Austrian Settlement Border to the Southeast 1740”), while this 1940 reprint has been retitled “Österreich um 1740 mit der Militärgrenze gegen die Türken” (“Austria around 1740 with the Military Border against the Turks”). This is, at least in part, due to Niemeyer’s focus in his essay on the geopolitical debt owed by Maria Theresa and Joseph II to Prince Eugen, who he credits with first realizing the importance of establishing German settlements along the militarized Habsburg-Turkish border in southeastern Europe. By doing so, Eugen (and the Austrian monarchs who heeded his geopolitical principles) staved off future Turkish and Asian incursions into Europe (Niemeyer 1940: 155).
By the 19th century, Germans began emigrating in large numbers to the United States and to territories controlled by Russia, including the Congress of Poland. For Niemeyer, this third wave of Germans “colonizing” eastern Europe failed to maintain the sense of religious and national unity that made the first two waves relatively successful (Niemeyer 1940: 156–157). Simultaneously, more and more Russians and Poles began moving into western Prussia, complicating German policy toward its eastern border (Niemeyer 1940: 157). No map depicting this third wave accompanies Niemeyer’s text, but he does include a contemporary map of Russia’s natural resources.9 Ultimately, for Niemeyer, any future German expansion should be predicated on the history of those first two waves of settlement in the East – waves that succeeded because of the application of technology and the uniformity of administrative and legal structures, and that relied on a single, comprehensive national identity (Niemeyer 1940: 170).
Niemeyer’s “historical overview” of German colonization into eastern Europe makes up a little less than half of his “Deutschland und der osteuropäische Raum” article. After presenting his history to the reader, he goes into a pretty straight-forward assessment of the relationship between eastern Europe’s mineral resources and its industrialization, the quality of its soil and the potential for the expansion of rail and road transportation that could more effectively connect the region to Germany.
Throughout the early 20th century, German geographers had been critical of the non-German use of choropleth maps, especially when measuring population density. Choropleth maps, many argued, too often displayed a population count uniformly distributed within an arbitrary (or disputed) administrative boundary line (Herb 1997: 39). Niemeyer’s map of the population of Jews in Europe transforms these earlier criticisms into propositional features: there is no distinction between urban and rural areas within these nation states, nor any recognition of regional diversity within these countries. The map is making as much an argument about each nation state as it is about Europe’s Jews; if the Jews are a problem, here are the countries more or less deeply tied to that problem.
As with maps published in Raumforschung und Raumordnung during the Third Reich, maps published after the defeat of Nazi Germany mirrored and reiterated the territorial changes imposed on the cartographic landscape of Europe. However, where there was once an expanding “Grossdeutsche Reich” there was now – after May 1945 – a diminished, truncated and occupied German state. Representations of this new postwar state often relied on some of the same approaches to mapmaking that the Nazis had utilized before and during the Second World War.
This is not to say that Raumforschung und Raumordnung stopped printing maps altogether before 1953. Despite financial difficulties and some bureaucratic wrangling between the Akademie für Raumforschung und Landesplanung (Academy for Spatial Research and Planning; ARL) and the Institut für Raumforschung (Institute for Spatial Research; IfR) over control of RuR,14 four editions of the journal were published in 1950. While this tenth volume features cartographic studies of various German cities and regions, no national maps of Germany appear. And because publication paused again through 1951 and 1952, RuR did not initially have to address the question of how to present a post-Nazi Germany, divided and occupied by foreign powers.
That changed in 1953, when Raumforschung und Raumordnung returned to regular publication under the joint editorial leadership of the both the ARL and IfR (Becker 2006: 516). Maps of Germany – in some form – returned, and while the number of maps included in the pages of RuR from 1953 to 1955 never reached the rate of maps-per-edition undertaken during the early stages of the Second World War, the number of maps published was certainly comparable to what it had been before the war (see Fig. 4 above).
Hoffmann’s maps of Germany, with a perforated internal border dividing two pieces of an otherwise clearly articulated whole, are the exception rather than the norm. Nearly all of the cartographic material portraying Germany in Raumforschung und Raumordnung, after the end of the Second World War, relies on the presentation of the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG) as a shaded or colorized island. Its eastern counterpart – the German Democratic Republic (GDR) – is almost always included only as a blank spot, perhaps with some vague reference to the existence of Berlin. Several different mapmaking techniques and strategies are used to gesture toward this eastern space without entirely acknowledging its separateness. This makes sense. The government of the FRG saw their nation state as the true heir to the German national idea; its founding legal document – the Grundgesetz, passed on 23 May 1949 – made this, the specific Länder included within the boundaries of the new nation state, and hopes of German reunification, explicit (Mingus 2017: 108–109). Like the German governments before it, the Federal Republic understood the importance that cartography had in justifying its legitimacy. RuR routinely contributed to that project, often even publishing and promoting maps produced by government agencies.
In a 2011 editorial commemorating seventy-five years since the creation of Raumforschung und Raumordnung, Hans Heinrich Blotevogel called for an investigation into the concepts engaged with by RuR during its early history. Blotevogel also asked scholars to examine any continuities between those early editions of RuR – which so clearly embraced “Blut und Boden, Volk und Raum” – and later editions published after the defeat of Nazi Germany (Blotevogel 2011: 2). I hope that this paper has contributed to that project, making clear the shifts in mapped content as RuR separated itself from National Socialism after the Second World War, but also emphasizing shared cartographic practices between RuR contributors before, during and after the war. While Lebensraum-inspired expansionism reflected a distinctly different intent behind mapmaking than the postwar division of Germany, the use of particular cartographic styles and techniques was often similar. In fact, as discussed above in the case of Rudolf Hoffmann, sometimes even the people drawing the maps promoting a Nazi-occupied Europe during the Second World War also ended up drawing the maps making clear Germany’s territorial diminution after Nazi defeat. Indeed, RuR is emblematic of how maps – like any type of narrative or proposition – can be used to make arguments supporting good or bad politics, arguments advocating for racial diversity or white supremacy, and arguments bolstering claims to territorial sovereignty or imperialist conquest and occupation.
This work received no external funding.
References
Andree, R.; Peschel, O. (1878): Physikalisch-Statistischer Atlas des Deutschen Reichs. Leipzig. |
Barnes, T.J. (2015): “Desk Killers”: Walter Christaller, Central Place Theory, and the Nazis. In: Meusburger, P.; Gregory, D.; Suarsana, L. (eds.): Geographies of Knowledge and Power. Dordrecht, 187–201. = Knowledge and Space 7. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9960-7_9 |
Becker, K. (2006): Die Zeitschrift „Raumforschung und Raumordnung“, 1936-2006. In: Raumforschung und Raumordnung 64, 6, 512–523. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03183116 |
Biggs, M. (1999): Putting the State on the Map: Cartography, Territory, and European State Formation. In: Comparative Studies in Society and History 41, 2, 374–405. |
Black, J. (2020): A History of the Second World War in 100 Maps. London. |
Blotevogel, H.H. (2011): 75 Jahre Raumforschung und Raumordnung. In: Raumforschung und Raumordnung 69, 1, 1–2. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13147-010-0074-y |
Browning, C. (2004): The Origins of the Final Solution: The Evolution of Nazi Jewish Policy, September 1939-March 1942. Lincoln. |
Diebold, W.J. (2019): The Nazi Middle Ages. In: Albin, A.; Erler, M.C.; O’Donnell, T.; Paul, N.L.; Rowe, N. (eds.): Whose Middle Ages? Teachable Moments for an Ill-Used Past. Fordham, 104–115. |
Diefendorf, J.M. (2011): Planning for the Mark Brandenburg and for Prague during the Third Reich. In: Planning Perspectives 26, 1, 91–103. https://doi.org/10.1080/02665433.2011.529679 |
Diefendorf, J.M. (2014): Urban Transportation Planning Influences and Legacies: Kurt Leibbrand, Germany’s Acclaimed Postwar Traffic Planner. In: The Journal of Transport History 35, 1, 35–56. https://doi.org/10.7227/TJTH.35.1.4 |
Fischer, W. (1938): Die Organisation der Raumordnung. In: Raumforschung und Raumordnung 2, 6, 225–229. |
Glatzel, F. (1953): Das Zonenrandgebiet in der deutschen Wirtschaftsentwicklung. Die Lage Braunschweigs im Vergleich zu anderen Städten Westdeutschlands. In: Raumforschung und Raumordnung 11, 1, 30–37. |
Gruber, F.E. (1943): Donau und Autostraße. In: Warschauer Zeitung, 4 May 1943, 3–4. |
Gugerli, D.; Speich, D. (2002): Topografien der Nation: Politik, kartografische Ordnung und Landschaft im 19. Jahrhundert. Zürich. |
Hagen, J. (2010): Mapping the Polish Corridor: Ethnicity, Economics and Geopolitics. In: Imago Mundi 62, 1, 63–82. https://doi.org/10.1080/03085690903319325 |
Haushofer, K. (1934): Raumüberwindende Mächte. Leipzig. |
Herb, G.H. (1997): Under the Map of Germany: Nationalism and Propaganda, 1918-1945. London. |
Herb, G.H. (2004): Double Vision: Territorial Strategies in the Construction of National Identities in Germany, 1949-1979. In: Annals of the Association of American Geographers 94, 1, 140–164. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8306.2004.09401008.x |
Hoffmann, R. (1939): Die Entwicklung des deutschen Kraftverkehrs. In: Raumforschung und Raumordnung 3, 3, 127–130. |
Hoffmann, R. (1942): Das alte und das neue Europa. In: Raumforschung und Raumordnung 6, 6/7, n.p. |
Hoffmann, R. (1953): Die wirtschaftliche und politische Entwicklung in Deutschland im Spiegel des Eisenbahnfahrplans. In: Raumforschung und Raumordnung 11, 1, 15–20. |
Horstmann, K. (1938): Die Vergewerblichung. Ein Hilfsmittel zur Unterscheidung von Stadt und Land. In: Raumforschung und Raumordnung 2, 3, 110–119. |
Jarausch, K.H. (2015): Out of Ashes: A New History of the Twentieth Century. Princeton. |
Kerschner, T. (1944): Wissenschaftliche Tätigkeit im Gau. Landesmuseum, 1942/43, 1. Direktionsbericht. In: Jahrbuch des Vereines für Heimatpflege im Gau Oberdonau 91, 371–376. |
Klautke, E. (2007): German “Race Psychology” and Its Implementation in Central Europe: Egon von Eickstedt and Rudolf Hippius. In: Turda, M.; Weindling, P.J. (eds.): Blood and Homeland: Eugenics and Racial Nationalism in Central and Southeast Europe, 1900-1940. Budapest, 23–40. |
Knothe, H. (1939): Der schlesische Raum und seine Gliederung. In: Raumforschung und Raumordnung 3, 8/9, 415–423. |
Kornrumpf, M. (1939): Das Reichsatlaswerk der Reichsarbeitsgemeinschaft für Raumforschung. Bemerkungen zur angewandten Kartographie. In: Raumforschung und Raumordnung 3, 3, 113–125. |
Lorey, M. (1938): Die volkswirtschaftliche Bedeutung der deutschen Forstwirtschaft im Spiegel der Statistik. In: Raumforschung und Raumordnung 2, 11/12, 568–582. |
Maier, H. (2019): Hitler und das Reich. In: Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte 67, 4, 521–536. https://doi.org/10.1515/vfzg-2019-0037 |
Mallwitz, A. (1941): Wasserwirtschaft und Volksbäder im großdeutschen Raum. In: Raumforschung und Raumordnung 5, 6/7, 336–342. |
Milward, A.S. (2015): The German Economy at War. London. |
Mingus, M.D. (2017): Remapping Modern Germany after National Socialism, 1945-1961. Syracuse. |
Monmonier, M. (1996): How to Lie with Maps. Chicago. |
Morgen, H. (1944): Zur Frage der relativen Wertigkeit der Böden. In: Raumforschung und Raumordnung 8, 2, 56–58. |
Müller, G. (1953): Wanderungsstatistik. In: Raumforschung und Raumordnung 11, 1, 45–47. |
Neupert, K. (1940): Die Gestaltung der Gemeinschaft aus Raum und Volk. In: Raumforschung und Raumordnung 4, 5, 227–231. |
Niemeyer, R. (1937): Frankfurt a. d. Oder und seine Aufgabe im Rahmen ostdeutscher Landesplanung. In: Raumforschung und Raumordnung 1, 11, 444–449. |
Niemeyer, R. (1939): Der Verkehr und Ostdeutschland. In: Raumforschung und Raumordnung 3, 4/5, 216–220. |
Niemeyer, R. (1940): Deutschland und der osteuropäische Raum. In: Raumforschung und Raumordnung 4, 3/4, 151–171. |
Rössler, M. (1987): Die Institutionalisierung einer Neuen „Wissenschaft“ im Nationalsozialismus: Raumforschung und Raumordnung 1935-1945”. In: Geographische Zeitschrift 75, 3, 177–194. |
Roloff, H. (1942): Planung in den Niederlanden. In: Raumforschung und Raumordnung 6, 6/7, 162–192. |
Schultz, H.-D. (2002): Raumkonstrukte der klassichen deutschsprachigen Geographie des 19./20. Jahrhunderts im Kontext ihrer Zeit: Ein Überblick. In: Geschichte und Gesellschaft 28, 3, 343–377. |
Schultze, J.H. (1948): Umsiedlung und Raumforschung. Die Verteilung der Neubürger in Thüringen nach geographisch-raumordnerischen Gesichtspunkten. In: Raumforschung und Raumordnung 9, 1, 15–27. |
Strubelt, W. (2009): Unselige Kontinuitäten – Eindrücke und Erfahrungen bei der Lektüre der Zeitschrift „Raumforschung und Raumordnung“. 1936-1953. In: Mäding, H.; Strubelt, W. (eds.): Vom Dritten Reich zur Bundesrepublik: Beiträge einer Tagung zur Geschichte von Raumforschung und Raumplanung. Hannover, 10–20. = Arbeitsmaterial der ARL 346. |
von Eickstedt, Egon Freiherr (1939): Rassen im schlesischen Raum. Sinn und Ergebnisse der Rassenuntersuchung Schlesiens (Rus.). In: Raumforschung und Raumordnung 3, 8/9, 424–436. |
Werner, H. (1954): Bodennutzung und Landanforderungen für Aufgaben der Verteidigung. In: Raumforschung und Raumordnung 12, 2/3, 80–90. |
Zöllner, D. (1954): Die regionalen Unterschiede der Abnahme landwirtschaftlicher Kleinbetriebe. In: Raumforschung und Raumordnung 12, 4, 202–206. |
Zöllner, D. (1955): Größe und Verteilung der landwirtschaftlichen Nebenerwerbsbetriebe in Westdeutschland. In: Raumforschung und Raumordnung 13, 4, 203–209. |
Footnotes
1 | The first edition of the first volume of RuR opens with a signed endorsement by Bernhard Rust, Nazi Germany’s Minister of Science, Education and National Culture, in which he claims that spatial research and planning invariably lead to questions about “Blut und Boden, Volk und Raum” – “core questions of National Socialism”; see the cover page of Raumforschung und Raumordnung 1, 1 (October 1936). For a broad breakdown of ideological trends engaged with by the early contributors to RuR, see Strubelt (2009). |
2 | While the authorship of this map is not formally attributed, it was likely created by the German demographer and statistician Kurt Horstmann. This map directly precedes an article written by Horstmann and includes maps attributed to him that share a very similar style to the one presented here. |
3 | For a great example of this from the 19th century, and how the creation of a national map can contribute to the creation of a national community, see, in particular, the cartographic “pearl” of Switzerland in Gugerli and Speich (2002: 99–101). |
4 | For more on Niemeyer’s urban planning career, see Diefendorf (2011), for more on his work involving city traffic, see Diefendorf (2014). |
5 | One historian has, in fact, recently argued that “the Middle Ages lay at the heart of the Nazis’ self-conception” (Diebold 2019: 105). We should be careful, though, not to attribute every concept/term utilized by the Nazis to the interest of their leadership in the Middle Ages. For more on how problematic that can be, see Maier (2019). |
6 | The titles of these four maps (with their respective page numbers) are: “Das Reichsstraßen- und Autobahnnetz im Raum Berlin-Brandenburg” (217), “Die Jahresbelastung der Ostdeutschen Wasserstraßen 1934” (218), “Das jetzige Eisenbahnnetz im Raum Berlin-Brandenburg” (218), “Der Kurmarkring der Schiene” (219), and “Die Befahrbarkeit der Märkischen Wasserstraßen” (219). |
7 | For more on this map, in particular, see Black (2020: 22–23). |
8 | This map is titled “Der Mongoleneinfall in Europa” (Niemeyer 1940: 155). |
9 | “Bodenschätze Rußlands” (Niemeyer 1940: 158). |
10 | The Poles were not the only ones considering moving Europe’s Jewish population to Madagascar. The British and French governments, and even the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee, also “toyed with the idea in the late 1930s” (Browning 2004: 82). And, of course, this potential plan was seriously deliberated by the Nazi leadership as well from 1938-1940 (see Browning 2004: 81–82). |
11 | Haushofer’s map also has an earlier antecedent. See a map with the same name, and a similar form, in Andree and Peschel (1878). |
12 | These maps were both designed by Joachim H. Schultze and are titled “Thüringen: Zonen günstiger und ungünstiger Faktoren” and “Thüringen: Gebiete für die Umsiedlung” (Schultze 1948: 24). |
13 | “Verwaltung und Organisation: Zur Organisation der Landesplanung in Deutschland – Anschriften der Dienststellen der Landesplanung nach dem Stand vom 1. März 1948” in Raumforschung und Raumordnung 9, 1 (1948), 36–38. |
14 | These problems are expertly explained and addressed by Becker (2006: 515–518). |
15 | Guntram Herb has written extensively on this style of mapmaking in East and West German textbooks after the Second World War (see Herb 2004). |