THE GERMANIC REVIEW

From Frankfurt's Goethehausto Dresden's Frauenkirche:

Architecture, German Identity,and Historical Memory

after 1945SUSANNE VEES-GULANI

N otions of identity are often linked to specific places and spaces.Cultural identity is usually rooted within communities that share

traditions and a location within a certain geographical region. On asmaller scale, cultural identity is inadvertently tied to the physicalstructures and the architectural design organizing these spaces. Somegroups, for example, might identify with a strong sense of the futureand aspire to demonstrate their modernity by erecting contemporarybuildings and structures, while others define themselves through his-torical sites (Layton and Thomas 1-2). The former case often leads tothe destruction of historical remains to create space for the new; thelatter frequently results in far-reaching conservation efforts to pre-serve remnants from the past.

Since the late eighteenth century, particularly in many Western na-tions, such conservation efforts have increased, as sites and struc-tures from previous times began to function as visible confirmationsof historical and national identity (Hunter 27-28). In the twentieth cen-tury, preservation of historical buildings and places reached newheights (Larkham 39), marking the emphasis many cultures nowplace on what they consider their heritage. In addition to historicistand nationalist arguments, this trend can be explained by current ex-periences. Maintaining and restoring historical sites lend stability to aworld marked by large-scale destruction of familiar environments dur-ing war and rapid urban development, an unease with the modern sit-uation that seems to offer less possibilities of clearly and easily defin-ing oneself, and the fear of an uncertain future (Lowenthal 38).

In Ttie Arctiitecture ofthe City, the Italian architect and theorist AldoRossi confirms the strong interdependence of collective historicalmemory with objects and places. The city is understood as "the col-

143

144 VEES-GULANI

lective memory of its people," a relationship that is responsible for thespecial significance an urban structure represents as well as for whatdistinguishes it from others (130-31). This interaction also guaranteescontinuation between the past, when a building or monument waserected, and the future (131). Acknowledging these multiple facets,CJmberto Eco defines buildings as signs that have both a denotativeand a connotative level; while they are designed for specific functions,they also contain symbolic meaning (56-67).

As such, buildings signify "a complex of beliefs, ideas and values"(Ehrentraut 216) and are perceived as giving real and direct substanceto one's cultural past and present (Larkham 7). In addition, heritagebuildings generate "a didactic imperative" (Ehrentraut 216); they areseen as vehicles to teach about a culture's history. In accordance withthese ideas, architect Donatella Mazzoleni defines buildings as exten-sions of the human and societal body as well as a metaphor for thisbody (289). They are locales for the expression of a certain cultural un-derstanding, they function as signs with which the community sharesits self-view, and they provide the space for the reassertion of one'sidentity in times of turmoil:

[A]rchitectural space concretizes the body in its totality. It then becomes,to all intents and purposes, its Replica, the Double of the body which cansubstitute for the body, in the sense that it can function as infra-languageat times when the body cannot assume its trans-semiotic role. [. . .] Atthese moments of topological discontinuity of the body, which imply an in-stant of disappearance or nothingness, the house surrogates for the bodyby ensuring the material continuity of support, in a symbolic exchange.(290-91)

The situation in 1945 in Germany bears several characteristics of thisform of discontinuity and death. Most Germans had readily embracedthe Nazi ideology, which had provided them with a self-view emphasiz-ing distinctness but then collapsed with Germany's total defeat. Thisideological death was also mirrored by physical destruction. Conse-quently, the cultural symbols enshrined in the buildings were unavail-able to reconfirm a cultural identity at this point of crisis. Postwar Ger-many was thus characterized by efforts in both a psychological andphysical reformation; Germans needed to reconstruct their cities, theirstate, and their identity.

The urge to find places that would offer reconfirmation of personal, na-tional, and cultural identity can shed light on the rebuilding plans imme-diately following 1945. The decisions reflect the coping mechanisms em-

FRANKFORT'S GOETHEHAUS TO DRESDEN'S FRAUENKIRCHE 145

ployed by the population to deal with their Nazi past. A number of archi-tects had hoped to make the total destruction of the cities the basis forrenewal as a distinct countermovement to the building styles of the Maziperiod. They aimed at a simple, clear, and modern style of "democratichonesty" that would oppose the bombastic and overpowering tasteless-ness of the official National Socialist-architecture (Glaser 141). Howev-er, their ideas often went against the official policies of "Erhaltung,Wiederherstellung, bestenfalls vorsichtige[r] Korrektur" (Glaser 141). Im-mediately following the war, German town officials, with broad supportfrom the population, often tried to erase the traces of the war by rebuild-ing the cities the way they had looked before the air raids, the way thateveryone wished to remember them (Holzner 319-21; Durth 603). AsLutz Holzner states in a study on the role of tradition in the urban geog-raphy of West Germany, "After 1945, the German people characteristi-cally picked up the thread of tradition [. . .]. The experience of Hitler'sregime and its attempts to enforce abrupt changes had once moreproven changes to be a dangerous undertaking" (338).

While Holzner emphasizes the political reactionism that character-ized these decisions, Peter Larkham, in his study on conservation andthe city, also points to the important role psychology plays in such con-servation and reconstruction issues. He assesses the psychologicalneed for humans to "look back" to visual objects as points of orienta-tion and "symbols of stability" (6), particularly in times of turmoil (41).Jeffry Diefendorf speculates in In the Wake of War that in the case ofGermany, "modernism may have triggered disturbing memories of theunsettled radicalism of the early Weimar years" (65). For many, tradi-tionalism clearly seemed a more appropriate response to cultural inse-curity. So, despite the miserable living conditions many Germans foundthemselves in after the war, the restoration of historical and culturalsites received much attention. The buildings were seen as shrouded inan almost mythic aura, containing special, nearly magical powers:

Wenn unsere bistorischen Stadte, die groBen wie die kleinen, denen dieZeit ihren Sondercharakter als etwas nie zu Vergessendes eingehammertbat, ihre innere Gleichniskraft behalten sollen, wenn sie weiter als Selbst-bekenntnisse ibrer Gescbicbte zu uns reden sollen, so mussen die sicht-baren Symbole, die in Stein gepragten WeistCimer unserer Vergangenbeitlebendig erbalten, aus ihren Trummerbetten wieder auferweckt werden[. . .]. (Clemen 195)

Finding inner stability by creating spaces in which one could resurrectone's cultural and national identity by reconnecting with the past was

146 VEES-GULANI

thus seen by many as being as important as developing outer securi-ty by providing places to live and work.

The Goethehaus in Frankfurt illustrates this approach. Completelydestroyed in an air raid in 1944 (except for a small part of the frontwall of the house, which later collapsed as well; Beseler and Qutschowxv), its rebuilding started as early as 1947. At the time of its comple-tion in 1951, the newly reconstructed house still stood amid a field ofrubble. The stark contrast between the rebuilt Goethehaus and the de-struction surrounding it shows the conflicts between the different in-ternal and external needs of the population and reveals the directionGermany was choosing in reestablishing itself after the war. Rebuild-ing cultural landmarks immediately after 1945 was a way to rebuild itsidentity. As David Lowenthal comments in The Past Is a Foreign Coun-try: "Those who detach from themselves some part of their past com-monly substitute another" (38). By rebuilding their heritage, manyGermans tried to redirect attention from a dark past to a happier one.In this way, restoration also became a symbol for the refusal to reflecton the recent past.

The debate surrounding the Frankfurt Goethehaus after 1945 con-firms the fundamental importance of such rebuilding projects for Ger-man self-definition. Its so-called historical "restoration," even though itentailed a complete rebuilding, was possible because the Goethehaus'sappearance and structure had been extensively documented in draw-ings and photographs. In addition, its interior had been removed forsafekeeping shortly after the war had started, thus providing the origi-nal furnishings for the new structure (Meier 184). Yet the cultural sig-nificance of the building was even more important. The house wasseen not only as representing but actually being Goethe and his spirit,a connection that was facilitated by the fact that the air raid that haddestroyed it took place on the anniversary of Goethe's death, March22. In the words of a Frankfurt citizen:

[. . .] solange wir in den gleichen Raumen atmen, seine Treppenstufenemporsteigen, durch natnliche Fenster wie er auf Welt und Himmelscbauen durften, konnten wir das Gefuhl seiner unmittelbaren Nahehaben. Nun [. . .] hat sich eine Kluft aufgetan, unuberbruckbar. Es ist, alssei er nun wirklicb gestorben. (qtd. in Meier 185)

For many, to accept the destruction of such sites would have meantthe loss of a national and cultural identity, as these spaces were nowviewed as their very essence. As Hermann Hesse states in support ofthe rebuilding efforts:

FRANKFURT'S GOETHEHAaS TO DRESDEN'S FRACJENKIRCHE 147_

Es ist damit Idie Vernichtung historischer Statten] nicht nur ein groBes,edies Gut vernichtet, eine Menge hoher Werte an Tradition, an Schonheit,an Objekten der Liebe und Pietat zerstort: es ist auch die bildende unddurch Bilder erziehende Gmwelt der kunftigen Geschlechter und damit dieSeelenwelt dieser Nachkommen eines unersetzlichen Erziehungs- undStarkungsmittels, einer Substanz beraubt, ohne welche der Mensch zwarzur Not leben, aber nur ein hundertfach beschnittenes, verkummertesLeben fuhren kann. (qtd. in Hartmann 203) '

If these sites, widely viewed as the defining points of German culture,were not to have been rebuilt, a true Stunde Null would bave begunafter tbe war—a state tbat would bave required not only acceptingone 's detrimental role in recent history but also starting anew to createa basis for an acceptable German national and cultural identity. In-stead, returning to Goetbe 's age or otber historical t imes avoided bav-ing to redefine Germany 's role and excluded the Nazi period from Ger-man cultural and national history altogether. Tbis path represented notonly tbe emergence of a conservative mindset that rejected modern-ization but also a decision to be consciously apolitical—an attitude thatin itself was directly informed by tbe present situation and thus inher-ently political.^

Tbis way of thinking was also widely expressed in the idea of the"good" and "bad" Germany, a distinction often propagated even todaywitb respect to the t imes under National Socialism. One well-knownearly example is Friedricb Meinecke 's Die deutsctie Katastroptie(1946) . In his work, the historian tracks the development of Nazism inGermany for more tban two hundred years, offering insight into theroots of National Socialism. Yet bis opinions about the overall meaningof the Nazi period for the country after 1945 are less convincing andcontradict s o m e of his earlier findings. By emphasizing tbe idea of thetwo Germanys , the corrupted, bad (Nazi) Germany and the good andtrue Germany of aesthetes , poets , and thinkers. Hitler can be explainedas an inner-German foreign ruler, excluding his ideas from the Germancharacter or spirit (152) . Meinecke thus subconsciously fosters thesuppression of the Nazi past by stressing the need to find places wherethe true German soul, the pre-National Socialist Germany, could be re-discovered:

CJnsere Aufgabe als Volk kann es jetzt nur sein, im Zeichen der Human-itat an der Reinigung und Verinnerlichung unseres seelischen Daseins zuarbeiten. Onsere Hauser sind uns zerstort, unser Nahrungsraum ist unsverkurzt. Aber an Wohnung und Nahrung fehlte es im Dritten Reiche auchfur die deutsche Seele. Diese ihr wieder zu erobern, durfte mindestens

148 VEES-GGLANI

ebenso dringend sein wie der Aufbau von Hausern und die Erzeugung vonLebensmitteln. (164)

The Goethehaus In Frankfurt was a physical manifestation of this at-tempt to recapture an idea of Germanness that everyone could safelyembrace. It offered the population a tangible representation of its cul-ture to the rest of the world. Not surprisingly, the Goethehaus becameby far the most popular attraction in Frankfurt in the 1950s, with129,000 visitors a year (von Beyme 205).

However, not everyone supported the rebuilding effort. Most notably,many architects, art historians, curators, and journalists opposed theplan. Some criticized the reconstruction out of practical considerations,emphasizing the urgent need to create sufficient living and workingspace for the hungry and homeless population. Dolf Sternberger, forexample, suggested a different direction for the rebuilding. With hiscall, "Geh vom Hauslichen aus [. . .]!" he hoped to draw attention to"heutiger, notiger, himmelschreiend notiger Bauweise und Wohnkultur"(200-01; emphasis in original). In addition, many warned against theassumption that a complete rebuilding actually could re-create theGoethehaus as a true historical site, pointing out that it could never bemore than a copy of the original: "Wollte man das Goethehaus wieder-aufbauen, wie es war, [. . .] so ware es etwa, als woUe man einen liebenVerstorbenen genau und lebenswahr in Wachs nachbilden lassen unddiese Imitation in sein Zimmer setzen" (Scheffler 269).

Yet, the major concern of the opposing group was the symbolicvalue of the project, which is precisely what made the Goethehaus soattractive to its supporters. In his detailed commentary "Mut zum Ab-schied," for example, the publicist Walter Dirks criticizes the recon-struction of the Goethehaus as a sign of the attempt to suppress theunpleasant historical reality of National Socialism and its conse-quences by reviving old ideas and traditions:

alien zeitbedingten Schwierigkeiten zum Trotz [wird] das Goethehaus[. . .] in der alten Gestalt dastehen und wie in fruheren guten Zeiten dieBlumengabe des Shakespeare-Hauses zu Stratford on Avon entgegen-nehmen [. . .] Als wenn nichts geschehen ware. Aber es ist etwasgeschehen, und dieses Qeschehen ist unwiderruflich. (86)

The idealization of Goethe and his times as the basis for a German na-tional identity after 1945 is also highly suspect to the author. Accord-ing to Dirks, the spirit of the Goethehaus is inherently linked to its de-struction—not necessarily because Germany had fallen from the

FRANKFURT'S GOETHEHAUS TO DRESDEN'S FRAUENKIRCHE 149

Goethe ideal, tbe good Germany, as the supporters of the project em-phasize, but because the very fascination witb Goethe and his values,as well as tbe influence of Idealism and tbe classical period, created asociety focused on the aesthetic, a society withdrawn from everydaypolitical and economic needs. With this attitude, decisions in these lat-ter areas were left to others, who could gain enormous power.

The discussion on reconstruction was one of the fundamental debatesdefining Germany's development after the war. In its most extremeforms, rebuilding according to the old models was seen as politicalrestoration, suppression, self-idealization, and apolitical aestheticism byits critics. Supporters of using contemporary architectural forms to re-build Germany saw tbeir way as the only one that could truly deal withthe past. Opponents of tbe new building designs complained about aloss of culture, heritage, and national symbols; a denial of what it meantto be German; as well as a heightening of confusion in an already chaot-ic world. The numerous historical reconstructions after 1945 show thatmost Germans found comfort in these more traditional settings. In aworld of turmoil, they yearned for established and familiar structures.Analyzing the history of preservation in Salzburg, Austria, since the1860s, Lester Rowntree confirms tbat falling back on tradition bas con-tinually been a "response to the stresses of new economic, political, andsocial currents" (74). Particularly in the extreme case of postwar Ger-many, many were not ready to face the most recent past or to try to re-define themselves. Instead, most of the population wished to reestablishthemselves as rapidly as possible as a nation and gain a communalidentity through re-creating identifiable and inspiring cultural icons oftbe past, without risking harsh criticism from other nations. This path ofovercoming insecurity and depression after 1945 led directly to a peri-od of political restoration.^

Immediately after the war, political and societal attitudes toward re-building did not differ much in the individual occupation zones. All overGermany, the wisb for historical rebuilding was dominant. Interesting-ly, after East and West Germany officially came into being as separatestates in 1949, the idealization of historically oriented architectural de-cisions gained more importance in the newly founded German Demo-cratic Republic (GDR) than in the Federal Republic, where modern andpractical rebuilding ideas slowly gained some ground. In East Ger-many, any attempts at modern architecture were seen as first steps ofan American colonization, and many plans were made to rebuild thecities according to their original historical structures." Finally, however.

150 VEES-GULAMI

Socialist building concepts under the influence of the Soviet Union andKhrushchev's emphasis on efficiency in the construction process be-came more important than the historical rebuilding efforts. This styleemphasized large governmental structures and parade avenues in thecity centers as well as fast and cheap construction of living space onthe outskirts of cities by using a uniform design and premanufacturedcomponents for all buildings (the so-called Plattenbauten). In the citycenters, the constant lack of money and materials in the GDR led tonumerous partially completed projects, while many older buildingswere simply left to crumble. Consequently, although the postwar re-building of cities in West Germany was mostly completed by the1960s, it was still possible to encounter ruins from World War II whenstrolling through an East German city after reuniflcation. The politicalchanges after 1989 had little influence on West German town struc-tures but brought a time of great transformation to East German cities.After more than forty years of Socialism in East Germany, the countryfound itself in a fever to rebuild its economy, its towns, and its identity.Despite the long time difference and the history behind the two pastpolitical systems, the basic reaction to reunification was similar to thatafter 1945 and revealed a continuity of coping mechanisms among theGerman population. City planning and architectural decisions lie onceagain at the heart of these aspects of transformation.

A good example is the current rebuilding of the Frauenkirche (Churchof Our Lady) in Dresden. The architecturally extraordinary Baroquechurch by the master builder George Bahr was an integral part of the fa-mous Dresden silhouette. This city often is described as the "Florenceon the Elbe" and was immortalized by the paintings of the Italian artistCanaletto (Bernardo Belotto) in the mid-eighteenth century. WhenDresden became the site of a devastating attack by allied bombing on13-14 February 1945, the Frauenkirche was one of the architectural ca-sualties of the air raids. While at first appearing to withstand the effectsof the bombs, it finally collapsed into a pile of rubble two days after theattacks. Overall, about fifteen square kilometers of the city were com-pletely destroyed (Paul 314), creating a landscape so vast and strangethat it was often compared to the surface of the moon.^

Immediately after the war, campaigns for the reconstruction of thehistoric old town began. Particular attention was paid to theFrauenkirche, referring to its special design and its importance for Dres-den's cultural identity (Paul 327), an argument often stated in theGoethehaus debate as well. Although all of Dresden found itself in the

FRANKFURT'S GOETHEHAOS TO DRESDEN'S FRAGENKIRCHE 15]

most desolate situation, these efforts were largely supported by thepopulation. For this undertaking, rubble from the Frauenkirche sitestarted to be cleared, measured, and catalogued. However, a change ofdirection in the East German government and the unavailability of prop-er funds prevented the rebuilding. Instead, new plans arose that wereless concerned with the city's historic character and more concernedwith the idea of radically separating it from its royal Residenzstadt flair,an appearance that was perceived as opposing Socialist ideals.

Yet, some of the Dresden officials and conservationists never gaveup on their rebuilding plans for the Frauenkirche and tried to save thebuilding from being cleared away (Nadler 91). Consequently, neitherthe remains were removed nor the church rebuilt. Instead, the Social-ist government finally turned the destroyed building into a bombingmemorial: "To the tens of thousands of dead, and an inspiration to theliving in their struggle against imperialist barbarism and for the peaceand happiness of man," as the official East German plaque read (qtd.in Buruma 300). The symbolic function of the Frauenkirche site wasexpanded, and the ruins were instrumental in the East German strug-gle against the West during the cold war. Depending on the relation-ship between the Soviet Union and the United States, the anniversariesof the destruction of Dresden were either seen as reminders of the hor-rors of war or as times for official demonstrations against the West, thedestroyers of Dresden, and the imperialist-fascist enemy of Socialism.By portraying the Western powers as fascist systems and the bomb-ing of Dresden as a fascist act. East Germany ultimately equated thedestruction of Dresden with the crimes committed under Mational So-cialism, portraying East Germans as victims and suppressing thecausal relationship of the war. Consequently, unlike the Goethehaus,which was a reconstructed cultural icon from a prewar past that func-tioned as a site for identity formation for both individuals and the state,the ruins of the Frauenkirche became a visible symbol for East Ger-many's official self-definition as a counterregime to the West. In 1982,these ruins gained another meaning when Dresden inhabitants lightedcandles there for peace and as a silent protest against their govern-ment. This demonstration again used a heritage site as a place to de-fine the group and its position within society.

After the wall fell, the old plans for an exact reconstruction of thechurch were revived and swiftly begun under the leadership of the So-ciety for the Promotion of the Rebuilding of the Frauenkirche Dresden.For this group, reunification was also "die Wende fur die Dresdner

152 VEES-GULANI

Frauenkirche" (Paul, Kantschew, and Kroger). Implicit in this state-ment is the perception that the time had finally come to rescue theFrauenkirche, which had been a victim of both World War II and theSocialist East German government that had refused to rebuild it. Theproject resembles in many aspects the reconstruction of the Goethe-haus right after the war. Both buildings were considered important cul-tural icons in Germany, and in each case the availability of detailedplans and photographs of their appearance before destruction made ahistorical reconstruction possible. Thus, it is not surprising that theFrauenkirche also stirred strong emotions among its supporters andcritics. Yet in this case, the conflict was even more pronounced be-cause the historical skyline in question had not existed for nearly fiftyyears when its rebuilding began to be discussed.

Lowenthal assesses that reactions to the past, and thus to the ob-jects that represent it, can be ambiguous, with "explicit avowals of ad-miration or disdain conceal[ing] their opposites; reverence for tradi-tion underlies destructive iconoclasm; retrospective nostalgiacoexists with impatient modernism" (35). This trend also underliesthe Frauenkirche debate. Numerous architects, like their colleaguesin 1945, strongly condemn the rebuilding project. Similar to the post-war era, they voice their protest against the historical reconstructionof a building that was completely destroyed. They warn against erect-ing what could at best be a copy of the original and call instead for"vorbildliche Bauten der Gegenwart" (Delau), modern constructionsfree of any nostalgia for the past. However, behavioral research intoquestions of conservation suggests that such a radical proposal forrenewal is seldom embraced by the public, as their preference for sur-roundings is often linked to a familiarity of the environment (Hubbard363). Yet, contemporary building styles rarely offer such familiarpoints of orientation. Nevertheless, contrary to the clean break fromtradition its proponents attempt to propagate, contemporary archi-tecture does not exist in a vacuum but rather contains various ele-ments of past styles and ideas. Interestingly, despite the strong oppo-sition to heritage preservation and reconstruction among thesupporters of contemporary architectural solutions, they also hopethese buildings fulfill similar functions within society and culture. Asin the case of the supporters of reconstruction projects, they viewbuildings as models and count on their pedagogical effect. Despiteopposing claims, retrospection and reverence of the past are inher-ently interwoven in their view of future architectural design.

FRANKFORT'S GOETHEHAGS TO DRESDEN'S FRAUENKIRCHE 153

Other critics, such as Christof Ziemer, who led rallies for democracyin 1989, argued for leaving the ruins the way they were. He hoped thatby displaying this "offene Erinnerungswunde" (qtd. in Kohlhaas 26),memories of the war and its causes and consequences could be keptalive. His position won much support, even from the Protestant church(Steele T2), whose members once worshipped in the Frauenkirche.However, as in the case of the Goethehaus, the rebuilding of theFrauenkirche went ahead despite these dissenting voices, albeit underthe condition that it had to be financed privately.

The strong opposition to the rebuilding is matched by the unques-tionable belief in the project by its supporters. They insist that by re-building the Frauenkirche according to its original plans—for whichthe term "archeological reconstruction" was coined in 1991 (Burger141)—they return to the world one of its most striking and uniquemonuments. There is little theoretical guidance in determining the jus-tification of such claims. As Larkham points out, "[I]n fields other thanthe built environment, there are considerable parallels in heritage andconservation problems but far greater advances in conceptualizing. Inart, for example, there is a general consensus over the delimination offake, restoration and replication" (257). When considering the possi-bilities that the reproduction of art in the twentieth century offers withits technical advances, Walter Benjamin ascertained early on that al-though copies of art might look the same externally, they lack the spe-cial aura that makes the original unique (13).

Even if one does not consider other disciplines, the assertions of therebuilding supporters are seen as problematic within conservation cir-cles. According to preservation guidelines, the rebuilding of a destroyedstructure is only of historical value when the reconstruction uses moreoriginal materials than new ones (Kiesow 103). Because theFrauenkirche was completely destroyed, rebuilding it cannot be classi-fied as the preservation of a historical monument, as there will be onlya very small number of original pieces of the church included in thebuilding. Experts thus question the reality of the archaeological rebuild-ing of the church: "[E]s muss hier [. . .]—trotz aller gegenlaufigen Be-hauptungen—von einem Neubau gesprochen werden, der die Formender Dresdner Frauenkirche wiederaufgreift" (Trimborn 141). Preserva-tion handbooks support this critical view:

Grundsatzlicb sollte man in solcben Fallen [volliger Zerstorung] den (Jn-tergang des Baudenkmals als geschichtlichen Tatbestand hinnehmen undseine Lucke im Ortsbild durch einen Neubau schlieBen, der die gleichen

154 VEES-GULANI

stadtebaulichen Qualitaten wie der untergegangene Bau hat, denn aucheine Nachbildung des Verschwundenen kann darijber hinaus allenfallsnoch den siedlungs- oder sozialgeschichtlichen Wert und die Innen-raumqualitaten, keineswegs aber die gestalterische Qualitat, den Quel-lenwert und die Geschichtsspuren wiederbringen. (Kiesow 103)

There is further evidence for the classification of the project as imitationinstead of historical reconstruction. Because the Frauenkirche hadstructural problems, the rebuilding relies on modern computer technol-ogy and includes design changes and the introduction of modern mate-rials and techniques to maximize the Frauenkirche's stability and safety.

It also should not be forgotten that the rebuilding of the church actu-ally requires the destruction of another monument to the German past,namely, the Frauenkirche ruins that had shaped the Dresden cityscapefor several decades. As a symbol of official GDR policies, as well as ofsubverting the GDR system by opposition leaders, it had become a keysite for processes of cultural and national identity formation and withsignificant historical and educational value. Thus, a strong case couldbe made for preserving the ruins.

Since the emphasis on the archaeological and historical nature ofthe rebuilding of the Frauenkirche and its significance for preserva-tion goes against the standards developed for conservation of histor-ical buildings, these claims for the justification of the project arequestionable. This is one reason why the rebuilding critics havecalled Dresden the new "Las Vegas an der Elbe" (Ruby) or a "BarockDisneyland" (Delau). These judgments seem somewhat exaggeratedin the case of the Frauenkirche, but a look at the so-called Disneyfi-cation of reality in the United States can still offer some valuable in-sights into the project. Although completely artificial, the design ofDisneyland causes strong emotional responses in its American visi-tors. For example, "Main Street U.S.A." represents a "typical" mainstreet in a nineteenth-century town and is the centerpiece of Disney-land. It evokes feelings of nostalgia for an ideal of small-town Amer-ica, which, of course, only exists in the imagination. This version ofsmall-town America conforms so perfectly to the ideals of the middleclass that it actually has influenced the collective memory of nine-teenth-century Americana (Roost 96). Historical accuracy is not anessential element in creating sites that people value and feel a con-nection with. In fact, studies suggest that it is rare that only the his-torical value of a building makes it significant in the eyes of the peo-ple (Hubbard 369). Rather, it is their perceived relationship to the

FRANKFURT'S GOETHEHAUS TO DRESDEN'S FRAGENKIRCHE 155_

building, because "the meaning of architecture and architecturalstyles is in the person and their interpretive mechanisms rather thanbeing intrinsic to a set of physical characteristics" (Hubbard 365).

It has been noted that the importance ascribed to the Frauenkircheproject strangely surpasses its actual meaning:

[d]ie Idee des Wiederaufbaus [wurde] von Beginn an merkwijrdig ijber-hoht. Als hatte sich plotzlich eine Schleuse geoffnet und einem langeaufgestauten Bediirfnis freie Bahn verschafft, flossen dem CInternehmenvon Beginn an Schecks und Sympathien in nie gekanntem AusmaS zu(Neffe 295-96)

A comparison to the debate surrounding the Goethehaus in Frankfurthelps clarify some of this fascination with the rebuilding of theFrauenkirche. The Goethehaus controversy revealed a strong connec-tion between the rebuilding efforts and the design of a new nationalidentity. Rebuilding the Goethehaus helped fulfill the dream of creatinga Germany unscarred by war and yet connected to culture and tradi-tion. Although not displayed as openly in the case of the Frauenkirche,probably because these expressions of nostalgia and selective histori-cal memory are now less commonly accepted and criticized more thanafter the war, these basic intentions to alter history are nevertheless feltthroughout the whole controversy. Lowenthal emphasizes society's re-lationship to history and its wish "to alter the past to 'improve' it," toexaggerate and celebrate the things they are proud of and to downplaythose they consider shameful (332). With the Frauenkirche, such anegating process goes even beyond those of the immediate postwarera, as it wipes out not only the visible marks of the consequences ofthe war but also more than forty years of Socialism.

Fidelity to every detail is not truly necessary for a building to repre-sent the past and serve as a basis for identity formation. As many re-constructions, reenactments, and even Disneyland reveal, as long asthe image satisfies the onlookers' expectations, viewers perceive thebuilding as true to the past and often are unaware that the object wasaltered (Lowenthal 290). Still, the insistence on originality and particu-larly on the conservational value of the re-created structure dominatesthe Frauenkirche debate. The rebuilding supporters not only strive toachieve acceptance by the general public but also wish for official ap-proval of the project to confirm of their selective use of the past. AsAdolf Ehrentraut points out in his study on Japanese heritage buildings,an "authoritative designation of sites as heritage guarantees the au-thenticity of both the touristic experience and the collective identities

156 VEES-GGLANI

constructed on that basis" (218). Despite the questionable foundationfor such a designation, rebuilding efforts in Germany and other heavilydestroyed countries after World War II and the later reception to this re-building do give some basis for such wishes. For example, the old mar-ket square in Warsaw, Poland, which is a complete postwar reconstruc-tion, is now designated a World Heritage Site (Larkham 237). Suchrecognition would support the trend to rebuild in Dresden, with theFrauenkirche project as its flagship, and to reverse the changes the cityendured after its destruction and during its GDR times, a heritage bothcity officials and a large part of the population view negatively andwould like to erase (Duwel and Gutschow 270).

The rebuilt Frauenkirche thus provides the ideal space for a resurrec-tion of the pre-Nazi past and the suppression from 1933 to 1990. Asmany comments reveal, in a time of redefinition and change after reuni-fication, identity is retrospectively connected to the existence of theFrauenkirche. It is seen through the lens of nostalgia, representing a pastthat Is both highly idealized and altered to meet the needs of the present(Lowenthal 348). This connection also explains the sentimental state-ments of select groups, such as the claim that every Dresden residentknows "from memory the precise location that each piece of rubble be-longs to" (Asch 4). The words of a Dresden resident exemplify the pro-jection of one's own destiny onto the physical entity of the Frauenkirche:

For two hundred years my family has been connected to theFrauenkirche. My grandmother was confirmed there, my greatgrand-motber baptised, and I bad books and pictures recalling tbose years[. . .]. 1 know tbe cburcb from top to bottom. I was only a boy at tbe timebut I loved the Frauenkirche. Tbe day after tbe raid we stood on our bal-cony where we lived. Tbe smoke lifted for a moment . . . it was unbeliev-able. I shouted to my mother, 'look, tbe Frauenkirche is still standing.' Westared again, and saw through reddened eyes it was true. Yet shortly af-terwards it collapsed, as if not wanting to survive tbe insanity. The disas-ter was now complete, (qtd. in Asch 4)

Indeed, the symbolic value attached to the church is limitless. For ex-ample, the writer Walter Kempowski, whose work Echolot: Fuga Furiosa(1999) includes a long section on the bombing of Dresden, goes evenfurther. As he states in an interview:

Es ist im Grunde ja nicbt Deutschland zerstort worden, es ist, wenn manso will, das alte Europa zerstort worden. Als die Frauenkircbe zusam-menbracb, brach nicbt nur ein deutscbes Gebaude zusammen, sondernetwas, das mit Kultur, Tradition und Abendland zusammenbangt. An denFolgen haben alle Europaer bis beute zu tragen. (Kempowski)

FRANKFORT'S GOETHEHAUS TO DRESDEN'S FRAGENKIRCHE ]57_

This yearning for an identity defined through the idealized pastcharacterizes the conservative view of the post-1945 and Adenauerera and corresponds to the wish by the chancellor of the reunificationperiod, Helmut Kohl, and his supporters to re-create a German na-tional identity as independent as possible from the Nazi past.^ "Wun-den heilen, nicht offen halten" (Mohring 4), the credo of the Dresdenstruggle in rebuilding their Baroque skyline, could have been that ofeither political era. It is not surprising that Kohl repeatedly used thismyth of the old Dresden and the emotional approach to the rebuildingof the city, with references to the church and through campaign stopsin front of the ruins, in his message of the new nation—one that hadsuccessfully overcome its past and was now thoroughly integratedwithin Europe. So, when in the early 1990s Kohl was asked what hewould like for his birthday, "he conceded that a reconstructedFrauenkirche would be the fulfillment of his ideal" (Asch 3).

The Frauenkirche site has become so inherently political because it isthe perfect place to renegotiate official German memory to fit with theseideals. Its destruction also symbolizes the wiping out of Dresden and thedeath of many of its inhabitants in a massive air raid. It is true that Dres-den can serve as yet another reminder that war is cruel and brings ter-rible sorrow and suffering. It is in this spirit that many Dresden residentsand other Frauenkirche supporters justify the rebuilding of the church.

Yet, this attitude neglects some complex issues. The bombings didnot happen in isolation. Rather, they were part of a "total war" that Ger-many had started and refused to end. In a case such as Dresden, how-ever, where primarily civilian targets were destroyed and the bombingsoccurred very close to the end of the war, the rigid opposing categoriesof victims and perpetrators, while often legitimately applied in this war,cannot hold firmly. Dresden is a place where such polarizations can belegitimately questioned and approached in a more complex manner,but it can also serve as a platform for extremism when this includes at-tempts to downplay Germany's perpetrator role. In 1995, the writerRalph Giordano warned President Roman Herzog in an open letterabout the dangers of his plans of giving a speech at the Frauenkirchein Dresden at the fiftieth anniversary of the bombing. Giordano did nottry to minimize the horror of the events because he knew the terribleeffects of large-area bombings from his own experiences during the de-struction of Hamburg in 1943. However, he pointed out that Dresdenalso will always serve as an example for attempts by revisionists to off-set the wrongs committed by the Germans: "Gnd deren Paradebeispiel,

158 VEES-GUI-ANl

ihr Lieblingsmodell, war und ist die Zerstorung Dresdens [. . .] Werimmer bei uns das Thema behandelt, er wird mit dieser unheimlichenNachbarschaft zu rechnen haben—und einer aussert schwierigen Ab-grenzung zu Ihr" (10).

The supporters of the Frauenkirche project are well aware of these is-sues and take pains to avoid any such association. In this spirit, the So-ciety for the Rebuilding of the Frauenkirche emphasizes in its donationpamphlet {Dresden ruft) how the newly constructed church will havesymbolic value for the world: "The Frauenkirche, rebuilt from its ruins,will become a monument for the reconciliation of nations and a visibleexhortation for peace in the world." Yet how believable—or how naive—are these good Intentions? Ehrentraut views such insistence on the uni-versality of historical rebuilding projects rather critically: "Internationaldeclarations notwithstanding, the symbolic significance of architecturalheritage [. . .] arises not from the universals of human experience but itsparticularistic permutations, which infuse heritage with the cognitivemeaning and affective appeal through which one collectivity differenti-ates itself from others" (217). Interesting enough, the German text isequivalent to the English text printed on the opposite side, with one dif-ference, as the church here also is characterized as a symbol for thehealing of the wounds caused by the war: "Die aus den Trummernwiedererstandene Frauenkirche wird ein Symbol fur die Heilung derdurch den Krieg geschlagenen Wunden sein, ein Denkmal fur die Ver-sohnung der Volker und eine sichtbare Mahnung zum Frieden" (em-phasis added). Referring to wounds inflicted on Germans, draped insymbolism alluding both to the resurrection of Christ and the Phoenix'srise from the ashes, without mentioning the precursors suggests thatGermans are innocent victims in need of healing from the effects of thehorrors of war. By omitting this passage in the English translation, theinconvenient claim of German victlmhood is simply glossed over.^

Consequently, the Frauenkirche runs the danger of becoming a sitewhere memory of the past can occasionally be renegotiated in ques-tionable terms. In the name of historical preservation, rebuilding thenbecomes a task of overcoming defeat and pain, a possibility of resur-recting national pride, and an outlet to thoughts and opinions thatwould be unacceptable if directly expressed. In the Dresden hype sur-rounding Germany's own hardship, the true horrors and the extent ofcrimes under Mational Socialism are often minimized, while Germansuffering is emphasized. In 1995, the taz reported such an attempt atminimizing Nazi crimes by concentrating on "German" suffering:

FRANKFURT'S GOETHEHAGS TO DRESDEN'S FRAUENKIRCHE 159_

Die Dresdner Musikfestspiele stehen in diesem Jahr unter dem Motto:"Apokalypse;" und Intendant Michael Hampe schreibt im Geleitwort desProgramnnhefts: "1995 jahrt sich zum funfzigsten Mal das Ende des Zweit-en Weltkriegs und die Zerstorung Dresdens, jenes apokalyptische Ereignis,das wie kein zweites zum Symbol des CIntergangs, des Grauens und desLeidens wurde, das jener Krieg uber die Menscbheit brachte." (Krell 5)

Here, the destruction of Dresden is suggested to be of comparable mag-nitude to the significance of Auschwitz, as an incident of German suf-fering is singled out as an epiphany of the horror of the war. This crassexample openly reveals the shift in perception of German history thatprovides the political motivation of the Dresden rebuilding project.

The debate about rebuilding cities in Germany and the subsequentquestions of restoration in contrast to innovation first peaked after WoddWar II and then resurfaced, in very similar terms, after reunification.Thus, it never was solely an architectural discussion. The large numberof people from various backgrounds involved in the dispute suggeststhe importance of this conflict in postwar German culture. On one level,the debate serves as a ground to renegotiate a cultural identity in thetimes of turmoil and stress that necessarily accompany significant po-litical, societal, and economic changes . Although some people see thisas the best time to look toward the future and break with tradition bycreating a contemporary environment, the larger part of the populationengages in a more conservative view. Reconstructed buildings are seenas symbols that can serve both as material reconfirmation of a culturalidentity based on sentimental nostalgia for Germany 's cultural past andas tools for communicat ing this self-understanding to others. As thesimilarities between the Goethehaus debate and the Frauenkirche dis-cussion show, the current trend to define a culture through the rebuild-ing of historical structures is by no means new, but rather based on cop-ing mechanisms established after World War II. Thus, in t imes ofchange, Germans are continually drawn to processes of avoidance andsuppression, redirecting the perception of German history away fromNazi Germany and its consequences to what is understood as a moreglorious prewar past.

Reconstruction projects such as the Frauenkirche, therefore, havesome appeal to conservatives. Connecting to the prewar cultural pastmakes it possible to remove the Nazi and Socialist years from culturalmemory; turning the destroyed heritage buildings into symbols for Ger-man suffering during the war, without consideration of German crimes,makes it possible to identify Germans as victims, shifting focus away

160 VEES-GULANI

from their role as perpetrators. Yet, while reconstruction opponents usu-ally propose innovation through contemporary architecture as the cor-rect way to counter these notions, it is questionable whether such struc-tures can achieve such a goal. Inherently unfamiliar to their viewers,often expressing the fragmentation of modern life, they do not providethat uniform symbolic meaning that would turn them into sites of col-lective identity formation. At the same time, by looking ahead insteadof to the past, they also do not engage in a discourse with the Nazi orSocialist past, which is ignored in much of the rebuilding projects.

The situation after reunification, as revealed by the debate surround-ing the rebuilding of East German cities and tbe reemergence of cop-ing mecbanisms employed after 1945, sbows tbat postwar Germanyhas yet to find a national and cultural identity. The fierceness of the dis-cussion and the harsh criticism each side holds for the other suggestthat Germans experience this lack of a new identity as a negative feel-ing. Yet, because ofthe rigidity of opposition between the supporters ofrestoration and those concentrating on the present and the future, withneither of these extremes offering a satisfying solution, questions ofhow Germans can properly remember their past with all its nuances,how they should treat their heritage, and how they can define them-selves as a modern postwar nation often are not addressed. However,without finding solutions to these issues, a new national and culturalidentity will not form. Architecture can play a role in this process by of-fering sites where Germans can continue to reconsider their identity.When divergent opinions are reassessed as alternatives and each sidebecomes more flexible to the opposing view, architecture can belp cre-ate an environment that can inspire Germans to begin to move beyondtheir restrictive self-definitions.

University of Michigan

NOTES

1. Hesse's comments were quoted by Georg Hartmann in a speech at theopening ceremony for the reconstructed Goethehaus. Hartmann was the pres-ident of the "Freien Deutschen Hochstifts," which was responsible for the re-building. The inclusion of these lines in Hartmann's address makes apparentthe representative character of Hesse's point of view.

2. See also Doering-Manteuffel 535.3. The significance of botb the destruction and restoration of building struc-

tures as symbols for tbe inner psychological condition of the German popula-

FRANKFGRT'S GOETHEHAGS TO DRESDEN'S FRAGENKIRCHE 16]_

tion, and their attempts at identity formation after the war, also is confirmedin Heinrich Boll's important 1959 novel Biiiiard um haibzetin. Boll purposelyuses three generations of architects and the construction, destruction, and re-building of an abbey, which is viewed as a cultural icon by the inhabitants ofthe city, to describe the Nazi era and particularly to criticize the direction Ger-many took after the war.

4. This historical reconstruction was not necessarily motivated by the wishto establish historical continuity, as in West Germany, but rather by the hopethat it would show East Germany as the legitimate cultural successor of thepast (Paul 319).

5. See, for example, Kurt Vonnegut's description of Dresden in his novelSiaugi-iteriT.ouse-Fiue.

6. Kohl continuously portrayed himself as a representative of a new era, of ageneration not directly involved in the war. One well-known example is Kohl'sremark during a visit to Israel about the "grace of belated birth" he experiencedby being only a teenager at the end of the war. Another representative eventdisplaying Kohl's desire to "normalize" German history is the controversial visitby Kohl and Ronald Reagan to the military cemetery in Bitburg, where theyplaced wreaths to commemorate dead German soldiers, despite the fact thatSS officers were buried there as well.

7. Although the rebuilding is interpreted as a sign of overcoming Socialism,the rhetoric used is not only revisionist, but also, even though unconsciouslyon the part of the participants, in many ways a continuation of the East Ger-man standpoint of the German as a victim of Western imperialism.

WORKS CITED

Asch, Kenneth. "Rebuilding Dresden." History Today 49 (1999): 3-4.Benjamin, Walter. Das Kunstweric im Zeitaiter seiner technisciien Repro-

duzierbarkeit Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp, 2003.Beseler, Hartwig, and Niels Gutschow, eds. Kriegssctiicicsaie deutscher Ar-

chitektur: Veriuste - Sctiaden - Wiederaufbau. Neumunster- Wachholtz1988.

Boll, Heinrich. Biiiiard um haibzetin. 1959. Munchen: dtv, 1997.Burger, E. "The Reconstruction of the Frauenkirche in Dresden." The Reuiuai

of Dresden. Ed. W. Jaeger and C. A. Brebbia. Southhampton: WIT P 2000141-64.

Buruma, Ian. The Wages of Guiit: Memories of War in Germany and JapanNew York: Penguin, 1994.

Clemen, Paul. "Rheinische Baudenkmaler und ihr Schicksal. Ein Aufruf an dieRheinlander." Denkmaipfiege: Deutsche Texte aus drei Jahrhunderten. EdNorbert Huse. Munchen: Beck, 1996. 193-97.

Delau, Reinhard. "Ein Stadtbild in der Diskussion: Erstarrt Dresden zur his-torischen Kulisse?" Suddeutsche Zeitung 26 Apr. 1994: N. pag. LexisNexis Academic. University of Michigan: Ann Arbor, Michigan. 26 Apr.1 y y ^ >

Diefendorf, Jeffry M. In the Wake of War: The Reconstruction of German Citiesafter Worid War li. New York: Oxford, 1993.

Dirks, Walter. "Mut zum Abschied. Zur Wiederherstellung des Frankfurter

Goethehauses." 1947. So vielAnfang warnie: DeutscheStadte 1945-1949.Ed. Hermann Glaser, Lutz von Pufendorf, and Michael Schoneich. Berlin:Siedler, 1989. 85-93.

Doering-Manteuffel, Anselm. "Die Kultur der 50er Jahre im Spannungsfeldvon 'Wiederaufbau' und 'Modernisierung.'" Modernisierung im Wiederauf-bau: die westdeutsciie Gesellschaft der 50er Jahre. Ed. Axel Schildt andArnold Sywottek. Bonn: Dietz, 1993. 533-40.

Durth, Werner. "Kontraste und Parallelen: Architektur und Stadtebau in West-und Ostdeutschland." Modernisierung im Wiederaufbau: die westdeutscheGeseilschaft der 50er Jahre. Ed. Axel Schildt and Arnold Sywottek. Bonn:Dietz, 1993. 596-611.

Duwel, Jorn, and Niels Gutschow. Stadtebau in Deutschland im 20. Jahrhun-dert: Ideen - Projekte - Akteure. Stuttgart: Teubner, 2001.

Eco, Clmberto. "Function as Sign: Semiotics and Architecture." The City andthe Sign: An introduction to Urban Semiotics. Ed. M. Gottdiener andAlexandros P. Lagopoulos. New York: Columbia UP, 1986. 55-86.

Ehrentraut, Adolf W. "Cultural Nationalism, Corporate Interests and the Pro-duction of Architectural Heritage in Japan." Canadian Review of Sociologyand Anthropology 32 (1995): 215-42.

Gesellschaft zur Forderung des Wiederaufbaus der Frauenkirche Dresden e. V.Dresden ruft. Dresden: Gesellschaft zur Forderung des Wiederaufbaus derFrauenkirche Dresden e. V.

Giordano, Ralph. "Dresden, Februar 1945 - Ein Brief an Roman Herzog." taz2 Jan. 1995: 10.

Glaser, Hermann. 1945: ein Lesebuch. Frankfurt a.M.: Fischer, 1995.Hartmann, Georg. "Rede zur Eroffnung des Goethehauses (1951)."

Denkmalpflege: Deutsche Texte aus drei Jahrhunderten. Ed. Norbert Huse.Munchen: Beck, 1996. 202-04.

Holzner, Lutz. "The Role of History and Tradition in the Urban Geography ofWest Germany." Annals of the Association of American Geographers 60(1970): 315-39.

Hubbard Philip. "The Value of Conservation: A Critical Review of BehaviouralResearch." TPR64 (1993): 359-73.

Hunter, Michael. "The Preconditions of Preservation: A Historical Perspective.Our Past before Us: Why Do We Save it? Ed. David Lowenthal and MarcusBinney. London: Temple, 1981. 22-32.

Huse, Norbert, ed. Denkmalpflege: Deutsche Texte aus drei Jahrhunderten.Munchen: Beck, 1996.

Kempowski, Walter. Interview. "Das alte Europa wurde zerstort." Spiegel On-tine 23 July 2003. 23 July 2003 <http://www.spiegel.de>.

Kiesow, Gottfried. Einfuhrung in die Denkmaipflege. Darmstadt: Wis-senschaftliche, 1982.

Kohlhaas, Ellen. "Ein Mahnmal fur den Frieden." FAZ 9 June 1996: 26.Krell, Detlev. "Offene Wunden." taz 14 Feb. 1995: 5.Larkham, Peter. Conservation and the City. London: Routledge, 1996.Layton, Robert, and Julian Thomas. "Introduction: The Destruction and Con-

servation of Cultural Property." Destruction and Conservation of CulturalProperty. Ed. Robert Layton, Peter G. Stone, and Julian Thomas. London:Routledge, 2001. 1-21.

Lowenthal, David. The Past is a Foreign Country. Cambridge: Cambridge UP,1985.

Mazzoleni, Donatella. "The City and the Imaginary." Space and Place: Theories

FRANKFURT'S GOETHEHAUS TO DRESDEN'S FRAUENKIRCHE 163

of Identity and Location. Ed. Erica Carter, James Donald, and JudithSquires. London: Lawrence, 1993. 285-301.

Meier, Bettina. "Goethe in Trummern: vor vierzig Jahren: der Streit um denWiederaufbau des Goethehauses in Frankfurt." Germanic Review 43(1988): 183-88.

Meinecke, Friedrich. Die deutsche Katastrophe. Wiesbaden: Brockhaus, 1946.Mohring, Caroline. "Der Wiederaufbau eines Mythos." FAZ 18 Apr. 2000: 4.Nadler, Hans. "The Battle to Conserve—Securing the Ruins of the

Frauenkirche." Dresden: A City Reborn. Ed. Anthony Clayton and AlanRussell. Oxford: Berg, 1999. 71-92.

Neffe, Jurgen. "Geliebte Dickmadame." Spiegei2 Oct. 1999: 292-301.Paul, Jurgen. "Dresden: Suche nach der verlorenen Mitte." Neue Stadte aus

Ruinen: Deutscher Stadtebau der Nachkriegszeit. Ed. Klaus von Beyme etal. Munchen: Prestel, 1992. 313-33.

Paul, Jurgen, Thomas Kantschew, and Uwe Kroger. Der Wiederaufbau derFrauenkirche zu Dresden: eine Aufgabe von nationaler und internationaierBedeutung. 3rd ed. Dresden: Gesellschaft zur Forderung des Wiederauf-baus der Frauenkirche Dresden e.V., 1998. N. pag.

Roost, Frank. Die Disneyfizierung der Stadte. Opiaden: Leske, 2000.Rossi, Aldo. The Architecture of the City. Cambridge, MA: MIT P, 1982.Rowntree, Lester. "Creating a Sense of Place: The Evolution of Historic Preser-

vation of Salzburg, Austria." Journai of Urban History 8 (1981): 61-76.Ruby, Andreas. "Las Vegas an der Elbe." Zeit.de 46 (2000). 8 Aug. 2001

<http://www.zeit.de>.Scheffler, Karl. "Ruine, Rekonstruktion oder Neubau? Antworten auf die Frage

des Frankfurter Goethehauses." Die Wandlung 2 (1947): 269.Steele, Jonathan. "The Night It Rained Fire." Guardian 9 Feb. 1995: T2.Sternberger, Dolf. "Das Frankfurter Goethehaus." Die Wandiunq 2 (1947)-

191-201. ''Trimborn, Jurgen. "Das 'Wunder von Dresden': der Wiederaufbau der

Frauenkirche. Ein kritischer Blick auf das 'groBte Rekonstruktionsprojektdes Jahrhunderts.'" Die Aite Stadt 97 (1997): 127-50.

von Beyme, Klaus. Neue Stadte aus Ruinen: Deutscher Stadtebau derNachkriegszeit. Munchen: Prestel, 1992.

Vonnegut, Kurt. Siaughterhouse-Five. New York: Dell, 1969.