A Decision About Stone

Yesterday, The Guardian reported that the Eagle’s Nest, the mountaintop retreat designed by architect Albert Speer for Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler, burned down last week in a suspected arson attack.¹ Before the fire, it drew more than 300,000 tourists a year. Should it be rebuilt? That’s the small question. The bigger one is what we think we’re doing when we decide whether to restore the architecture of a man whose systematic crimes we have agreed never to forget.

»There’s an uncomfortable irony here: whoever started the fire may have done less to destroy Speer’s vision than to fulfil part of it«

Speer had a theory about how Nazi buildings should age: they should eventually collapse into noble ruins, like those of ancient Rome, rather than rust into junk. He called it Ruinenwerttheorie, the »theory of ruin value«.² There’s an uncomfortable irony here: whoever started the fire may have done less to destroy Speer’s vision than to fulfil part of it. The Eagle’s Nest is now a ruin, but not the monument-weathering-over-centuries kind Speer imagined – more like a scorched shell stripped of its function in a single night. Rebuilding it exactly as it was would erase that irony, and perhaps the one moment its appearance finally matched what it represented.

Societies have faced this problem before. Hitler’s nearby Berghof holiday retreat was demolished and buried in 1952 to stop it becoming a pilgrimage site – it didn’t work; people came anyway. Nuremberg took a different approach with its monumental party rally grounds: »we won’t rebuild, we won’t restore, but we will conserve,« said culture chief Julia Lehner in 2019.³ Dresden chose a third path, leaving the Frauenkirche in ruins for forty-five years before rebuilding it with 8,500 of its own blackened stones set into new sandstone.⁴

But Lehner’s »conserve« is doing a lot of work. Conserve what, exactly? The material fabric? The silhouette? Or the function as a space built for marching and declaiming? Nuremberg conserves the first two while withholding the third: the shape stays visible, the rallying doesn’t. Ask the same question of the Eagle’s Nest and a rebuilt restaurant would do the opposite, keeping the function and sacrificing the fabric – this scorch mark, that burned beam. Lehner’s word let her sound decisive while ducking which axis she actually meant.

There’s a fourth option: make the ambiguity explicit rather than hide it. In 2000, Vienna unveiled artist Rachel Whiteread’s Holocaust memorial on the Judenplatz: a library cast in concrete and turned inside out, shelves facing the wall, permanently unreadable.⁵ Nothing is restored, nothing left to decay. Only the shape remains, hardened into an object nobody can enter or glorify. Applied to the Eagle’s Nest, this would preserve its exact volume while surrendering the material, the interior, and the function – much of the tourism included.

None of this is really architectural. Historian Dominick LaCapra’s distinction between acting-out and working-through comes closer to naming what’s at stake: working-through is »a process (not an accomplished state)« by which a society gains critical distance on its own history without the comforting fantasy of being an »innocent bystander« to it.⁶ Dresden reads as a working-through eventually attempted; the buried Berghof as a refusal to attempt it at all, Whiteread’s sealed library as a working-through that will never be finished.

Social anthropologist Mary Douglas adds something LaCapra doesn’t address: how societies classify things as clean or dirty, acceptable or taboo, and what happens to things that fit neither category.⁷ For Douglas, taboo isn’t just about evil, but about things being out of place. Decades as a working restaurant had already moved the Eagle’s Nest from Nazi relic to tourist attraction. Rebuilding it would continue that process. Sealing it, as Vienna did with its library, would put it somewhere else entirely: neither sacred nor profane, but permanently out of reach.

Bavaria’s new commission on the site’s future works in a climate where the AfD leads German polling and the Freedom Party leads in Austria; whatever it decides will say as much about how the country wants to live with its past as about what happens to a building.

The question isn’t just whether to rebuild the Eagle’s Nest, but which axis we’re actually trying to hold onto. Dresden shows a ruin can be worked through, given time and a visible scar. Nuremberg shows a structure can be conserved without its old purpose. Whiteread shows its shape can survive while everything else is surrendered. Whichever we choose, it’s a decision about stone. The building can be rebuilt. The six million cannot.

References