This article was downloaded by: [Linnaeus University]On: 06 October 2014, At: 14:14Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

The International Journal of theHistory of SportPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/fhsp20

The Olympic Village of 1936: Insightsinto the Planning and ConstructionProcessEmanuel Hübnera

a Institut für Sportwissenschaft, Westfälische Wilhelms-UniversitätMünster, Horstmarer Landweg 62 b, D-48149 Münster, GermanyPublished online: 06 Jun 2014.

To cite this article: Emanuel Hübner (2014) The Olympic Village of 1936: Insights into the Planningand Construction Process, The International Journal of the History of Sport, 31:12, 1444-1461, DOI:10.1080/09523367.2014.920826

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09523367.2014.920826

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

The Olympic Village of 1936: Insights into the Planning andConstruction Process

Emanuel Hubner*

Institut fur Sportwissenschaft, Westfalische Wilhelms-Universitat Munster, Horstmarer Landweg62 b, D-48149 Munster, Germany

A lot has been written about the Olympic Games of 1936, which were held under theNational Socialist dictatorship, and most of the issues seem to have been researched.On closer inspection, however, it is evident that this is not in fact the case. Accordingly,as part of a dissertation, the circumstances surrounding the planning, construction anduse of the Olympic Village of 1936 have been researched. For this project, unknowndocuments from more than 100 archives were analysed. Using the example of theOlympic Village, it can be shown how the Olympic Games were organised and howthey were perceived outside Berlin.

Keywords: Olympic Games of 1936; Berlin Games; Olympic Village

Introduction

The question of accommodations is always one of the most important and vital of the manywhich an Organizing Committee is called upon to solve, and for this reason the GermanOrganizing Committee gave this problem its undivided attention at an early date.1

This quotation in the official report of the Organising Committee (OC) for the 11th

Olympic Games, Berlin, 1936, was an essential motivation to research this issue. The

solution to the problem of accommodation was to build a so-called Olympic Village (OV),

which was in fact a community of male athletes during the Berlin Games. Research and the

resulting insights into this OV, its history, Olympic and political strategy as well as its

construction and use during the Games and – not least – after the Games open up new

perspectives on the 1936 Olympics as a whole and their meaning in history and public

debate. After a short introduction to the history of the 1936 Olympics and the state of the

art of this sports history topic, the paper presents research results from a PhD that dealt, on

the one hand, with the planning, construction and use of the OV of 1936 and, on the other

hand, its impact on the Berlin Olympics as a whole.2

State of the Art

The 1936 Olympic Games play a very specific role in the overall Olympic history. After

all, it was the first time that the Games took place in a dictatorship. However, they were

planned and allocated to Berlin during the Weimar Republic, when Germany was still a

democracy. The political situation had changed in the 1930s, when Hitler came to power,

so that the Olympic Games were held under the auspices of the National Socialist (NS)

dictatorship. The Games were fundamentally influenced by the change of political power

q 2014 Taylor & Francis

*Email: emanuel.huebner@uni-muenster.de

The International Journal of the History of Sport, 2014

Vol. 31, No. 12, 1444–1461, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09523367.2014.920826

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lin

naeu

s U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

14 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

in Germany. Yet, the Berlin Games are still regarded as the breakthrough of the Olympic

Games as a mega event.3 Until today, the 1936 Games are the subject of public

controversy, as well as within academic discourse. The 1936 Olympic Games are among

the most researched topics within sport history, as reflected in numerous publications.4

More than 70 years after the Berlin Games, the fascination with this event continues

unabated. The recent publication of several books, mainly in the USA, confirms this keen

public interest. With titles like ‘Nazi Games’,5 ‘Hitler’s Olympics’6 (twice!) and ‘Berlin

Games. How Hitler Stole the Olympic Dream,’7 they reveal a fixation on Hitler and his

allegedly central role in the process of planning and executing the Games. However, these

contemporary publications are characterised more by striking descriptions and morally

coloured opinions, than by new facts or critically and carefully interpreted historical

documents. In consequence, a range of misunderstandings, errors and historical myths on

these Games are presented unproved and uncritically. For example, one can find the

assertion that Albert Speer, Hitler’s esteemed architect, could have saved the Games by

intervening in the construction of the Berlin Olympic stadium.8 The argument is that

without Speer’s modifications Hitler would have cancelled the Games. This free and

unproved assertion mutated into an authentic and confirmed fact in some books. Yet, the

anecdote about Speer has often been told, but clearly disproved long ago.9

Many books and articles create the impression that the Games were organised by the

NS regime in a typically German, perfect and consist manner. However, this was far from

the reality. In fact, the planning and execution of the Games occurred in an atmosphere of

distrust, rivalry and battles for power and influence between the various people and

institutions. If authentic archival documents are considered at all, mostly or even

exclusively only archives of the upper administrative levels were considered. These are in

general the documents of the OC, the Ministries of the Reich and Hitler’s Reich

Chancellery.10 Lower levels of the administration, for example, in the different German

cities, have always been ignored by sport historians. Schiller and Young also point out that

even today, the IOC will frequently ‘reduce a complex bundle of influences and

perspectives to a moral shorthand’.11 Facts which could and should be simply accepted

were presented incorrectly and inaccurately. An example of this simple, but common

methodological tricks is given by David C. Large. He describes the OV within the lake as

part of the whole site: ‘The largest of the lakes, it turns out, briefly served as a secret

underwater-warfare-training center’.12 Frankly expressed, this sentence is simply

nonsense. First, there was only one lake. Second, this lake could only be (finally)

constructed immediately before the beginning of the Games, and there is no proof at all

that it served as a secret underwater-warfare training centre.

The Olympic stadium of Berlin has been researched in some recent publications. The

so-called Reichssportfeld has been declared a cultural heritage since 1966.13

The fate of the OV was that, after World War II it was located behind the iron curtain

in the eastern part of Germany. Apparently, the essential reason for the lack of research on

this issue was the fact that after the Games the OV was used as a barrack for the German

army (Wehrmacht) and after 1945, for the Red Army, until the breakdown of the Soviet

Union. The occupying troops left the area in 1991/1992, after which the OV became part

of the public consciousness and interest, but only a few publications were produced.14

Scopes of Research in the History of the Olympic Village

Because little is known about the 1936 OV, which is evident from the lack of publications,

this is a suitable object for research. In various archives and primary sources, information

The International Journal of the History of Sport 1445

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lin

naeu

s U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

14 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

was found enabling a reconstruction of the chronology, as well as revealing the complexity

of decisions and actions that eventually led to the construction, and yield insight into the

use of the OV. This research also contributes to a better understanding of the Games of

1936, which were indeed more than just a sporting event.

One of the central questions in this research was how such a huge project like the OV,

constructed on an area exceeding over 50 hectares, could be realised by the German NS

dictatorship. The OV project was unique at least in two respects. First, more than 100

German cities were included in the planning process. Second, the construction and

financing of the Village were supported by the Reichswehr or Wehrmacht, as Hitler

renamed the German army in 1935. After the Games were over, the OV was to be used as a

military barracks. However, the construction of these barracks was different from normal

barracks, because of the huge area and the landscaping.

Chronology and Description of the Olympic Village

On 1st August, 1936, after the parade of nations into the Olympic stadium and shortly

before the official opening of the Games by its patron Adolf Hitler, Theodor Lewald, the

president of the OC, said in his opening speech to the athletes:

Some thousands of you, gathered together from five continents, during the next few weekswill be living together in close neighbourliness and comradeship at the Olympic Village. Forits building we have to thank the German Army, which in this way made a very greatcontribution to the success of our peaceful games – wonderful symbol of its own existence. Inspite of the keenness of the contest and the ardour of the struggle, may harmony andfriendliness, understanding and comradeship prevail between you all, so that a shiningexample may be created of that ideal, emphasized again and again by our Fuhrer andChancellor, of friendly cooperation between all the peoples. So shall this Festival of theNations be a festival of victory for the best, a festival of peace for all.15

The OV was located in Doberitz, about 14 km west of Berlin. Most of the 4000 male

athletes lived there during the Games. The circa 350 female participants were

accommodated in halls of residence close to the Olympic stadium.16 (Only in 1991 did the

IOC finally overturn the segregation.17) The OV was intended to be more than just cheap

accommodation for the athletes, as Lewald’s statement claims. Just as it was in 1932, it

should again in 1936 be an architectonic symbol of the Olympic vision of sportsmanship,

peace and understanding.18 However, the ambivalence of Lewald’s statement is clear in

retrospect. On the one hand, the youth of the world should gather peacefully in the village,

but on the other hand, the Reich War Ministry constructed and financed it. This

construction was not of course referred to in his statement. On the contrary, he praised the

contribution of the army.

From early on, the OVwas intended to be used as amilitary barracks. This plan was part

of the rearmament process of the German Army since the 1920s, which was intensified very

substantially since the NS regime seized power in 1933.19 After the Games, the army

divided the barracks in two sections, one continued to be called the ‘Olympisches Dorf’ and

was used for the officer training. The other part was the ‘Olympia-Lazarett’ and used as a

military hospital.

Accommodation for Olympic Athletes until 1932

The idea of hosting Olympic Games athletes in collective accommodation was neither new

nor an innovation of the German organisers of the Berlin Games. Since the beginning of

the modern Olympics in Athens in 1896, the number of participants had increased from a

1446 E. Hubner

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lin

naeu

s U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

14 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

few hundred to many thousands.20 Therefore, the need for adequate accommodation of

athletes, coaches and other attendants, as well as spectators, became increasingly

important. The accommodation was to cater for the needs and interests of the athletes with

regard to preparing for their competitions, as well as for relaxation. They should also be

low priced, because the budget of the young athletes and their NOCs was limited, also

given the high costs of travelling to the Olympic Games. Another reason became apparent

during the Summer Games of Amsterdam in 1928. Most of the hotels were occupied by

spectators, so that athletes were accommodated in schools, ships or private lodgings.21 In

1921, the IOC executive committee had already decided that every OC was obliged to

provide adequate and low-priced accommodation.22

The OC of the Summer Games of 1932 in Los Angeles proposed in 1930 during the

IOC session in Berlin that collective accommodation for the athletes would be built and

called the ‘Olympic Village’. The IOC supported this proposal, partly because of the

difficult economic situation in the 1930s when the Great Depression made it difficult and

sometimes impossible for many athletes to take part in these games.

However, not everyone was in favour of the idea of living together with their

opponents. Some were even concerned about being observed in order to glean training

secrets.23 The construction of the OV in Los Angeles took just two months. The 500 small

wooden houses spread over an area of 64 hectares in a suburb of Los Angeles held 2000

people (Figure 1) and was only for male athletes. The 127 female athletes were hosted in a

hotel. The OV of Los Angeles was a great success and an important part of these Games.24

The German officials who visited the Los Angeles Games studied all the details

intensively and were convinced of the concept overall of the OV. Carl Diem, General

Secretary of theDeutscher Reichsausschuß fur Leibesubungen (DRA) (Reich Commission

for Physical Training) and chief organiser of the Berlin Olympics, was overwhelmed by

the American sports sites, the OV and the sports system in general. The idea of having

collective accommodation for athletes was already mentioned and praised by him during

his first Olympics in 1906 in Athens as a young sports journalist.25

Planning Athletes’ Accommodation for 1936

In 1931, the IOC had given the Games of 1936 to Berlin.26 Lewald, president of the

DRA, the umbrella organisation of the German bourgeois gymnastics and sports clubs

Figure 1. A cottage of the Olympic Village of 1932, rebuilt in the Olympic Village of 1936 duringthe Berlin Olympics. Source: Photo: Author’s collection.

The International Journal of the History of Sport 1447

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lin

naeu

s U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

14 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

and federations, as well as his General Secretary Diem regarded this as a unique chance

to realise Olympic Games in Germany. Both had been working hard for the

organisation of the Games of 1916 when the Olympic Games were to have been held

for the first time in Germany. Unfortunately, World War I destroyed that dream of

German Olympians. After the re-approved allocation of the Games to Berlin and after

his experiences at the Los Angeles Games, Diem composed a memorandum for the

DRA on how to plan and organise the 1936 Games. This paper was used as a manual

for the preparation of the Games and in January 1933, an OC was officially founded.27

Initially, Lewald as President and Diem as General Secretary28 had a plan to build an

OV close to the Berlin exhibition centre. The organisers expected about 3500 participants,

2000 more than in Los Angeles. However, the Berlin OC soon realised that the building of

an OV would not be possible due to the high costs. Thus, Diem and Lewald activated their

connections to the Reichswehr and asked for help. Specifically, they proposed the

conversion of an existing military barracks west of Berlin, situated on a military training

ground. The Reichswehr agreed to do so when, during its session in June 1933 in Vienna,

the IOC repeated its wish to have an OV built.

In general, it should also be mentioned that the issue of accommodation was far less

important than the construction of a stadium. The old stadium of 1913, the ‘Deutsches

Stadion’ (German Stadium), was to be reconstructed and modernised. However, decisions

on planning and building the stadium were delayed because of unresolved questions

concerning ownership and how to finance the project.29

When Adolf Hitler became Germany’s new chancellor in January 1933, many things

changed radically, not only in all areas of society, but also concerning the preparation of

the Berlin Olympics. Already in September 1932, Hitler had stated in a declaration to the

IOC that the NS party had nothing against holding the Olympic Games in Germany.30

When he came into power in 1933, he assured the OC President, Lewald, of the new

governments’ full support for the preparation of the Games.31

In July 1933, NS politicians demanded a personnel change in the OC. They did not

dare to dismiss the non-party members Lewald and Diem as President and General

Secretary, because of their standing in the Olympic movement. However, they also

demanded two seats in the OC for the party, that of the Reichssportfuhrer (Reich Sport

Leader) Hans von Tschammer und Osten, and the other for the state secretary of the

Ministry of the Interior, Hans Pfundtner, who became vice-president of the OC.32

Hitler himself was quite interested in the Olympics. In October 1933, when he saw the

plans for the conversion of the old stadium, he claimed already to have a much larger

stadium and more sporting facilities in Berlin. However, the statement that financial and

economic arguments were considered irrelevant, as can frequently be read in the literature,

is not correct. Pfundtner, for example, argued that despite the orders of the Fuhrer, money

was to be spent economically and within the financial constraints of the Reich’s budget. He

wanted the sports facilities to be high quality, but subject to certain economic criteria.33

There are several good examples of cost-cutting for the planned buildings. The

administrators of various Reich ministries of Finance and of the Interior agreed with such

measures. In their opinion, only those facilities should be built which were absolutely

necessary for the Games. Therefore, the cycling stadium was not built for permanent use,

but only as a mobile stadium for the duration of the Games.34

Lewald and Diem were aware that they depended substantially on the new rulers in

Germany. They also knew that they were only allowed to keep their jobs to ensure that the

Games would be held.35 However, they believed they could protect the Games from political

influence, or take advantage of the political power of theNazi for the needs of theOlympics.36

1448 E. Hubner

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lin

naeu

s U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

14 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

Diplomats and critical observers from abroad were well aware that the brief cessation

of anti-Semitic actions before the Games was mainly motivated by the desire to avoid

compromising the Games and to avoid a boycott.37 However, not everybody was critical or

astute enough to see this and even Jews visited Berlin as enthusiastic Olympic fans.38

Planning the Olympic Village in Doberitz

WhenDiem read the Official Report of the LosAngeles Games in the summer of 1933 for the

first time, he was most impressed by the description of the OV. He advised his old sports

comrade Walter von Reichenau,Oberst in the Reichswehr and member of the OC executive

committee to read the chapter about the OV in the report.39 They knew each other from their

early days as athletes in the sports club of Berlin-Charlottenburg. In 1932, Reichenau was

chief of the office of the Reich War Ministry, which was equivalent to the position of a state

secretary. Reichenau conceived the idea of building anOV.He spoke to theWarMinister and

persuaded him to build a completely new site with small houses, which could first be used as

accommodation for the Olympic athletes, and afterwards as a military barracks. Diem and

Reichenau visited the area in the summer of 1933.40 TheWarMinisterWerner vonBlomberg

asked Hitler in person for his permission to build such a barracks in that area.41

The brothersWernerMarch andWalterMarch were assigned to design the architectural

plan for theOlympic stadium and theReichssportfeld. They had also designed the first plans

for theOVwhen theymet inNovember 1933withDiem andReichenau inDoberitz. TheOC

and the public were informed about these plans in the spring of 1934.

Apparently, the idea of creating a completely new OV arose independently of the

architects’ plans for the sports facilities in Berlin. They began only when Hitler himself

had approved them. The administrations of the Reich Ministry of the Interior were

responsible, and the Reich War Ministry was responsible for the OV. Both the War

Ministry and the OC took full advantage of this project. The OC profited from the

partnership with the German Army, which provided the opportunity to create an OV as

Diem has always dreamed. The German Army for its part was able to promote the image of

an army of peace which was favourable in terms of public and international recognition.42

Furthermore, state secretary Pfundtner was grateful for the budgetary relief with the army

financing the OV. However, Pfundtner was jealous of Diem and Lewald and criticised

their policies of communication and information.43 As a representative of the Reich

Ministry of the Interior, he had not been included in the consultations concerning the OV.

When the German delegation reported on the preparations for the Berlin Games during

the IOC session in Athens in 1934, the IOC members were very satisfied. Lewald

explained that a completely new OV would be built, consisting of small single-story

houses in which up to 24 athletes would be able to reside. The whole complex had a unique

character due to the architectural design. The area was characterised by means of its long

open landscape, and the houses were to be built along the borders in slightly curved rows.

Two larger buildings were to be added on either end; at the southern end of the area, a

reception building (in the form of a quarter circle, 250 m long), and in the north-west

another large building including 50 kitchens and 50 dining rooms (Figures 2–3). The

different nations would be able to cook their own food.

The area was partly covered by trees, which were included in the architecture of the

site. The idea was to integrate the houses into the landscape and not the other way round.44

The IOC members were not concerned by the fact that the OV would be close to a military

training ground. However, at that time, there were only a few military buildings there, with

most being built after 1933.

The International Journal of the History of Sport 1449

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lin

naeu

s U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

14 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

After the IOC session inAthens, the realwork could start.WernerMarchwas nominated

as responsible architect for the OV. Together with his brotherWalter, Georg Steinmetz and

the garden and landscape architect Heinrich Friedrich Wiepking-Jurgensmann, a group of

experts were formed under the name of ‘Arbeitsgemeinschaft Olympisches Dorf’ (AOD)

(Olympic Village Working Group). The March brothers had already developed plans for a

German Sport Forum at Berlin in the 1920s. Steinmetz, a close friend ofWernerMarch, was

an experienced town planner as well as in the construction of modern buildings,45 while

Figure 2. An aerial view (postcard) of the Olympic Village of 1936 in Doberitz near Berlin a fewdays before the beginning of the Olympic Games.Note: In the foreground the reception building, in the background the dining building. Source:Postcard: Author’s collection.

Figure 3. The curved front of the dining building.Note: After the Olympics, it became a military hospital. State of construction in 2008. Source: Photoby the author.

1450 E. Hubner

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lin

naeu

s U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

14 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

Wiepking-Jurgensmann was one of the most famous landscape gardeners of the time.

Together with the March brothers, he also participated in the construction of the

Reichssportfeld in Berlin. The AOD was supported by staff members of the Reich War

Ministry, because military construction guidelines had to be followed,46 although in fact,

theAODdid not stick to these guidelines completely. For example, according to themilitary

instructions only houses with two or three storieswere acceptable for use as barracks.47 This

did not correspond with the plans for the OV in Doberitz, with its single-story houses.

However, the influence of these military guidelines still can be seen in certain details, for

example the way the doors or the ferro-concrete attic floors were constructed.48

From the spring of 1934 onwards, construction plans were received. The construction

of buildings followed, according to the plans of May 1934, as presented in the IOC session.

However, some modifications should be mentioned:

. A sports ground for exercise and training was integrated.

. Instead of a gymnasium, two buildings were constructed, one for indoor exercises,

the other for social events.

. A swimming hall was constructed.

. Finally, an artificial lake was to be integrated into the landscape. This lake was

supplemented by a sauna building.

. The number of 130 houses which, according to the plans of June 1934, was to have

3012 beds was changed to 138 houses with 3036 beds. The final architectural

concept from spring 1935 provided for 140 houses (3250 beds).49

It is difficult to determine the exact contribution of each architect and building of the

OV. Apparently, Werner March had designed the whole site, but the landscaper Wiepking-

Jurgensmann played a major role in the development of gardens and the landscape. In

addition, the AOD sought advice from the Finnish architect Erik Bryggman regarding the

sauna building.50

The Construction Period

In the autumn of 1934, the digging started and at the same time, two houses were built as

models. For which the artistic design, among other things, was to be tested.51 Shortly after

the start of digging, much to the architects’ surprise, neolithic artefacts were found.

Experts from the Museum of Pre- and Early History in Berlin were consulted, who

initiated archaeological diggings until January 1935. Their findings were subsequently

displayed in the reception building of the OV.52

The OV was administrated by Hauptmann (captain) Furstner of the Reich War

Ministry since turn of the year 1934/1935.53 From the beginning, it was clear that Furstner

would do this job only temporarily. During the Games, an experienced and more senior

officer would be nominated as commandant.54 The role of Furstner is insofar noteworthy,

because he committed suicide for unknown reasons two days after the closing ceremony of

the Olympics of 1936, on 18th August. Some historians believe that Furstner had been

informed that he would be forced out of the army, because of his Jewish ancestry, but there

is no evidence of this hypothesis.55

Interior Design of the Team Houses

When the construction work started, the art design of the village and especially the interior

decoration of the rows of houses for the various teams also commenced. Diem and

The International Journal of the History of Sport 1451

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lin

naeu

s U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

14 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

Furstner signed a letter (dated on 16th April, 1936) that was sent to over 140 German

cities. It contained important information on the OV and how it ought to be remembered

by all active participants after Games were over. Each team house was to be named after

and decorated by a particular German city. The OC asked the various cities if they wanted

such a house to be named after them and have the interior decorated with pictures,

photographs, emblems and others icons of the city.

It is not clear according to which criteria the municipalities were ultimately chosen.

However, it seems like the historical, cultural and economic significance of the community

was of some importance. The OC was convinced that most of the cities would be

interested, as the correspondence between Diem and several municipalities shows.

However, the fact that the cities would pay for the right to have a house bear their name

and also cover the expenses for three murals, as well as for 24 photographs, in addition to

the bedding (3 £ 26 pieces) with their city’s emblem, resulted in a poor response.56 This

idea of communal sponsorship for the OV was introduced at a press conference in

December 1934 and it remains unclear who exactly came up with this idea.57

The calculations from the OC as to how much it would cost the cities was different to

what the municipalities calculated. The OC spoke of 2000 German Reichsmark, and some

of the cities of more than 6500 Reichsmark.58 Yet, Diem and the OC were surprised that

most municipalities showed hardly any interest. The enthusiasm in the German states was

also not very high, but with a few exceptions. Only a few days after the request of the OC,

the Burgermeister of Coburg (Upper Franconia) responded that his city would be proud to

design and decorate a house in the OV, which would be significant for the city image. The

name of this small city in the middle of Germany would be proudly presented in the capital

of the Reich.59 The urban administration did not forget to mention that Coburg had been

the first city in Germany to elect, in the 1920s, a city council with a NS majority.60

In general, only a few cities were willing to participate in the project and to spend

money on it. Only about 20 of 141 invited cities sent an artist of their own choice to Berlin

to paint the murals.61 Furthermore, the call for bed linen with emblems of the cities was

withdrawn in October 1935.62 The OC had hoped to receive at least 2000 Reichsmark from

each city, but in the end, only about 200 Reichsmark were paid for the reproduction of

photographs,63 and even this sum was never paid by some cities, despite numerous

requests.64 The OC may have suspected these difficulties and, for this reason, did not tell

the cities about their intention not to return the photographs to the municipalities, but to

give them to the accommodated athletes as presents.

Two essential reasons can be mentioned for the lukewarm response from the cities.

First, there was the difficult or more accurately, disastrous financial situation of the

communities and, second, their lack of conviction as to the economic or tourism potential

from these outlays, as in the following examples. The mayor of Baden-Baden (Baden), a

famous health resort with a long international tourist tradition, argued that these

promotional expenses would be totally out of proportion to the likely positive results.

Therefore, he refused outright to participate in the project.65 In Freiberg (Saxony), a

member of the city council noted that a city such as theirs was permanently under pressure,

due to the high unemployment rate and cost of supporting the poor. They were therefore

neither able nor willing to spend money on such an extravagance. The municipality should

spend better build houses in Freiberg than painting houses in Berlin.66

In order to finish the artistic painting project for the building in the OV, the Reich

Minister for Science and Education had to intervene. Fifteen professors from all German

art academies were engaged to do this job.67 From March until the end of April 1936, a

dozen freelance artists and about 200 students decorated the team houses of the OV.68

1452 E. Hubner

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lin

naeu

s U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

14 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

To summarise, the project to integrate and motivate German cities to the design and

decoration of the OV cannot be regarded as a success. While this must have been

extremely disappointing for the organisers, in public and in the media, a different image

was presented. The contemporary press reported in 1936 that each house in the OV was

named after a different German city; the keen competition among the cities for the right to

name a house in the OV was (falsely) proclaimed.69

The lack of interest on the part of the municipalities in this idea was mainly motivated

by their grave financial and economic situation. Many were obliged by law to improve

their spending capacity (‘Gesetz zur Erhaltung und Hebung der Kaufkraft’) – dated 24th

March, 1934 – by dealing very economically with the budget. Only those expenses were

allowed which were needed by law to fulfil the basic obligations of the municipality.70

This may have been a reason why the OC mentioned the significance of the project for

expansion of tourism. In addition, the request of the OC was not the only one concerning

support of the Games. Despite these general tendencies, some cities did indeed sponsor

‘their’ houses in the OV, as hoped by the OC.71

In January 1936, it became apparent that more athletes than expected would be

participating in the Olympic Games.72 Therefore, additional accommodation had to be

built. This was achieved in two ways. First, in each house, the massage room was

converted into a further bedroom. Second, construction work was also done on the barrack

building for the flak battery in the western part of the OV which held nearly 1000 beds and

could also be used as accommodation. Accordingly, the village would have enough beds

for the roughly 4500 athletes.

Under time pressure, construction was completed in April 1936 and the first athletes

arrived shortly afterwards in June. Some German athletes were the first, followed by some

Japanese and the Australian delegation.73 The photographs of the cities could not be

installed until just before the beginning of the Games.74

Finally, it should be mentioned that many constructors and builders were very unhappy

about the situation, because of the many changes and special wishes of the architects. The

profits were low, and some contractors were not paid before 1937.75

Press Coverage

The German press reported extensively about the OV. This was only possible because

reports were provided by press agencies, news services and the newspapers’ own

journalists of their own. Two points of interest in the reporting should be mentioned. First,

many articles presented the OV as a symbol of the strong will of the German people to

rebuild Germany under the new leadership. The new NS regime stood for a strong nation

after its decline in the recent past. Sometimes and in that context, the (alleged) personal

engagement of Hitler for the Olympics and the OV were pointed out. Second, the OV was

mentioned as a symbol of the will for peace and understanding of the NS regime, as well as

of the German Army.76 Consequently, during the Games, many articles were published

with stories about the international atmosphere and the peaceful coexistence of athletes

from all over the world in the Village. The media communicated the impression that

foreign guests felt safe and content in NS Germany.77

Some specific publications such as ‘Form und Farbe’ (‘Form and Colour’), a journal of

the painters guild, criticised the murals on the team houses.78

After the international guests had moved into the OV, the foreign press reported

regularly on life there. The feedback varied – just as before the Olympics – from very

positive evaluations to radical criticism of the OV as a whole.79 The remarks by the British

The International Journal of the History of Sport 1453

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lin

naeu

s U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

14 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

athlete and gold and silver medal winner in athletics, Arthur Brown, show the

controversial reactions in a land with a free press like Britain. After the Berlin Games,

Brown criticised them and the OV in an article in a Cambridge university paper:

The Germans were rightly proud of the Olympic Village, but even this had its drawbacks. Wewere nearly ten miles from the Stadium, fifteen from the city, and were surrounded by a highwire fence. Nor did the fact that when we left, the Village would become a place whereGermans would learn the latest ways of killing us increase our appreciation of their hospitality( . . . ).( . . . ) The fact is that some of us went to Berlin with the mistaken idea that we weregoing to watch or take part in a Sports meeting; instead we were treated to a piece of politicalpropaganda.80

However, only a few days later, two other participants in the Games, a British and a

Czechoslovakian athlete, wrote a letter to another newspaper in Cambridge and

vehemently contradicted Brown and his criticism:

It was known before the Games that the Village was to be used as a Military academy. Couldthe Germans have been expected to build such magnificent accommodation for solely twoweek’s use? . . . The petty question of the wire round the camp, which seems to have troubledMr. Brown so greatly, was up solely to protect the more famous athletes from autographhunters and the curious public.81

Evaluation by Contemporaries

The question of whether the organisers themselves evaluated the OV positively is difficult

to answer and can only be done indirectly. The IOC praised the OV as well as the Games.

On the occasion of the IOC session on 15th August 1936, IOC president Baillet-Latour

congratulated the German IOC members on the Berlin Games, which were impressive in

every respect. The Germans and the German OC had been able to generate real Olympic

enthusiasm among all classes in Germany. The Olympic ideals had been transported

successfully into the hearts of Germans.82 In November 1936, the IOC’s Olympic Bulletin

officially reported on the Games. Concerning the OV, the report argued that the athletes

had found an excellent combination of the benefits of a home with those of a club.83 This

very positive impression and evaluation of the IOC members even influenced the

allocation to Munich of the Olympics in 1972, 30 years later.84

The German government also seemed to be very content with the Games. In September

1936, Rudolf Heß, the Deputy of the Fuhrer, gave a speech at the Reichsparteitag in

Nuremberg and praised the Games enthusiastically.85 Most of the foreign visitors and

athletes who experienced the OV were evidently satisfied with and excited by the Games, as

well as the Village.86 As contemporary documents (correspondence, diaries, press

interviews) demonstrate, the majority was positive about their visit and experiences in

Berlin. Before travelling home, some of the foreign guests visited the city named their house

in the Village.87 They took the photographs off the walls as souvenirs of Berlin, as intended

by the OC.88 However, it is not possible to determine whether the generally positive

memories were due to specific experiences in the OV, or whether this would have been like

the case at any Olympics, combined with the exciting travel to a foreign country which

generally leaves a positive memory.

The German War Ministry also was satisfied with the results of its investment. The

employed officers and the responsible military administrators were full of praise. The

organisers and the Wehrmacht never concealed the fact that the OV was in fact a military

camp and would be used after the Games as a barracks. The foreign visitors obviously did

not mind this – at least the majority of them. As contemporary photos illustrate, neither

1454 E. Hubner

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lin

naeu

s U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

14 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

foreign visitors nor athletes seemed to have any fear of or reservations about contact with

German soldiers and officers (Figures 1 and 4).

The affinity of sport and military was not regarded as strange or inappropriate.

Therefore, the intention of German politicians to convey an image of a peace-loving

German Army to the world succeeded.

Finally, the chief organiser of theGames, General SecretaryDiem,must surely have been

eminently satisfied. His vision of the Games and the OV as an event that demonstrated

Olympic peace and common sportsmanship across the world had been fulfilled. Nonetheless,

critical remarks with regard to the ReichWar Ministry as well as to officials of the Reich and

the NS party can be found in his diary and his correspondence.89 In general, he was relieved

that theGames had been successful andwas happywith the event. In the early 1960s, when he

visited Japan in the function of a counsellor for the Olympic Games of Tokyo of 1964, he

repeatedly mentioned his positive experiences with Berlin 1936 and the OV.90

Reception

After the Berlin Games and until the end of World War II, the memory of the OV was kept

alive by the names ‘Olympisches Dorf’ and ‘Olympia-Lazarett’. Leni Riefenstahl’s

famous Olympia films, various books, articles and the popular albums of collected pictures

of the Olympics91 ensured that the OV was not forgotten. However, only very rarely was

the concept as well as the specific landscape architecture of the OV mentioned. The plans

for the Games of Tokyo in 1940 were closely connected to those of Berlin in 1936.92 The

same can be said of the organisers of the Games of Helsinki in 1940, who attempted to

replace Tokyo in 1938, but failed as well. They explicitly tried to adopt the German

model.93 However, the Games of 1940 never took place, and in the longer run, the

architecture of the village did not exert a lasting impact on subsequent Games.

Concluding Remarks

When the Red Army was in the process of conquering the relevant area of Berlin in the

spring of 1945, the officers used maps in which the OV in Doberitz was marked. However,

Figure 4. Olympic participants during training.Note: In the background a typical residential building of the Olympic Village. Source: Photo:Author’s collection.

The International Journal of the History of Sport 1455

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lin

naeu

s U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

14 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

it remains unclear whether the significance of the location was evident to the Soviet

occupiers. Whatever the case, they used the houses as barracks and from the 1960s

onwards, as apartments for family members of Red Army soldiers, although many of the

houses were destroyed and replaced by apartment buildings. After the reunification of

Germany and the withdrawal of the occupying troops from Germany, the Bundeswehr

(German Army) was to have taken over the barracks. However the army refused, certainly

because of the high costs of reconstruction. For many years, it was unclear what would

happen to the former OV. In 1993, the area was declared as a site of historical interest and

therefore preserved. In 2009, the site became part of a special new programme for the

preservation of cultural monuments of national significance. From 2009 until 2013,

several projects for the rehabilitation of selected monuments like the swimming hall were

conducted.

However, the memory of the OV will remain ambivalent. Even so, the preservation as

this site of historical interest will surely help to keep the memory of the Olympic Games

and the OV of 1936 alive.

Notes on Contributor

Emanuel Hubner is a historian, archaeologist und geographer. At the moment he is a scientificassistant at the Institut fur Sportwissenschaft (Institute of Sport Science) of the WestfalischeWilhelms-Universitat Munster, Germany. In 2014 he completed his dissertation (PhD) about“Planung, Bau und Nutzung des Olympischen Dorfes von 1936” (“Planing, construction and use ofthe Olympic Village from 1936”).

Notes

1. Organisationskomitee fur die XI. Olympiade Berlin 1936, The XIth Olympic Games Berlin,1936, 168.

2. In recent years, research on sports architecture has become a special focus of sport historicalresearch. See, for example, the four-volume work of Gold and Gold, The Making of OlympicCities.

3. Young, “‘A Victory for the Olympic Idea’.”4. Current literature, see Becker, Den Sport gestalten; Kluge, Lennartz and Teichler,

Autogrammbucher Berlin 1936. Olympiade 1936.5. Large, Nazi Games.6. Hilton, Hitler’s Olympics; Rippon, Hitler’s Olympics.7. Walters, Berlin Games.8. Schache and Szymanski, Das Reichssportfeld, 78–80 with footnote no. 136.9. See, for example, Kershaw, Hitler 2: 1936-1945, 36; Thamer, Die Olympischen Spiele in

Berlin, 1936, 2.10. An exception is the estate of the General Secretary of the organising committee, Carl Diem.

It has been recently analysed by Becker, Den Sport gestalten.11. Schiller and Young, The 1972 Munich Olympics, 58.12. Large, Nazi Games, 158.13. Marg, Olympiastadion Berlin, 20. Results of the first comprehensive study in: Eckert, R.,

W. Schache, N. Szymanski and A. Tietenberg. Zu Geschichte und Bestand des ehemaligenReichssportfeldes in Berlin-Charlottenburg: Eine bau- und gartenhistorische Expertise unterbesonderer Berucksichtigung denkmalpflegerischer Aspekte, 3 parts (Berlin 1992). Humboldt-Universitat, Berlin, Zentralbibliothek, signature: LK 16686 E19-1; 2, 1; 2, 2.

14. Monographs: Cilleßen, Das Olympische Dorf 1936 (36 pages); Dost, Das Olympische Dorf1936 im Wandel der Zeit (80 pages). Articles (selection): Hofer, “Berliner Gesichter”; Hubner,“Haus Schandau. Ein Mannschaftsgebaude des Olympischen Dorfes von 1936.”

15. Cited according to Organisationskomitee fur die XI. Olympiade Berlin 1936, The XIth OlympicGames Berlin, 1936, 562–3.

16. Ibid., 225–31.

1456 E. Hubner

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lin

naeu

s U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

14 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

17. International Olympic Committee, Olympic Charter, 42.18. Xth Olympiade Committee of the Games of Los Angeles U.S.A. 1932, The Games of the Xth

Olympiad, 233.19. Schottelius and Caspar, “Die Organisation des Heeres 1933–1939,” 289–91.20. Kluge, Olympische Sommerspiele, 22, 53, 130, 174, 224, 298, 401, 493, 604, 701, 792.21. van Rossem, The Ninth Olympiad Being the Official Report, 235.22. IOC Archives, Lausanne (CH), Comite International Olympique, Commission executive

1921–1979, Proces-verbal de la Seance tenue par la Commission Administrative du C.I.O. leDimanche 6 Novembre 1921.

23. Xth Olympiade Committee of the Games of Los Angeles U.S.A. 1932, The Games of the XthOlympiad, 235.

24. See, for example, the official report of the IOC about the Olympic Games of 1932 in LosAngeles. Internationales Olympisches Komitee, Offizielles Organ 7, no. 22 (1932), 27.CuLDA, Tagebucher Carl Diem, 16.5.1934, KZ 06/0263400.

25. See Diem’s letter to his fellow,OberstWalter von Reichenau, in August 1933. C. Diem, Berlin,to W. von Reichenau (without local indication), 19.8.1933. Carl-und-Liselott-Diem-Archiv(CuLDA), Deutsche Sporthochschule Koln (GER), Korrespondenz Carl Diem – Walter v.Reichenau.

26. Internationales Olympisches Komitee, Offizielles Organ 6, no. 18 (1931), 26. IOC-SekretarBerdez (without local indication), to T. Lewald, Berlin, 1.6.1931. IOC Archive, JO-1936SCOJO, ID: 10404.

27. Deutscher Reichsausschuß fur Leibesubungen, Deutscher Olympischer Ausschuß, Denkschriftuber die Vorbereitung der XI. Olympischen Spiele zu Berlin. Landesarchiv Berlin (GER), ARep. 001-02 Nr. 478.

28. Organisationskomitee fur die XI. Olympiade Berlin 1936, The XIth Olympic Games Berlin,1936, 34, 46–7.

29. See, for example, Der Reichssportfuhrer, Berlin, to Staatssekretar Pfundtner, Bad Kissingen,9.9.1933. BArch, R 1501/5608, Fiche 2, 133. Ministerialrat Reichle, Berlin, to StaatssekretarPfundtner (without local indication), 15.9.1933. BArch, R 1501/5608, Fiche 2, 143.

30. A. Hitler, Kanzlei, Munchen, to Dr. Kufner, Rechtskundiger II. Burgermeister, Munchen,29.9.1932. IOC Archive, JO-1936S-POLIT, ID: 203362.

31. Der Staatssekretar in der Reichskanzlei, Berlin, Pressenotiz, 16.3.1933. BArch, R 43 II/729,Fiche 1, 13.

32. In the second half of 1933, the influence by the National Socialist regime grew. See, forexample with respect to the Reich Sport Leader the two letters: C. Diem, (without localindication), to Th. Lewald, (without local indication), 7.8.1933. CuLDA, Korrespondenz CarlDiem – Theodor Lewald. Also: Der Reichssportfuhrer, Berlin, to C. Diem, Berlin, 10.8.1933.CuLDA, Korrespondenz Carl Diem – Hans v. Tschammer und Osten.

33. Vermerk uber die Besprechung vom 18. Oktober 1933 im Reichsministerium des Innern, 1–4.BArch, R 1501/5608, Fiche 3, 207–13.

34. Minutes of a meeting of representatives of the Reich Ministry of the Interior and the ReichMinistry of Finance, Berlin, 6.7.1933. BArch, R 1501/5608, Fiche 1, 5–6.

35. Becker, Den Sport gestalten, 59–83.36. See, for example, the letter C. Diem (without local indication), to R. Franz, Tsingtau (China),

21.8.1936. CuLDA, Korrespondenz Carl Diem – Richard Franz.37. Bajohr and Strupp, Fremde Blicke auf das ‘Dritte Reich’, 52.38. See the autobiography from Fred Hertz (2002). The 15-year old, sports-minded Jew from

Coesfeld (Westphalia) travelled to Berlin in 1936 for the Olympic Games. Hertz,Vierhundertsechsundvierzig Jahre und zehn Tage, 85.

39. C. Diem, Berlin, to W. von Reichenau (without local indication), 19.8.1933. Carl-und-Liselott-Diem-Archiv (CuLDA), Deutsche Sporthochschule Koln (GER), Korrespondenz Carl Diem –Walter v. Reichenau.

40. Diem, “Erinnerungen an Walter von Reichenau,” 9. The text wrongly called 1934 instead ofthe correct year which should be 1933.

41. Grueber, “Das Dorf des Friedens.”42. Furstner, “Das Olympische Dorf.”43. See, for example, Reichsministerium des Innern, Berlin, to C. Diem, Berlin, 19.4.1934. BArch,

R 1501/5609, Fiche 4, 301–2.

The International Journal of the History of Sport 1457

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lin

naeu

s U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

14 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

44. See the tender for the gardening work: Ausschreibung der gartnerischen Arbeiten fur dasolympische Dorf Doberitz, 23.2.1935. Archive of the Technische Universitat Berlin (GER),Bestand 208 Nr. 16, 15.

45. Kurze, “Industriearchitektur eines Weltunternehmens,” 286–7; Steinmetz, Grundlagen fur dasBauen in Stadt und Land 1-3.

46. March, “Der Aufbau des Olympischen Dorfes,” 16–17.47. Rudelius, “Wehrmachtsbauten,” 608.48. Shatterproof slabs mentioned in: Arbeitsgemeinschaft Olympisches Dorf to Firma Paul

Florian, 4.5.1935. Archive of the Stadtgeschichtliches Museum Spandau, Berlin (GER),Sammlung Florian, Akte 505. Shatterproffed slabs required by: Hvv. 1, 122, 10.4.1934. Jacob,Sammlung von Heeresverwaltungs-Verfugungen, 137.

49. Das Olympische Dorf. Zusammenstellung von statistischen Angaben fur die Pressefuhrung am28. Mai 1935. CuLDA, Sachakten 561 (Olympische Spiele 1936, Berlin – Materialien I).

50. Drafts of him for three saunas are archived. But they were not implemented. Hubner, “SomeNotes on the Preparations for the Olympic Games,” 951–3. Unknown is who had the idea to usethe great dining House (‘Speisehaus der Nationen’) as a military hospital when the Games wereover.

51. Regierungsprasident fur den Regierungsbezirk Potsdam, Potsdam, to Preussischer Finanzmin-ister, Berlin, 3.11.1934. Geheimes Staatsarchiv, Berlin (GER), HA I, Rep. 151, IV, Nr. 672.W. Rohricht, Berlin, to Oberburgermeister von Weimar, 16.4.1935. Stadtarchiv Weimar(GER), 12/6-64-15.

52. See the picture in Bestehorn and Hoffmann, “Indogermanischer Totenkultplatz imOlympischen Dorf.”

53. Bericht uber die Sitzung des Vorstandes am Mittwoch, dem 13. Juni 1934, 16 Uhr, imReichsministerium des Innern, 13.6.1934, 4. BArch, R 8076/343, Fiche 4, 312.

54. Der Reichskriegsminister und Oberbefehlshaber der Wehrmacht, Berlin, to Oberbefehlshaberdes Heeres (without local indication), 5.3.1936, Bundesarchiv-Militararchiv (BArch-MA),Freiburg i.Br. (GER), Pers. 6/157, 10.

55. Kopp, Wolfgang Furstner (1896–1936), 101–8.56. See, for example, Organisationskomitee, Berlin, to Oberburgermeister von Koburg, 16.4.1935.

Stadtarchiv Coburg (GER), A 5520.57. Anonymous, “Das Olympische Dorf: Die Vorbereitungen fur die 11. Olympischen Spiele”;

W., “Eine Anregung: ‘Augsburg’ im Olympischen Dorf.”58. Verkehrsverein Coburg to Stadtische Sparkasse Coburg, 18.10.1935. Stadtarchiv Coburg

(GER), A 5520; Stadtamt fur Leibesubungen, Plauen, to Stadtbauamt, Plauen, 29.4.1935.Stadtarchiv Plauen (GER), Rep. III, Kap. VII, Sek. I, Nr. 54.

59. Oberburgermeister von Coburg to Organisationskomitee, Berlin, 25.4.1935. StadtarchivCoburg (GER), A 5520.

60. Verkehrsverein Coburg to Stadtische Sparkasse Coburg, 18.10.1935. Stadtarchiv Coburg(GER), A 5520.

61. Der Reichs- und Preußische Minister fur Wissenschaft, Erziehung und Volksbildung, Berlin, toDirektor der Vereinigten Staatsschulen fur freie und angewandte Kunst, Berlin (et al.),4.10.1935. Der Reichs- und Preußische Minister fur Wissenschaft, Erziehung undVolksbildung, Berlin, an Direktor der Vereinigten Staatsschulen fur freie und angewandteKunst, Berlin (et al.), 26.10.1935. Both letters: Bayerisches Hauptstaatsarchiv (Munich(GER)), MK 41602.

62. See, for example, W. Furstner, Kommandant des Olympischen Dorfes, Berlin, toOberburgermeister von Augsburg, 8.10.1935. Stadtarchiv Augsburg (GER), Bestand 34 Nr.305.

63. See, for example, the serial letter Kommandant des Olympischen Dorfes, Berlin, toOberburgermeister von Tubingen, 23.12.1935. Stadtarchiv Tubingen (GER), A150/4957.

64. Oberburgermeister von Wilhelmshaven to Kommandant des Olympischen Dorfes, 6.3.1936.Stadtarchiv Wilhelmshaven (GER), 103/31.

65. Bader- und Kurverwaltung Baden-Baden to Oberburgermeister Baden-Baden, 27.4.1935.Stadtarchiv Baden-Baden (GER), A26/29-911.

66. Oberburgermeister von Freiberg/Sachsen to Organisationskomitee, Berlin, 2.7.1935.Stadtarchiv Freiberg/Sachsen (GER), I IX 469.

1458 E. Hubner

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lin

naeu

s U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

14 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

67. Der Reichs- und Preußische Minister fur Wissenschaft, Erziehung und Volksbildung, Berlin, toDirektor der Vereinigten Staatsschulen fur freie und angewandte Kunst, Berlin (et al.),4.10.1935. Bayerisches Hauptstaatsarchiv (Munich (GER)), MK 41602.

68. Among the 140 houses must be added to a home for medical care (‘Haus Hanau’).Sitzungsprotokoll der Gemeinderate vom 23.5.1935. Stadtarchiv Hanau (GER), Bestand B2,Nr. 220/3.

69. Schm., “‘Haus Hannover’ im Olympischen Dorf.”70. Reichsgesetzblatt, Teil 1, 1934, Nr. 33, 235–8: Gesetz zur Erhaltung und Hebung der

Kaufkraft (vom 24.3.1934).71. See, for example, Liesche, “Im Dorf des Friedens.”72. Bericht uber die Sitzung des Vorstandes [of the OC] am Montag, den 13. Januar 1936, 18 Uhr,

im Reichs- und Preussischem Ministerium des Innern, 17.1.1936. Landesarchiv Berlin (GER),A Rep. 001-02 Nr. 479.

73. Zusammenstellung der verpflegten Kampfer in den verschiedenen Kuchen: Deutschland, furdie Zeit vom 16. Juni–19. August [19]36; Zusammenstellung der verpflegten Kampfer in denverschiedenen Kuchen: Japan, 20. Juni–19. August 1936. Both documents: BArch, R8077/304, Fiche 1.

74. Muhlenbrink, Major beim Stabe I./Flakregiment 22, Doberitz-Elsgrund, to Landes-Fremdenverkehrsverband, Geschaftsstelle Nurnberg, 21.7.1936. Stadtarchiv Coburg (GER),A 5520.

75. Firma Paul Florian, Berlin, to Arbeitsgemeinschaft Olympisches Dorf, 18.3.1937. WernerMarch to Firma Paul Florian, Berlin, 19.6.1936. Both letters: Archiv StadtgeschichtlichesMuseum Spandau, Berlin (GER), Sammlung Florian, Akte 506.

76. Anonymous, “Das Olympische Dorf ein Naturpark fur den Sport.”77. See, for example, Anonymous, “Die Verpflegung im Olympischen Dorf.”78. Anonymous, “Stadtebilder im Olympischen Dorf,” 148.79. Grothe, “Die Olympischen Spiele von 1936 – Hohepunkt der NS-Propaganda?,” 307.80. The emphasis is taken from the original. Brown, “The Olympic Games.”81. Webster and Klein, “A.G.K. Brown’s Article in the ‘Granta’.”82. Internationales Olympisches Komitee, Offizielles Organ 11, no. 32bis (1936), 40.83. Ibid., 41.84. Schiller and Young, The 1972 Munich Olympics, 91–104.85. Text of the speech in BArch, NS6/225, 102.86. According to the visitors’ perception, see Young, “‘A Victory for the Olympic Idea’,” 164–5.87. For example, visit some Argentine athletes end of August 1936, the city of Bochum

(Westphalia). Stadtarchiv Bochum (GER), Verwaltungsbericht Stadt Bochum 1936, 10.88. Infanterieschule, Doberitz-Elsgrund, to Stadtrat Stadt Zittau, 10.11.1036. Stadtarchiv Zittau

(GER), Abt. IIa Abschn. VI Abs. C Nr. 40 Bd. 1 Fach 576/153/4.89. See, for example, the diary of Diem for 22.5.1935, CuLDA, Tagebucher Carl Diem, KZ

08/0433509.90. Organisation. Gliederung, without dating. CuLDA, Sachakten 561 (Olympische Spiele 1936,

Berlin – Materialien I).91. Lose, “Der Bilderdienst.”92. 第十二回オリンピック東京大会東京市報告書, 123.93. See the memorandum by Werner Klingeberg for the Finnish Organising Committee of 1939.

W. Klingeberg, Das Olympische Dorf fur die XII. Olympiade Helsinki 1940, Marz 1939, 1–25. Kaupunginarkisto, Helsinki (FIN), XII Olympia Helsinki 1940. Olympiakylajaosto Ef:5.

References

Anonymous, “Das Olympische Dorf: Die Vorbereitungen fur die 11. Olympischen Spiele. 42Nationen haben bereits zugesagt.” Kolnische Zeitung, 21st December, 1934.

Anonymous. “Das Olympische Dorf ein Naturpark fur den Sport.” Brandenburger Anzeiger, 13thMarch, 1936.

Anonymous, “Die Verpflegung im Olympischen Dorf.” Brandenburger Anzeiger 24, no. 4 (1936).Anonymous, “Stadtebilder im Olympischen Dorf.” Form und Farbe. Fachblatt fur das

Malerhandwerk. Amtliche Zeitschrift des Reichsinnungsverbandes des Malerhandwerks 25,no. 8 (1936): 148–154.

The International Journal of the History of Sport 1459

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lin

naeu

s U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

14 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

Bajohr, F., and C. Strupp, eds. Fremde Blicke auf das ‘Dritte Reich’: Berichte auslandischerDiplomaten uber Herrschaft und Gesellschaft in Deutschland 1933–1945. Gottingen: Wallstein,2011.

Becker, F. Den Sport gestalten. Carl Diems Leben (1882–1962) 3: NS-Zeit. Duisburg: Rhein-Ruhr,2009.

Bestehorn, F., and R. Hoffmann. “Indogermanischer Totenkultplatz im Olympischen Dorf. Das 3.Jahrtausend vor Christus in Doberitz: Die volkische Zuteilung.” Potsdamer Tageszeitung, 25thAugust, 1936.

Brown, A. G. K. “The Olympic Games.” The Granta, 7th October, 1936.Cilleßen, W. Das Olympische Dorf 1936. Potsdam: GbR Olympisches Dorf, 1996.第十二回オリンピック東京大会東京市報告書. Tokyo 1939.Diem, C. “Erinnerungen an Walter von Reichenau.” Leibesubungen und korperliche Erziehung 61,

nos. 1–2 (1942): 6–11.Dost, S. Das Olympische Dorf 1936 im Wandel der Zeit. Berlin: VBN, 2004.Furstner, W. “Das Olympische Dorf.” Olympische Spiele 1, no. 9 (1936): 8–13.Gold, J. R., and M. M. Gold, eds. The Making of Olympic Cities. Critical Concepts in Urban Studies

1–4. London: Routledge, 2010.Grothe, E. “Die Olympischen Spiele von 1936 – Hohepunkt der NS-Propaganda?” Geschichte in

Wissenschaft und Unterricht 59, no. 5–6 (2008): 291–307.Grueber, “Das Dorf des Friedens: Die willkommene Heimat der Welt.” Reutlinger Tagblatt, 7th

July, 1936.Hertz, F. Vierhundertsechsundvierzig Jahre und zehn Tage. Vreden: Achterland, 2002.Hilton, C. Hitler’s Olympics: The 1936 Berlin Olympic Games. Stroud: Sutton, 2006.Hofer, A. “Berliner Gesichter: Ein neuer und uberraschender Blick auf die Olympischen Spiele von

1936.” Olympisches Feuer. Zeitschrift des Deutschen Olympischen Sportbundes und derDeutschen Olympischen Gesellschaft 58, no. 3 (2008): 66–69.

Hubner, E. “Haus Schandau. Ein Mannschaftsgebaude des Olympischen Dorfes von 1936.” In NS-Architektur: Macht und Symbolpolitik, edited by Tilmann Harlander and Wolfram Pyta,99–117. Berlin: Lit, 2010.

Hubner, E. “Some Notes on the Preparations for the Olympic Games of 1936 and 1940: AnUnknown Chapter in German-Finnish Cooperation.” The International Journal of the History ofSport 30, no. 9 (2013): 950–962.

International Olympic Committee. Olympic Charter: In Force as from 16th June 1991. Lausanne:IOC, 1991.

Jacob, H., ed. Sammlung von Heeresverwaltungs-Verfugungen (fruher Glashagen). Erlasse aus demGebiete des Kassen-, Haushalts-, Besoldungs-, Verpflegungs-, Bekleidungs-, Unterkunfts-, Bau-und Krankenwesens mit ausfuhrlichem Sachverzeichnis 1: Grundlegende Erlasse aus denJahren 1927–1934. Berlin: Bernard & Graefe, 1936.

Kershaw, I. Hitler 2: 1936-1945. Stuttgart: Deutsche Verlagsanstalt, 2000.Kluge, V.Olympische Sommerspiele. Die Chronik I. Athen 1896 – Berlin 1936. Kassel: Sportverlag,

1997.Kluge, V., K. Lennartz, and H. J. Teichler. Autogrammbucher Berlin 1936. Olympiade 1936.

Lowenberger Land: DKB, 2011.Kopp, W. Wolfgang Furstner (1896–1936): Der erste Kommandant des Olympischen Dorfes von

1936. Frankfurt a.M.: Peter Lang, 2009.Kurze, B. “Industriearchitektur eines Weltunternehmens. Carl Zeiss 1880-1945.” PhD diss., TU

Dresden 2002, Erfurt, Thuringisches Landesamt fur Denkmalpflege und Archaologie 2006.Large, D. C. Nazi Games: The Olympics of 1936. New York: Norton, 2007.Liesche, F. “Im Dorf des Friedens. Besuch bei den Amerikanern im ‘Haus Brandenburg’.”

Brandenburger Anzeiger, 13th August, 1936.Lose, O. “Der Bilderdienst.” In Beitrage zur Firmengeschichte, edited by H.F. & Ph. F. Reemtsma

GmbH & Co, 292–295. Hamburg: Reemtsma, 1953.March, Werner. “Der Aufbau des Olympischen Dorfes.” Bauwelt. Zeitschrift fur das gesamte

Bauwesen 17, no. 26 (1936): 1–20.Marg, V., ed. Olympiastadion Berlin. Berlin Olympic Stadium. Sanierung und Modernisierung

2000-2004. Renovation and Modernization 2000–2004. Hamburg: Marg, 2004.Xth Olympiade Committee of the Games of Los Angeles U.S.A. The Games of the Xth Olympiad

‘Los Angeles 1932’: Official Report 1933. Los Angeles, CA: Xth Olympiad Committee, 1933.

1460 E. Hubner

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lin

naeu

s U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

14 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

Organisationskomitee fur die XI. Olympiade Berlin 1936. The XIth Olympic Games Berlin, 1936:Official Report. Berlin: Limpert, 1937.

Rippon, A. Hitler’s Olympics: The Story of the 1936 Nazi Games. Barnsley: Pen & Sword Military,2012.

Rudelius. “Wehrmachtsbauten.” InWasmuths Lexikon der Baukunst 5: Nachtrage A bis Z, edited byG. Wasmuth, 608–613. Berlin: Wasmuth, 1937.

Schache, W., and N. Szymanski. Das Reichssportfeld: Architektur im Spannungsfeld von Sport undMacht. Berlin: bebra, 2001.

Schiller, K., and C. Young. The 1972 Munich Olympics and the Making of Modern Germany.Berkley: University of California Press, 2010.

Schm, K. “‘Haus Hannover’ im Olympischen Dorf. Wie unsere Heimatstadt anlaßlich derOlympischen Spiele wirbt – Zwei Wandgemalde in Hannovers Patenhaus.” NiedersachsischeTageszeitung, 5th May, 1936.

Schottelius, H., and G.-A. Caspar. “Die Organisation des Heeres 1933–1939.” Handbuch zurdeutschen Militargeschichte 1648–1939, Bd. 4, Abschnitt VII: Wehrmacht und Nationalsozia-lismus 1933–1939, edited by F. Forstmeier, W. von Groote, O. Hackl, H. Meier-Welcker, M.Messerschmidt, 289–400. Munchen: Bernard & Graefe, 1979.

Steinmetz, G. Grundlagen fur das Bauen in Stadt und Land 1-3. Berlin: Callwey, 1917–1928.Thamer, H.-U. Die Olympischen Spiele in Berlin, 1936. Braunschweig: Archiv-Verlag, 2003.van Rossem, G. The Ninth Olympiad Being the Official Report of the Olympic Games of 1928

Celebrated at Amsterdam. Amsterdam: de Bussy, 1928.W.. “Eine Anregung: ‘Augsburg’ im Olympischen Dorf.” Neue Nationalzeitung, 24th December,

1934.Walters, G. Berlin Games: How Hitler Stole the Olympic Dream. London: Murray, 2007.Webster, F. R., and J. F. Klein. “A.G.K. Brown’s Article in the ‘Granta’. Two Olympic Athletes

Reply.” Varsity Weekly, 10th October, 1936.Young, C. “‘A Victory for the Olympic Idea’. Berlin 1936 in Its Sporting and Socio-Cultural

Contexts.” Stadion: Internationale Zeitschrift fur Geschichte des Sports, International Journalof the History of Sport, Revue Internationale d’Histoire du Sport 32 (2006): 147–172.

The International Journal of the History of Sport 1461

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lin

naeu

s U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

14 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014