Adolf Hitler, who according to popular myth had Pope Pius XII on his payroll, [heavy sarcasm]loved the Catholic Church and "his pope" so much[/heavy sarcasm] that he wanted to build a new St. Peter’s Basilica in Berlin and had chief architect Albert Speer working up plans for the project:
"Speer built a scale model of how he planned to recreate the columns of St Peter’s Square, which encircle the piazza in front of the Basilica.
"The Moscow museum’s director, David Sarkisian, told the Sunday Telegraph: ‘The plan was for the new Berlin to be ready in 1950 after Nazi Germany had defeated the Allies.
"’Hitler would declare Germany the ruler of a world empire and at the centre of its capital Berlin was to be a recreation of St Peter’s Square in the Vatican.
"’Speer’s plans included the columns from the square and at the centre instead of a fountain as in Rome there would be a huge statue of Benito Mussolini.
"’Hitler considered the Eternal City [Rome] to be the only city in the world to rival Berlin so he wanted to better it in every way possible.’ Speer’s documents show that Hitler took a great interest in the plans and was delighted with the architect’s model."
As a side note, for those interested in a thorough refutation of the Catholic urban legend that Pius XII was "Hitler’s Pope," I highly recommend Rabbi David G. Dalin’s The Myth of Hitler’s Pope.
My memory is a bit foggy on this, but if I recall correctly, the dome proposed by Speer would actually have been much larger than the dome atop St. Peter’s Basilica (if that were possible). Amongst the other monuments in this new Berlin included an Arch of Triumph, inscribed upon it the names of those who died in the war (and possibly World War I as well). The thing about Speer’s Berlin that startled me the most was the dimensions of everything. The dome would have a diameter of 300 meters and a height of about 200 meters. The arch of triumph would have been 400 feet tall (dimensions taken from wikipedia, under Albert Speer’s entry)
One final sidenote, Speer also wanted his buildings to fall apart in a manner that aesthetically pleasing ruins would be left behind.
Hitler was a failed art student who, when he wasn’t destroying the world, fancied himself an architect. Speer was a green kid not unlike John Dean, as in thrown in way, way, way over his head way, way, way too soon, and who found himself trying to hold together a collasping world from the clutches of his boss. Read his INSIDE THE THIRD REICH and his SPANDAU prison diary.
I have read Rabbi Dalin’s well-researched book and it is excellent. Unfortunately, you can tell from the tone of so many news stories and columns that few in the mainstream mass media have bothered to read it.
Maybe the media just don’t want to be confused by facts.
The German film Untergang(downfall) features a scene where Hitler and Speer overlook a model of how he wants the city to be rebuilt after the war. It is an excellent film, covering the last days of Hitler. It allows you to see their point of view, without in any way sympathising or condoning it. If you have ever wondered how people could not only live under such a monstrous regime, but in fact actively support it, an idolise a man like Hitler, it is the film to see. It also illustrates the connection of the culture of hedonism, man-centred utopian humanism and the culture of death. As well as how self-destructive manmade utopian systems are, as people commit suicide and murder their family and friends rather than live in a world without National Socialism.
There’s a pretty good illustration of Speer/Adolf’s new eternal city in the book “Fatherland” by Robert Harris. It’s a “alternate history” where the US elects President Lindbergh, stays out of WW2 and the Nazi’s conquer Britain. It’s a pretty interesting novel and only the illustration of the remodeled Berlin pertains in any to this conversation! You can see a recreation of “New Berlin” at
http://faculty-web.at.northwestern.edu/art-history/werckmeister/April_13_1999/Berlin.jpg