ABSTRACT
This chapter focuses on the differences between the journals Baumeister and Baukunst und Werkform, examining their respective positions in the context of the German reconstruction debate. Germany has a rich history of architecture journals, dating back to the early nineteenth century. While both attempted to contribute positively to the problem of postwar reconstruction, the journals took different positions and identified different means of doing so. Neues Bauen was also represented by architects who had worked in Germany during the Nazi period. Among the essays, Haring's 'Neues Bauen' claimed an urgency for the movement not merely as a formal imperative but also as an intellectual endeavour underpinning Germany's postwar reconstruction. Petsch has discussed the problem of national-socialist continuity after the war using Baumeister as an example, and the reception of the Bauhaus in postwar Germany. This is correct except for Pfister's contribution to the 'Bauhaus debate'.
