Central Place Theory and Nazi German Planning for Reorganizing the Central Settlement System in Incorporated Eastern Territories

Abstract

This paper considers the relationship between central place theory and Nazi German planning for the reorganization of the central settlement network in incorporated Eastern territories, or occupied western Poland. The investigation is focused on clarifying that the reorganization plan Christaller (1941) had proposed was not greatly reflected in the final plan, which is an issue not fully addressed by previous studies. Details of how the plan ran its course are also examined. The results are summarized as follows. In order to achieve the goal of reorganizing the central settlement system in incorporated Eastern territories, Christaller (1941) drafted a plan based on a concept of mixed central place hierarchy that was developed by modifying his original central place theory (Christaller 1933), influenced by the market area theory of Losch (1940). The system of mixed central place hierarchy, in which the hierarchies are alternately removed from the original central place theory, could be applied to the problem to delimitate administrative areas, as it comprises a structure in which the sphere of influence of the central place in the upper hierarchy completely covers those in the lower hierarchy. Arguing that Christaller’s settlement classification between the central place and the dispersed place was inappropriate and that central place theory was unable to explain settlement location in real regions, Geisler (1941) proposed an alternate plan for reorganizing the central settlement system: central settlements should be established not on the basis of centrality but on the basis of urban potential, taking into account industrial location. According to Geisler (1941), topographic site (natural conditions) and geographic location (traffic conditions) contribute to urban potential, both of which had been given great importance as research themes in the landscape school of German urban geographers such as Geisler, before the appearance of functional urban geography, which Bobek and Christaller undertook. Geisler’s plan thus implied a criticism of functional urban geography. Christaller and Geisler emphasized the supremacy of their own plans, but neither of their plans resulted in being incorporated fully into the final plan.