I dont know if that is so curious. It can be seen as prescient in the light of the experience of the day. Hitler, while leading his country and its people to destruction, is certainly significant in the grand scheme of things and while rightly reviled as all such people should properly be, before they get into a position to become so influential.
Anyway it's nice that all these other forum sections exist where interests other than JFK can be persued.
http://fcit.usf.edu/HOLOCAUST/ARTS/artReich.htm"Divine destiny has given the German people everything in the person of one man. Not only does he possess strong and ingenious statesmanship, not only is he ingenious as a soldier, not only is he the first worker and the first economist among his people but, and this is perhaps his greatest strength, he is an artist. He came from art, he devoted himself to art, especially the art of architecture, this powerful creator of great buildings. And now he has also become the Reich's builder." (ed : and Speer as his Architect?)
--Hakenkreuzbanner (The Swastika Flag), June 10, 1938
Speer :
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/ahbuild.htm''Building is not merely a way of passing time for the Führer, rather a serious way of giving expression in stone to the will of the National Socialist movement.
It is unique in German history that at decisive moments the Führer concerned himself not only with the larger questions relating to the world view and politics of the new era, but simultaneously and with the knowledge of an expert began to build monuments in stone that will express his political will and cultural ability in the coming millennia.
After long centuries of confusion, these buildings express a clarity and strength that will result in an entirely new style of architecture.''
It strikes me that an overall important theme for the NAZI's was the establishment of a Culture that had a solid awe inspiring facade as part of its propaganda machine which was peripheral still to the ultimate aim of destroying Bolchevism. Hence the functional style that in a way provided an alternative to the Soviet realism. Speer must have had a special role in this.
(The passage referred to could be a mistranslation as Technic also applies to the arts as a mode or technique. In this context Speers words make more sense (to me anyway). ''System of technology'' could mean he is writing about the overall facade of NAZIsm that was so essential in order to fool enough people long enough to sacrifice themselves on the altar of Fascist self immolation.)
___________
add: On a slightly different tack.
re: culture and economics. It's basically about market placement. Recognition, advertisement. Everyone and everything in such a culture, to some extent, presents a public persona in order to gain that which is coveted, whether it is placing a beutiful woman next to a car (which has nothing to do with the inner woman or the car at all, or preening at a gathering of any kind, choosing to buy something to bling up with because its a fad lasting or lingering. Markets, like cultures are continually ripping down the old and replacing witth the new. There were other functional recoils re baroque for example with the Aesthetics arguing for a choosen group to determine what is artistically acceptable or not. A lot has to do with the dialectical thesis antithesis evolution of culture. What the NAZI machine did do was organise this into a nationwide paradigm that beguiled people world wide and its anti bolchevic (not communist, there has never been an example of it) stance gave it appeal to Capital globally. Fascism is a mistake, an aberration, a dead end, the place where lemmings go. Likewise the visual can serve as a cruel temptation that divides and creates strife where none is appliccable except in the subliminal realm.