METHOD OF DIVIDING AREAS INTO NATURAL-DETERMINED UNITS, USING MECKLENBURG, BRANDENBURG, SACHSENANHALT, THUERINGIA, AND SAXONY AS EXAMPLES

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP81-00280R001300190011-7
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: U
• Document Page Count: 25
• Document Creation Date: December 22, 2016
• Document Release Date: June 3, 2011
• Sequence Number: 11
• Publication Date: November 1, 1956
• Content Type: REPORT

 at -
METHOD OF DIVIDINO Ahh.AS INTO NATURCThLT W4INED UNITS,
USING MWCKLENWRO,ISACHS&XANHALT, Tfil1ihINOIA,
AND SAXON! AS EXAMPI i
Berichte sur Deutacher Joachim Heinrich
Landeskunde ports on the Schultze, Jena
ograp of Germany], vol 16,
No 1, January 1956, Remagun,
Pages 69-81
a landform classification of a portion of the
based on causal factors subject to scientific identification.
Further, we strove to select our complex of causal factors in
such a manner as to cause the outline of the physical economy
of thn region, i.e., the circulation of matter completed therein,
to become clear in outline form.
The execution of this undertaking involves the analysis
of-the soils of central Europe and cultural landscapes, which
covers virtually lOO;E of the acreage of all regions. The economies
of these cultural landscapes are governed by forces determined
not only by nature, but, to a considerable degree, by man. I
need only refer to the fact that waterway engineering, acceleration
of deep erosion, and sinking of the water level to a shameful
degree in places, have disturbed the water economy. We know, too,
that sheet runoff is facilitated by land development and the
presence of transportation lines, and, as a result, soil erosion
increases in both its acute and chronic forms. Further, let us
O
bear in mind the removal of a once extensive woodland cover by
progressive putting the land to the plough, building settlements,
 tree farming, etc. For example, even in the heights of the eastern
Thuringian mountains, consisting of schist, when one would expect
to encounter Fast Hercynian mixed mountain forests with mate yews,
mountain varieties of pine, etc., one finds instead that most of
the land is covered with ploughland and long-established pasture
land with artificial ponds. About 25% of the surface is covered
with tree-farms consisting solely of spruce. In the middle valley
of the Stale, are finds, as in so many other valley bottoms, not
riverine forests, but cultivated pastures, in which meadows, alder
and black poplar alternate as in parkland.
The anthropogenic components in the economy of the cultural
landscapes interfere with efforts to obtain a grasp o. ra'
causes in their pure state, which would enable one to draw scien-
tific conclusions pertinent to the regional classification it is
desired to produce. The question arises as to what degree this
component may be excluded from the study. Let us anticipate for
a moment, and consider the geographical factor of vegetation.
Vegetation, after all, is not only an important component of any
given area, but also a significant index of the exchange of
materials, the economy of the area. From this it would follow
that in order to eliminate the anthrupogenic component it would
be desirable not to consider the vegetation of today, but that
which botanists term "natural." And this is that "which develops
as a result of a single more or loss profound transformation due
to human activity, excluding subsequent human influences."
(This definition is that of F. Firbas, after Faber, Tuexen, and
Diemont, for "natural woods," in bpaet- and nacheisseitliche
Waldgeschichte Mitteleuropas noerdlich der Alpen [History of the
}oreuta of Central Europe During and Since the last ice Agel,
 Vol 1, 1949, Jena, page 37, ff). Other geographical factors to be
taken into consideration are land form, soil, atmosphere, waters,
and, as far as it can be identified, the fauna. The combination
of these factors in any given area produces a characteristic
structure. Each factor is subject at least to qualitative, and,
in some measure, to quantitative definition.
That this structural effect is evidenced in the visible
appearance of an area, requires no further explanation here. To
avoid misunderstanding, as the definition of a geographical land-
scape unit, we have taken a portion of the earth's surface formed,
quantitatively and quantitatively, by specific geographical factors,
and limited in area thereby. The individual unit is, we know, a
natural landscape, when the only geographical factors that have
formed it are inorganic and unconscious organic elements. It is
a cultural landscape when conscious geographical factors are at
work. Thus, if one wishes to divide an area into landscapes, it
is desirable to attain clarity beforehand as to the type of
geographical factors that have been at work. As it is our purpose
to distinguish as clearly as possible each causal factor capable
of scientific definition, and to draw scientifically-valid con-
clusions from the resultant classification, the vegetation that
we shall consider is that placed there by nature. The result is
a classification of areas into nature-conditioned units. I offer
the following definitionz
Nature-conditioned units are those geographical areas which
would have come into being under present-day ecological relation-
ships if all latter-day human influences were eliminated. They are,
it follows, units which do not exist in reality, but can only be
conceived of theoretically against the background of the cultural
landscape of today.
 As far as I know, this special conception was first advanced
in a paper I presented at Section IX of the meeting of the German
Academy of Agricultural Sciences in 1952. (Schultse, J. H.: "The
Problem of Natural Landscapes, and the Mapping Thereof in the German
Lemocratic Republic," in Sitsungsber, d. Dt. Akademie d. Landwirt-
schafswiss. s. Berlin (Proceedings of the German Academy of Agricul-
tural Sciences, Berlin], Vol 1, No 8, 1952, Leipzig.) At that time
I used the phrase "natural landscapes," to indicate the intimate
relation between my concept and that of "natural vegetation" and
"natural forests." However, I had myself been troubled, even before
the extensive discussion of my paper revealed this to be true, by
the possible confusion with the use of the same term by Gradmann
and Spreitzer to mean both natural landscapes and cultural landscapes
with features derived or determined by nature. Their usage pertains
to landscapes actually in existence. As a result, my colleagues and
I sought a new expression to describe this new concept. To empha-
size the fact that the results studied are solely those produced
by natural forces, we decided on the expression "nature-determined."
Our nature-determined unit is therefore, if I am correct,
exactly that which Paffen designates as "natural" landscape
(Paffen, K.: Die natuerliche Landschaft and ihre raeumliche
Gliederung, [Natural Landscape and Area Classification in Accordance
Therewith] -- a volume which came to my attention only after our
studies had been completed, just as my paper of 1952 reached Herr
Paffen after his was done). And this concept is very close to
that which ochmithuesen terms "theoretical natural terrain."
 our problem consisted, therefore, of regionalising the
territory covered by Mecklenburg, Brandenburg, Sachsen-Anhalt,
Thuringia and Saxony into nature-conditioned landscape units.
The working maps were therefore on the scale of 1:200,000. We
also sought to arrive at a tentative grouping of these units
into large regions, and did so.
1. After a coordinated agreement was arrived at centrally
on the lines of work to be pursued, actual performance of the work
was decentralized. A coordinating committee set up by Section IX
of the Academy of Agricultural Sciences was assisted by 5 regional
commissions, for the one-time provinces of Mecklenburg, Brandenburg,
Sachsen-Anhalt, Saxony, and Thuringia, respectively. Forty re-
searchers in all were assigned to this work.
2. Each geographical factor was handled by one or more
specialists in that particular discipline. The direction of each
commission and the synthesis of the work was in the hands of
geographers. The geographer of each team was also responsible
for topography and landfona classification.
3. The landscape classification was completed in 2J
years, by a 2-stage process. In the first, the regional commissions
projected their tentative drafts. Boundary areas were coordinated
by the geographers of the over-all committee (Schultze and Bauer),
with the aid of discussions with the respective regional committees.
The tentative general draft then went to the Coordinating Committee,
 which was expanded, for purposes of this phase of its work, to
include the geographers at the head of each regional commission.
Obviously, suggestions for improvement came out of this procedure.
The processing of these suggestions served as a screening procedures,
and resulted in the work going into a second stage, which followed.
the same procedure as the first.
The results are appended in our map, which we shall describe
without going into detail. The map shows 28 large regions or
portions thereof (as the boundaries of the area under study correspond
to those of large landforms only at the Baltic coast and at the
Werra River at the northwestern border of the Thuringian Forest).
There are also 176 landscape unite, the average area of which is
614 km2. It is quite interesting to find that the units of natural
area in the Meynen and Schmithuesen [see Note following] classifi-
cation average 825 ka2, and thus are of the same order of magnitude
as ours while the cultural landscapes of modern Greece nverage,
by my classification, 550 km2. ( [Note:) Naturrauemliche Gliederung
Leutachlands nit Hoehenschichten [Breakdown of Germany by Natural
Areas, with Contour Lineal (1:1,000,000), published by the West
German Office for Regional Geography and the Central Board for the
Regional Geography of Germany, 1954, Remagen.) For each landscape
unit there is a sheet of comment, with quantitative and qualitative
data on the geographical factors and, in most cases, with added
information on current land use and erosion. The regional commis-
sions are responsible for the boundaries and comments. The maps
and comments have been issued as a book (Schultze, Joachim H, Die
Naturbedingten Landschaften der Deutachen Demokratischen Republik
(The Nature-Conditioned Landscapes of the German Democratic hepublic),
 Suppl. No 257 to Petermann Geogr. Mittn, 1955, Gotha), with a
detailed introduction, in which I sot forth the bases pf the treat-
ment and discuss in greater detail how the results are to be
evaluated and understood. This essay provides a brief review of
aspects of the work of our Society. The book states repeatedly,
and it is proper for me to reiterate this here, that definitive
results have not yet been attained. Nor does the present state
of our research in the associated specialties -- hydrology, soil
science, and phonology -- permit anything to be propounded in these
fields.
We knew in advance that our results might be similar to those
obtained by classification in terms of natural areas. Of course,
the concept of natural area differs from that of nature-conditioned
landscape in that the latter includes the natural vegetation.
Schmithuesen states directly that classification by natural area
is abiotic in the factors it encompasses. Such areas are, of ,
course, not landscapes. There is, however, a point of connection,
with the concept of "theoretical natural terrain" in that the
regions defined abiotically are considered in terms of their
potentials for vegetation. It is natural vegetation that is
considered. This is an index of special significance. (Schmithuesen,
J., "Fundamentals of Research and Mapping of Germany on the Basin
of Classification by Natural Areas," Bert S. dt. Landeakde. Vol 6,
pages 9 and 14, 1949; Otremba, E., "Fundamentals of the Classification
of Germany into Natural Areas," Erdkunde (Geography), 1948, page 157).
In practice, one emerges with a close approximation to theoretical
natural terrain, and from this, to nature-determined landscape.
 ?No, .mss, ....wits tha difference in the methods used, there is
.ae.a .at eenpariaon of the classifications attained on the basis
of oat,.nL area and natan-determined landscape. Such a comparison
renala mugs ?iffsrencea Lcth in the size and the boundaries of
4? .n+ta. ..c.'aaitt enen and : had an extended discussicn of this
Sr...psa ct Lzs ear. .!e is inclined to ascribe the differences
to the sore detailed treatment involved in arriving at the nature-
conditioned landscapes. I believe that to be correct, and that
they are to be ascribed to the assistance of s}ecialiste in the
venous fielce as well as to the distribution of the work to the
AL, '.-Al cosssissione.
Tasty is lets logic to a comparison between our classifi-
cation in terms of :ature-conditioned landscapes, and the physical
geographic classification published by J. F. Gellert in the Clima-
tological Atlas of the German Democratic i:epublic (l9 3, Berlin]
also Gellert, "Notes on the "no-Billionth Scale Physical Geographic
tkegionalization of the German Democratic Reputlic," Potermanns
Geogr. Mittn. i:eteruann's Papers on Geography), }ages 10-130
19510. This lesser degree of comparability is not earentially
at: he arrives at 15 physical geographic regions or portions
thereof, against our 26 nature-determined large landscapes, and
68 regional units covering an average of 1590 km2 versus 176
nature -determined landscape units, averaging 614 km2. 1 find the
difficulty to lie more in the differing theoretical foundations.
The tfference is to be found both in abiotic and biological
geograj,hieal factors. However, his annotations state at one point
that vt station and the anthropogenic changes in the geography
thereof ?~re taken as bases of the classification, while at another
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/06/04: CIA-RDP81-0028OR001300190011-7
?
point we read that "the historically-evolved and regionally-
'0
?
differentiated effects of the development of human society as such"
the impression that, by and large, the physical geographic region-
alization takes present-day vegetation as a basis for its reasoning.
?
Furthermore, the reailts?are termed physical geographic units, and
it is stated specifically that they do not constitute landscapeb
?
of any type whatever.? That these unite are something other than
O ?
naturally-evolved landscapes is evident from the different orders
of magnitude referred to above, and particularly in the results
O ?
of the work of our regional commission for Erandenburg,?of which
Gellert was the chief.. Its maps of nature-conditioned landscapes
show boundaries distinctly different than those for the physical
geographical regions. ?
? ~o 0
Let us now consider?the individual geographical fact-Ora
0 0 ?
? 0
and discuss the manner in which their spatial coordination was
? ?}
?
effected, cartographical], OWe based ourselves on data gathered
Direct observation is the best method of obtaining data >n
the first factor we shall deal with, topography. in describing
relief we are concerned with angles of slope. Typical angles were
measured in the field and not only on the map. Old textbooks of
topography differ widely in the slopes they characterise as flat,
steep, etc. We designate as flat, a slope of 0 to 5 degrees,
while an average slope is from 5 to 20 degrees, and a steep slope
is one over 20 degrees. In addition, the topography is described
?
by the landform data. Here we used the standard geomorphological
symbols, often based on genetic considerations.
 As far as soil is concerned, the ideal situation would be
one in which we could show the "natural soil" under the "natural
vegetation." This is impossible, however, and we would be satisfied
with over-all mapping of today's soil by characteristics, class,
and type to the required scale. This, we know, has not been done.
In our notes, the class of soil is designated by physical chemical
and static properties in the manner generally familiar. Lcta for
this type of description of soil types is available virtually
everywhere. The situation with regard to morphological-and-genetic,
dynamic designation of soil types, is not as good- Pedologists
differ somewhat in their views on this subject. The ;tremme-
Qstendorff trend views soil types in terms of systems of i,
at work in landscapes, while the Laatsch-Kubiena school gives
greater emphasis to processes of internal development and stratifi-
cation. The only map now available and suited to the purpose at
hand is that of 6tremme, at 1:500,000. It is the authority used
for our explanations.
Soil properties are of interest as the standard'for determin-
ing the capability of the landscape to yield vegetable matter.
A significant portion of the landscape economy is governed thereby.
But where is one to obtain the necessary data? When our work was
done, icasch's map had not yet appeared. But his map alone is not
sufficient, as it does not embrace cultivated woodland. For arable,
we based ourselves upon the findings of the National Conservation
Service, taking into consideration, of course, that this was based
purely on yields, a factor that is of limited significance in the
economy of a landscape unit. For meadow and pasture, the grassland-
appraisal figures are of greater value to us, as they offer raw
yield with consideration of climate and wsturs.
 In the field of hydrology, we are interested in water
balance and groundwater level. It is not easy to obtain a
quantitative measurement of water economy for a landscape unit.
Samplings show marked differences between the extent of a land-
scape unit, on the one hand, and the drainage basin determining
river levels therein, on the other. In only a few instances do
the two coincide. In the second stage of the work, the institute
for Water Resources calculated the ratio of flow-off and precipi-
tation over a long term of years. The figures adduced are not
definitive, by any means. The mean flow-off is often lacking.
The saturation ratio, precipitation over saturation, in which
saturation is given in millimeters of mercury, has been omitted
completely, although the hydrologists have offered this data.
The figure is uncertain, however, as, except for precipitation,
the field data represents findings at but a small number of
stations.
to significant fluctuation not only during a single year, but over
periods of several years. But the available data is very incomplete.
While measurements have been taken at 8,000 points in Sachsen-Anhalt
and northwest Saxony, the other areas have test toles but here and
there. As a result it has become possible to give o.ly a general
hydropeological description.
With climate, as wi th water economy, we encounter a discrep-
ancy between the points for which records are kept and the extent
of the landscape units. This discrepancy is smaller than in the
field of hydrology, but nonetheless distinct. Here, too, we can
 only offer a general characterization. We have no recourse
but to employ Hoffasister'a climate regions or Pelal'a climate
areas, although both units are so large as to offer an inadequate
characterization of the individual landscape units. We arrived
at our general climate characteristics by 6 measured mean figures
for temperature and precipitation.
Certain phonological data supplement this work. The re-
lationships between phonological facts and landscape structures
are often bewildering. Unfortunately, most of the data dates
from before 1945. However, series from 1947 to 1951 are also
available at present. Five dates have been given us, of which
3 are valid indices of the temperature curve: the average
blossoming date of the snowdrop, the lilac, and winter rye.
Two other dates - the average date of start of field work and of
the winter rye harvest - are valid only as reflections of the
real phonology in the form of rules of biological practice and as
phenomena in the field of an occupation and of political economy.
The geographical factor represented by natural vegetation
is capable of direct observation only on rare occasion. Therefore,
description of this factor represents a step from observation
toward hypothesis. Description of natural forest vegetation
societies is of significance. It is based on practical knowledge
as well as on comparison of the forest societies of today with
those of the late interglacial epoch. In extensive cultivated
flatlands, such as the Magdeburger boards, there is no guarantee
that the description is valid for the landscape as a whole, as the
residual forests here occupy but a small and declining acreage.
 The description of natural vegetation for the 176 individual
landscape units was chocked by a special committee during the
second stage of the work, for the purpose of unifying the
nomenclature.
Having described the treatment of the geographical factors,
let us approach the problem of how best to depict them in combi-
nation within a given space, on the map. This is at the same time
the problem of the apace within which the structure caused by
their effects exists and, therefore, that of the boundaries of the
landscape under study. The coordinated agreement under which the
work was conducted took as desirable a procedure which the regional
commission for Thuringia applied as follows. First, a number of
landscape core areas were set up, as hypothetical, i.e., the
commission took it as probable that, working out from given nuclei,
it would find nature-determined landscape units. One such was
the high Thuringian Forest, in its purest form around the Schmuecke
and the Inaelaberg; another the naturally-evolved landscape of the
Keuper Bowl with its nucleus around Lake Gabe. The geographical
factors of nuclei such as these were then given written description
by the geographer, the soil scientist, the hydrologist, the climatol-
ogist, the botanist or forest specialist, in the manner we have
set forth. In addition, each factor was entered on a 1:200,000
map, with indication of the spatial limits within which it took the
specific form encountered. The outcome was as many maps of
Thuringia as there were geographical factors. All these maps of
individual factors were plotted outward from the assumed landscape
core area. The combined boundaries were then obtained by super-
imposition of the maps for topograpjW, soil, etc., onto a single
 sheet, which we dubbed the "earthworm sap." What did it reveal?
For one thing, the boundary belt of the nature-determined land-
scape case to light. This belt evidenced itself moat distinctly
at points whore the boundaries of the individual maps ran approx-
imately parallel and close together. This was the case with the
north and south. slopes of the Kyffhaeuser and the Thuringian
Forest, that, is, at high and steep escarpments, where different
landscapes meet at clear lines of delineation. The boundaries
of the individual factor maps showed less clear coincidence at
the east bank of the hhoen, the west slope of the Hainich, and
the transition from the Harz to the Goldene Aue. The factor
boundaries showed their greatest divergence at the inner border
of the Thuringian Basin, where it fades into the higher boundary
plain and where surface forms, soil, water economy, and the rest
change in specific appearance gradually, and not suddenly.
The "earthworm map" was too unclear, however, A simpli-
fication was necessary, if its message were to be readily grasped.
This required boundary lines to be derived from the boundary belts
by a process of abstraction. Two methods were available, one
the many-sided approach of Grande, and the other a method of work-
ing with one factor at a time, as per Haull. I had already made
use of the latter method in other studies. It had proved satis-
factory, and yielded good results. In this present work we there-
fore also followed this factor-by-factor method. It deserves
that designation in the sense that the individual factor boundaries
are not treated as being of equal value everywhere. Thus, topogra-
phy, say, or vegetation, are not taken as the single most signifi-
cant 'actor, but rather the factor that is dominant at each par-
ticula? locality is used to set the landscape boundary at that cot.
 Determination of which factor is dominant was the responsibility
of the geographer synthesizing the entire work. It is for this
reason that it was desirable for the commissions to work with
persons having special knowledge of their regions. The geographer
'could question the specialists from time to time with regard to the
possibility of discarding one or another factor boundary at a given
point. For example, the "earthworm map" showed the water economy
boundary in the Thuringian Basin to deviate considerably from those
of the other factors. As it turned out, the hydrological line had
been drawn rather more freely between points of measurement very
widely spaced. Thus, its significance was correspondingly less
important.
The superimposed map of geographical factors, the "earthworm
map," also served another, supplementary, purpose. This map was
plotted outward from a hypothetical landscape core area, or, in
other words, was based on intuition. Intuition cannot be dispensed'
with in any science, and has important ,inerits. But it requires
proof of its validity. The superimposed map of geographic factors
offered such a test. Thus, if the bouncary 'Lines for particular
factors run in a direction other than that presupposed by the choice
of core area, this indicates that the letter was erroneously chosen.
We encountered just such a situation. The regional commission for
Thuringia was unanimous in believing that nature-determined land-
scapes would probably exist at a point when a map of cultural
landscapes shoved 3 valleys bordering a mountain range (I have
not published this map). These 3 cultural landscapes exist on the
north face of the Thuringian Forest and the Slate 11ountains one
embracing Sondra Waltershausen-iriedrichroda-Nauendorf$ another
 c verist tAe Trsefeateda-11m a+-C.heen area, and a third in the
Grla dectnsioe. The map of nature-determined landscapes show only
the OWaltenhas.ser foothills" and the "Orla depression," and
both these with boundaries somewhat different from the cultural
landscapes we have described. At ilaienau there is no nature-
eetermined landscape, because the physical geographical factors
offered no justification for the delineation of a special unit
there,
surftce has been moat changed by cultural landscapes around large
cities such as Berlin, Leipsig, and Dresden, and in the area of
extended large scale brown-coal stripmining: the Geisel Valley,
Borne and Niederl.tusits districts. In these areas, the boundaries
are drawn .,y interpolation based on surrounding territories less
influenced oy the factors that have been at work there. In areas
such as these where cultural landscapes have been developed to a
high potential, knowledge of the nature-determined landscapes must
remain uncertain. It is also difficult to vivo proper consideration,
in our theo y, for the distant effects of districts such as these.
Lt is our belief, however, that these conditions play no determinant
role as far as the total area interesting us is concerned.
It mivht also le desirable to show the boundaries of the
naturv-determined larrl.;eape units on the over-all map in terms of
the ;-articular fact r which in determinant in a given segment.
We stave not yet done this, but have brought our work to a tenta-
tive conclusion. The -ask referred to may be undertaken later,
and say also serve other types of classification.
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/06/04: CIA-RDP81-0028OR001300190011-7
In one respect, however, we did carry out work further.
We grouped the 176 landscape units into 26 large regions or portions
thereof. Each of the large regions consists of a number of landscape
unite. 't occupies a contiguous territory, and constitutes a
logical unit, just as does the individual landscape. The delineation
of the large region is based on exactly the some geographical factors
as the smaller units, the only difference being that greater variation
was allowed.in setting the boundaries for each factor. The number
of landscape units constituting a large region is of no significance,
as it was determined by the facts in the case. We have not limited
this by use of a decimal system of numbering, as was the case with
the repionalization by natural area.
Characteristic large regions in our regionalisation are, for
example:
01: the Mecklenburg coastal fringe and Usedom;
(Z: she Mecklenburg-Brandenburg lake-studded plain;
08: the lowland valley of the Blbe, which extends downward
rom Meissen, and takes on particular width in
nrandenburg, as a major landscape region;
169 he Flaeming;
22: the Harz;
23/21? the Thuringian Basin with its adjacent flatlands; and
269 the low mountain belt in Saxony and Thuringia.
1. A new concept is advanced, that of the nature-determined
landscape. That which distinguishes it is the use of natural vege-
tation as geographical factor. Nature-determined landscapes are
 hypothetical (imaginary) landscape units, constituting a special
type of natural landscape. Our concept is identical with that
of Paffen's natural landscape, developed independently of us,
and is very similar to Schmithuesen's "theoretical natural terrain."
2. The region under study has been broken down into nature-
conditioned landscapes. Our work has been published as a supplement
to Petermann's Mitteilungen. It presents a parallel to the region-
alization based on natural areas, as far as results are concerned,
but not in the manner of arriving at them. The units produced by
that method average 825 km2 in area, while our nature-conditioned
landscapes average 614 km2.
3. Our method of work is characterized by an initial area-
wide understanding of the problem, and decentralized research.
Forty scientists from various disciplines were engaged in elaborat-
ing the individual geographical factors. Geographers had the re-
sponsibility of leading each group and synthesizing the results.
The original maps were on the scale of 1:200,000, while the publish-
ed maps are in 1:1,000,000.
In the discussion of professor Schultze's detailed paper,
"Nature-tetermined Landscapes of Central Germany," presented at
the meeting of the geographers of Germany in Hamburg (August 1955),
it became clear that the same problems are being dealt with on
each side of the line dividing Germany, but that, due to lack of
contact, different methods and concepts are being employed in the
 effort to solve them. We should like to express our gratitude
to professor Schultze for having responded to our request to
inform us of the work he has conducted. May the undersigned,
as one of the founders of the regionalization by natural area,
and as editor of the Handbuch der naturrasumlichen C}liederung
Deutachlands [Handbook of the hegionalization of Germany by
Natural Areas], be permitted to supplement professor Schultze's
paper by a few remarks on the work carried out in regionalization
by natural areas.
The work conducted in "regionalization by natural area"
and "regionalization by nature-determined units" arrive at similar
results, as emphasized by both parties in the Hamburg discussion,
although their methods of work are different. The difference in
ccncept would appear to be more in the approach to clarification
of understanding along 2 different paths, and therefore does not
seem to present an inherent contradiction. We regard these
differences as differences in formulation of concept, something
that we have in the nature of things encountered repeatedly in
our work, pcA-ticularly where a matter of fundamental interest to
our discipline is concerned. Such differences are the yeast in
the dough.
In our opinion, the real difference lies in the fact that
the procedure stemming from the work of Albrecht Penck (1),
Gustav Krause (2), Ernst Brueckner and Martin Kornrumpf (3),
Wilhelm dueller-Wille (4), and, in particular, Josef Schaithueaen
(5), has triumphed over the old boundary-belt procedure, so that
the units of natural area are delineated by accurate field mapping
of natural landscape unite, and that they are then identified as
 whet are called landscape tr::ctures (i.e., structural entities
conaiating of the smallest units of natural area,
developed localities, have been charted).
The following sheets are already available: Wreschen, by
H. Mueller-Miry, 1943; Stuttgart, by F. Huttenlocher, 19491
Karlsruhe, by J. Schmithuesen, 1952; and Ulm, by H. Graul, 1952.
Completed and ready for publication are the following: Arolsen,
Augsburg, Brunswick, Duesseldorf and Erkelenz, Goettingen, Cologne
and Aachen, Lingen and Cloppenburg, Hinden, Nienburg, Oldenburg,
Sigmaringen, Stendal, Straubing.
The completion of the progressive and systematic survey of
the natural-area regionalization of Germany was placed in ques-
tion by history, in 1945. As a result, independent of the 1:200,000
mapping initiated by professor W. Credner, a tentative first draft
in 1:500,000, later improved to 1:300,000, was developed on the
initiative of the Central Office for the iegional Geography of
Germany and the West German hegional Geography Department (the
former Regional Geography Bureau), with an eye to the possibility
of a census in 1950. It was based on the available 1:200,000
regionalization then available and on individual sketch maps made
by about 50 geographers for areas with which they were particularly
familiar. As a result, the natural area regionalization of Germany
that is finally in publication is the product of collective work,
and rests on the extensive range of knowledge of a large number of
collaborators.
 It was clear to us from the outset that t`iis sketch map of
1949, despite the modifications introduced by frequent private and
public scientific discussions, would have to undergo rectification
of boundaries as the 1:200,000 project advanced. Nor may one over-
look the fact that the one-millionth map is capable, for reasons of
size, of depicting only the major units, while the 1:200,000 scale
is able to present all units capable of cartographic depiction and
found by direct observation.
The natural-area regionalization set forth in the 1949 one-
millionth map of 1949, was dependent, for 'cast Germary, on the
proposals of W. Behrmann, H. Lautensach, H. Lehmann, It. Heinhard,
J. H. Schultze, W. Witt and others. H. Bobek, A. Kremlin,
ii. ?amtke, and others have, in mart discussions of the basic
procedures of structure analysis, advanced the matter to the point
at which finalization of a unified picture is before us. iowever,
if this work still required perfection in detail, and we are
convinced that this is truly the case, we believe it is accurate
to offer the same judgment of the sketch map published by professor
Schultze. The individual components of the map presented by
professor Schultze are, quite clearly, dependent upon the state
of the work completed, or the scientific coordination attained
within each particular regional territory of research -- a fact
that is quite understandable - and differ accordingly. Our
experience with the sketch of the millionth map was similar. We
may say that the more carefully the boundary zone method has been
pursued, the greater the accuracy of the boundaries drawn. It is
our opinion that, as the bases of our knowledge are perfected in
the course of regional mapping of land structures, both groups,
 working by trsir respective methods, will arrive at the same
boundary lines. In this sense we welcome the agreement arrived
at the Hamburg meeting of geographers to work out a handbook of
natural-area regionalisation of Germany: without regard for the
unfortunate border between us.
(1) Penok, A., "The New Oeography," Sonderbd. d. Zeitschr. d. Geo.
f. Erdkde su Berlin. Hundertjahrfeier 1828-1928 [Special
Centenary Volume, 1828-1928, of the Journal of the Berlin
Geographical 6ociety] 1928, Berlin, pages 31 ff
(2) Krauss, G., "Problems of Local Geography. A heport of Member-
ship Meeting of the German Tree-Farming Society at Stettin,
1936," Jahresber. d. Pt. Forstvereins [Annual Report of the
German Tree-Farming Societyj, 1936, pages 319, ff
(3) Kornrumpf, M., and Brueckner, E., "A hegionalization of Greater
Germany by Landscapes," 1:1,000,000, with text by E. Brueckner,
Raumforschg. u. haumordng. [Area Studies and Regionalization)
No 6-8, 1943
(4) Mueller-Wills, W., "The Natural Landscape of Westphalia," in
Westfael. Forschungen [Westphalian Studies], Vol 5, 1942,
page 1 ff
(5) Schmithuesen, J., Des Luxemburger Land (The Land of Luxemburg),
1940, Leipaig, particularly 1, Chapter it, "The Natural
Habitat"; also Schmithuesen, J., "B:egional Notations to the
Sheets Comprising the General Topographical Map of Germany,
1:200,000," Der. a. dt. Landeskde., Vol 3, 1943, pages 1-45;
Schmithuesen, J.: "Landscape 'Building Blocks' and Ecology,"
Rer. s. dt. Landeskde., Vol 5, 1948, page 74, ff.;
- 22 -
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/06/04: CIA-RDP81-0028OR001300190011-7
 Schmithuesen, J.t "Fundamentals and Guiding Principles
for hesearch into the Natural-Area Regions of Germany, and
the Representation Thereof in 1:200,000 Scale," in Richtlinien
and Mittn d* geogr. Landesaufnahme 1:200,000 (Guiding Princi-
ples and Means Employed in the Geographical Land Survey,
1:200,000), 191i8, 2 sheets.
(6) ;iandbuch der naturraeumlichen Gliederung Leutschlands [H&nd-
book of the Division of Germany Into Natural Areas), No 1,
Federal Office of Geography; Handbuch der naturraemlichen
Gliederung Teutachlands, No 1, 1953, Remagen, Federal Office
of Geography, page 1,5 ff; cf. also Paffen, K. H., Die
nstuerlichen Lsndschaften and ihre raeumliche Gliederung.
Eine methodische Untersuchung as Beispiel der Mittel-und
Hiederrhe{nland (Natural Landscape and Area Classification
in Accordance Therewith. A Methodical investigation Using
as ::xamples Central and Lower Rhineland), Forachgn. a. dt.
Landeskde. (Researches in the Geography of Cermanyj, 68,
1953, R.emagen
Figure (opposite page 72, original).
The major nature-determined landscape units of Mecklenburg,
Brandenburg, Sachsen-Anhalt, Thuringia, and Saxony. Drawn by
J. H. Schultze; printed by West German Regional Geography Office,
Remagen.
Oat-See a Baltic Sea
Boundaries of large regions
Numbers of large regions
 01 Mecklenburg coast and Usedoa
02 Lowlands of northeast Mecklenburg
03 Further reaches of Mecklenburg lake-studded plain
04 Mecklenburg-Brandenburg lake-studded plain
05 Southwest approaches to Mecklenburg lake-studded plain
06 Northwest Brandenburg mixed plain and hill country
C7 North Brandenburg sandy plains and loam flats
Lowland of the Elbe Valley
09 The Marshes
10 East Brandenburg. plains
11 The Oder-Neisse Valley
12 Altmark
13 Weser-Aller weathered hills
l.u Plains and lowlands of central Brandenburg
15 East Brandenburg heath and lake country
16 Flaeming
1.7 Cortheast forelands of the Harz
13 Plains of Sachsen-Anhalt
19 Heaths of north Saxony
20 Lausitz Basin and huatha
21 The Spree Forest
u
22 The Harz
23/24 Thuringian Basin and surrounding lowlands
2. /26 5axorpr hill country
27 Went Thuringian fault and overthrust zone
26 Saxony-Thuringian low mountain belt
29 hhoen
30 Southern approaches to the Thuringian Forest