Was housing policy in Germany affected by the change of government in 1933?



Was housing policy in Germany affected by the change of government in 1933?





A.         Plan of Investigation



Was housing policy in Germany affected by the change of government in 1933?

This will be investigated by examining housing policy from the appointment of Brünning as Chancellor in 1930 to the National Socialist (“NS”) seizure of power in 1933. Specifically the housing policies of the Weimar Republic will be compared to those pursued by the NS in their first three years of power. A key primary source will be the section concerned with housing policy in the “3. Notverordnung”[1], issued in 1931, which will provide information about the policies during the Weimar Republic. The book “Nazionalsozialistischer Siedlungsbau”, by U. Peltz-Dreckman, an expert on NS housing policy, will provide detailed information about the legislation enacted by the NS. In addition this investigation will assess the change in housing policy, through a specific case, namely the “Zahnbrechesiedlung” in Munich, as it was built spanning the change in power, meaning it was affected by the policies of both governments. Information on the economic and political context will be sourced from broader works on the Weimar Republic and the NS government[2].  Specialist monographs and academic papers will provide detail on aspects of late Weimar and NS policy and ideology[3].



Word Count: 196/150





B.         Summary of Evidence



Background



Due to Germany’s financial dependence on short-term loans from American banks, it was one of the states most affected by the “Wall Street Crash” on the 24th October 1929.[4]



By February 1932 unemployment in Germany had risen to 6.1 million.[5]



These economic circumstances remained the same until 1934.[6]



Weimar housing policy from 1931 to 1933



The deflationary policy that chancellor Brünning implemented to counteract the recession was unpopular.[7] Thus he relied on the support of presidential Emergency Decrees (“Notverordnungen”) to reach his goals of reducing government expenditure and making the population less reliant on social welfare.[8]



One measure aimed at dealing with unemployment was contained in the “3. Notverordnung”[9] which provided so-called “Kleinsiedlungen”[10] for the long-term unemployed.[11]



The decree set out three main objectives: (1) to promote permanent settlement in the countryside, (2) to reduce unemployment and (3) to facilitate the means of subsistence for the unemployed. [12]



Built on the outskirts of large towns, “Kleinsiedlungen” comprised cheaply and primitively built houses[13] with large gardens, usually between 800 – 1200m2, so that they could be self-sufficient.[14]



The cost of the houses was low, at a maximum of 3000RM.  Government loans of up to 2500RM were available to support this. The settlers were required to contribute to the building of the houses with their own time.



The decree also dealt specifically with the part of the regional budget available for these building projects, the process by which settlers were to be able to take out loans and the purpose the land should have in making settlers more economically independent.[15]



The new “Kleinsiedlung” policy was very popular with the German public and  take up was high.[16] In the first tranche of building under the programme, from … to ….., 48m.RM were invested. A second tranche was started on …., for which 25m. RM was initially invested.  This was increased by an additional 10m. RM in December 1932, shortly before the NS took power.



One example of a settlement built under this legislation is the Zahnbrechersiedlung[17] in Munich. Permission to build it was applied for on the 10th of December 1932 and granted on the 10th of March 1933.[18] The building started on the 1st of May 1933.[19]





NS housing policy up to 1936



The NSDAP Manifesto said that: 1. The housing shortage would be dealt with by providing housing to “those who deserved it”. 2. They would pass a law to enforce appropriation of land in the national interest.[20]



In 1930 Walther Darré published his book “Neuadel aus Blut und Boden” thereby giving rise to the NS doctrine of “Blood and Soil”[21].  Darré’s views were based upon a “mystical idealisation” of the peasant way of life[22].



Darré proposed the creation of new small and medium sized peasant landholdings in the area of the large “Junker” landholdings in Prussia.  Hitler incorporated this into the NS peasant programme in March 1930[23].



Based on his advocacy of selected breeding and his views on settlement, Darré was made chief of the SS “Rasse- und Sieldungs- Hauptamt”[24] by Himmler in 1931.[25]



The NS had criticized the Brüning government’s housing policy by disagreeing with the location of the settlements, the inexpensive, simple nature of the houses and the diverse background of the settlers admitted.[26]



Once in power the Nazi Party continued with the building of “Kleinsiedlungen” on the basis of the programme established in the “3. Notverordnung”, constructing three more such establishments in Munich alone.[27] As under the Weimar Republic programme, these were to be built in “urban fringes” and had large, farm-like gardens.



In February 1933, the new government authorized a third tranche of funding for this programme, worth 40m. RM.  In addition to the unemployed, access was to given to “job-sharers” [28], as well as war cripples and veterans.[29] At the same time, the amount available in government loans was reduced and the requirement for capital from the settlers was increased.[30]

A fourth tranche of 70m. RM was agreed in July 1933.  In addition to the existing categories this was also to be open to SA veterans and fully employed low-income families with four or more minor children.[31]



In September 1933, the NS passed their first piece of legislation relating to housing policy[32] (“Wohnsiedlungsgesetz”).  Under this law 1. The government was given the right to declare and appropriate areas of settlement 2. A central authority for housing (“Reichssiedlungkomissar”) was to be established, with a local hierarchy in the “Heimstättenamt”[33] 3. The building style of settlements had to be in line with the “Heimatbild”[34] 4. There were measures to ensure that new settlements would take place away for existing large cities.



In March 1934 Gottfried Feder was made “Reichsisedlungskommissar"[35].  In a speech in May he described his objectives as being: 1. The dissolution of the large cities 2. To make the population settled again and give them back their roots in the soil, 3. Deliverance from big-city squalor, 4. Provision of healthy living conditions for the adolescent generation, 5. Recreation of the sense of “Heimat”[36]



In October 1934, non-aryans were excluded from access to the settlement programme.  In March 1935, access was restricted to applicants fitting the Nazi ideal[37].





Word Count: 849/600

C.         Evaluation of Sources



“Die 3. Notverordnung des Reichspräsidenten zur Sicherung von Wirtschaft und Finanzen und zur Bekämpfung politischer Ausschreitungen vom 6. Oktober 1931”[38] (Focus on the 4. Chapter concerning agricultural settlements, suburban housing settlements and provision of allotments for the unemployed.)



The text of the “3. Notverordnung” originated from discussions in the cabinet of Chancellor Brüning in September 1931[39] and was issued under president Hindenburg,[40] Thus it is the most accurate representation of the new laws the government was aiming to implement. As the decree was developed by Stegerwald, the Labour Minister, Schiele the Minister for Food and Treviranus, the Minister responsible for “Osthilfe”, the promotion of settlement in Eastern areas of Germany bordering Poland for national security purposes[41] the document is an accurate representation of the current consensus on housing policy in the cabinet. Therefore it has value as a synthesis of divergent political views. As the “3. Notverordnung” was issued to define the settlement policy of the late Weimar Republic it is a key document to any historian studying housing during this period. However, as it is only a decree it is limited, as the document does not provide any information about how it was implemented and the extent to which it actually affected housing policy. Part of the purpose of the document was to provide a clear description of the policy on which civil servant could base their work, meaning the source has value as it is written in very unambiguous terms. The aims included in the document provide valuable information on the background to the policy, however as the purpose of the document was also to present it to the public, the document is limited by its need to be persuasive and euphemistic for political ends.



“Nationalsozialischter Siedlungsbau – Versuch einer Analyse der die Siedlungspolitik bestimmender Faktoren am Beispiel des Nazionalsozialismus”[42] by Ute Peltz-Dreckmann



Written in 1978, this book was the first addressing the topic of housing policy under NS Germany.[43] This could be considered a limitation, as there would have been little secondary source material for Dreckmann to base her analysis on. However it has the value that her view would have developed from the primary sources without being influenced by anyone else’s interpretation. The fact that the book is still quoted in contemporary literature on the subject[44] suggest that her work is respected and that the book is valued as an authority on the subject. Her art-historical background could be considered a limitation, however the work is not restricted to architectural aspects but deliberately includes economic and political analysis, meaning it is useful for comparisons with the Weimar Republic housing policy. The book was written in 1978, meaning the author was writing with hindsight, which has value to historians, however it also means that Dreckmann had no direct experience of the events, which can be considered a limitation.



The purpose of the source is to illustrate the political and economic dimensions of housing policy, thus it is valuable beyond for a comparison in policies between the two governments.[45] Because the author chose the National Socialist Governments housing policy for her case study, as she considered them experts at exploiting the immediate connection between the population and their housing in their propaganda and demographic policies, her work could be considered limited by these assumptions. Since Dreckmann specifically aimed at stimulating public interest in and critical thinking about housing policy, she may have sought to make the subject more appealing by exaggerating controversial aspects, which would be a limitation of the text. Finally, as she wanted her work to be accessible to ordinary readers, it has been criticised for its unscientific approach.[46]



One deficit of the book is its lack of a subject index.



Word Count 559/400



D.         Analysis



It seems clear that there was little change between the Weimar Republic and the NS Regime’s policy frameworks. This is the view of Dreckmann and other historians such as German historian Blümenroth and American architectural historian Mullin. The example of the “Zahnbrechersiedlung” here in Munich appears to illustrate this continuity. The creation of this settlement straddled several administrations: it was planned on the basis of the legislation established in the Brüning’s “3. Notverordnung”, permission was applied for during the chancellorship of Von Schleicher and permission was granted after the NS came to power[47]. That the permission was then granted by the NS administration, which subsequently became involved in resolving problems relating to the financing of the settlement[48], would seem to support Dreckmann’s argument that there was significant continuity in housing policy between the Republic and the Reich, at least during the first years.



Although as emphasised by Dreckmann, the NS did also criticise aspects of the Weimar policy, such as the location of the settlements, which were primarily suburban, and the primitive nature of the houses, the popularity of the policy among Nazi voters meant that the new government was forced to maintain its implementation at least up until 1935. In addition Dreckman points out that the economic circumstances, whose consequences the “3. Notverordnung” aimed to address, remained unchanged; the economic crisis would continue until 1934.[49] Thus the housing objectives of the new government were very much in line with the aims stated in the “3. Notverordnung” Agreeing with Dreckmann, Ulrich Blümenroth focuses on economic aspects, namely the Nazi view that such settlements were necessary in raising living standards and increasing German economic independence[50], implying that the intentions guiding Nazi housing policy were in fact not very different from those guiding the Weimar Republic’s.[51] Architectural Historian, J. R. Mullin takes a similar stance to Blümenroth, pointing out that, like the Weimar Republic, the new government concentrated on increasing employment by producing housing, implying that they were continuing the same policies as the Weimar Republic with similar motives.[52]



Dreckmann argues that another reason the NS carried on with the WR housing policy was that they had not yet developed specific policies of their own. However, from the evidence it seems that there is a very clear link between the policy intentions expressed prior to elections and their actions once in power. Thus both the points in the NS manifesto relating to housing were actually enacted into legislation: 1. Conditions for settlers were changed to incorporate for example war wounded, job-sharers and large families 2. The “Wohnsiedlunggestz” gave the government the right to appropriate land for settlement. In addition the settlement programme fulfilled the expectations implicit the “Blood and Soil” doctrine which was clearly defined part of NS policy by 1930.



Notwithstanding the similarity in economic aims, it can be argued that the reason the NS continued with the policy was that it presented them with tan opportunity to realise ideological objectives. This is the point made by social historian Karin Bernst who argues that through its housing policies the NS government was able to promote the declared zarchetype of the “four-children-family”, living in a small house with a garden and discriminate against racially “impure” settlers[53].  This is backed up by the evidence, which shows that with each successive tranche of building, the conditions for applicants were steadily aligned with NS racial ideals.



Another way that ideology shaped housing policy is the anti-urban stance inherent in Darré’s “Blood and Soil” doctrine.  The fact that the WR policy involved moving poor people out of the cities naturally appealed to NS ideologues and fitted with their propaganda.  This would explain why they carried on with the policy.  This view is adopted by both Barbara Miller Lane and Mullin.



An area in which there appears to be a clear discontinuity between the two governments at the level of intentions is the central role of settlement policy in NS expansionist ideology, a characteristic apparently absent from Weimar motives. Robert L. Koehl highlights the NS commitment to the ideal of “Lebensraum” for the German population to explain the motives behind NS housing policy.  The close links between Darré and Himmler, the driving force behind the NS plans for colonisation in the East, illustrates the connection between domestic settlement policy and the Reich’s war time aims.  Koehl refers to this as “Imperialism by demography”.  Thus in addition to the economic aims behind housing policy, for the NS government ideological aims seem to have been of great significance.



Word count 749/650



E.         Conclusion



In conclusion the continuingly difficult economic situation and the popularity of the existing housing policy may be understood as reasons for which the NS government initially persisted to implement the building of “Kleinsiedlungen”. However, that they continued with the building of “Kleinsiedlungen” was due to the possibilities that the policy offered to support and develop their social and political ideals. The real changes in housing policy can therefore be seen in the intentions of the NS government compared with those of the WR. Having started in the tracks of the WR the NS housing policy was gradually steered into an entirely new direction. Whilst the text of the “3. Notverordnung” allows for a clear view of the starting point, the value of Dreckmanns work is in the systematic detailing of the legislative steps on this journey. Whilst housing policy of the WR was concerned with decreasing unemployment and increasing housing, the aims of NS housing policy were those of their notorious ideology regarding the ideal family, “Blood and Soil” and Lebensraum. As S. R Henderson, professor of architectural history at Syracuse University, put it, he NS government built on the existing housing policy but essentially twisted it to suit its ideology.[54]

   

Word count: 201/150



F. Bibliography



3. Notverordnung: Dritte Notverordnung des Herrn Reichspräsident zur Sicherung von Wirtschaft und Finanzen usw. von 6. Oktober 1931, in Deutsche Archiv für Siedlungswesen, Arbeitslosigkeit und Siedlung (Berlin: Deutsche Buchhandlung, 1932)



Brenst, K., Bevölkerungsdruck und Siedlungstätigkeit in W. Karl, Dörfer auf dem Ziegeland (Munich: Buchendorfer Verlag, 2002)



Blümenroth, U., Deutsche Wohnungspolitik seit der Reichsgründung: Darstellung und kritische Würdung (Münster: Institut für Siedlungs- und Wohnungswesen, 1975)



Büttner, U., WEIMAR, Die überforderte Republik 1918 – 1933 (Stuttgart: Klett – Cota, 2008), p. 795



Evans, R., The Coming of the Third Reich (New York: Penguin Press, 2003)



Ferguson, N., The War of the World (London: Penguin Books, 2006)



Haerendel, Dr U., “Wohnungspolitik im Nazionalsozialismus” Zeitschrift für Sozialreform (Heft 10. 1999: 843 to 879. Print.) p. 855



Henderson, S. R., Self-help Housing in the Weimar Republic: The Work of Ernst May (New York: School of Architecture, Syracuse University, 1975)



Kershaw, I., Hitler, 1889-1936: Hubris, (New York: W.W. Norton, 1998)



Koehl, R., RKFDV: German resettlement and population policy, 1939-1945: a history oft he Reich Commission fort he strengthening of Germandom (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1957)



Landeshauptstadt München Direktorium, Stadtchronik 1930 (Web: Portal München Betriebs-GmbH & Co. KG, 2013)



Lommer, H., Letter to Lily Roggenhofer (2014)



Miller Lane, B., “Architecture and politics in Germany, 1918-1945” (Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press, 1968)



Mullin, R., The Impact of the National Socialist Policies upon Local City Panning in Pre-war Germany (1933-1939): The Rhetoric and the Reality (University of Massachusetts – Amherst, 1981)



Mullin, R., Ideology, Planning and the German City in the Inter-War Years (Town Planning Review, July 1982, Vol. 53, No 3)



Nerdinger, W., & Blohm, K., Bauen im Nationalsozialismus: Bayern 1933-1945 (Munich: Klinkhardt & Biermann, 1993)



Pelz-Dreckmann, U., Nationalsozialistischer Siedlungsbau – Versuch einer Analyse der die Siedlungspolitik bestimmender Faktoren am Beispiel des Nationalsozialismus (Munich: Minerva Publikation, 1978)



Preller, L., Sozial Politik in der Weimarer Republik (Düsseldorf: Athenäum Verlag GmbH, 1978) 491



Stadtarchiv: Stadtarchiv von München BwR 1495, p.35



Winkler, H-A., Weimar  1918-1933, Die Geschichte der Ersten Deutschen Democratie (Munich: Beck Verlag, 1993)



Zimmermann, C. & Harlander, T.,  Europäische Wohnungspolitik in Vergleichender Perspektive 1900 – 1939 (Stuttgart: Fraunhofer IRB Verlag, 1997)













[1] “3. Notverordnung des Reichspräsidenten zur Sicherung von Wirtschaft und Finanzen und zur Bekänpfung politischer Ausschreitungen vom 6. Oktober 1931” translates to “3rd Emergency decree of the 6. October 1931 by the President for safeguarding of the economy and finances and control of political excesses”
[2] For example “The Rise of the Third Reich” by R. Evans, “Weimar: Die Geschichte der Erste Deutsche Democratie” By H. Winkler or “Hitler” by I. Kershaw
[3] For example K. Bernst on the social aspects affecting housing policy, U. Blumenroth on the ideological factors or R. Koehl on Nazi expansionist policies
[4] Winkler (1993) p 358, Kershaw (1998) p 318
[5] Büttner (2008), p.795
[6] Dreckmann (1978) p. 98
[7]
[8] Stadtarchiv von München BwR 1495, p.35
[9] NotVO 6.10.1931, IV Teil, Kap. II, § 1.
[10] “Little settlements”
[11] Bernst (2002) p. 170-171
[12] NotVO 6.10.1931, IV Teil, Kap. II, § 1.
[13] Zimmermann (1997) p.73
[14] Preller (1978) p. 492.
[15] NotVO 6.10.1931, IV Teil, Kap. III
[16] Harlander, Hater, Meiers, (1988) p. 143
[17] Named after its initiator Dr. Zahnbrecker
[18] interview Lommer
[19] Bernst, (2002) p. 190
[20] Peltz–Dreckmann (1978) p. 112
[21] Miller Lane (1988) p. 155
[22] Miller Lane (1988) p. 154
[23] Miller Lane (1988) p. 153
[24] Race- and Settlement- Main commission 
[25] Miller Lane (1988) p. 154
[26] Peltz-Dreckmann (1978) p.110
[27] Nerdinger & Bloem (1993) p.253
[28] Encouraging job-sharing (Kurzarbeit) was one of the principle measures introduced by the Nazis to reduce unemployment - see Peltz-Dreckmann (1978) p.112
[29] Peltz–Dreckmann (1978) p. 124
[30] Harlander, Hater, Meiers, (1988) p. 143
[31] Peltz – Dreckmann (1978) p. 124
[32] Peltz-Dreckmann –page?
[33] translates as “Homestead commission”
[34] translates as “homeland norm”
[35] translates as “Reichssettlementcomissar”
[36] Peltz-Dreckmann (1978) p. 127, see also Miller Lane () p. 205
[37] defined as “honourable Germans of reduced means and Aryan descent, nationally and politically relable, racially valuable, healthy and free from hereditary diseases”. Harlander, Hater & Meiers, (1988), p. 145. See also Haerendel (1999) p.856,
[38] translates as “3rd Emergency decree of the 6. October 1931 by the President for safeguarding of the economy and finances and control of political excesses”
[42] translates “National Socialist Housing Policy – An Attempt at an Analysis of the Factors determining Housing Policy illustrated by National Socialism”
[43] marie louise recker
[44] henderson
[47] The archivist to the settlement, Hannelore Lommer points out that it was verz important for the settlers of receiving permission under the “3. Notverordnung”, because of the significant associated financial advantages which included access to loans and tax relief. Lommer (2014) p.1
[48] Bernst (2002) p.190
[49] Peltz-Dreckmann p. 98
[50] Blümenroth (1975) p. 264
[51] Blümenroth (1975) p. 263
[52] Mullin, Housing vs. Planning p. 196
[53] Bernst (2002) p.170-171
[54] Henderson (1975) p. 326-327

 Nazi Housing Development
The government of Chancellor Brüning in 1931 established the small settlement programme in order "to promote the population becoming settled in the country to reduce unemployment and to facilitate sufficient living conditions for the unemployed." The future settlers were to be involved in the establishment of their own homes and gardens and small animal husbandry to improve their supply in the economic crisis. The Nazis took over the model because it fit into their anti-modern and anti-urban ideology. 

According to Geoff Walden of Third Reich in Ruins, this first building at Kurfürstenplatz "was likely part of a Third Reich neighbourhood housing development (Siedlung) built in 1938. The Siedlung included a savings bank and a police office, and this building may have been one of those." friend_of_Obersalzberg, who contributed the photo on the left, confirms that it was built in 1938 by architect Hans Atzenbeck.
At that time it was necessary to build new healthy and cheap apartments in Munich. It has 5 entrances and so 5 living units. In the first floor (Erdgeschoß) were stores. In the courtyard was a fountain with a sculpture of a drumming Hitlerjunge. The swastikas and the fountain were removed after war.
Google Street view actually blocks the image of the entire building! Google isn't known for respecting privacy, so could this have been pushed by the authorities given the remaining Nazi-era reliefs?
 February 26, 1938
The coat of arms of Munich on the building with its form under the Nazis and today.
Better photos of the building can be found on the the Munich thread at Axis History.

These siedlung on Klugstrasse all have bizarre Third Reich, astrological, masonic, and other obscure symbols over every door frame leading inside. To me, it's incredible that they continue to survive and form the entrances to people's homes:

The swastika is still faintly visible...

...whilst this one, dated 1933, is obscured by the shaking hands

Here the hakenkreuz has been erased, but the Nazi salutes allowed to remain!

Another excised swastika that completed the DAF symbol

And yet a couple have had their bizarre symbols completely removed.


The left image shows swords and a steel helmet whilst the one on the right reminds me of the lesson from the Disney wartime cartoon Education for Death...




Mustersiedlung Ramersdorf
  Mustersiedlung Ramersdorf
The sample settlement at Ramersdorf was opened on 9 June 1934 to serve as a model for future settlement projects in Germany. Designed by Guido Habers, this siedlung on Stephanskirchener Straße provided 192 homes with 34 different building types and planned as an alternative to the multi-storey urban houses. The ensemble is self-contained and , pursuant to the garden city idea numerous green spaces.  As executive architects , among others , Friedrich Ferdinand Haindl , Sep Ruf , Franz Ruf , Lois Knidberger , Albert Heichlinger , Max Dellefant , Theo Pabst, Christoph Miller, Hanna Loev Delisle and Charles were responsible for the buildings. The hoped-for propaganda effect of the settlement did not materialise because, among other things, the generous living space for those days 56-129 m2 and individual modernist elements were criticized.  After the exhibition, the settlement houses were sold as homes. In 1935 a Protestant church building was opened with the Gustav Adolf Church in the settlement as shown in the then-and-now photos.

A number of frescoes remain, barely, from 1934:
 St. Christopher on Stephanskirchener Straße 20
 
 Above a door on Schlechinger Weg 4 is this coat of arms; the former owner was Paerr and therefore he chose a play on words in the arms of a bear- Bärenwappen. Above one can still make out the inscription "G. P. 1934".
 At Schlechinger Weg 8 is this image of a German African colonial soldier. The original owner had served in Deutsch-Südwestafrika and designed the crest himself before giving it to the artist, Günther Graßmann.
 
Another by Günther Graßmann at Schlechinger Weg 10. The pointer of the sundial is at the centre of a sun, with the dial in the form of an harp. As can be seen in the 1934 photo, the bottom of the fresco depicts a sailing ship. Graßmann was involved in another sundial for the church of St. Raphael, München-Hartmannshofen; I think he was involved in its stained glass, as well: http://www.sankt-raphael-muenchen.de/sonstiges.html
 
Remarkably, the Adolf-Hitler-Brunnen still remains intact at Herrenchiemseestraße 44. On the base of the fountain a swastika with a lime leaf in raised relief was etched and at the back was the following inscription:
 DIESER·BRUNNEN·
WURDE·UNTER·DER HITLERLINDE·
UND·GLEICHZEITIG·MIT·DIESER·GESETZT·
ZUR·ERÖFFNUNG·DER·DEUTSCHEN·SIEDLUNGS·AUSSTELLUNG·
MÜNCHEN·1934
The blocks of stone with the swastika and lime leaf above the water spout were removed after 1945. as was the term " Hitler Linde". This fountain is one of the 75 drinking water wells in Munich.
 
Another water well at Törwanger Straße 2. In 1938 a small mosaic was set up as seen in the photo with a swastika by the painter Günther Grassmann. The mosaic has been coated with a thin layer of plaster and is left empty, the well no longer in operation.

Siedlung on Erich Kastner str.
This example of a siedlung consists of an huge building and on all four corners there are Third Reich reliefs.
The swastikas have been wiped out from the bottom of each relief

93 Winzererstr.
Another surviving building from the Nazi era with its iconography intact (with the colour still maintained) complete with reichsadler dating from 1936 found by odeon at Axis History Forum.
 
From 1933 to 1937 the Nazis set up Reichskleinsiedlung here at Am Hart, Neuherberg and Kaltherberg after which time the housing policy increasingly turned back to the multi-storey, which could be accomplished more efficiently and cheaper.