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
[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
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.
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.
93 Winzererstr.
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
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:
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
Siedlung on Erich Kastner str.
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".
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.
