In post war period in cities and towns housing was mostly communal living in a cheap barrack style buildings split in rooms. A family was usually granted a small room with shared toilet and kitchen. Pressure was created not by post war ruin (it sure didn’t help but >90% of territory never saw a foot of German soldier, >50% of population lived east to the easternmost front line) but by aggressive industrialization that included resettlements and redevelopments of villages and smaller towns. Many houses were built by workers in their spare time after work, on a land granted by the state and using construction materials provided by the employer (ie factory or plant).
As the barracks aged and suffered from a terrible construction quality, over the next 10-15 years it put more pressure to have a better solution. Cue khrushchevka, late 50s/early 60s onwards. Then brezhnevki with some improvements over bare minimal “comfort” of previous gen, and eventually from 70s onwards to the end of soviets the massive prefab took hold. There were countless experimental projects at different times and in different configurations, from 3 storey alpha builds of Khrushchevkas to Kyiv’s Podil 4 blocks project of late 80s
More pedantically: wartime destruction exacerbated the Soviet housing shortage, but it wasn’t the fundamental explanation for the scale and duration of the postwar housing construction program.
Even if it’s a meme, and it rips the piss out of liberals or whatever, such mistakes make them easy target and work only in echo chambers.
The whole >90% of territory never saw a foot of German soldier was not where most of the destroyed urban housing stock stood. The war destroyed over 1,700 towns and 70,000 villages, which was roughly half the urban housing stock in the most populated and industrial regions, and left about 25 million people homeless.
Many houses were built by workers in their spare time after work, on a land granted by the state and using construction materials provided by the factory or plant they worked at, but that was a supplement to state reconstruction, not proof that war ruin was secondary.
The barracks aging is precisely what created the need for khrushchevkas in late 50s and early 60s onwards. Then brezhnevki with some improvements over bare minimal comfort of previous gen, and eventually from 70s onwards to the end of soviets the massive prefab took hold. There were countless experimental projects at different times and in different configurations, from 3 storey alpha builds of Khrushchevkas to Kyiv’s Podil 4 blocks project of late 80s, but all of it was a response to the war-created housing deficit, not a response to industrialization alone as you falsely claim.
Aggressive industrialization wasn’t the fundamental explanation for the scale and duration of the postwar housing construction program. Wartime destruction was the main driver.
It really helps to actually learn about the subjects before you start braying about them.
Oh and on the other hand, British mass social housing for working class emerged because of King George’s WW1 realization that better fed and kept humans give more durable cannon fodder, after comparing British and German soldiers. At crown’s command, no socialism required.
That’s so much bullshit.
In post war period in cities and towns housing was mostly communal living in a cheap barrack style buildings split in rooms. A family was usually granted a small room with shared toilet and kitchen. Pressure was created not by post war ruin (it sure didn’t help but >90% of territory never saw a foot of German soldier, >50% of population lived east to the easternmost front line) but by aggressive industrialization that included resettlements and redevelopments of villages and smaller towns. Many houses were built by workers in their spare time after work, on a land granted by the state and using construction materials provided by the employer (ie factory or plant).
As the barracks aged and suffered from a terrible construction quality, over the next 10-15 years it put more pressure to have a better solution. Cue khrushchevka, late 50s/early 60s onwards. Then brezhnevki with some improvements over bare minimal “comfort” of previous gen, and eventually from 70s onwards to the end of soviets the massive prefab took hold. There were countless experimental projects at different times and in different configurations, from 3 storey alpha builds of Khrushchevkas to Kyiv’s Podil 4 blocks project of late 80s
More pedantically: wartime destruction exacerbated the Soviet housing shortage, but it wasn’t the fundamental explanation for the scale and duration of the postwar housing construction program.
Even if it’s a meme, and it rips the piss out of liberals or whatever, such mistakes make them easy target and work only in echo chambers.
This is completely incorrect.
That would require liberals to read so they know what you just said. Quite rare.
If those kids could read.jpg?
They can, they just dont. certainly not something that might make them understand the conditions inside the Soviet Union.
The whole >90% of territory never saw a foot of German soldier was not where most of the destroyed urban housing stock stood. The war destroyed over 1,700 towns and 70,000 villages, which was roughly half the urban housing stock in the most populated and industrial regions, and left about 25 million people homeless.
Many houses were built by workers in their spare time after work, on a land granted by the state and using construction materials provided by the factory or plant they worked at, but that was a supplement to state reconstruction, not proof that war ruin was secondary.
The barracks aging is precisely what created the need for khrushchevkas in late 50s and early 60s onwards. Then brezhnevki with some improvements over bare minimal comfort of previous gen, and eventually from 70s onwards to the end of soviets the massive prefab took hold. There were countless experimental projects at different times and in different configurations, from 3 storey alpha builds of Khrushchevkas to Kyiv’s Podil 4 blocks project of late 80s, but all of it was a response to the war-created housing deficit, not a response to industrialization alone as you falsely claim.
Aggressive industrialization wasn’t the fundamental explanation for the scale and duration of the postwar housing construction program. Wartime destruction was the main driver.
It really helps to actually learn about the subjects before you start braying about them.
Did you just fed my argument to SomeGPT to regutrigate and slapped an ad hominem on top? Class😘
Oh and on the other hand, British mass social housing for working class emerged because of King George’s WW1 realization that better fed and kept humans give more durable cannon fodder, after comparing British and German soldiers. At crown’s command, no socialism required.