Sign up to access the complete lesson and track your progress!
Unlock This CourseThe leaders of the German Democratic Republic (GDR) wanted ordinary people to feel that socialism gave them a safe, settled life. The two biggest promises were a job and a home. Under Erich Honecker, who led the GDR from 1971, the Party put even more effort into these promises, hoping that people who felt secure would accept the one-party state. The cost of this effort is covered in Economic Problems in the 1980s. This lesson looks at what daily life was like for people.
Key terms:
In the GDR everyone was expected to work, and everyone was promised a job. School leavers and graduates were found a place, and there was officially no unemployment. For many people this meant real security. They did not have to fear losing their income, as workers in the West sometimes did.
Workers were organised into brigades. A brigade worked together on its tasks and had targets to meet. It was also a social group, with birthday parties, outings and shared celebrations. Brigades could win awards for good work, and some kept a diary of their activities.
The workplace was more than a place to earn money. Many firms ran canteens, and some offered childcare and holidays arranged through the state trade union. The workplace was also where the Party spread its message, through meetings and slogans.
There were drawbacks. Wages were modest and the goods to spend them on were often hard to find. A guaranteed job also meant that firms kept more workers than they needed, and there was little reward for working harder. Some people found this comfortable, while others found it frustrating.
Housing was the second big promise. Rents were kept very low, so housing took only a small part of a family's wages. But after the Second World War many homes were damaged, and many older buildings were cold and damp, with outdoor toilets and coal stoves.
In 1971 Honecker made housing a main part of his policy. The Party set out to solve the 'housing question' and decided in 1973 to do so by 1990. The method was speed: cheap, standard flats built from prefabricated concrete slabs. Whole estates of Plattenbau tower blocks went up on the edges of towns, such as Marzahn in East Berlin.
The new flats were modern. They often had central heating, hot water and an indoor bathroom, which many old houses lacked. Millions of people moved into them, and the Party gave many flats to workers and young families.
The estates looked very alike and had few shops and cafes. Old town-centre buildings were left to decay while money went into new blocks. Flats were handed out by the state, and people could wait a long time for one.
The housing programme was a real achievement, but it was never finished. Shortages lasted until the end of the GDR, and the programme was very expensive.
This is a Paper 2 Section A (b) question. Study Sources A and B.
From a report by Erich Honecker, leader of the GDR, to the XI Party Congress of the SED, 17-21 April 1986 (translated, with spelling adjusted).
"In fifteen years, 2.4 million new, modernised apartments were built ... Two-thirds of all completed, newly-built housing was allocated to workers; one in four new apartments went to young married couples. ... more than 7 million workers have received wages based on production and other achievement-oriented measures."
From a book by Landolf Scherzer, an East German writer, reporting the words of a local SED district secretary, diary entry for 2 December 1986 (translated, with spelling adjusted).
"...the faster and cheaper the production in the factories, the more apartments that can be built ... People like to talk and write about the 'We can finally afford something': the new apartment, the new youth club, the colour TV. But not everyone would be prepared to talk openly and honestly ... about what each one, really each individual, does in return."
How far does Source A support the evidence of Source B about work and housing in the GDR? Explain your answer. [8 marks]
Source A supports Source B in some ways. Both link the workforce to the housing programme and to production. Source A says "Two-thirds of all completed, newly-built housing was allocated to workers", and Source B says "the faster and cheaper the production in the factories, the more apartments that can be built". Both also link reward to effort. Source A says workers received "wages based on production and other achievement-oriented measures", and Source B says not everyone would talk openly about "what each one ... does in return".
However, the sources differ in tone and confidence. Source A is proud and presents housing as a finished success, saying "2.4 million new, modernised apartments were built". Source B is more doubtful. It says people like to talk about "the new apartment, the new youth club, the colour TV", but that "not everyone would be prepared to talk openly and honestly" about their own effort. Source A shows no worry about workers' effort, whereas Source B suggests there was a problem.
Overall, Source A supports Source B only partly. They agree that housing depended on production and on workers, but A celebrates the results while B questions whether people were giving enough in return.
What lifts it to the top level: it cross-refers short quotations from both sources for the agreement and for the difference, and ends by judging how far A supports B.
Choose matching points to pair up, such as reward for work and production in A and B, then quote both. An answer that only says "A is positive and B is negative" stays low, because it does not cross-refer the detail.