After the liberation of Kharkiv in the third week of August 1943, our beloved city lay in ruins. Some of the historic buildings had suffered significant damage during the fighting. What did people try to save, and what was beyond repair?

While working at the State Archives of the Kharkiv Region, I came across an extremely interesting document dated June 5, 1944. It largely answers the question posed above.

Regarding the registration of architectural landmarks in the Kharkiv region, we would like to provide the following information.

Organizations based in the city of Kharkiv have preserved extremely little information about architectural landmarks in the Kharkiv region. The district executive committees, which we have contacted twice, have not yet provided comprehensive data on the number, condition, and current use of existing architectural landmarks. According to preliminary information received, it appears that a large number of architectural landmarks —residential and public buildings, as well as places of worship—were destroyed during the German occupation. Some of the religious architectural landmarks have been dismantled or converted for other purposes over the past two decades.

This was followed by a detailed list of nine churches and estates in the Kharkiv region that were destroyed in the 1930s, and then a list of five sites that were blown up by the Germans. To successfully protect architectural landmarks, it was necessary to address a number of challenges. For example:

1. Identification of materials to refine the list of surviving architectural landmarks within central government agencies (Moscow, Kyiv). Distribution of these materials to local architectural affairs departments.
2. Status of as-built documentation (inspections, surveys, sketches, photographs, defect reports, etc.).

At that time, a three-person team of students from the Moscow Architectural Institute was in our beloved city. It was they who, on assignment from the Committee on Architectural Affairs under the Council of People’s Commissars of the USSR, were tasked with conducting surveys and making sketches of a number of sites over the course of a month. Extremely detailed reports were compiled for each of the buildings, thanks to which we can learn a great deal of interesting information.

Let’s start, perhaps, with the complex of buildings at the Pokrovsky Monastery—one of our city’s landmarks. There was no Universitetska Street at the time, so on September 16, the architects went to Svobodnaya Akademiya Street, 8. They began with the building that had once been the bishop’s residence.

It turned out that the condition of its walls was quite satisfactory. The iron roof and chimneys needed repair, as did the wooden parquet floors. The columns on the facades required restoration. The fresco on the barrel vault in the second-floor hall had been covered with whitewash, making it impossible to determine its condition and value. On the third floor of the residential section, despite the war, the patterned tiled stoves had been preserved.

The general conclusion was that the restoration of the building was straightforward and inexpensive. The following measures were identified as priorities:

1. Roof repair;
2. Installation of downspouts;
3. Glazing of openings.

In the inspection report, the architects added:

Prohibited:
Making any alterations or modifications to the facade or the interior of the building without special permission from the Office of the City Chief Architect.

In the fall of 1944, the cathedral building at the Pokrovsky Monastery was in the following condition:

There were cracks in several walls. The iron roof had survived only on the bell tower’s dome. The church building itself consisted of nothing but a metal frame. There were no downspouts. The domes of the cathedral had also not survived. Many of the windows lacked both glass and frames. Absolutely nothing remained of the church’s furnishings. However, several crosses that had once crowned the domes were piled up on the bell tower, along with the remains of their gilded coverings, which the visiting architects deemed necessary to preserve for the upcoming restoration work. Another interesting fact mentioned in the inspection report is also significant to us. It turns out that during the German occupation of Kharkiv, an attempt was also made to restore the cathedral building—for this purpose, the architect Viktor Karpovich Trotsenko, known to many of us, even drew up a design. However, the Germans did not proceed any further with the project, and after the city’s liberation, Trotsenko was exiled to Siberia.

Among the priority measures that needed to be taken to preserve the cathedral were:

— glazing the windows,
— installing rain gutters,
— removing weeds and young trees from the roof and the base of the walls,
— covering the arches and protruding parts with iron,
— erecting a special fence around the cathedral.

The Assumption Cathedral and its bell tower sustained far more damage. At that time, its condition was strikingly different from what it is today.

From the report drawn up on September 18, we learn that by the time the architects arrived, the church was essentially in ruins. Only the exterior walls, the vaulted ceilings, and the partially damaged exterior plaster remained. It was not possible to inspect the basements beneath the building due to collapses.
The exterior plaster of the Alexander Bell Tower showed traces of shrapnel, and the windows were missing their glass. The staircases inside were either destroyed or severely damaged. However, according to experts, all of this was restorable. The architects strongly recommended restricting access to the site in order to prevent further deterioration of the building.

On the same day, an inspection report was drawn up regarding the old university building. The report shows that the building sustained virtually no damage during the hostilities. The University Church, located directly across the street, was far less fortunate.

In October 1941, an incendiary bomb struck the Church of St. Anthony, and by 1944, all that remained were the brick walls and a portico without a pediment. Inside, traces of the columns and the vaulted ceilings of the first floor remained. The entrance to the building’s basements was completely blocked. The surviving right wing was used by the university as a book depository.

Constitution Square is now one of the favorite spots for our city’s residents. People often arrange to meet at the monument called “Flying Ukraine.” In the summer, you can sit on the benches there and take a break from the heat in the shade of the trees. Before the war, however, this site was home to the Noble Assembly building, constructed by architect Vasilyev in 1814. After a fire in 1870, it was rebuilt. During the Soviet era, the building housed the Palace of Pioneers and October Children.

The stories, events, and famous names associated with this beautiful building would surely be enough to fill an entire book. In 1943, this stunningly beautiful structure, which once graced the center of our city, was severely damaged.

Here’s what a group of architects saw when they visited him on September 20.

The Palace of Pioneers has been completely destroyed; only the facade walls and some interior walls remain. Inside, a colonnade—most likely part of a peristyle courtyard—has survived; the Doric columns are now severely damaged. In the center are traces of a rectangular fountain basin lined with marble. The remaining fragments scattered here and there attest to the rich decoration of some of the rooms. The wide variety of building materials and construction techniques used in the structure indicates the number of alterations and reconstructions it has undergone. Currently, many structures and fragments are hanging precariously and are unstable, often collapsing. The floors and roof have not survived anywhere.

It was also noted that the entrance to the ruins needed to be completely closed off. According to experts, restoring the building would require very little:

1) a thorough study of the subject
2) substantial financial resources

Obviously, the government had neither the time nor the money in 1944. For this reason, the inspection report on the Kharkiv Nobility Assembly building concludes with the following statement:

According to Kharkiv’s urban planning project, the remains of the building are scheduled for demolition.

A similar situation existed at that time with the building of the Institute for Young Ladies, which the Germans burned down in 1942. By the time the architects arrived, all that remained were walls in some places, the vaulted ceilings of the first-floor corridor’s basements, and the vaults above some staircases. Part of the building’s basements was being used by the construction institute. Otherwise, this once-grand building was nothing more than a pile of rubble, to which access had to be blocked, and the overhanging iron beams, which threatened to collapse, had to be removed. So it was decided to demolish the building. Today, the site where this educational institution once stood is occupied by Shevchenko Park. As far as I know, no one has ever fallen into the remains of the institute’s basements.

It was September 1944. There were still quite a few months left before the fall of Berlin and Victory Day. It is truly heartening that, even during those difficult wartime years, people in our beloved city still tried to preserve the legacy of their ancestors. Even if only to the best of their modest abilities. In any case, they did so with dedication and integrity.