|
|
Post by Jaga on Dec 2, 2013 23:10:04 GMT -7
|
|
|
|
Post by Eric on Dec 3, 2013 9:45:11 GMT -7
Damage from World War II stood for a long time. Richer countries had the luxury of removing damage rather quickly to make the land beautiful and to improve the mood of the people. Poorer countries, unfortunately, had to wait to remove the damage until new projects could be completed, to make sure people had places to live and work first.
|
|
|
|
Post by kowalskil on Dec 4, 2013 12:22:56 GMT -7
Damage from World War II stood for a long time. Richer countries had the luxury of removing damage rather quickly to make the land beautiful and to improve the mood of the people. Poorer countries, unfortunately, had to wait to remove the damage until new projects could be completed, to make sure people had places to live and work first. I returned to Warsaw in the spring of 1946. It was the most destroyed capital in Eastern Europe. Was Dresden more destroyed than Warsaw? Ludwik |
|
|
|
Post by kaima on Dec 5, 2013 1:31:19 GMT -7
Damage from World War II stood for a long time. Richer countries had the luxury of removing damage rather quickly to make the land beautiful and to improve the mood of the people. Poorer countries, unfortunately, had to wait to remove the damage until new projects could be completed, to make sure people had places to live and work first. I returned to Warsaw in the spring of 1946. It was the most destroyed capital in Eastern Europe. Was Dresden more destroyed than Warsaw? Ludwik You answer and then ask your own question. Can ANYONE answer that? By what measure? How thoroughly leveled? By number of dead? By ... aha... but you say "capital" and not "city", but then you measure against Dresden, which is also not a capital. So you pose an unclear question with an unclear answer. Stalingrad? My own vote, with no reason other than very limited personal observation, goes to Minsk. I worked there in 1993 and was impressed with the tiny "old" core of the city. The casual story is that the armies waltzed back and forth 4 or 6 times over the city during the war, leaving nothing but ash and rubble. Thus the tiny center was rebuilt and fully surrounded by modern post-war architecture. Others warned me of the blandness and same-ness of the city, but I stood on a hill one day and studied the buildings, and noted a vary typical city. The new buildings were distinctly NOT the same, but rather from the same era. There was quite a bit of variation in type and architecture, quite distinguishable when you looked for it. Digging a trench we did encounter a layer of ash about 3 cm / 1.5" thick about a foot underground. We also excavated human bones and a skull with an execution style bullet hole in the left side..... I do not care to compare the human misery or the destruction of the time, but content myself with labeling it a terrible time, one in which I am happy I did not have to participate. Counting the dead, the misery, and assigning "most destroyed" are exercises in futility to me, quite like counting the number of angels capable of dancing on the head of a pin. May the dead rest in peace! Kai PS. Just checked that great, accurate authority Wikipedia, and it states Warsaw, 84%, Minsk 80%. If my sickness were measured by either of those standards, I doubt I would quibble of the difference. |
|
|
|
Post by karl on Dec 5, 2013 6:43:39 GMT -7
I returned to Warsaw in the spring of 1946. It was the most destroyed capital in Eastern Europe. Was Dresden more destroyed than Warsaw? Ludwik You answer and then ask your own question. Can ANYONE answer that? By what measure? How thoroughly leveled? By number of dead? By ... aha... but you say "capital" and not "city", but then you measure against Dresden, which is also not a capital. So you pose an unclear question with an unclear answer. Stalingrad? My own vote, with no reason other than very limited personal observation, goes to Minsk. I worked there in 1993 and was impressed with the tiny "old" core of the city. The casual story is that the armies waltzed back and forth 4 or 6 times over the city during the war, leaving nothing but ash and rubble. Thus the tiny center was rebuilt and fully surrounded by modern post-war architecture. Others warned me of the blandness and same-ness of the city, but I stood on a hill one day and studied the buildings, and noted a vary typical city. The new buildings were distinctly NOT the same, but rather from the same era. There was quite a bit of variation in type and architecture, quite distinguishable when you looked for it. Digging a trench we did encounter a layer of ash about 3 cm / 1.5" thick about a foot underground. We also excavated human bones and a skull with an execution style bullet hole in the left side..... I do not care to compare the human misery or the destruction of the time, but content myself with labeling it a terrible time, one in which I am happy I did not have to participate. Counting the dead, the misery, and assigning "most destroyed" are exercises in futility to me, quite like counting the number of angels capable of dancing on the head of a pin. May the dead rest in peace! Kai PS. Just checked that great, accurate authority Wikipedia, and it states Warsaw, 84%, Minsk 80%. If my sickness were measured by either of those standards, I doubt I would quibble of the difference. Thank you Kai for answering, for as my self was very tempted, but kept not to do so. For this was akin to walking through a mine field with blinders on. Karl |
|
|
|
Post by Eric on Dec 5, 2013 15:06:52 GMT -7
Damage from World War II stood for a long time. Richer countries had the luxury of removing damage rather quickly to make the land beautiful and to improve the mood of the people. Poorer countries, unfortunately, had to wait to remove the damage until new projects could be completed, to make sure people had places to live and work first. I returned to Warsaw in the spring of 1946. It was the most destroyed capital in Eastern Europe. Was Dresden more destroyed than Warsaw? Ludwik I think there is a level of destruction beyond which it becomes worthless to judge which city is "more" destroyed. Obviously, the most important issue in rebuilding after a war is making sure there are houses and apartments, hospitals, bakeries, schools... and then the city can worry about taking down the damage and making things look beautiful again. |
|
|
|
Post by kowalskil on Dec 5, 2013 16:58:12 GMT -7
I returned to Warsaw in the spring of 1946. It was the most destroyed capital in Eastern Europe. Was Dresden more destroyed than Warsaw? Ludwik I think there is a level of destruction beyond which it becomes worthless to judge which city is "more" destroyed. Obviously, the most important issue in rebuilding after a war is making sure there are houses and apartments, hospitals, bakeries, schools... and then the city can worry about taking down the damage and making things look beautiful again. Yes, indeed, the proper description is Warsaw was "nearly totally destroyed," like Dresden and Stalingrad. Ludwik |
|
|
|
Post by Jaga on Dec 5, 2013 22:37:42 GMT -7
Ludwik,
Warsaw was destroyed physically, building after building was demolished after uprising in 1944 and 1943, but in Dresden many innocent people died in so called carpet bombing, so it is probably not easy to compare human lives with structures. Of course many residents of Warsaw died during the war or lost everything, still.... the cost of human life was high in Dresden.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nictoshek on Dec 6, 2013 10:51:53 GMT -7
 The Old Town district still wasn't rebuilt when I visited there at the time. |
|
