5 ms·

I see brutalism as a response to WW2. If your civilization had just gone through the worst war in history, you'd feel a lot more comfortable in a fortress-like

I see brutalism as a response to WW2. If your civilization had just gone through the worst war in history, you'd feel a lot more comfortable in a fortress-like building than in a glass skyscraper.

airstrike 6y ago
I see your point, but that's a false dichotomy. Brutalism isn't the only alternative to glass buildings. https://trip101.com/article/famous-buildings-in-vienna https://trip101.com/article/famous-buildings-in-vienna Most of these look pretty safe to me and objectively prettier than cubes of exposed concrete
Nasrudith 6y ago
That would be an ironically counterproductive response given that said war proved fixed fortresses damn near useless. The Magniot Line became synonymous with useless security theater by Blitzkrieg fortifications were proven pretty useless as they decide to attack someplace else with mobile forces, they fail to provide significant time and logistics and medicine protect against attrition of the sieges of old.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- fatbird 6y ago
  The problem wasn't the Maginot Line, it was the assumption that the modern mobile forces that the French understood were coming, wouldn't be able to pass through the Ardennes. It's not that the French didn't foresee bypassing the line, it's that they mistakenly though it couldn't be bypassed. This wasn't unreasonable, either: The German forces slipped through along a single road unopposed. Even a token French force could have blocked them long enough to bottle them up and destroy them there. What the French were blind to was the gamble the Germans were willing to take. Where German forces tried to pierce the Maginot Line, they were crushed. It worked exactly as designed. As usual, the lesson that History tends to recall is incorrect.
  - fatbird 6y ago
    I was curious, after writing this, how accurate my take was, so I did a bit more reading on it. Short version, accurate overall, but the more detailed story is much more interesting. First, in part, the intention of the Maginot line was to make the Germans go through Belgium. French planners assumed their German counterparts were smart enough not to attempt a direct assault on the line, and felt that a maneuver battle in Belgium was safe for them in terms of stopping the Germans there, after which they could settle into stable lines or possible attack through the Maginot Line. It wasn't literally a single road through the Ardennes, but the French did assume it was impassable and only weakly defended it; the Germans did gamble on attacking through the Ardennes and succeeded, flanking the French and British, forcing the evacuation at Dunkirk and permanently breaking the French lines. A few minor or weakly held forts in the Maginot Line were taken at the northern end, but none of the major forts were taken, the Italian invasion was stopped at the Line, and the Line was becoming the main point of resistance where French forces would hold out; German attacks against the main forts failed utterly. The defense of the Line was ended by the surrender of France.
- Joker_vD 6y ago
  They're still pretty durable. Germans, for example, build 8 huge concrete towers for AA defense, and those things were so damn durable that Soviets couldn't destroy them even with sustained artillery fire, nevermind the RAF bombers. Those things also served as air raid shelters, and indeed, were the safest places during the siege of Berlin (they were also the last places to surrender). So, they were only mostly useless, and there's a big difference between mostly useless and all useless.

I see brutalism as a response to WW2. If your civilization had just gone through the worst war in history, you'd feel a lot more comfortable in a fortress-like building than in a glass skyscraper.

airstrike 6y ago

I see your point, but that's a false dichotomy. Brutalism isn't the only alternative to glass buildings. https://trip101.com/article/famous-buildings-in-vienna https://trip101.com/article/famous-buildings-in-vienna Most of these look pretty safe to me and objectively prettier than cubes of exposed concrete

Nasrudith 6y ago

That would be an ironically counterproductive response given that said war proved fixed fortresses damn near useless. The Magniot Line became synonymous with useless security theater by Blitzkrieg fortifications were proven pretty useless as they decide to attack someplace else with mobile forces, they fail to provide significant time and logistics and medicine protect against attrition of the sieges of old.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
fatbird 6y ago
The problem wasn't the Maginot Line, it was the assumption that the modern mobile forces that the French understood were coming, wouldn't be able to pass through the Ardennes. It's not that the French didn't foresee bypassing the line, it's that they mistakenly though it couldn't be bypassed. This wasn't unreasonable, either: The German forces slipped through along a single road unopposed. Even a token French force could have blocked them long enough to bottle them up and destroy them there. What the French were blind to was the gamble the Germans were willing to take. Where German forces tried to pierce the Maginot Line, they were crushed. It worked exactly as designed. As usual, the lesson that History tends to recall is incorrect.
- fatbird 6y ago
  I was curious, after writing this, how accurate my take was, so I did a bit more reading on it. Short version, accurate overall, but the more detailed story is much more interesting. First, in part, the intention of the Maginot line was to make the Germans go through Belgium. French planners assumed their German counterparts were smart enough not to attempt a direct assault on the line, and felt that a maneuver battle in Belgium was safe for them in terms of stopping the Germans there, after which they could settle into stable lines or possible attack through the Maginot Line. It wasn't literally a single road through the Ardennes, but the French did assume it was impassable and only weakly defended it; the Germans did gamble on attacking through the Ardennes and succeeded, flanking the French and British, forcing the evacuation at Dunkirk and permanently breaking the French lines. A few minor or weakly held forts in the Maginot Line were taken at the northern end, but none of the major forts were taken, the Italian invasion was stopped at the Line, and the Line was becoming the main point of resistance where French forces would hold out; German attacks against the main forts failed utterly. The defense of the Line was ended by the surrender of France.
Joker_vD 6y ago
They're still pretty durable. Germans, for example, build 8 huge concrete towers for AA defense, and those things were so damn durable that Soviets couldn't destroy them even with sustained artillery fire, nevermind the RAF bombers. Those things also served as air raid shelters, and indeed, were the safest places during the siege of Berlin (they were also the last places to surrender). So, they were only mostly useless, and there's a big difference between mostly useless and all useless.