4 ms·

I can believe people discussed the option to relocate, but I think the forces of population movement back to the ruins really forced their hands. Not that the g

by ggm 2y ago

I can believe people discussed the option to relocate, but I think the forces of population movement back to the ruins really forced their hands. Not that the government couldn't have forcibly relocated them, there was plenty of precedent for that in recent times: The willingness to do it would be absent. In any event, The USSR needed Poland to succeed as a buttress protecting the Russian state. Unlike Germany it was not partitioned, it was integral and complete as a country, it had voting rights in the UN, and it had a complicit puppet government. If that government wanted to reconstruct Warsaw and the Russians held out for Łódź It would create tensions which weren't needed. Realpolitk intruded. Is there any record in post-roman history of a city subject to destruction which wasn't rebuilt? I am told that in order to re-create Warsaw, other towns were also denuted of stone carvings. In effect, so that Warsaw could exist again, other towns lost parts of their heritage. You can of course see some of the reobar and plaster overlay on brick and blockworks of the less well restored places, or from 70 years of erosion. It's substantively a modern city with a dress on. The continuing legal fights over land ownership speak to how strongly people feel about their patch of land. Fighting human nature is a King-canute move.

lmm 2y ago
> Is there any record in post-roman history of a city subject to destruction which wasn't rebuilt? Tana (Tanais) comes immediately to mind, founded by the Venetians in the 14th century (notionally a refounding of the ancient Greek city), destroyed by the Mongols about 100 years later and essentially never fully rebuilt after that. Machu Picchu might be another example, depending on your definitions of "post-roman" and "destruction". Aghdam, Marinka and Soledar would be current cases, though they may be rebuilt (already planned for Aghdam).
somenameforme 2y ago
> Is there any record in post-roman history of a city subject to destruction which wasn't rebuilt? I think your question is basically a proxy for population. In areas where populations rebound, cities are obviously rebuilt. In areas where the population continues to decline, they aren't. And the very nature of dead cities means you also probably have never heard of them, so listing random names is pointless. But you can obviously find endless examples in times ranging from the Mongols to the USSR. Well and probably beyond, I'm sure Africa has examples after 1991.
medo-bear 2y ago
Is this just coping with the fact that commies did something nice ?

by ggm 2y ago

lmm 2y ago

> Is there any record in post-roman history of a city subject to destruction which wasn't rebuilt? Tana (Tanais) comes immediately to mind, founded by the Venetians in the 14th century (notionally a refounding of the ancient Greek city), destroyed by the Mongols about 100 years later and essentially never fully rebuilt after that. Machu Picchu might be another example, depending on your definitions of "post-roman" and "destruction". Aghdam, Marinka and Soledar would be current cases, though they may be rebuilt (already planned for Aghdam).

somenameforme 2y ago

> Is there any record in post-roman history of a city subject to destruction which wasn't rebuilt? I think your question is basically a proxy for population. In areas where populations rebound, cities are obviously rebuilt. In areas where the population continues to decline, they aren't. And the very nature of dead cities means you also probably have never heard of them, so listing random names is pointless. But you can obviously find endless examples in times ranging from the Mongols to the USSR. Well and probably beyond, I'm sure Africa has examples after 1991.

medo-bear 2y ago

Is this just coping with the fact that commies did something nice ?