Every time I go to Germany I am depressed at the thought of how much historical heritage has been lost during WWII. I am not German but it still feels like a deep scar for me, a scar in the face of our World Heritage, a permanent, irreversible amputation of Western culture.
Few of us would remember what Germany looked like before 1939. All we have left are paintings or black-and-white photos. But if you have been to Strasbourg or seen pictures of it, you will have an idea of what German cities used to look like. Go to Cologne, Frankfurt, Munich, Hamburg or Berlin now, and all you will see are post-war buildings (often cheap and ugly) and a handful of restored or reconstructed landmarks.
In Cologne only the cathedral and a few churches are left of what was once one of Germany's great cities. Mind you, it would have been a shame not to do everything necessary to salvage the cathedral as it took over 600 years to construct it (and that is an anti-clerical Atheist speaking). The Kölner Dom was once the tallest structure in the world, and is undeniably a masterpiece of European/Western architecture. That is basically all that's left of 2000 years of history in one of northern Europe's oldest cities.
Visiting smaller cities and towns that escaped war mutilations, like Trier, Cochem or Monschau, make one marvel at how beautiful a country made of half-timbered and stone cities was like. It's hardly a coincidence that the Romanticism movement started in Germany, or that Walt Disney got its inspiration for fairy tale lands mostly from pre-WWII Germany.
The German economy might only have taken a few decades to recover from both world wars, but the architectural heritage of its cities is lost forever - or will take centuries to rebuild.
Americans tend to be less sentimental about history because they didn't grow up in the midst of centuries and indeed millennia of history. Yet, one of the greatest fears in the common American subconscious, rightly conveyed through Hollywood, is the destruction of New York City (be it by terrorists, Godzilla or aliens). I can certainly understand that. Yet, New York is a brand new city by European standards. Most of its buildings are barely one hundred years old.
Other common targets favoured by Hollywood are the White House and the Capitol. These aren't just magnificent late-18th century constructions. If they were destroyed, the cost would be far more than the reconstruction value. It would be a scar in the American psyche (far deeper than the 9/11 destruction of the World Trade Center was). Perhaps that can give you an idea of my terrible sense of loss for Germany or other European cities razed during WWII.
It's noteworthy that few cities were razed or very badly damaged in WWI, in spite of the fact that this war was bloodier and more atrocious on so many levels than WWII in Western Europe. This is because, in their destructive folly, European leaders retained enough sense to direct all the fighting in open fields instead of besieging cities (one notable exception is the Belgian city of Ypres, which was wiped off the map and entirely rebuilt after the war).
The thing about old and beautiful buildings is that they were not as much built as crafted, often with techniques no longer in use except among specialists in historical reconstructions. Think of how much work it would be to carve again the intricate, hand-made sculptures or stained-glass windows on a medieval cathedral. Think about the quaint, leaning or distorted medieval or Renaissance houses that would lose their charm if they were rebuilt straight. Consider the meaning of a true historical place, used and touched by famous historical figures, as opposed to a mere reproduction of it.
A painting by Rubens, Rembrandt, Tintoretto or Picasso is only worth what it is for being an original. A copy, even perfect, loses most of its value. It's the same for all arts, architecture included. A Chinese billionaire can (and has) build a replica of Versailles in China, but it will never be Versailles, because it wasn't crafted three and a half centuries ago for the greatest monarch in Europe at the time, and it isn't where history happened.
This leads me to my thread title. Should the United Nations or an international convention alike to the Geneva Conventions or Hague Conventions establish rules against the destruction of historical heritage (and not just UNESCO World Heritage, of course) during armed conflicts ? I think that destroying the works of a nation or what citizens of a place have built over centuries of effort, their legacy to the world, should definitely qualify as a war crime. As I have explained above, it is not just the economic value of buildings that should be taken into account, but their sentimental and historical value (Versailles in China isn't Versailles, and a perfect replica of Rembrandt isn't a Rembrandt). The value of historical heritage is like that of a human life, and cannot be appraised. It transcends the mere monetary value of things.
Few of us would remember what Germany looked like before 1939. All we have left are paintings or black-and-white photos. But if you have been to Strasbourg or seen pictures of it, you will have an idea of what German cities used to look like. Go to Cologne, Frankfurt, Munich, Hamburg or Berlin now, and all you will see are post-war buildings (often cheap and ugly) and a handful of restored or reconstructed landmarks.
In Cologne only the cathedral and a few churches are left of what was once one of Germany's great cities. Mind you, it would have been a shame not to do everything necessary to salvage the cathedral as it took over 600 years to construct it (and that is an anti-clerical Atheist speaking). The Kölner Dom was once the tallest structure in the world, and is undeniably a masterpiece of European/Western architecture. That is basically all that's left of 2000 years of history in one of northern Europe's oldest cities.
Visiting smaller cities and towns that escaped war mutilations, like Trier, Cochem or Monschau, make one marvel at how beautiful a country made of half-timbered and stone cities was like. It's hardly a coincidence that the Romanticism movement started in Germany, or that Walt Disney got its inspiration for fairy tale lands mostly from pre-WWII Germany.
The German economy might only have taken a few decades to recover from both world wars, but the architectural heritage of its cities is lost forever - or will take centuries to rebuild.
Americans tend to be less sentimental about history because they didn't grow up in the midst of centuries and indeed millennia of history. Yet, one of the greatest fears in the common American subconscious, rightly conveyed through Hollywood, is the destruction of New York City (be it by terrorists, Godzilla or aliens). I can certainly understand that. Yet, New York is a brand new city by European standards. Most of its buildings are barely one hundred years old.
Other common targets favoured by Hollywood are the White House and the Capitol. These aren't just magnificent late-18th century constructions. If they were destroyed, the cost would be far more than the reconstruction value. It would be a scar in the American psyche (far deeper than the 9/11 destruction of the World Trade Center was). Perhaps that can give you an idea of my terrible sense of loss for Germany or other European cities razed during WWII.
It's noteworthy that few cities were razed or very badly damaged in WWI, in spite of the fact that this war was bloodier and more atrocious on so many levels than WWII in Western Europe. This is because, in their destructive folly, European leaders retained enough sense to direct all the fighting in open fields instead of besieging cities (one notable exception is the Belgian city of Ypres, which was wiped off the map and entirely rebuilt after the war).
The thing about old and beautiful buildings is that they were not as much built as crafted, often with techniques no longer in use except among specialists in historical reconstructions. Think of how much work it would be to carve again the intricate, hand-made sculptures or stained-glass windows on a medieval cathedral. Think about the quaint, leaning or distorted medieval or Renaissance houses that would lose their charm if they were rebuilt straight. Consider the meaning of a true historical place, used and touched by famous historical figures, as opposed to a mere reproduction of it.
A painting by Rubens, Rembrandt, Tintoretto or Picasso is only worth what it is for being an original. A copy, even perfect, loses most of its value. It's the same for all arts, architecture included. A Chinese billionaire can (and has) build a replica of Versailles in China, but it will never be Versailles, because it wasn't crafted three and a half centuries ago for the greatest monarch in Europe at the time, and it isn't where history happened.
This leads me to my thread title. Should the United Nations or an international convention alike to the Geneva Conventions or Hague Conventions establish rules against the destruction of historical heritage (and not just UNESCO World Heritage, of course) during armed conflicts ? I think that destroying the works of a nation or what citizens of a place have built over centuries of effort, their legacy to the world, should definitely qualify as a war crime. As I have explained above, it is not just the economic value of buildings that should be taken into account, but their sentimental and historical value (Versailles in China isn't Versailles, and a perfect replica of Rembrandt isn't a Rembrandt). The value of historical heritage is like that of a human life, and cannot be appraised. It transcends the mere monetary value of things.