So ridiculous some of these theories. Perfect example is the claim that throughout Europe there must've been a flood because of the raised main structures of so many Euro towns....
Hello people! Wake up! If your city was destroyed by mechanized warfare, the common practice was to raise the streets above existing foundations that could be salvaged. This was done to fix sewer/water infrastructure and utilities first, then you can begin on rebuilding the actual destroyed buildings.
This is what the Soviets did althroughout the USSR and it's very noticable to anyone who has frequented any of the large city centres that were war torn. The Russians had their style and methods for rebuilding. As did the French, Italians, Dutch, etc.
Here's a couple of quickies links as Im just about to leave for work. I should have some better stuff bookmarked on my PC, but it may not be in English language. I will make a note to check after my shift today!
From my understanding, the raising of the street level methodology was also mostly done in lower elevation and coastal areas. I am most familiar with Riga LV, and this makes perfect sense as the city is built in a bay which is the mouth to the countries river systems. But the Russians were notorious for using copy/pasta building methods. Some were good, say the trains and electrical grids. Some were awful, bloc housing and bridge design for example.
So that being said, a local example for me would be Riga compared to Vilinus. Vilinus is not coastal nor a lower elevation than Riga. Yet the USSR approached rebuilding (and yes elevating certain areas) the exact same way.
Dig adequate trenches where the streets were. Lay sub structure and utilities. Cover it up, then start working on the bombed out buildings themselves. Many got the cookie cutter soviet rebuild design, but obviously salvageable buildings were rebuilt in the same design pre war. This was done for a few reasons, the main one being time one can assume.
Tartards have tied their brains in pretzel knots trying to explain some pretty basic stuff as a worldwide genocide that somehow hasn't been passed down orally by our great-great-great grandparents. I mean if a genocide of that scale had really taken place in the 19th century surely some of that would have been passed on here and there. Remember the 1800s weren't really that long ago in the grand scale of things though it may seem like the distant past to us.
Why have I never heard of this before like 2 years ago?
Muh mud flood. Baloney!
So ridiculous some of these theories. Perfect example is the claim that throughout Europe there must've been a flood because of the raised main structures of so many Euro towns....
Hello people! Wake up! If your city was destroyed by mechanized warfare, the common practice was to raise the streets above existing foundations that could be salvaged. This was done to fix sewer/water infrastructure and utilities first, then you can begin on rebuilding the actual destroyed buildings.
This is what the Soviets did althroughout the USSR and it's very noticable to anyone who has frequented any of the large city centres that were war torn. The Russians had their style and methods for rebuilding. As did the French, Italians, Dutch, etc.
That's the first I've heard of the raising streets aspect, got a link? I hate mud flood
Here's a couple of quickies links as Im just about to leave for work. I should have some better stuff bookmarked on my PC, but it may not be in English language. I will make a note to check after my shift today!
Link 1 PDF alert. Abridged explanation and further documentation about rebuilding infrastructure post WWII throughout Europe
Link 2 Baltic rebuilding of infrastructure post WW2
From my understanding, the raising of the street level methodology was also mostly done in lower elevation and coastal areas. I am most familiar with Riga LV, and this makes perfect sense as the city is built in a bay which is the mouth to the countries river systems. But the Russians were notorious for using copy/pasta building methods. Some were good, say the trains and electrical grids. Some were awful, bloc housing and bridge design for example.
So that being said, a local example for me would be Riga compared to Vilinus. Vilinus is not coastal nor a lower elevation than Riga. Yet the USSR approached rebuilding (and yes elevating certain areas) the exact same way.
Dig adequate trenches where the streets were. Lay sub structure and utilities. Cover it up, then start working on the bombed out buildings themselves. Many got the cookie cutter soviet rebuild design, but obviously salvageable buildings were rebuilt in the same design pre war. This was done for a few reasons, the main one being time one can assume.
Tartards have tied their brains in pretzel knots trying to explain some pretty basic stuff as a worldwide genocide that somehow hasn't been passed down orally by our great-great-great grandparents. I mean if a genocide of that scale had really taken place in the 19th century surely some of that would have been passed on here and there. Remember the 1800s weren't really that long ago in the grand scale of things though it may seem like the distant past to us.
Why have I never heard of this before like 2 years ago?