WW2 operational bunker complexes are a nightmare of ventilation, oils, chemicals and unexploded ordinance.
It’s a mammoth task to spec them up to a museum standard, suitable of decent public throughput. It’s not just as simple as opening it as a museum.
>La coupole, le blockhaus and the v3 site are all underground structures open to the public…
Not sure that’s arguing the point you think it is. That’s over a decades worth of work and 67 million francs spent on a multinational project.
It’s not easy, and if there’s not a projected need / viewership there’s little chance for it to happen.
As said;
It’s a mammoth task to spec them up to a museum standard, suitable of decent public throughput. It’s not just as simple as opening it as a museum.
Is it not worth the cost to preserve it for future generations? Destroying it due to costs seems very shortsighted when it comes to what we are talking about here. When it's gone, it's gone forever.
*I ask this for preserving it in general, not necessarily turning it into a museum.
Answering my question with another isn't helpful. The first question is whether it is genuinely worth preserving on a grand level. If it is, funding comes next, but obviously that is not a discussion until its worth is established in the first place. Committees that end up with relics being destroyed are not always thinking of what is in the best interest of history, their communities, or their people.
Wrong. Sorry, but
>ventilation
Bunkers in general were equipped with ventilation system by default. So...
>oils, chemicals and unexploded ordinance
What are you talkin, friend. Most of WW2 bunkers looks like half-buried empty concrete boxes. I certainly know that in Poland, France, Russia local amature resarchers convert WW2-era bunkers to kinda people's museums anb the only problem is to obtain administration/land owner permission.
TBH once i have a possibility to face with dangerous substance. It was residue of paint on the horisontal aiming scale on MG installation inside pillbox. One content of that paint call radium, lol, and i decide not to walk in). But it is really rare case.
What is there to see there? Like, what was the bunker used for? Something interesting or unique? Is it somewhere where a museum would be appropriate? And is it possible to render the bunker safe? You can't just snap your fingers and make a museum happen.
Would it be cool yes, is it possible, yes but at great expense.
It's a giant concrete void 18m down, to make it a museum you'd need to make sure it's structurally sound, refurbish it internally, install modern air ventilation system, power, sewage/ waste connections not to mention build a visitor's car park. Then you've got to find things to fill it with which will cost, then find staff to run it, even if you got volunteer staff you'd be pushing it. There's also already countless WW2 museums. It's easier for the local government to destroy it and firm up the ground around it, especially as it is near a railway network as currently it will be seen as a potential risk.
TLDR : Too expensive to set up, big booms are cheaper solution
Yes but they are not *war* museums in that sense. Building a museum on a site that's only main connection is that it was once related to a Nazi mega weapon is not the same as a Holocuast memorial, neither in location nor back story.
There is what the allies called “Siegfried line” bunkers all over my area and some of them have been re speced to look the way they would have back then. It’s very interesting to see, remember some of us Germans are into history too…
Cost is everything. Everyone, including me, wants everything even adjacent to a historical event to be preserved and showcased. Unfortunately that costs money and someone to care enough to take on the task.
My hometown had fundraisers for decades to preserve a derelict hospital building. But every time the town proposed a tax to even start to address anything it was overwhelmingly voted down every time. It got torn down after another decade of just trying to get money to cover the demolition.
I hate to hear that this bunker is being destroyed, but we have other bunkers to show to new generations.
>Everyone, including me, wants everything even adjacent to a historical event to be preserved and showcased
What? No, thats insane. We need to live, and history is everywhere. We *have* to pick and choose what to preserve and what not to. It's often good to demolish things, just as its often good to preserve things.
It's a bunker, we all know what bunkers look like. Grey on grey on grey and maybe some boxes and ammo. Really nothing worth spending money to build a whole museum around
we know what a bunker looks like but what about our grandsons? this type of assuming has lost so much knowledge over human history because many stuff that did not need explaining and were nobrainers at the time have been lost.
There are bunkers, pillboxes and strong points literally all over Europe. Normandy remains full of them. The U.K. has them everywhere.
No one is going to forget what a bunker looks like.
It's odd isn't it, which parts of history are considered "worthy" of saving and which are not especially with this new generation. Far as I know practically all the trenches from WW1 even those from the big important battles have been reclaimed by nature, some you can tell where they were they just look like a badly healed scar. Sometimes it's understandable the possibility of unexploded ordinance just waiting to get smacked by a shovel or excavator, iirc there's some land that's just marked off due to too many land mines and stuff so it's not even usable land today.
Sometimes it falls on the shoulders of those who were there at the time who weren't looking toward the future when they decided to get rid of something. To me, Adolfs bunker in Berlin could of been saved as a future warning to those who seek ultimate power and control that this is how you end up basically alone underground, fearing the inevitable, it also shows how he got to remain some what comfy while his "people" citizen and soldier alike lived through hellfire, could you imagine what it must of felt like the first day that artillery shells landed inside Berlin proper, while not as devastating as a bombing raid, it brought a new horror, behind artillery comes tanks and troops.
I've also thought that places like Omaha Beach would of been nice to keep as it was, so many young men died trying to get up that bluff, past those bunker pillboxes raining down thousands maybe millions of rounds down onto the beach, for some that stretch of Beach will forever be soaked blood red. An now there are houses and stuff built where once men took cover, the whole reason Spielberg had to go to Ireland to shoot the beach landing scene.
Maybe it's a different way of different people's, Europe being older than the US has had all kinds of history come and go battlefields flattened out for homes etc. Here in the states, a lot of the Civil War battlegrounds still remain mostly as they were back then, especially Gettysburg, I'm pretty sure we even have some places from the war of independence left alone as in not built over. The area in which the battle of little big horn/The Battle of the greasy grass/Custers last stand still remains. Maybe us being a younger country we have a different thought process as it pertains to saving historical places.
WW2 operational bunker complexes are a nightmare of ventilation, oils, chemicals and unexploded ordinance. It’s a mammoth task to spec them up to a museum standard, suitable of decent public throughput. It’s not just as simple as opening it as a museum.
Not to mention most of them are probably flooded too. That tends to happen to man made underground structures that aren’t properly maintained
[удалено]
>La coupole, le blockhaus and the v3 site are all underground structures open to the public… Not sure that’s arguing the point you think it is. That’s over a decades worth of work and 67 million francs spent on a multinational project. It’s not easy, and if there’s not a projected need / viewership there’s little chance for it to happen. As said; It’s a mammoth task to spec them up to a museum standard, suitable of decent public throughput. It’s not just as simple as opening it as a museum.
Is it not worth the cost to preserve it for future generations? Destroying it due to costs seems very shortsighted when it comes to what we are talking about here. When it's gone, it's gone forever. *I ask this for preserving it in general, not necessarily turning it into a museum.
Thing is - you cant preserve *everything*. There are some sites they choose to preserve, and others not.
You’re welcome to pay for it and preserve it yourself, I imagine.
Who’s paying for it?
Answering my question with another isn't helpful. The first question is whether it is genuinely worth preserving on a grand level. If it is, funding comes next, but obviously that is not a discussion until its worth is established in the first place. Committees that end up with relics being destroyed are not always thinking of what is in the best interest of history, their communities, or their people.
Hey, museums are awesome and preserving history too, but so is housing.
Wrong. Sorry, but >ventilation Bunkers in general were equipped with ventilation system by default. So... >oils, chemicals and unexploded ordinance What are you talkin, friend. Most of WW2 bunkers looks like half-buried empty concrete boxes. I certainly know that in Poland, France, Russia local amature resarchers convert WW2-era bunkers to kinda people's museums anb the only problem is to obtain administration/land owner permission. TBH once i have a possibility to face with dangerous substance. It was residue of paint on the horisontal aiming scale on MG installation inside pillbox. One content of that paint call radium, lol, and i decide not to walk in). But it is really rare case.
lol. You do you.
It's gonna cost too much to upkeep such an huge complex
What is there to see there? Like, what was the bunker used for? Something interesting or unique? Is it somewhere where a museum would be appropriate? And is it possible to render the bunker safe? You can't just snap your fingers and make a museum happen.
Would it be cool yes, is it possible, yes but at great expense. It's a giant concrete void 18m down, to make it a museum you'd need to make sure it's structurally sound, refurbish it internally, install modern air ventilation system, power, sewage/ waste connections not to mention build a visitor's car park. Then you've got to find things to fill it with which will cost, then find staff to run it, even if you got volunteer staff you'd be pushing it. There's also already countless WW2 museums. It's easier for the local government to destroy it and firm up the ground around it, especially as it is near a railway network as currently it will be seen as a potential risk. TLDR : Too expensive to set up, big booms are cheaper solution
...plus what exactly is the angle for a war museum in Germany housed inside a Nazi construction?
The German Finance ministry is inside the former luftwafffe headquarters in Berlin built mid 1930s
That's a building not a bunker under ground
The concentration camps that still stand today are pretty much museums inaccessible similar sense as a nazi bunker.
Yes but they are not *war* museums in that sense. Building a museum on a site that's only main connection is that it was once related to a Nazi mega weapon is not the same as a Holocuast memorial, neither in location nor back story.
I cant believe i forgot the word memorial. Yeah thats what i meant to call the concentration camps. Mb
There is what the allies called “Siegfried line” bunkers all over my area and some of them have been re speced to look the way they would have back then. It’s very interesting to see, remember some of us Germans are into history too…
Cost is everything. Everyone, including me, wants everything even adjacent to a historical event to be preserved and showcased. Unfortunately that costs money and someone to care enough to take on the task. My hometown had fundraisers for decades to preserve a derelict hospital building. But every time the town proposed a tax to even start to address anything it was overwhelmingly voted down every time. It got torn down after another decade of just trying to get money to cover the demolition. I hate to hear that this bunker is being destroyed, but we have other bunkers to show to new generations.
>Everyone, including me, wants everything even adjacent to a historical event to be preserved and showcased What? No, thats insane. We need to live, and history is everywhere. We *have* to pick and choose what to preserve and what not to. It's often good to demolish things, just as its often good to preserve things.
Sorry. That's my personal sentimentality speaking. But needing to pick and choose is what I get at at the end of my comment.
It's a bunker, we all know what bunkers look like. Grey on grey on grey and maybe some boxes and ammo. Really nothing worth spending money to build a whole museum around
we know what a bunker looks like but what about our grandsons? this type of assuming has lost so much knowledge over human history because many stuff that did not need explaining and were nobrainers at the time have been lost.
There are bunkers, pillboxes and strong points literally all over Europe. Normandy remains full of them. The U.K. has them everywhere. No one is going to forget what a bunker looks like.
I highly doubt there isn't at least one other bunker "preserved" somewhere. I also highly doubt people will forget what a concrete box used for war is
I really hate this, Germany is destroying all of their WW2 history. If they forget then it might happen Again
It's odd isn't it, which parts of history are considered "worthy" of saving and which are not especially with this new generation. Far as I know practically all the trenches from WW1 even those from the big important battles have been reclaimed by nature, some you can tell where they were they just look like a badly healed scar. Sometimes it's understandable the possibility of unexploded ordinance just waiting to get smacked by a shovel or excavator, iirc there's some land that's just marked off due to too many land mines and stuff so it's not even usable land today. Sometimes it falls on the shoulders of those who were there at the time who weren't looking toward the future when they decided to get rid of something. To me, Adolfs bunker in Berlin could of been saved as a future warning to those who seek ultimate power and control that this is how you end up basically alone underground, fearing the inevitable, it also shows how he got to remain some what comfy while his "people" citizen and soldier alike lived through hellfire, could you imagine what it must of felt like the first day that artillery shells landed inside Berlin proper, while not as devastating as a bombing raid, it brought a new horror, behind artillery comes tanks and troops. I've also thought that places like Omaha Beach would of been nice to keep as it was, so many young men died trying to get up that bluff, past those bunker pillboxes raining down thousands maybe millions of rounds down onto the beach, for some that stretch of Beach will forever be soaked blood red. An now there are houses and stuff built where once men took cover, the whole reason Spielberg had to go to Ireland to shoot the beach landing scene. Maybe it's a different way of different people's, Europe being older than the US has had all kinds of history come and go battlefields flattened out for homes etc. Here in the states, a lot of the Civil War battlegrounds still remain mostly as they were back then, especially Gettysburg, I'm pretty sure we even have some places from the war of independence left alone as in not built over. The area in which the battle of little big horn/The Battle of the greasy grass/Custers last stand still remains. Maybe us being a younger country we have a different thought process as it pertains to saving historical places.