|
|
Post by joachim on Aug 24, 2021 7:45:54 GMT -8
Hello, I know that here, as in the UK, attempts have been made to protect collections and works of art by placing them in the country or in basements. However, nowhere is there so much space. But we don't have any more dinosaurs in Europe. MMhhh, so you mean the skeletons ?? Aha. Oh, I just see a T.Rex outside, he's eating my car! Oh, kidding aside. We have the famous Blumenbach collection here in Göttingen, at that time all skulls were housed outside of Göttingen. Then as now, the institute was near the train station, which was heavily bombed. Incidentally, Blumenbach (died 1840) was in love with a skull of a young woman from the Caucasus and therefore named the "white race" after her, ie "caucasoid." And then I see American crime novels and the suspect is "caucasoid" and they arrest people from Georgia or Armenia, it seems that this misleading term is still used in English, I think the skull is still here. www.anatomie.uni-goettingen.de/de/blumenbach.htmlBut in the wars many collections, including works of art, are destroyed, which is worse than a building, because these things are irretrievable. (some Nazi bigwigs collected "Jewish works of art" and the American soldiers were able to find many again, but butterflies or other natural history objects were not among them) Joachim |
|
|
|
Post by exoticimports on Sept 7, 2021 5:55:27 GMT -8
Adam made a comment in a different thread, and I think it pertinent to this discussion: "At least the habitat isn't being bombed into a pulp, unlike in some wars during the 20th century."
With all due respect to Adam, I question if any significant habitat incurred any lasting damage during WW2, or perhaps even WW1 and other conflicts in the 20th Century including Congo, Rhodesia, numerous Latin American civil wars, etc. It's my observation in fact that in many cases war is largely beneficial to the environment.
WW2 in Europe was largely focused on urban areas. There are, of course, exceptions such as the tank battles of North Africa and Kursk. But for the most part the rural and forested regions were not significantly affected.
In the Pacific, Guadalcanal is often cited by amateur historians as virtually obliterated, when the fact is that the destruction was along a very narrow seaside corridor; on an island of 5300 sq.km less than 5% ever saw any ecological disturbance. Certainly in the Pacific some islands were virtually wiped free of vegetation, but it's questionable if there was any lasting impact. "Tarawa" as it's often called is a misnomer; Tarawa is a massive atoll- the fighting was on two islands, not the whole atoll. If any island was ecologically wrecked it would be Iwo Jima.
The most significant comprehensive impact of war on a region is cessation of development (e.g., housing and agriculture) and destructive activities such as mining and logging. There are, of course, anecdotal problems that wars open opportunity to destroy/ trade in rare animals, though on a larger scale most animals and plants are better off. I'm sure there are other war related anecdotes (the swans during Operation Chastice comes to mind), but overall war puts a halt to the #1 environmental risk, which is "development."
There is of course the "war" to exterminate the western native American tribes, including the near-total elimination of bison, which DID have a significant ecological impact. But that's not 20th Century.
So I leave it there for contemplation and discussion.
Chuck
|
|
|
|
Post by jshuey on Sept 7, 2021 7:30:18 GMT -8
Adam made a comment in a different thread, and I think it pertinent to this discussion: "At least the habitat isn't being bombed into a pulp, unlike in some wars during the 20th century." With all due respect to Adam, I question if any significant habitat incurred any lasting damage during WW2, or perhaps even WW1 and other conflicts in the 20th Century including Congo, Rhodesia, numerous Latin American civil wars, etc. Chuck I'm guessing Adam was referencing carpet bombing and aerial defoliation of tropical forests in SE Asia - given his location... john |
|
|
|
Post by exoticimports on Sept 7, 2021 7:39:39 GMT -8
Good point. I doubt the carpet bombing had significant effect. I wonder though about defoliants. Still though, Asian rainforest returns quickly, as opposed to the clear cutting of 98% of New York at the turn of the century.
|
|
