Ghost of WWII: 1940's meticulously overlaid on modern day

This group is attracted by populist parties. And research has shown that many Wilders voters favored Rita Verdonk (populist right-wing) and voted SP (fairly extreme left-wing) before.

The interesting question is how large this group is. 1/6 of the voters (Wilders has 24 out of 150 seats)? 1/4? 1/3?

Real wars, on the other hand (e.g., an hypothetical Germany invading France), would require a big crisis.

Which, on the other hand, is almost guaranteed, cyclically, by the current money system, and otherwise easy to summon, by contracting the money supply.

The other countries getting involved was to stop worse from happening.

From what I know about that war it was basically something that was bound to happen the moment Tito kicked the bucket. He was - like Saddam Hussain in many ways - the person that kept the spring-loaded component parts in an iron grip which some mistook for stability. Once the counter force was gone the various parts flew apart and started a war to try to gain the upper hand.

In Yugoslavia you could say that there never really was stability, only a temporary lack of opportunity to continue the fight.

I wanted to write “(except for the Balkans)” but ultimately didn’t and probably should have. Just two things: When I say “Europe” I was pretty much talking about western Europe plus a bit of eastern Europe (Poland, Czech Republic, …), also the situation on the Balkans is nowadays unlikely to cause a European or worldwide war (you know, like 100 years ago).

I also don’t think that Europe has yet to handle a serious problem. The fall of the Soviet Union is kind of the biggie here. And, sure, the cold war played a large role during the recovery of western Europe after WWII, but, looking back at the disastrous recovery of Europe after WWI and comparing it to the stellar recovery after WWII tells me that this is also quite a big problem which Europe sort of solved. With help, but help can only get you so far.

Dropping buildings in the midst of the U never gives things the chance to recover and move past fashion. Most buildings discarded are due to the design being old and out of date. But old buildings in a city plant the cities history in time and allow it to tell a story. Remember that 'Gothic' cathedrals were so named because the term was in regular use as a description of something vulgar. The Notre Dame in Paris was at one stage due for demolition until the story of Quasimodo re-inspired the public to keep it - the restoration is still ongoing.

Buildings can be re-purposed and still keep their charm. The mistake is in discarding things just because they are old.

It's very true that not all old things are worth keeping, but the benefit of the doubt must go to the building until the current fashion has moved into the past.

Also, in the case of Berlin, a lot of damaged structures have been reinforced and kept standing as they were at the end of the war. It reminds the city of what can happen if continual efforts towards peace are not made. These scars on the landscape are a constant reminder of the cities turbulent past, and help develop a sense of the story of the city while walking around.

Buildings are the ultimate encapsulator of society - it's where we live, die, make decisions and create history. As such they have a special importance in being kept to tell that story to newcomers.

But I think that it goes deeper than that. Some of the buildings are so old that they should have fallen down long ago, it's just that there is always somebody that thinks that to repair it is the better course than to throw it down. Having a lot of historical buildings around you and near you sets the stage and it would feel unnatural to remove one of them and replace it with some modern house. When an old farmhouse burns down it usually gets rebuilt.

A big part of this is that all over europe there are heritage commissions that have a keen eye for what is and what is not of historical value and a relatively large amount of money is pumped in to maintaining those buildings that are deemed valuable. It isn't rare at all to see a 16th century building where I live (nl) and I know a couple (churches, mostly) that are older than 800 years.

For me the main reason not to tear it down is that destruction is easy, creation is not. By respecting that which was created by those that came before you get a deeper appreciation for you place in the world. Rather than document what the Sistine Chapel looks like and tearing it down (extreme example, ok), we have the original to look at, which gives a completely different sense of perspective on history. There is a reason why millions of tourists flock here to see these things with their own eyes, an image of a thing is not a replacement for the thing.

That goes for buildings, but it also goes for other works of art.

I, for one, love living in a >100-year-old apartment house with 3 ft thick walls and antique wavy glass windows.

On Sunday, we took a little trip to the countryside and roamed around a big castle built in 1100.

Mine was actually built in 1885 according to the insurance company records of the day (back then, the insurance companies had an actual map of every house in a major town of Indiana, just in case somebody signed up for their insurance - and now it's all on microfiche at the library). The 1905 picture was the earliest I've found so far; it would have been interesting to see one from anything before 1901, when the front porch was built.

I love the house; it's built to last and even has a brick outhouse (which was in fact built like a brick outhouse). The neighborhood, not so much. Richmond's fortunes have fallen since the 1800's.