19.03.2009, 14:08
First of all, this is not meant as a criticism. I love the new maps that are being made and I'm grateful for all the work and talent that goes into them.
I've recently been reading a new book about the civilian experience in WWII called "the Bitter Road to Freedom".
In it the author describes the condition for example, of Normandy and particularly Calvados from just before until some months after the D-Day landings. It seems there was hardly a building undamaged, and in many cities such as Caen virtually every building was destroyed. The maps we have show mostly all buildings intact, which is nice for sightseeing, but to be truly historic should'nt most towns be shown as mostly or partly destroyed?
This is how much of Northern Europe looked by the summer of '44 is'nt it?
I'm not demanding anything here, just asking what people think?
I've recently been reading a new book about the civilian experience in WWII called "the Bitter Road to Freedom".
In it the author describes the condition for example, of Normandy and particularly Calvados from just before until some months after the D-Day landings. It seems there was hardly a building undamaged, and in many cities such as Caen virtually every building was destroyed. The maps we have show mostly all buildings intact, which is nice for sightseeing, but to be truly historic should'nt most towns be shown as mostly or partly destroyed?
This is how much of Northern Europe looked by the summer of '44 is'nt it?
I'm not demanding anything here, just asking what people think?