It used to be called the Pearl of the North, if I am not mistaken.
Reflection:
Think about it how devastated it was after more than 1000 days of German bombardments.
I’ve been to Sankt Petersburg about ten years ago. The city is very much historically intact. I didn’t see any signs of WW2 destruction. Okay, I wasn’t looking for that either. But it seemed as intact and beautiful as Paris or Rome. Suburbs may have been shelled and bombed, but the center doesn’t seem to have suffered much.
If you google разрушение ленинграда you don’t find many photos showing destruction either.
There’s absolutely no comparison to how German cities have been destroyed by Anglo terror bombers.
If you google разрушение кенигсберга (Königsberg / Kaliningrad), which was bombed by the Brits in 1944, you’ll find about as many pix as for Leningrad. And on the same trip where I went to Petersburg, I also went to Kaliingrad. There’s hardly anything left of the historic center.
The big difference between the German and the Anglo bombardment is: One targetted enemy armed forces, the other enemy civilians.
Yes, generally speaking. There was a siege 1941-1944, where about 120,000 explosive shells were shot into Leningrad from maybe 15 miles away at the closest, causing much damage and disruption, but the true harm was the 1,000,000 or more people who starved to death in the 900-day siege. There was a total blockade of everything including food, by the Finnish armies on the north and German armies the rest of the encirclement. People had to try to survive eating absolutely anything they could, plus deal with the cold and the shelling. There was total destruction of practically all buildings out of town to the west, such as Peterhof, and south, but everything was rebuilt to original splendor after the war. You would not ever know this if not for photographs of the pre-fixup devastation.
Yes, horrible. History has somehow devised that the objective of the blockade was to exterminate Russians by starvation. I have my doubts on that one. Would Germans and Finns not have preferred that Leningrad capitulate so the second largest city of the Soviet Union could be occupied? Would that not have been a major success in the overall war? So I’m saying: The city was not allowed to capitulate, and its commanders weren’t starving, only the people. Anyway, horrible is horrible.
Don’t they call St Petersburg ‘The Venice of the North?’ You can see why – what a beautiful city.
I would love to know more about the onion domes of Russian Orthodox cathedrals.
i notice that in one single structure, the domes are not uniform in colour or texture.
It gives them a ‘fairytale’ quality, as if the architects were inspired by folk art.
But it’ s hard to believe this distinctive Russian style ‘just happened.’
Do you know anything about it Scott?
Is it a deliberate decision, a way of challenging the mathematics of perfection?
Folk art as a model for the colors, why not? Makes perfect sense to me.
As for the onion shape, historians say it’s derived from Byzantine cupolas, which were, however, not viable in Russia as they would have had to bear lots of snow in the winter, so were bulbed up into onions instead. Not sure it’s the whole story, but it sounds good.
I actually think it makes sense because Byzance is of course where Christianity was imported from into Russia. Take a look at one of the oldest Russian churches (1045-50), the Byzantine style is perfectly obvious:
Wow, Peter is wildly beautiful!
But if you feel like to mourn contemplating it!
Wishing to go there…..
Thanks a lot, Scott!
It used to be called the Pearl of the North, if I am not mistaken.
Reflection:
Think about it how devastated it was after more than 1000 days of German bombardments.
I’ve been to Sankt Petersburg about ten years ago. The city is very much historically intact. I didn’t see any signs of WW2 destruction. Okay, I wasn’t looking for that either. But it seemed as intact and beautiful as Paris or Rome. Suburbs may have been shelled and bombed, but the center doesn’t seem to have suffered much.
If you google разрушение ленинграда you don’t find many photos showing destruction either.
There’s absolutely no comparison to how German cities have been destroyed by Anglo terror bombers.
Hamburg
If you google разрушение кенигсберга (Königsberg / Kaliningrad), which was bombed by the Brits in 1944, you’ll find about as many pix as for Leningrad. And on the same trip where I went to Petersburg, I also went to Kaliingrad. There’s hardly anything left of the historic center.
The big difference between the German and the Anglo bombardment is: One targetted enemy armed forces, the other enemy civilians.
Yes, generally speaking. There was a siege 1941-1944, where about 120,000 explosive shells were shot into Leningrad from maybe 15 miles away at the closest, causing much damage and disruption, but the true harm was the 1,000,000 or more people who starved to death in the 900-day siege. There was a total blockade of everything including food, by the Finnish armies on the north and German armies the rest of the encirclement. People had to try to survive eating absolutely anything they could, plus deal with the cold and the shelling. There was total destruction of practically all buildings out of town to the west, such as Peterhof, and south, but everything was rebuilt to original splendor after the war. You would not ever know this if not for photographs of the pre-fixup devastation.
Yes, horrible. History has somehow devised that the objective of the blockade was to exterminate Russians by starvation. I have my doubts on that one. Would Germans and Finns not have preferred that Leningrad capitulate so the second largest city of the Soviet Union could be occupied? Would that not have been a major success in the overall war? So I’m saying: The city was not allowed to capitulate, and its commanders weren’t starving, only the people. Anyway, horrible is horrible.
For the record, here’s an intriguing article on the “blockade” of Sankt Petersburg:
Загадки блокады Ленинграда
Don’t they call St Petersburg ‘The Venice of the North?’ You can see why – what a beautiful city.
I would love to know more about the onion domes of Russian Orthodox cathedrals.
i notice that in one single structure, the domes are not uniform in colour or texture.
It gives them a ‘fairytale’ quality, as if the architects were inspired by folk art.
But it’ s hard to believe this distinctive Russian style ‘just happened.’
Do you know anything about it Scott?
Is it a deliberate decision, a way of challenging the mathematics of perfection?
Folk art as a model for the colors, why not? Makes perfect sense to me.
As for the onion shape, historians say it’s derived from Byzantine cupolas, which were, however, not viable in Russia as they would have had to bear lots of snow in the winter, so were bulbed up into onions instead. Not sure it’s the whole story, but it sounds good.
I actually think it makes sense because Byzance is of course where Christianity was imported from into Russia. Take a look at one of the oldest Russian churches (1045-50), the Byzantine style is perfectly obvious:
Sophienkathedrale Nowgorod
Another adaptation of Byzantine style (by those who looted Byzance in 1204):
Marcusdom Venedig
Onion towers are also common in Bavaria, where there’s also lots of snow in the winter:
Zwiebeltürme Bayern
But more common typical central European pointed towers don’t have problems with snow either.
Thanks Lumi.
And for the links – beautiful buildings.
I would like to See the Venice of the North, & if the Good Lord drop me some manna (I’m an OAP)
Then I have it in my bucket list ??