nobody has talked about Normandy after that WW1 failure this year - surely they can't get that through
Hmm, if the beaches get inscribed but the WWI sites don't then something has gone very wrong with the process.
The criticisms levelled at the WWI proposal (it being about glorification of war, it opening the way for other such sites to be nominated etc.) are much more evident in the Normandy proposal, they are essentially battlefields with some more lasting bits of military hardware.
This really would open up a can of worms in terms of every country wanting to nominate their specific sites of important battles (Gettysburg, Jinan, White Mountain, Stalingrad, Hastings, Kosovo, the Boyne, Golan Heights...), best of luck to the chairperson trying to keep some of those debates on track.
I'm really not a fan of the separate nomination for the Danube Limes this year. If more evidence of Roman frontier architecture needs to be recognized on the World Heritage list, I'd rather see it as an extension to the existing Frontiers of the Roman Empire. This is one of those nominations that I fear sets bad precedence and dilutes the value of the list.
As ever I'm in full agreement with Colvin on this one :). I still haven't fully grasped why the Danube Limes are so different from the German Limes, in a way that Hadrian's Wall isn't different.
Have I ascertained it correctly that the Danube Limes are mostly not walls, but markers and that differentiates it from the other German Limes/ Walls in the UK?
It doesn't stick with me as the only bit of the new proposal I've seen is the Roman Wall in Regensburg
(which I visited as I mistakenly thought it was part of the existing German Limes WHS)
Actually I just checked the Austrian section and I have seen some of the remains in Vienna. They are the section on Michaelerplatz in front of the entrance to the Hofburg/ Spanish Riding School
(I imagine this little section of archaeological ruins may well drag up the number of visits should it be inscribed)