Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Sign In
Register

French fury at Nazi pictures of Paris under occupation



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 22 April 2008
By Susan Bell
AN EXHIBITION featuring photographs of Paris taken during the Nazi occupation has provoked so much public indignation that the Paris city council has ordered posters advertising the show to be taken down and has even called for the exhibition to be closed altogether.
Entitled Paris Sous l'Occupation (Paris Under the Occupation), the exhibition at the Paris History Library shows 270 colour photographs – part of the only collection of colour images of their kind – taken between 1941 and 1944 by a collaborator, André Zucca, who worked for the Nazi propaganda magazine Signal.

Young women sporting sunglasses smile coquettishly for the camera in the Jardin du Luxembourg, Parisians chat on crowded café terraces and stroll nonchalantly through the streets of the capital as they enjoy the sunshine, while children watch puppet shows and lovers embrace by the Seine.

Critics of the exhibition protest that it portrays a totally unrealistic portrait of Paris under the Nazis, ignoring the reality in which thousands of Jews were rounded up and deported to concentration camps, many ordinary people went hungry, forced to queue for hours to obtain what little food was available, and Resistance members risked their lives and those of their families to sabotage the Nazi occupiers.

The only indications that all is not as it should be are the strangely empty streets, the German road signs and the presence of German troops and officers mingling with civilians. The yellow stars that Jews were forced to wear by the Nazis are visible in only two of Zucca's photographs in the exhibition.

The exhibition has provoked anger and shock among protesters, who say it portrays a historical whitewash and that the library has failed to put the photographs into a historical context.

Christophe Girard, the head of culture at the socialist-run city council, is so unhappy with the show, which he described as "embarrassing, ambiguous … and badly explained" that he has called for it to close earlier than the due date of 1 July.

"I am in favour of it being stopped, or at least that it be closed down sooner than scheduled," he said.


The full article contains 359 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 21 April 2008 9:49 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

,

22/04/2008 01:42:59
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
2

KampungHighlander,

Jakarta 22/04/2008 01:43:42
I think many have difficulty in coming to terms with the fact that the majority of people in France just got on with their lives under Nazi Occupation.

I have no doubt that the majority in the UK would have done just the same if Hitler had managed to occupy Britain.

It is only a few in any society that have the moral courage to resist evil if that resistance could endanger their or their families lives.

You see it all the time in other countries such as Burma or Zimbabwe, people will submit to evil and just go along to get along.

Those courageous few who will risk everything to struggle for freedom are all the more praiseworthy because they are exceedingly rare.
3

Dáithí,

San Jose 22/04/2008 01:54:31
#2 - KampungHighlander

>"Those courageous few who will risk everything to struggle for freedom are all the more praiseworthy because they are exceedingly rare."

Exactly. Thanks for giving me the chance to agree with you! ;)
4

Let's have the truth,

Queensland 22/04/2008 06:21:43
# 2

"It is only a few in any society that have the moral courage to resist evil if that resistance could endanger their or their families lives".

....I presume you are referring to those resisting the occupations of Iraq and Afghanstan.
5

Louis Catorze,

22/04/2008 07:40:22
#4...oh for heaven sake. It's long gone beyond resisting occupation. Apologists for indiscriminate suicide bombers dont help.
6

Selgovae,

Scottish Borders 22/04/2008 07:57:02
#4

Funny you should think that. Kampung's comment made me think of those in Afghanistan who try to educate their daughters, or the story of the boy who was killed by the Taliban for continuing to teach his schoolmates English.

http://news.scotsman.com/internationalterrorism/Taleban-murder-young-teacher-for.3499010.jp
7

,

22/04/2008 08:08:26
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
8

Glasgow Jim,

Glasgow 22/04/2008 08:41:16
The French should have thought about this before surrendering so readily.
9

,

22/04/2008 08:46:41
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
10

Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 22/04/2008 10:20:29
I can't see what the problem is. It happened. It is part of history. If the Germans can have the Topography of Terror in Berlin where all kinds of nasty things are depicted, then where is the problem with the French exhibition? After all, it wasn't the French that actually did it, was it?

As an aside, looking at the photo published here, does it not bring to mind...

Q: Are we not men?
A: We are DEVO!
11

Horrible Cankers at the Cyber Shebeen,

22/04/2008 12:12:28
11...Oh aye...just missing the boiler suits...

Was this set up by the Chinese?...is this man an agent provocateur?

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=b10ZFEOkwXg
12

Calum Crubag,

22/04/2008 12:17:48
Aye, the Brits would've done the same if the Yanks hadn't stepped. Most Brits would've happilty lived under the Nazis. Some of the Royal Family and newspapers openly declared support. The Daily Mail's infamous 'Hurrah for the Fascists' comes to mind.

Living on an island and being saved by the Yanks doesn't give us reason for pride.
13

Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 22/04/2008 12:47:36
#13:

"Most Brits would've happilty lived under the Nazis."

You are probably right. Most people are happy to live under the nazis now.
14

Neil Waugh,

Old Strathcona 22/04/2008 12:58:28
Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't those young lasses in the Ray Bans get a close-cropped haircut once Ernest Hemmingway and his Yanks liberated Paris?
In many ways reminiscent of happy scenes on Princes Street during the current English occupation.
15

Yane,

22/04/2008 13:24:48
I don't think they should shut it down. It's Andre Zucca's view. From the description of the photographs it sounds understated & terrifying because of this.
16

Vincent-W,

22/04/2008 13:25:32
What's this perpetual garbage about French 'surrendering' - check the statistics and I think you'll find that France lost very nearly as many men in the first year of the 2nd WW as the USA lost in the whole war - in all theatres. This for a country less than a quarter the size of the US!

If America (or for that matter any country) had made the sacrifices pro rata that France made resisting Germany over two wars I expect we'd be hearing the unjustified cry of 'Burger Eating Surrender Monkeys' or 'Rosbif Surrender Monkeys'!

If the hundreds of thousands of French had not laid down their lives in delaying the German advance, Operation Seelowe would probably have been successful and it would be the the Yankee Mark not Dollar. We all owe our freedom from Fascism to everyone who died fighting the Nazis.
17

Regal Bankie,

Clydebank 22/04/2008 13:44:13
The other half of the UK's special relationship wasn't exactly on hand to assist for the first 2 years of WWII.
18

Lady Golightly,

22/04/2008 14:52:53
Vincent #17

Well said!

Perhaps those who doubt the courage of the French in the last century should go and look up the WW1 Battle of Verdun. Read it and weep if you have compassion in your hearts for the legion of French soldiers who died defending their country.

I salute them and I always will.
19

John Blackley,

Florida 22/04/2008 14:55:31
Ah, Liberte! (but not of speech), Egalite (but not of ideas) et Fraternite (but only with certain parts of history). Vive la France!

"Critics of the exhibition protest that it portrays a totally unrealistic portrait of Paris under the Nazis". Does it really? Those same critics say that it "ignores the reality" of the Jewish extermination - and it does, but so what? Does this mean that the next time I'm invited to some dreary rehash of pictures of Auschwitz, Belsen, et al I can refuse on the grounds that it "ignores the reality" of life in Paris at that time - a time when women were still beautiful, the sun still shone and people still smiled.

Of course it does not mean that. It means that I must be mature-enough to realise that what is being shown is one aspect of life at the time. I should also be mature-enough to know that dreary, politically-correct screechers must never be allowed to limit others' freedom of speech.
20

rancid brown,

22/04/2008 15:32:15
EU = dictatorship
21

Stu_R_20,

Edinburgh 22/04/2008 15:35:11
#17
An excellent post. There's nothing worse that a self-congratulating yank who assumes his countries superiority over us as a result of something his grand fathers generation did. Read Phillip Roth's "Plot Against America" for a fascinating alternative to WW2.
22

Maurice,

fife 22/04/2008 15:52:56
Hey people, the Nazi occupation occured. It happened. Was real. Trying to hide it out of shame helps no-one. It is a point in history. An interesting one at that. This exibition is just a reflection of that. It is not trying to justify or glorify the nazis, just show things as they were. What are the critics going to tell the kids happened that time? Only firing squads and gallows? It was not like that either. There was some of this and that so we may as well just accept it or remain blinkered and ignorant.
23

mike - across the pond,

um vince... 22/04/2008 15:54:48
sorry pal, in WW2 the french rank 6th in total casualty counts, and drop clear to 9th in military casualty counts. 5th & 3rd in WW1...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I_casualties#Casualties_by_country
http://ww2bodycount.netfirms.com/

please keep in mind, you are speaking of battles fought on FRENCH soil... their casualty rates/time darn well SHOULD have been high... and they were defeated in 43 days in WW2...

compare the french casualty rates to... oh I dont know THE RUSSIANS... there you get some truly staggering numbers...

and the Russians didnt surrender... they fought on in conditions that would make verdun look like a jaunt down the nazi occupied champs d'elyse in July, 1940....

glorifying french military exploits is a... nebulous effort...

let me guess, history aint your strong suit is it?
24

Lady Golightly,

22/04/2008 16:19:48
24

The French did not surrender at Verdun they went on the offensive and won the battle with horrendous losses. If America had ever suffered the same kind of bloodletting of their people they would never get out of bed again.

Verdun was in World War 1 often called The Great War. The USA entered in 1918 which was the last year. However, we are all expected to fall to our knees in gratitude I suppose, just like in WW2?

You dislike the French because they do not blindly follow the Americans into battle - Bravo to the French.

25

Lady Golightly,

22/04/2008 16:24:57
Also, anyone who relies on wikipedia - which is not used by any serisous historians should not mock others. Try these sites:

http://www.firstworldwar.com/battles/verdun.htm
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FWWverdun.htm
http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/battles_verdun.html
26

Lady Golightly,

22/04/2008 16:26:00
amend my serisous to read serious - before I am corrected by some wise guy
27

Biggar Mac,

22/04/2008 16:36:56
24 Have you ever visited France? Go to any small village and town and look at the war memorial for the first world war and see the long list of names in tiny places. They lost a far greater proportion of their young men than you give them credit for. It is not the total numbers that matter but the proportion of population.

The Franch were still in a weakened state when the Nazis invaded.

In France what happened during the second world war still causes suffering.
28

Vincent-W,

22/04/2008 16:45:38
mike- you really are a total pr!ck - a absolute disgrace to the Americans who fought and died fighting against fascism.

I'm not having a pop at your proud nation, just ignorant revisionists, like you, who are unable put facts into a cultural and historical context. The fact is that without the French buffer, GB would have probably followed suit in double quick time, as we were ill prepared, without the UK as an 'Aircraft Carrier' the US forces could not have deployed effectively. German forces would have had a single eastern front and probably have defeated the Russians.

We all owe our freedom to every man woman and child who perished in that war. And yet pr!cks like you seek to denigrate people who bought your freedom with their blood.

And don't call me pal.
29

james cooke,

australia 22/04/2008 16:45:50
More Frenchmen died fighting for the Nazi ideals than were killed by them. More Frenchmen were killed by communists and jews at wars end than died fighting Germany. Probably more were killed by the Anglo-American barbarians than were killed by the Germans. Like in the Revolution the best were exterminated and what have we got left?
30

Dáithí,

San Jose 22/04/2008 16:47:07
#26 - LG

>"The USA entered in 1918 which was the last year. However, we are all expected to fall to our knees in gratitude I suppose, just like in WW2?"

No! You should stand up, red-faced in embarrassment and apologize to the entire world for once again starting a sickening, continental European war that was little different from the wars you people have been waging against each other since the Crusades.

You pass yourself off as a historian? Why don't you tell us one reason that ANYONE should have been killed in this 'Great War' - which gave the world one of the most useless losses of life in human history and also paved the way for the failed Communist experiment in the USSR as well as the rise of Adolph Hitler?

While you're at it, tell us why on earth the US should EVER have gotten into this inbred, useless continental conflict?
31

James Donald,

Newbridge 22/04/2008 16:49:54
#24 mike - across the pond - "glorifying french military exploits is a... nebulous effort" - Perhaps you have heard of a guy called Napoleon.......
32

Vincent-W,

22/04/2008 16:57:47
31 - because they were safeguarding their own interests. That is a perfectly good reason but not the altruistic image you wish to promote.

Incidentally approximately 40% of ALL Frenchmen of military age were killed or injured in WW1 - only 21 years later they sacrificed another tranche of their manhood.

To put that into modern pro rata terms, so that you can understand it - that would mean something like 28 million US casualties. I think that might alter the gung ho approach of your ilk?
33

Dáithí,

San Jose 22/04/2008 17:09:00
#33 - Vincent

>"because they were safeguarding their own interests.

Who were? The Americans? The French? Germans?

Vincent, I'm saying that NOBODY should have died in WWI. I'm NOT slamming the French - I'm saying that there was no good reason for ANYONE dying there.

>"That is a perfectly good reason but not the altruistic image you wish to promote."

What are you on about? Vincent, nobody knows what you are thinking, you have to type it out.

>"so that you can understand it - that would mean something like 28 million US casualties. I think that might alter the gung ho approach of your ilk?"

Now you're just being thick. NOBODY should have died. Neither you or LG have presented ANY reason for this 'Great' war. No French. No British. No Germans. No Americans. There was NO reason.

Is this clear enough for you?
34

Lady Golightly,

22/04/2008 17:42:02
34

Of course nobody should have died then and they should not have to die now in wars but they do. Recognising and saluting the achievements of those who, in many cases, were forced into battle is not praising war. Understanding what happened to the French in the what is known to history as the Great War - which in this context means huge and not good btw - gives an understanding of why the French behaved as they did in WW2 and the nation they are today.

Those who do not learn from their history are doomed to repeat it.

How simplistic you are.
35

Lady Golightly,

22/04/2008 17:46:56
Btw silly man from San Jose

I did not start any European War - I do not have that power and I wasn't born then - how simple and straightforward your little world must be.

Have a look at this:

http://www.aftermathww1.com/warrior.asp

and go and do a bit of reading about the reasons why World War 1 and 2 started. They may have been for the wrong reasons with hindsight but they happened nonetheless and the least you could do is show all the lost generations some respect.
36

John Blackley,

Florida 22/04/2008 17:56:44
I can pretty-much tell, when a thread in the Scotsman gets beyond 25 posts, what the tenor of the 'debate' is going to be. This one's all of a piece with the other long threads.

I suppose I should thank heaven the story doesn't mention anything about the SNP and the Labour party.

Afterthought: Mike, Daithi - a little more grace, please?
37

Dáithí,

San Jose 22/04/2008 18:01:08
#36 - TSW

>"Of course nobody should have died then and they should not have to die now in wars but they do."

Wrong. People HAD to die in WWII because of the festering failure of European appeasers like you when dealing with Hitler. People simply had no choice, no matter how you need to simplify things so that you can grasp them.

TSW, your constant parade of phony names so that you can attack those that are more informed than you gets a little pathetic after a while.

Find a history book, try to understand it, then come back when you have the moral courage to quit your never-ending trolling - I have a busy day planned for today.
38

Lady Golightly,

22/04/2008 18:22:30
38

Who is TSW? Are you talking to me?

I can see no further point to you and have no wish to engage in a slanging match. Good day.

Btw: We once had a servant called Jose or was he from San Jose - bit of a bore whichever it was.
39

Lady Golightly,

22/04/2008 18:24:27
"People HAD to die in WWII because of the festering failure of European appeasers like you when dealing with Hitler."


Once again, I'm not that old and I never knew Hitler - OK?

Now, go back under your stone.
40

Paddi,

22/04/2008 19:00:41
Dáithí, do you have a passport??
41

mike - across the pond,

lady thinks lightly 22/04/2008 19:14:32
americans who died on FOREIGN SOIL...

you want to talk about horriffic losses
what like some little place like... oh I dont know
Okinawa
Iwo Jima
dare I mention Omaha Beach?
Inchon

did I ever SAY the french surrendered at Verdun? hmmm guess that would be... NO

what I said was that the RUSSIAN front made verdun look like a walk in the park... overall the russians lost 60 TIMES the number of french SIXTY TIMES.... in WW2 for each frenchman/woman who died SIXTY russians SIXTY.... died.... I am not of russian blood, however THOSE kinds of numbers are TRULY staggering

and as far as the french providing cover so you could get your troops out... that would be an utter romanticization... little FACTOID here hitler was pushing to PARIS... not taking the time for a ground assault on the british troops holed up at Dunkirk he left Dunkirk to his Luftwaffe... and within 8 days you had pretty much evacuated 340,000 troops... oh and that number INCLUDES 120,000 french troops

oh and verdun... (I know you dont LIKE wikipedia... but unless you can find fault with the numbers stop your whining... youre beginning to sound FRENCH!!!)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_battles_by_death_toll

I know you have the dang frogs whining in your ear for 90 years but, Verdun isnt even in the top 3 of WW1 battles even if you DOUBLE the number it STILL is less than 1/3 of the Brusilov Offensive also of WW1... oh yes and that TOO was on.... the RUSSIAN FRONT...
42

Sam,

Washington DC 22/04/2008 19:38:31
#40, Not that you are wrong. On the contrary your views on appeasement is fairly much on the mark. But let us not judge too harshly. Every little village in Britain has an obolisk in the market square listing hundreds on Great War dead. These are villages with populations numbering in the few thousands. Imagine 10 of your school mates. Chaps you have know yoour entire life. Now imagine 2 of them dead. Now imagine 2 more missing arms or legs or blind or missing much of their faces to shrapnel. Now imagine 2 more with recovered bullet wounds or gas damaged lungs. And the remaining 4 of your mates able to live more or less normal lives except for night mares or drinking or guilt at merely being alive. It should be no wonder at all that the survivors of the Great War would do anything to avoid the experience a second time. Let us not judge appeasement to sternly. 4 years in the trenches does change one's priorities.
43

Lady Golightly,

22/04/2008 20:01:07
Sam #43

Thank goodness an American who has read something apart from a tunnel vision, naval gazing copy of 'How We Saved Europe'.

Thank you for going some way to restoring my faith in the intelligence and compassion of many Americans.
44

James Donald,

Newbridge 22/04/2008 20:18:52
One book which gives an interesting perspective on how (or rather why) the USA "saved Europe" in WW2 is contained in the book "A World to Gain - The Battle for Global Domination and Why America Entered WWII" by Thomas Toughill (ISBN-13: 978-1902636511).
A review of the book is here:
http://www.danielhindes.com/book/book_review.php?review=7
45

Lady Golightly,

22/04/2008 20:28:34
"The United States also delayed the end of the war by attacking Germany across France, and moving at a conservative pace. Why would the United States move slowly? To allow the Russians and the Germans as much time as possible to fight on the Eastern front. In the end, for every American GI that died, eight Russian soldiers did. This was Roosevelt's way of weakening Russia, again so that the United States would be capable of dictating the terms of the peace to the European continent."


James #45

Thank you for the link to the Daniel Hindes book - the paragraph above struck me as particularly pertinent to this board, especially in light of the rather hysterical comments by poster 42. It appears that the American high command had a much more cavalier attitude to Russian deaths in WW2 than the pond chap at 42 would like us to think.






46

Lady Golightly,

22/04/2008 20:29:29
Apologies James I meant Hindes review of Toughill's book.
47

Lady Golightly,

22/04/2008 21:25:28
The losses of Russia and France between 1914 and 1918 were as follows:

Russia

Manpower mobilised: 12,000,000
Military deaths: 1,700,000
Military wounded 4,950,000

France

Manpower mobilised: 8,410,000
Military deaths: 1,385,300
Military wounded: 4,266,000


On the face of it the Russian losses look greater but a simple glance at these figures tells us that the French lost more in comparison to the number of men mobilised.

Russia also had a higher population than France (then and now) so per head of capita the French losses were the greatest.



48

Texas Twin,

Dallas, TX, USA 22/04/2008 21:38:30
Dallas TX, USA 22/04/2008 21:35:09
This is my first visit to this forum….and I do have some comments to make

Vincent-W, 22/04/2008 13:25:32
What's this perpetual garbage about French 'surrendering' - check the statistics and I think you'll find that France lost very nearly as many men in the first year of the 2nd WW as the USA lost in the whole war - in all theatres. This for a country less than a quarter the size of the US!

Vincent, you (like Lady Golightly) tend to compare apples with oranges. ANY country that is invaded will ALWAYS have the heavier casualties. Would you have had the US ship EVERY male, to Europe? That is the only way, your comparison could be honestly, evaluated and compared. Try telling the loved ones of a soldier who did not come home and is buried in a military cemetery, in France, that their loved one’s sacrifice was less than those of the French.

Vincent-W, 22/04/2008 16:45:38
I'm not having a pop at your proud nation, just ignorant revisionists, like you, who are unable put facts into a cultural and historical context. The fact is that without the French buffer, GB would have probably followed suit in double quick time, as we were ill prepared, without the UK as an 'Aircraft Carrier' the US forces could not have deployed effectively. German forces would have had a single eastern front and probably have defeated the Russians.

Sadly, I think you are “short changing” your OWN country. Regardless of whether GB was “ill prepared” or not, the Brits did one H*ll of a job defending their nation, especially given their small size and facing a German army that had spent years preparing to try to take over all of Europe (and eventually, the US). EVERY nation, not just France, acted as a “buffer” in the taking of GB, but I can honestly say, if there was ever a Nation that I would want “on my side” during wartime, it’s the Brits.

Regal Bankie, Clydebank 22/04/2008 13:44:13
The other half of the UK's special relationship wasn't e
49

Texas Twin,

Dallas, TX, USA 22/04/2008 21:42:01
apparently, the forum allows so many words, so I will have to address each, with a separate post, then.

Regal Bankie, Clydebank 22/04/2008 13:44:13
The other half of the UK's special relationship wasn't exactly on hand to assist for the first 2 years of WWII.

Regal Bankie….You seem to be expressing a negative feeling about the US’s delay in getting involved, so might I ask where “the other half of the United State’s special relationship” was when we were in the Pacific? GB wasn’t there…only the Aussie’s were, and I might add they did a bang up job!

There are few Americans…even the young ones (which I am not) who fault the UK, for not being there. We understand the extreme conditions that they endured, during WWII, and the need to rebuild & heal their own nation instead of shipping their already battle worn men, to the Pacific, to assist us against Japan.


50

Texas Twin,

Dallas, TX, USA 22/04/2008 21:45:15
Stu_R_20, Edinburgh 22/04/2008 15:35:11
#17 An excellent post. There's nothing worse that a self-congratulating yank who assumes his countries superiority over us as a result of something his grand fathers generation did.

My FATHER, not my grandfather, was one of those many Americans that served in WWII…enlisting at over age 35. His brother (also beyond draft age) re-enlisted after having already received a medical discharge, from the Army.

While you view a “Yanks” opinions as “self-congratulating”, did it ever occur to you that some of us consider it a matter of great PRIDE that OUR men (OUR loved ones) were willing to fight and die, in Europe, for people they didn’t even know? Is has nothing to do with self-congratulations or the assumption of “superiority” over European countries.

Usually, it is only when people like you espouse your “opinions” (in attack mode), that we remind you that you would be speaking German today, if OUR loved ones hadn’t made sacrifices, many with their lives, never to be returned home, to their loved ones. We don’t take credit for what they did but we sure don’t allow what they gave to Europeans, to be belittled!

To allow you to insult those who stood beside English, French and other European soldiers and died with them, on foreign soil, NOT in their home country, is not something we can tolerate. If that bothers you, then you are the one that has the problem, not us.

51

Texas Twin,

Dallas, TX, USA 22/04/2008 21:48:34
Lady Golightly, 22/04/2008 14:52:53
Vincent #17
Well said!
Perhaps those who doubt the courage of the French in the last century should go and look up the WW1 Battle of Verdun. Read it and weep if you have compassion in your hearts for the legion of French soldiers who died defending their country.

Lady Golightly, I saved you for last although my complete response will come in more than one post given I have historial facts to post...but it pertains to the subject...WORLD WAR TWO, not WWI. As you age, wisdom usually comes with the years, of which you are obviously either not old enough or simply haven’t gained any wisdom, yet.

The one thing you DO learn, as you gain all this wisdom that comes from all this old age, is that when someone really doesn’t know what they are talking about, they immediately try to change the subject. You did so, in your FIRST post (to the Battle of Verdun in WWI) and have continued with the same old rant, in those that followed. Please…if you’re going to “rant” try to stay on topic.

This story/thread has NOTHING to do with WWI, which occurred some 20+ yrs before WWII!
This story/thread has NOTHING to do with the courage of Frenchmen in WWI!

Since you seem to think you are a “Historian”, try absorbing some real WWII facts:

52

Texas Twin,

22/04/2008 21:49:07
United States of America (USA)
Status: Independent
Type of Government: Democracy
Religion: Christian
Population: 131,000,000 (1939)
British - 36,000,000
German - 32,500,000
Irish - 18,000,000
African - 14,500,000
Italian - 10,000,000
Other - 20,000,000
Alignment (1939 - 1945):
Neutral
1st Sep 1939 - 8th Dec 1941
Allied Partner
8th Dec 1941 - 2nd Sep 1945
Casualties (1941 - 1945):
Soldiers (Allied) - 408,200 Killed
Civilians - 1,000 Killed

US casualties of 408,200 killed ON FOREIGN SOIL

53

Texas Twin,

Dallas, TX, USA 22/04/2008 21:49:52
France
Status: Independent
Type of Government: Democracy
Religion: Christian
Population: 40,800,000 (1939)
French - 38,890,000
Germans - 1,500,000
Jews - 300,000
Russians - 100,000
Italians - 10,000Alignment (1939 - 1945):
Allied Partner
3rd Sep 1939 - 25th Jun 1940
Occupied by Germany
25th Jun 1940 - 25th Aug 1944
Allied Partner
25th Aug 1944 - 8th May 1945
Casualties (1939 - 1945):
Soldiers (Allied) - 132,437 Killed
Soldiers (Axis) - 19,500 Killed
Soldiers (POW's) - 60,000 Killed
Resistance - 107,000 Killed
Civilians - 79,000 Killed
Jews - 77,000 Killed
German Occupation - 26,000 Killed
Gypsies - 18,000 Killed

French Casualties soldiers/resistance/POWs of 299,437

54

Texas Twin,

Dallas, TX, USA 22/04/2008 21:50:36
Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Status: Independent
Type of Government: Democratic Monarchy
Religion: Christian
Population: 46,000,000 (1939)
English - 38,000,000
Scots - 4,000,000
Welsh - 2,500,000
N. Irish - 1,500,000
Alignment (1939 - 1945):
Allied Partner
3rd Sep 1939 - 2nd Sep 1945
Casualties (1939 - 1945):
Soldiers (Allied) - 298,950 Killed
Civilians - 64,000 Killed

Great Britain casualties of soldiers of 298,950

55

Alba Abú,

Edinburgh 22/04/2008 21:51:06
#1 Scullion....... Belfast is not in Britain. Get yourself an atlas!
56

Texas Twin,

Dallas, TX, USA 22/04/2008 21:51:16
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR)
Status: Independent
Type of Government: Communist
Religion: Atheist
Population: 190,000,000 (1939)
Russians - 100,000,000
Ukrainians - 15,400,000
Uzbekis - 10,000,000
Kazakhs - 5,000,000
Byelorussians - 4,400,000
Azerbaijanis - 2,500,000
Tajiks - 2,500,000
Georgians - 2,100,000
Turkmen - 2,000,000
Jews - 1,907,000
Kyrgyz - 1,500,000
Armenians - 1,300,000
Kabardins - 700,000
Ossetians - 600,000
Chechens - 350,000
Volksdeutsch - 340,000
Tatars - 300,000
Bulgars - 200,000
Greeks - 125,000
Gagaus - 100,000
Others - 38,678,000
Alignment (1939 - 1945):
Neutral
1st Sep 1939 - 22nd Jun 1941
Allied Partner
22nd Jun 1941 - 8th May 1945
Neutral
8th May 1945 - 9th Aug 1945
Allied Partner
9th Aug 1945 - 2nd Sep 1945
Casualties (1941 - 1945):
Soldiers (Allied) - 13,300,000 Killed
Soldiers (Axis) - 408,000 Killed
Civilians - 6,500,000 Killed
Jews - 1,000,

Russian soldiers (Allied) killed 13,300,000
Yes, that’s over 13 MILLION soldiers! So if you want to show compassion and caring for any country, show it to Russia!

Then consider that in WWII, almost 1/2 Million United States soldiers died….ON FOREIGN SOIL. Do you honestly think our numbers would have not been much greater, had the battles been on US soil?

If you do, then you obviously don’t know anything about the people of the United States, although I would have thought 9-11 would have given you a glimpse of us, as a people (not our politicians)!

If we would sacrifice nearly 1/2 million men, a good number of which were in the defense of Europe, not just the Pacific, what on earth would make you think that every man & woman, in this country, would not have died defending her, before they would allowed a defeat on American soil!?

For you to compare our losses (on a foreign soil) to those whose were defending THEIR own country, is not even worth considering as it defies any logical discussion....especially since you can't seem t
57

Alba Abú,

Edinburgh 22/04/2008 21:54:15
Democratic Monarchy? Aye! as long as you are not a Catholic. Proper wording would be, Sectarian monarchy!
58

Texas Twin,

Dallas, TX, USA 22/04/2008 21:54:54
especially since you can't seem to stick with the topic...World War II

NOT WORLD WAR I
59

Lady Golightly,

22/04/2008 22:00:59
Texas

Another one who doesn't read too well. Once again the French losses in World War 1 affected their behaviour in WW2 so it is relevant.

I didn't read the rest of your rant because it seemed as if you were blowing your own trumpet. Something that we don't do over here.

60

Lady Golightly,

22/04/2008 22:03:46
Re: Russian soldiers please read my post 46 which explains why the American High Command allowed so many Russians to be killed.

Ah the manipulations of those in power which some of you little people choose to defend.
61

Lady Golightly,

22/04/2008 22:15:06
Texas Tim

Btw: My post 46 is about World War 2 (TWO) ...you may not know this but President Roosevelt was in charge of the US during that period so there's a little clue for you. Possibly a bit subtle that one but I can't help that.

I notice you've ignored the fact that the deaths of many of the Russian soldiers and the dragging out of WW2 (that's a TWO) and the obvious increase in allied casualties as well can be laid at his door. Inconvenient thing the truth isn't it? An American President dragging out a war just so he could control the peace ....tut tut.

But then, Stalin wasn't a very nice man was he.... these damm dictators care so little for their own people or anyone elses.

62

Texas Twin,

Dallas, TX, USA 22/04/2008 23:10:50
Texas Tim

Are you talking to me? I must have missed "Texas Tim" somehow. By the way, I'm a female so Tim just doesn't quite fit.


Btw: My post 46 is about World War 2 (TWO) ...you may not know this but President Roosevelt was in charge of the US during that period so there's a little clue for you. Possibly a bit subtle that one but I can't help that.

I'm fully aware of who was President...as well as who was the president after Roosevelt, and who was the president after Truman...but I feel no need to give you a list of all US Presidents, in the order that they served and what years they served....that is, unless you don't know. In that case, I will be happy to provide you with some US history.

I notice you've ignored the fact that the deaths of many of the Russian soldiers and the dragging out of WW2 (that's a TWO) and the obvious increase in allied casualties as well can be laid at his door. Inconvenient thing the truth isn't it? An American President dragging out a war just so he could control the peace ....tut tut.

First of all...You seem to forget about someone named Winston Churchill and Charles DeGaulle...believe me, Roosevelt didn't "control" the show. Neither of those gentlemen were prone to taking orders...not even from a US President! So, let's don't give Roosevelt all the credit...that would be unfair to the other two men...to the day they each died, they were never anyone's "puppet"!

NONE of the allies were particularly fond of the communists in Russia and certainly not Stalin....he was extremely barbaric to his own people...would you wish him upon even a German Nazi? Consider that, as in all wars, that was considered the price that would have to be paid, to prevent Stalin from demanding ALL OF GERMANY instead of the portion he did get. Unfortunately, history shows us that those doing the fighting have always divided up the "spoils" ...unfortunately for them, the East Germans got Stalin....but at least it was not ALL of Germany
63

Shamus,

Glasgow 22/04/2008 23:45:34
The French had its Nazis just like Britain had and still have. A lot of decent people died because of the Nazi cause. Silly human beings.
64

57Nomad,

california 23/04/2008 00:16:00
#2 KampungHighlander,

KH said:

"I think many have difficulty in coming to terms with the fact that the majority of people in France just got on with their lives under Nazi Occupation.
I have no doubt that the majority in the UK would have done just the same if Hitler had managed to occupy Britain."

Maybe not. Don't forget that the French built a statue of Vercengetorix. This is an abridged version of an article found with a google search.

"Vercengetorix a chieftan of the Gauls, headed a rebellion against Roman. Julius Caesar crossed the Alps with troops, and met the Gallic army. Vercengetorix pursued a policy of retreating to natural fortifications. Vercengetorix eventually retreated to Alesia, a hilltop town in what is now Burgundy. Caesar laid seige to the Gauls by constructing an earthen and wooden rampart that completely encircled the hill. When a Gallic relief army appeared, Caesar constructed another rampart, facing outwards, with the Romans encamped between the inner and outer walls. The Romans successfully fended an attack by Vercengetorix's army and the relief Gallic army. Vercengetorix surrendered, and was taken to Rome as a prisoner. Napoleon III erected a large statue to Vercengetorix which stands atop the hill were Alesia was located."

The Brits have no such tradition. Occupying Britain would have been like swallowing a porcupine and sharing a small space with a wolverine at the same time. Nope, even had the Brits been overwhelmed early in the war and were successfully invaded by the germans, the germans would have been under immediate, continuous assault from intelligent, brave, and aggressive British civilians. The Russian front would have been a preferred posting. The german occupation of france lasted as long as it did because the french people consented to it.
65

57Nomad,

california 23/04/2008 00:32:36
#41 paddi

"Dáithí, do you have a passport??"

Once again, Paddi the Passport Man, asks his oh, so telling question, "do you have a passport?" If one answers in the negative, the implied conclusion is that one is a hopeless rustic, too simple to be taken seriously. Now, we've been over this before, Mr.P., and maybe we can try to learn something this time. Daithi, and many others, myself included live in both another continent and another hemisphere. There are only three(3) countries in North America. Americans my enter both Canada and Mexico without passports. It is now necessary for Americans to present American passports to reenter the US but they are not needed to enter either of other two countries in North America.

Ironically, it is you who are exposed as a yokel for thinking that your Eurocentric norms are generallizable, they are not. If you'd get out more you would have known that.
66

Dáithí,

San Jose 23/04/2008 01:07:35
#46 – LG

Well LG, it appears that you’ve established yourself as the worst amateur historian on the internet!

A closer, more objective look at Hindes’ review of Thomas Toughill’s book finds quotes like these (unlike you, I can tell the difference between the book and a review of it, check your post #46 & 47):

From the book:

1.“To continue summarizing Toughill's thesis, Roosevelt then plotted for war. War had to be sooner, rather than later, even if the population and Congress were firmly against it. But Roosevelt had a problem, and a big one: Hitler was adamant about avoiding Germany’s mistake of WWI – angering the US to the point of war.”

And:

2.“Roosevelt was so far unsuccessful in provoking war in the Atlantic.”

SO - Let me summarize your twisted logic: Contrary to just about every British critic of the US entry into WWII (which they nearly ALL claim was a bit late in the game) – this book now claims that the US was ‘provoking a war in the Atlantic’ and hoping that it was “sooner, rather than later”?

And you think that this reflects negatively on the United States! Hahaha! Pitiful, quite sad really!

Continued -
67

Dáithí,

23/04/2008 01:13:08
Continued -

This literally flies in the face of every other comment that we’ve heard – the US is NEVER singled out because they were actively trying to get into WWII (that’s ‘2’) ‘sooner, rather than later’ – we have always been castigated because we were LATE!

LG, why don’t you lot sit down and get your stories straight – you complain that the US entered WWII too late, then you claim that they US was bad because they were trying to enter “sooner, rather than later” – that way, you’ll look less foolish. Doubtful, though.

Nah, forget it – don’t bother us with any more of your amateur history, it doesn’t fly here in the ‘International’ section - just wander back to the domestic side until you better understand that something isn't necessarily true just because you want to believe it, even if it IS in a book or movie, or on TV.
68

Dáithí,

San Jose 23/04/2008 01:19:30
#41 - Plastic Paddi

>"Dáithí, do you have a passport??"

Seeing how you appear to be about 6 years old, my passport is probably 5 times your age.

You see, unlike you people that seem so comfortable in your stereotypes, I've actually gone out and met people.

That's why I generally like most folks. That's why I think that ignorant stereotypes that you lot seem to cling to are so pathetic.

Perhaps you should get out and travel Paddi, meet some people. You'll find that your old, tired stereotypes are pretty lame.
69

Dáithí,

San Jose 23/04/2008 01:35:24
#63 - Texas Twin

>"Are you talking to me? I must have missed "Texas Tim" somehow. By the way, I'm a female so Tim just doesn't quite fit."

TT - Don't worry, you should be flattered - Trolls like LG only make fun of the names of the people that annoy them!

You took her by surprise by saying that you are a girl, though. I don't know if that will slow down her usual pettiness, but so far it seems to have.
70

James Donald,

Newbridge 23/04/2008 07:19:38
#57 Texas Twin,Dallas, TX, USA - "So if you want to show compassion and caring for any country, show it to Russia!" - Why? The Soviets attacked Poland, the Baltic States and Finland, killed thousands of their own soldiers through military incompetence, callous disregard for their own losses, and by NKVD execution squads (to mention nothing of their own citizens they killed when they actually took up arms against the Soviet Union). In addition, their casualties were expended not in liberation but rather in replacing one brand of oppression with another. I see no reason to show "Russia" much compassion and caring when they themselves showed such little regard for human life.
71

Paddi,

23/04/2008 09:12:05
#69, so the answer's no then. BTW, who are "you lot"?

72

Paddi,

23/04/2008 09:37:13
#66 Norman

Don’t you think Dáithí is able to respond to this question directed to him by himself?

How incredibly patronising of you.
73

Lady Golightly,

23/04/2008 14:46:46
Ok so we've established the Americans don't like the French. I doubt if the French will lose any sleep over it. I certainly did not last night - which is where I was last night - strange person from San Jose when I failed to answer the Twin from Texas.

Sounded like a man to me - but there you go - French women are so much more feminine and chic and never sound so butch. You would never mistake one of them for a man on a message board or anywhere else.

Lets face it you don't like the French, the French don't like you and neither do most other people in the world. Could it be because you are all full of wind and water - I wonder?

Fin.

74

Lady Golightly,

23/04/2008 14:48:47
Texas Twinette

Congratulations on knowing all your presidents btw. What a clever girl you are - go to the top of the class.

Mind you, anyone with access to the internet could do it but why spoil your party?
75

mike - across the pond,

ah lady thinks lightly 23/04/2008 15:02:22
your brit history class musta been a snoozer eh?

the problem with that scenario.... their timelines appear ALL goofed up.... Roosevelt died on April 12 1945 two months after Yalta, and a month before the end of the war in Europe... over 3 months before Pottsdam...

if you CARED to look at the link I posted you would SEE the casualty counts... the "bleeding" of the russians was done LONG BEFORE D-Day....

if you are talking about Tehran, then you appear not to understand the bravado of Stalin... Stalin was in NO WAY going to allow western troops on Russian soil... so the "across france" path was the ONLY way for US/UK troops to go... besides, without a western front, where is the anvil for the hammer.... unless you proposed having Patton push tanks over the alps... please tell me you didnt consider THAT a good idea...

Yalta... that would be when FDR, Churchill, & Stalin agreed on the final acts of WW2... Stalin would take Berlin... and if that meant reigning in Paton and Bradley, that would be Ikes job... you know... Monte's boss....

besides you seem to think that FDR had a "cold war" mentality towards the USSR... need I remind you that nobody else in the allied command held Pattons view of the russians.... or that the cold war didnt start until AFTER WW2... Roosevelt was dead... it wasnt until the 50's that the majority of the US saw the wisdom of Patton concerning the Russians... any animosity Roosevelt & Churchill had towards the USSR had to do with the Russain/Nazi pact of 1939, which while not to be understated, would not lead the allies to "bleed down" the russians...
76

mike - across the pond,

and one more note to the dimwitted lady.... 23/04/2008 15:21:08
WW1 losses had MUCH LESS to do with WW2 than the treaty of Versailles...

Hitler has nothing to run on if you geniuses hadnt raped the Kaisers treasury, and decided that economic defeat was just as important as a military one...

Hence the Marshall plan....
77

Vincent-W,

23/04/2008 16:43:25
Mike - as I said earlier, your analysis has no political, cultural or historical context. All your judgements are made in the glaring light of hindsight, burgeoning statistics and a convenient revisionist approach.

Or to put it in simple terms that you might understand, do you think that your politicians could have persauded the country to commit to a war in Iraq if there had been 28 million US casualties in a similar war 21 years ago? And please try and answer the question - you will be judged by your answer. I predict that you will sidestep it and come back with another red herring.

The Marshall plan was a good idea but was a result of having learnt from the mistakes of WW1, remember there had been no conflict on the scale of the Great War ever before so there was no experience of rebuilding on that scale.

As I said your lack of contextual appreciation means your analyses are simplistic. In fact they wouldn't pass muster in a Higher paper. May I suggest you keep your views to the Ohio Gazette where they might be appreciated?
78

Dáithí,

San Jose 23/04/2008 16:50:25
#72 - Plastic Paddy

>"#69, so the answer's no then.

I answered, but since it involved some math you were unable to solve it. I assumed that you were 6, meaning that my passport, which I have had for 30 years, is 5 times your age.

My error was your age, since you appear to be about 3, then my passport is about 10 times your age.

Think you can figure out the math on that one, pp?

>"BTW, who are "you lot"?"

The usual suspects! ;)

Since you are only a plastic paddy, you probably don't understand the irony of this statement.
79

Lady Golightly,

23/04/2008 16:56:00
Ah I see the Yanks are up then.

To the foaming mouthed angry American across the pond (please stay there btw). To copy your 'fellow American from San Jose and change his/her words a little.

"LG - Don't worry, you should be flattered - Trolls like Mike across the pond only make fun of the names of the people that annoy them!"


80

Lady Golightly,

Paris 23/04/2008 17:02:04
Anyway enough of these games - life is too short - Americans are too easy to bait, their world view is their own backyard and its getting boring. The ones on here sound a bit mad as well which explains why they have so many shootings I suppose.

Its also time to prepare for a stroll along the banks of the Seine in the most exciting and cultured city in the world.

Adieu.
81

Dáithí,

San Jose 23/04/2008 17:04:30
#74 - Lady Goheavily

>"Ok so we've established the Americans don't like the French."

No, you've established that you have no compassion for dead soldiers be they French, British,Scots, Irish or American, by introducing WWI (one,1) into the conversation; a useless, unnecessary and unproductive war that no one should have died in - but you can't grasp that.

How about showing a little respect for the valiant, dead soldiers for a change, TSW?

>"I certainly did not last night - which is where I was last night -"

As opposed to you today, which is where you are today?

Hahaha!

TWS, for some reason you think that your absurd, zen-like nonsensical style isn't apparent to anyone that can read.

Quit hiding behind troll names, if your arguments don't make sense then simply re-posting them under assumed names doesn't make them any better.

Besides, did you ever decide which line to take - "the bad US entered WWII (2, two) late" or "the bad US connived to enter WWII (2, two) 'sooner, rather than later'" as you referenced?

Since you've resorted to doing everything that you can to divert attention away from this clear perjury in your argument, your desperation is obvious and quite beneath us all, really.
82

Allan(handofgod137),

23/04/2008 18:08:55
They obviously don't like being reminded that it was "business as usual" selling the occupiers wine, food and pimping their wives and daughters.
83

Dáithí,

San Jose 23/04/2008 18:39:53
That's probably a big part of it in a nutshell, Allan.
84

MKOT,

Georgia, USA 24/04/2008 18:36:41
Re: Comments on what Americans can and cannot put up with in war. Please consider these facts in reference to the Southern effort in their war for indepedence from 1861-1865:

750 - 850,000 men served the South under arms.

This was 75 - 80% of draft age white men of the South.

260,000 died.

200,000 seriously wounded

37 - 39% death rate. About 1 in 5 men in the South of military age died. 1 in 5 maimed. Largest expenditure for Southern state budgets for some years after the war was for artificial limbs. No assistance from federal government for “rebels.”

Vietnam War was the war with the next highest death at 7%.

92 Confederate generals killed. Similar rates of death among the officers showed that the leadership of the South was decimated.

50,000 civilians - almost all in the South - died from causes that historians say are war related: Disease, exposure, malnutrition and outright starvation. As only one example, Sherman emptied Atlanta with his fires driving the civilian population out into the coming winter before he began his march to the sea. It would be said that a crow flying over Georgia would have to carry its own rations because of the deliberate policy of destruction the Union army followed. But there is seldom any focus on what it meant to a woman and children at home whether on a plantation or a log hut when all their supplies were taken or deliberately destroyed. Read “Children of Pride” to learn what this meant when Federals would tell a Georgia woman that she and her children “You have no right to even wood or water.”

Of modern wars, the civilian death rate across the entire Southland is only matched in WWII by civilians in the Ruhr and the Volga.

2/3 of Southern assessed wealth was gone with the wind. Freed slaves, burned farms and houses, looted silver.

So, at least some regions of the United States have equalled, if not exceeded anything the French had to put up with.
85

Vincent-W,

24/04/2008 23:36:37
MKOT - shame on you that it wasn't 75 - 80% of ALL draught age men in the south - maybe you would have won?!?!?

Or perhaps many think your purpose may have been less than pure - or do you think perpetuation of slavery is a cause to uphold?

Anyway - get real - you are comparing two quite dissimilar historical contexts.
86

BryanTim,

Tampa 25/04/2008 18:56:47
"AN EXHIBITION featuring photographs of Paris taken during the Nazi occupation has provoked so much public indignation that the Paris city council has ordered posters advertising the show to be taken down and has even called for the exhibition to be closed altogether."

Anything to keep the sheep in line. The last thing western governments these days want os for the man on the street to learn the truth. We're it not for Hitler, the entire continent of Europe would have been over-run from the east a lot sooner than is was.
87

Finaleos,

Australia 26/04/2008 01:13:24
Forensic Involvements and corrupt Authorities

Are the eye-witness-accounts of the Nuremberg-trials and in the
holocaust literature in accordance with the laws of nature? To find
out more,
we invite you
a) to read the Leuchter - Report
http://www.ihr.org/books/leuchter/leuchter.toc.html

b) the Rudolf - Report and
http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/trr/index.html#Top

c) the Luftl - Report
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v12/v12p391_Luftl.html

d) to examine Auschwitz-Photographs
http://www.air-photo.com

http://www.air-photo.com/english/1999_mark.html

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v18/v18n5p-4_SWC.html

e) to examine the Ground Radar Investigation of Treblinka
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v19/v19n3p20_radar.html

http://www.codoh.com/video/treblinka.mpg

If you cannot get on the above-named web-site, then try following
web-site and there click the headline "Treblinka investigation –
video – (essential watching)":
http://www.australiafreepress.org/

ea) to read
http://www.nazigassings.com

eb) to read the Krakow-Report
http://www.abbc2.com/islam/english/revision/polrep.htm

ec) to read "The Holocaust – 120 Questions and Answers":
http://www.abbc2.com/islam/english/revision/holo-120.htm

f) to do your own investigation into - of the alleged
Auschwitz-Gas-chambers by
organizing an investigation-team of forensic archaeologists, -
chemists, - architects, -engineers, - draftsmen, historians, legal
experts and students at your university and
g) to compare your personal findings with the ones of
Leuchter,Rudolf
and Luftl.

h) Study the Zuendel-Court-Case:
http://www.ihr.org/books/kulaszka/falsenews.toc.html

Become a supporter, researcher or member in the new
World Foundation for Holocaust Studies
How? See here on:
http://www.adelaideinstitute.org/2006December/Holocaust_Stiftung.htm

More expert-discussion on:
http://forum.codoh.info/viewtopic.php?p=26641

http://forums.delphiforums.com/oldfri/messages/?msg=45.1

http://forums.delphiforum
88

Ray Gun,

New York 29/04/2008 13:43:13
I am extremely disappointed with the groups trying to deny people of a different view of the events that occurred in France during the occupation. If you don't like it, don't go see it, but you Don't have the right to deny this opportunity to others. As someone of French heritage and having relatives in France during those years and still to this date, I can be witness that those pictures resemble more accurately what life was like at least in more urbanized areas according to recounts from my relatives. And yes, they said the occupation was not so bad even though they where against it. These pictures are beautiful and invaluable and people should not be denied this opportunity while skimpy sketches of so-called concentration camps that "could" have been created anywhere and out of the imagination of some sick person are heavily promoted as legitimate and their exhibition encouraged and praised by these same groups, who will also oppose to an exhibition of pictures of the occupation in Palestinian land.
89

Alecoque,

Toronto 30/04/2008 02:50:19
This is ridiculous.

Hitler in Paris is a historical exhibit. We're being muzzled again! I don't care what nationality a person is, or what they stand for, historical photographs of them are valuable. They speak to the period, they inform, they teach what it was like.

I wouldn't have any objection to seeing those I might consider my enemies in a major city in times gone past.

What's the big deal? It's history. It happened. It's true.

Must we rewrite history? Must students not know who visited their capital?

The whole thing is ludicrous! "1984" all over again. Big Brother!

"I don't like you, so I must pretend you never existed!" How adult is that!


90

MKOT,

Georgia USA 30/04/2008 15:23:15
MKOT - shame on you that it wasn't 75 - 80% of ALL draught age men in the south - maybe you would have won?!?!?

Or perhaps many think your purpose may have been less than pure - or do you think perpetuation of slavery is a cause to uphold?

Anyway - get real - you are comparing two quite dissimilar historical contexts.

Response:

A) My sources on those numbers are Prof. Gary Gallagher and Prof. Drew Gilpin Faust, President of Harvard. If you don't like the numbers, fight with them or produce your own sources. If your recollect the disparity in population and the recruitment of soldiers in Europe for the North (which caused the Pope to issue a letter to be read during church in Europe opposing the Lincoln practice) the need for higher manpower useage in the South is obvious.

B) As for slavery, it is certainly too complex a subject for this exchange. Simply consider this: what other society found a bloody civil war necessary to dispose of this antiquated - and once universal - labor system? What society did not have slavery at one time or another. Why do people complain about slavery 150 years ago and never mention slavery in Africa today? What would have been a better mechanism to rid America of slavery? Almost anything.

C) My comments were directed toward the earlier posts that incorrectly asserted that occupation and death were unknown in the United States. They were well known in the American South during and after the War for Southern Independence.

MKOT
91

truthseeker357,

Baltimore 01/05/2008 19:23:25
When the Germans took France you have to remember that France declared war on Germany. They started it. Germany took France, because Germany unlike Russia is a small country. They can't stay within their borders and wait for the enemy. The were surrounded by enemies. When the Germans occupied France they didn't rape or pillage. The French police in Paris still policed Paris. For the most part life in Paris didn't change with German occupation. All of Southern France was no occupied by the Germans. When the allies occupied Germany they raped all the woman.
92

truthseeker357,

Baltimore 01/05/2008 19:31:11
What everyone in the world is tired of is the back and forth bickering of the holocaust. Why don't they just have an International televised debate on the holocaust. The Jews could produce their eyewitnesses, because that's all the evidence the Jews have Jewish eyewitnesses. The Jews could say how they saw this and that and then the revisionists could produce evidence that proves Zyklon-B will only work when heated. It would take large concentrations of this pesticide at 100 degrees to kill people within a couple hours. The Jews claimed 10 minutes. The Jews could claim how diesel fumes killed Jews within 10 minutes, but it's been proven diesel fumes has a lot of oxygen. It wouldn't kill anyone. It would make people pass out in 3 or 4 hours. The Jews could make their statements and then the experts could show proof what the Jews are saying is nothing, but lies. Then Israel can give back the billions they have extorted from America and Germany. The world could forget about the Jews. This is why they won't debate it folks.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
RSS Feed of this article's comments
Delivery formats: RSS, Atom, Javascript & Email
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.