Paris Under the Nazis: Happy Days?

Discussions on every day life in the Weimar Republic, pre-anschluss Austria, Third Reich and the occupied territories. Hosted by Vikki.
User avatar
D.Laurent
Member
Posts: 61
Joined: 03 Aug 2006 18:50
Location: France

Re: Paris Under the Nazis: Happy Days?

Post by D.Laurent » 26 Apr 2008 11:23

mhhh now i see the purpose of this topic.
ThomasG obviously degenarate the topic to end to an off-topic about the situation of german people for political reason.

ThomasG
Member
Posts: 812
Joined: 24 May 2007 23:41
Location: Europe

Re: Paris Under the Nazis: Happy Days?

Post by ThomasG » 26 Apr 2008 11:44

Jon G. wrote:Food was in short supply everywhere during the war. The Germans imposed themselves firmly between producers and consumers in occupied countries, taking what they wanted and leaving what they saw fit for the inhabitants of occupied Europe.
The meager calorie intake of Germans during the war (2200 calories) shows that the Germans were struggling to feed their own citizens. The Germans rationally tried to feed their own people first and the surplus was distributed among non-Germans.

Food was not in short supply for the Western Allies after the war. Yet food relief was not delivered to the German civilians who needed it. The Nazis gave French people larger food rations than the Allies gave to the Germans after the war although the food situation in Germany was worse during the war than in the UK and the US 1945-1947. The average calorie intake in Britain and the US 1946-1947 was much above the minimum unlike in Germany during the war.
German-imposed rations were graduated along racial scales - i.e. less for Slavs and more for Scandinavians, Frenchmen somewhere in between, and least of all for Jews.
True.
How does that support your contention that Paris was experiencing 'happy days' during the German occupation?
I did not contend so. I just said that the occupation was not particularly inhumane. The words "happy days" were used by the Time magazine and just quoted by me.
French rations were smaller than German rations, period.

For what it is worth, the Netherlands were way below German 1946-1947 levels in 1944-1945. Should that lead me to conclude that the Allies were much more humane towards ethnic Germans post-war?
The Dutch Famine happened during the German occupation and ended after the country was liberated and Allies delivered food there.

Jon G.
Member
Posts: 6647
Joined: 17 Feb 2004 01:12
Location: Europe

Re: Paris Under the Nazis: Happy Days?

Post by Jon G. » 26 Apr 2008 12:13

ThomasG wrote:
Jon G. wrote:Food was in short supply everywhere during the war. The Germans imposed themselves firmly between producers and consumers in occupied countries, taking what they wanted and leaving what they saw fit for the inhabitants of occupied Europe.
The meager calorie intake of Germans during the war (2200 calories) shows that the Germans were struggling to feed their own citizens. The Germans rationally tried to feed their own people first and the surplus was distributed among non-Germans.
Germany had various ways of solving its food shortage - pre-war the problem was solved by grain purchases from Hungary and Romania; slowing down rearmament would have been another solution because this would have freed export assets and, in turn, improved the foreign currency situation. Germany was short on food by choice.

As I wrote upthread, food was in short supply everywhere. The Germans didn't 'rationally tried feeding' their own first; who got the highest priorities can be read quite clearly from the calorie figures.

Here's a contemporary graphic of the Grossraum
Image
1) Food was not in short supply for the Western Allies after the war. 2) Yet food relief was not delivered to the German civilians who needed it. 3) The Nazis gave French people larger food rations than the Allies gave to the Germans after the war although the food situation in Germany was worse during the war than in the UK and the US 1945-1947.4) The average calorie intake in Britain and the US 1946-1947 was much above the minimum unlike in Germany during the war.
1) Actually it was, save for the US. Food from external sources was needed all over Europe after the war.
2) I don't know if it wasn't. But even if food relief was withheld, what exactly does that say about the situation of German occupied Paris? If you wish to pursue a morally relativist line of argument ('the Germans were better towards the French than the Allies were towards the Germans') then you're flogging a dead horse. Either does not make for 'happy days' for occupied Paris.
3) Note that the Germans took food from France, whereas the Western Allies didn't transfer food to the Germans.
4) Unlike large parts of occupied Europe, Germany was well above the minimum calorie intake for most of the war.

ThomasG
Member
Posts: 812
Joined: 24 May 2007 23:41
Location: Europe

Re: Paris Under the Nazis: Happy Days?

Post by ThomasG » 26 Apr 2008 13:00

Jon G. wrote: Germany had various ways of solving its food shortage - pre-war the problem was solved by grain purchases from Hungary and Romania; slowing down rearmament would have been another solution because this would have freed export assets and, in turn, improved the foreign currency situation. Germany was short on food by choice.

As I wrote upthread, food was in short supply everywhere. The Germans didn't 'rationally tried feeding' their own first; who got the highest priorities can be read quite clearly from the calorie figures.
Ethnic Germans got the largest rations according to the calorie figures so I think my statement that the Germans rationally tried feeding their own first was accurate. The food produced in the Third Reich and allied countries was inadequate to feed the whole population so the Germans priorized.
1) Actually it was, save for the US. Food from external sources was needed all over Europe after the war.
The average calorie intake in Britain was 2900 calories 1946-1947, well above the minimum.
2) I don't know if it wasn't. But even if food relief was withheld, what exactly does that say about the situation of German occupied Paris? If you wish to pursue a morally relativist line of argument ('the Germans were better towards the French than the Allies were towards the Germans') then you're flogging a dead horse. Either does not make for 'happy days' for occupied Paris.
You asked me to prove the argument that the German occupation of France was not particularly inhumane. I have shown that non-Jewish Frenchmen were materially better off under the German occupation than Germans under French-British-American occupation. It is generally agreed that the occupation policies of the Western Allies were basically humane. Therefore, it has to be true that the German occupation of France was not particularly inhumane.
3) Note that the Germans took food from France, whereas the Western Allies didn't transfer food to the Germans.
The Germans took food from France because an adequate amount of food was not produced in Germany to feed the German citizens. That was rational.

The shortages of food in Germany after the war were largely caused by Allied occupation policies. They forbade the production of fertilizers which decreased agricultural production. They restricted German industrial production and didn't allow the Germans to trade industrial machinery and steel to other countries for food. The Allies also forbade the efforts of independent charity organizations to import food to Germany and for that reason the Vatican's attempt to organize relief failed.
4) Unlike large parts of occupied Europe, Germany was well above the minimum calorie intake for most of the war.
2200 calories per day is approximately the minimum intake for people who do light work.

Jon G.
Member
Posts: 6647
Joined: 17 Feb 2004 01:12
Location: Europe

Re: Paris Under the Nazis: Happy Days?

Post by Jon G. » 26 Apr 2008 13:47

ThomasG wrote:
Jon G. wrote:... The Germans didn't 'rationally tried feeding' their own first; who got the highest priorities can be read quite clearly from the calorie figures.
...Ethnic Germans got the largest rations according to the calorie figures so I think my statement that the Germans rationally tried feeding their own first was accurate. The food produced in the Third Reich and allied countries was inadequate to feed the whole population so the Germans priorized.
That introduces an element of benevolence which just wasn't there. Ends had to meet due to the all-round food shortage in Europe; with the Germans in charge they took what they wanted. They occupied France, after all.
1) Actually it was, save for the US. Food from external sources was needed all over Europe after the war.
The average calorie intake in Britain was 2900 calories 1946-1947, well above the minimum.
Thanks to imports. Just as during the war.
You asked me to prove the argument that the German occupation of France was not particularly inhumane.
Actually I didn't. I asked you to provide backing for any of these statements of yours:
The relative lack of atrocities committed against non-Jewish Frenchmen during the occupation of France. German civilians suffered much more after Germany was occupied. Generally speaking, French people 1940-1944 had more food and otherwise better material situation than Germans in 1945.
...which you attempted to respond to by concentrating on the food angle by linking to a Wiki page which apparently relies on James Bacque's much critisised study - the page has a 'neutrality disputed' stamp; here's the relevant Wiki talk page.
I have shown that non-Jewish Frenchmen were materially better off under the German occupation than Germans under French-British-American occupation.
...which is a complete non-sequitur.
It is generally agreed that the occupation policies of the Western Allies were basically humane.Therefore, it has to be true that the German occupation of France was not particularly inhumane.
Generally agreed by whom? And before you invoke Wiki to demonstrate that, let me ask you how you can use the post-1945 situation in Germany to illuminate the pre-1945 situation in Paris?
3) Note that the Germans took food from France, whereas the Western Allies didn't transfer food to the Germans.
The Germans took food from France because an adequate amount of food was not produced in Germany to feed the German citizens. That was rational.
By that token, what rationality would have been served by Allied food transfers to Germany post-war?
...
4) Unlike large parts of occupied Europe, Germany was well above the minimum calorie intake for most of the war.
2200 calories per day is approximately the minimum intake for people who do light work.
Yes, German rations were scaled accordingly, averaging out well above occupied Europe as per the other thread I linked to earlier.

ThomasG
Member
Posts: 812
Joined: 24 May 2007 23:41
Location: Europe

Re: Paris Under the Nazis: Happy Days?

Post by ThomasG » 26 Apr 2008 14:35

Jon G. wrote: That introduces an element of benevolence which just wasn't there. Ends had to meet due to the all-round food shortage in Europe; with the Germans in charge they took what they wanted. They occupied France, after all.
I am not sure what is our disagreement here.
Actually I didn't. I asked you to provide backing for any of these statements of yours:

...which you attempted to respond to by concentrating on the food angle by linking to a Wiki page which apparently relies on James Bacque's much critisised study - the page has a 'neutrality disputed' stamp; here's the relevant Wiki talk page.
So do you have any reason to think that my statements were false?
...which is a complete non-sequitur.
Why?
Generally agreed by whom?
The Western historical establishment and textbooks used in schools portray the occupation of Germany by the Western allies as humane.
And before you invoke Wiki to demonstrate that, let me ask you how you can use the post-1945 situation in Germany to illuminate the pre-1945 situation in Paris?
I just question how anybody could call the German occupation policy in France inhumane (except in the case of Jews) if the occupation policy of Western Allies is considered humane. French people had better material conditions during the occupation of their country. If it is claimed that the German occupation of France was "inhumane" it is obvious that some standard of humanity is needed. The German occupation of France was more humane towards the majority population than the Allied occupation of Germany. The Germans did not restrict the food production in France unlike the Allies in Germany.
By that token, what rationality would have been served by Allied food transfers to Germany post-war?
In my opinion a conquering power has a moral responsibility to take care that civilians in an occupied country have an adequate amount of food. German people died because of the lack of food. There were also pragmatic reasons. Food aid would also help the image of the Western allies and help in denazification. Ultimately, West Germany's post-war recovery was also in the interest of Britain and the US. There were very immoral aspects in the food policy. For instance, the workers in coal mines got 4000 calories per day as rations and they were forbidden to give any food to their starving family members.

I also mentioned that the Allied powers intentionally caused a reduction in the food production of Germany and banned the importation of food. The trade of German industrial products to food would have benefit both partners and in no way harmed the Allies.

Jon G.
Member
Posts: 6647
Joined: 17 Feb 2004 01:12
Location: Europe

Re: Paris Under the Nazis: Happy Days?

Post by Jon G. » 26 Apr 2008 15:29

ThomasG wrote:I am not sure what is our disagreement here...
Chiefly your use of the expression '[the Germans]...tried feeding their own first...' because it indicates that the Germans would have given the French higher rations if there had been more food to go round.
So do you have any reason to think that my statements were false?
I have reason to believe that the Wiki page you linked to may be in error on one or more points.
...which is a complete non-sequitur.
Why?
Because Germany's post-1945 condition measured as calories per head allowed by occupying power/s doesn't allow us to draw any conclusions about France's pre-1945 condition measured as calories per head issued by occupying power/s.

It's your argument, not mine, and at any rate it is not relevant if we want to measure how well off in relative terms occupied France was. You need to find contemporary examples - the Germans treated other occupied areas worse (which could validate your point); on the other hand yet other areas were better off than France. And in terms of GDP loss - I'll have to owe you the numbers for now - France clearly was the western European occupied country which suffered the most.
Generally agreed by whom?
The Western historical establishment and textbooks used in schools portray the occupation of Germany by the Western allies as humane.
You know, when you invoke arguments like that you have to be more specific.
And before you invoke Wiki to demonstrate that, let me ask you how you can use the post-1945 situation in Germany to illuminate the pre-1945 situation in Paris?
I just question how anybody could call the German occupation policy in France inhumane (except in the case of Jews)
The problem is, when you exclude the Jews from the equation, the rest of the statement becomes meaningless.
if the occupation policy of Western Allies is considered humane. French people had better material conditions during the occupation of their country. If it is claimed that the German occupation of France was "inhumane" it is obvious that some standard of humanity is needed. The German occupation of France was more humane towards the majority population than the Allied occupation of Germany.
Do hostage shootings, forced deportations of Frenchmen for slave labour in German factories and the non-release of French POWs belong under a 'humane' occupation policy? And did the Western Allies engage in any of these activities?
The Germans did not restrict the food production in France unlike the Allies in Germany...
Other than the Wiki page, is there another source for that?

Jon G.
Member
Posts: 6647
Joined: 17 Feb 2004 01:12
Location: Europe

Re: Paris Under the Nazis: Happy Days?

Post by Jon G. » 26 Apr 2008 15:50

Some numbers to further address French losses from the German occupation

Excerpts from Indicment of the IMT
From France the following deportations of persons for political and racial reasons took place-each of which consisted of from 1,500 to 2,500 deportees:

1940 . . . . . . . . 3 Transports
1941 . . . . . . . . 14 Transports
1942 . . . . . . . .104 Transports
1943 . . . . . . . ..257 Transports
1944 . . . ; . . . . 326 Transports

...

In France hostages were executed either individually or collectively; these executions took place in all the big cities of France, among others in Paris, Bordeaux, and Nantes, as well as at Chateaubriant.

...

In France statistics show the following:

Removal of Raw Materials.
Coal 63,000,000 tons
Electric Energy 20,976 Mkwh
Petrol and Fuel 1,943,750 tons
Iron Ore 74,848,000 tons
Siderurgical products 3,822,000 tons
Bauxite 1,211,800 tons
Cement 5,984,000 tons
Lime 1,888,000 tons
Quarry products 25,872,000 tons

and various other products to a total value of 79,961,423,000 francs.

Removal of Industrial Equipment.

Total: 9,759,861,000 francs, of which 2,626,479,000 francs of machine tools.

Removal of Agricultural Produce.

Total: 126,655,852,000 francs, i. e., for the principal products.

Wheat 2,947,337 tons
Oats 2,354,080 tons
Milk 790,000 hectolitres
Milk (concentrated and in powder) 460,000 "
Butter 76,000 tons
Cheese 49,000 "
Potatoes 725,975 "
Various vegetables 575,000 "
Wine 7,647,000 hectoliteres
Champagne 87,000,000 bottles
Beer 3,821,520 hectolitres
Various kinds of alcohol 1,830,000 "

Removal of Manufactured Products.

To a total of 184,640,000,000 francs.

Plundering.

Francs: 257,020,024,000 from private enterprise.
Francs: 55,000,100,000 from the State.

Financial Exploitation.

From June 1940 to September 1944 the French Treasury was compelled to pay to Germahy 631,866,000,000 francs.

Looting and Destruction of Works of Art.

The museums of Nantes, Nancy, Old-Marseilles were looted.

Private collections of great value were stolen. In this way Raphaels, Vermeers, Van Dycks, and works of Rubens, Holbein, Rembrandt, Watteau, Boucher disappeared. Germany compelled France to deliver up "The Mystic Lamb" by Van Eyck, which Belgium had entrusted to her.
...

ThomasG
Member
Posts: 812
Joined: 24 May 2007 23:41
Location: Europe

Re: Paris Under the Nazis: Happy Days?

Post by ThomasG » 26 Apr 2008 17:54

Jon G. wrote: Chiefly your use of the expression '[the Germans]...tried feeding their own first...' because it indicates that the Germans would have given the French higher rations if there had been more food to go round.
Yes, the Germans would give the French higher rations if they had more food. If German people have enough food they certainly would give some food to the French.
I have reason to believe that the Wiki page you linked to may be in error on one or more points.
Which points?
It's your argument, not mine, and at any rate it is not relevant if we want to measure how well off in relative terms occupied France was. You need to find contemporary examples - the Germans treated other occupied areas worse (which could validate your point); on the other hand yet other areas were better off than France.
Well, as you well know Polish and Russian civilians were treated much more badly than the French. The civilian death toll and the starvation-level food rations prove that. IIRC, Holland was treated better as the Dutch are a Germanic people.
The problem is, when you exclude the Jews from the equation, the rest of the statement becomes meaningless.
No, the vast majority of the French population was not Jewish and it is very relevant how non-Jews were treated.
Do hostage shootings, forced deportations of Frenchmen for slave labour in German factories and the non-release of French POWs belong under a 'humane' occupation policy? And did the Western Allies engage in any of these activities?
I don't excuse the atrocities but there were less of them in France than in Eastern European occupied areas. My argument is that the German occupation policy in Western Europe was more humane towards the "average Joe" than the Allied occupation policy in Germany. It is a separate issue how the Germans treated Jews and members of the resistance.

The vast majority of French people were not victims of violence and Wehrmacht soldiers also committed few crimes against civilians. It was possible to live happily in occupied France as the majority of French people had basic necessities. Food and luxury items were available in the black market and people with good connections had a possibility to live well. It wouldn't surprise me at all if there were "happy" people in France during the France.

In Germany after the war there were more serious shortages of basic necessities. Lack of adequate food and housing usually prevents happiness. In the black market everything was much more expensive. I would rather be an average French person in 1942 than a German person in 1946.
Other than the Wiki page, is there another source for that?
A quick googling directed me to this archive of speeches made in the UK parliament in 1946:

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/lord ... in-germany

There is a lot of interesting information about the German food situation. Viscount Swinton refers to the limitation of fertilizer production commenting "how absurd it is, if it be true, that any limitation should be put upon fertilizers". The limitation of fertilizer production reduced food production.

Lord Saltoun also makes an interesting comment: "I have made inquiries as to the food position, and I am told that there is no food to spare. Yet during the whole of this summer the fishing fleet of Scotland has been working on short time on the orders of the Government, and, even so, cases have occurred of fish being thrown back into the sea because there was no market for it."

User avatar
B5N2KATE
Banned
Posts: 304
Joined: 17 Apr 2008 21:49
Location: Darwin, Australia.

Re: Paris Under the Nazis: Happy Days?

Post by B5N2KATE » 26 Apr 2008 18:02

Jon.....

I've got an anecdote from the father of a friend of mine....he was only a child, but his views on the German occupation, while only the views of one man, are at least another source....

CONVERSATION WITH JOHN-CLAUDE GOHIER....2008.(resident of Saint Malo, Normandy, 1944)

ME- I'm reading this book John. It's called "The War Between the Generals" (David Irving)....it says on this page that an intelligence report by the Allies describes the German occupation of France as "very correct". It's a little hard to believe.

JOHN-CLAUDE- Let me have a look....(reads....)...mmm...yes...this is more correct than what you may think. The Germans were very anxious that we should get along...yes...I remember my father saying something of this nature more than once.

ME- Why would you ask?

JOHN-CLAUDE- I wanted to know why we could walk about freely. It was easy to get from place to place as a boy. The Germans, once they had settled in after their invasion, even co-operated with the local gendarmerie to catch black market thieves. It WAS very "correct"......you know, we noticed the differance when the Americans arrived. They simply destroyed EVERYTHING (much emphasis). They did not seem to care whether people were in a town or not....they would park their artillery. If they thought the town was occupied by the Germans, they would just destroy it.


I offer this as a first person account.....take it as you wish. I have known John for over 20 years

It is, however, only one man's view.
"Es mejor morir de pie que vivir de rodillas!"
("It is better to die on your feet than live on your knees!")

User avatar
Patzinak
Member
Posts: 534
Joined: 25 Jan 2008 17:15
Location: Toronto

Re: Paris Under the Nazis: Happy Days?

Post by Patzinak » 26 Apr 2008 18:28

ThomasG wrote:[…] My argument is that the German occupation policy in Western Europe was more humane towards the "average Joe" than the Allied occupation policy in Germany. It is a separate issue how the Germans treated Jews and members of the resistance.[…]
First, that is an argument grounded in racism -- why can't a Jew be an "average Joe"? If what was done to Jews doesn't count, then you're working on the anti-Semitic premise that French Jews were not part of the French nation.

Second, ignoring the anti-Semitic premise, you have to prove that German policy was "more humane" -- not by "googling", but with suitable references, which take into account available data (there's plenty of it) and different circumstances. For instance, total occupation costs paid by France to the Reich up to spring 1944 amounted to F680 billion (not including Alsace-Lorraine); in addition, roughly F60 billion of goods and services exported to Germany were financed by credit; as a result, during the occupation, France's national debt rose by > F1 trillion (Aly, p147).
ThomasG wrote:[…] It wouldn't surprise me at all if there were "happy" people in France during the France.[…]
Nor me. Nor, indeed, would it surprise me at all if there were some "happy" people in Ukraine at the height of the Holodomor. What's that got to do with the price of tea in China?

Source:
  • Aly, G (2007) Hitler's Beneficiaries : Plunder, Racial War, and the Nazi Welfare State. 1st US ed, New York: Metropolitan Books. ISBN 0805079262.
--Patzinak

ThomasG
Member
Posts: 812
Joined: 24 May 2007 23:41
Location: Europe

Re: Paris Under the Nazis: Happy Days?

Post by ThomasG » 26 Apr 2008 19:12

Patzinak wrote: First, that is an argument grounded in racism -- why can't a Jew be an "average Joe"? If what was done to Jews doesn't count, then you're working on the anti-Semitic premise that French Jews were not part of the French nation.
Wrong. The Jews were a small minority. Your claim that the fact that Jews are not a part of the French nation is an anti-Semitic premise is ridiculous. According to the Bible the Jews are a "nation". Zionism is based on the idea that the Jews are a nation and have a right to a state. Even Stalin considered the Jews a nation.

A member of a small persecuted minority group or a resistance fighter is not an "average Joe".
Second, ignoring the anti-Semitic premise, you have to prove that German policy was "more humane" -- not by "googling", but with suitable references, which take into account available data (there's plenty of it) and different circumstances.
It has been proved with sourced statistics about food rations etc.
For instance, total occupation costs paid by France to the Reich up to spring 1944 amounted to F680 billion (not including Alsace-Lorraine); in addition, roughly F60 billion of goods and services exported to Germany were financed by credit; as a result, during the occupation, France's national debt rose by > F1 trillion (Aly, p147).
The war reparations Germany had to pay after the war exceeded that sum.

Jon G.
Member
Posts: 6647
Joined: 17 Feb 2004 01:12
Location: Europe

Re: Paris Under the Nazis: Happy Days?

Post by Jon G. » 26 Apr 2008 19:25

ThomasG wrote:Yes, the Germans would give the French higher rations if they had more food. If German people have enough food they certainly would give some food to the French.
That's pure speculation on your part. And if you consult the numbers I posted above, you'll note that the Germans were actively moving foodstuffs from France to Germany. Your opinion about what the Germans might have done if only more food had been around accounts for nothing in that regard.

IIRC there is only one example of German food exports during WW2 - namely to Norway in the winter of 1944-1945.
I have reason to believe that the Wiki page you linked to may be in error on one or more points.
Which points?
Everything with a number in it. But I'm willing to let it rest. I have no idea what average calorie intake was in post-WW2 Germany, I'm just not prepared to take the Wiki article's words at face value.
Well, as you well know Polish and Russian civilians were treated much more badly than the French. The civilian death toll and the starvation-level food rations prove that. IIRC, Holland was treated better as the Dutch are a Germanic people.
I advise you to examine average Dutch calorie intake in 1944-1945 before making such a statement.
The problem is, when you exclude the Jews from the equation, the rest of the statement [I just question how anybody could call the German occupation policy in France inhumane (except in the case of Jews)] becomes meaningless.
No, the vast majority of the French population was not Jewish and it is very relevant how non-Jews were treated.
You can't exclude one group from the whole if you want to examine German occupation policies. And there's still the several million POWs and the ~900,000 forcibly conscripted labourers to account for.
Do hostage shootings, forced deportations of Frenchmen for slave labour in German factories and the non-release of French POWs belong under a 'humane' occupation policy? And did the Western Allies engage in any of these activities?
I don't excuse the atrocities but there were less of them in France than in Eastern European occupied areas. My argument is that the German occupation policy in Western Europe was more humane towards the "average Joe" than the Allied occupation policy in Germany.
How many atrocities were committed by the Allies in occupied Germany? You could of course claim that the 'average Joe' was not a Jew, a POW, a forcibly conscripted worker, or a hostage in the wrong place at the wrong time, but then you have also qualified 'average Joe' beyond any kind of meaning.
It is a separate issue how the Germans treated Jews and members of the resistance.
It forms part of the picture if we wish to pass verdict on German occupation policies in occupied France as 'humane'
The vast majority of French people were not victims of violence and Wehrmacht soldiers also committed few crimes against civilians.
Arguments from darkness do not further the discussion in any way. The vast majority of Germans in postwar Germany weren't victims of violence, and few crimes were committed against them.
It was possible to live happily in occupied France as the majority of French people had basic necessities. Food and luxury items were available in the black market and people with good connections had a possibility to live well. It wouldn't surprise me at all if there were "happy" people in France during the France.
I'm sure it was possible to live happily in postwar occupied Germany, too. What was possible may not have been very relevant to the 'average Joe'.
In Germany after the war there were more serious shortages of basic necessities. Lack of adequate food and housing usually prevents happiness. In the black market everything was much more expensive. I would rather be an average French person in 1942 than a German person in 1946.
Black market was rife everywhere, also in France - as black markets thrive everywhere there's rationing. In France, if you recall, rationing was imposed by the Germans, who additionally gave themselves greatly inflated purchasing power by introducing the Reichsmark as legal tender, and by enforcing an artificially low exchange rate. That meant that an average Landser - who may have been happy as a result - would get more for his money than a French lawyer would get for his.

See this thread, it's quite instructive
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=62936

User avatar
Georges JEROME
Financial supporter
Posts: 9931
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 13:04
Location: France

Re: Paris Under the Nazis: Happy Days?

Post by Georges JEROME » 26 Apr 2008 21:55

thomasG is perhaps right upon calories but is it the question.

German Occupation in France was not so light :

1,5 % of the population died between 1940 and 1945 : 600 000 half civilian half soldiers

Déportation : 76 000 jews
88 000 non jews (45 % members of resistance, 29 % for acts of civilian resistance, 26 % hostages or no resistance acts

Shooting : 3800 shooted (resistants and hostages)

Forced labour : STO 600 000 frenchs on 5 millions of europeans were sent in Germany for forced labour : 10 % died of which 15 000 were killed.

Well, I think we are far from bilan of allied occupation in Germany in ANY of the 4 allied zones

Source :Colloque CNRS Caen UMR 6583 from December 2005

PS : the old right wings chief LE PEN who lost most of his influence now is obliged to renew with provocation in words to be anew in light. you will notice that his last provocation about "genocide as detail of history" was reproved by the vice president of his party (his own daughter).

no comparison possible between German occupation in France and Allied occupation in Germany.

Georges

User avatar
Patzinak
Member
Posts: 534
Joined: 25 Jan 2008 17:15
Location: Toronto

Re: Paris Under the Nazis: Happy Days?

Post by Patzinak » 27 Apr 2008 01:11

ThomasG wrote:[…] Wrong. The Jews were a small minority.[…]
Small or large, French Jews were part of the French nation. Arguing that the evil done to them was not evil done to France is a specific form of racism, known as anti-Semitism.
ThomasG wrote:[…] According to the Bible […] Zionism is based […]
And what has the Bible or Zionism got to do with the price of tea in China?
ThomasG wrote:[…] Even Stalin considered the Jews a nation.
Ah, yes. The supreme argument. What can I say -- if Stalin, that glorious and universally revered moral philosopher, thought so, then all discussion is at an end. The Vozhd is always right -- ain't it so, tovarishch -- or is it Parteigenosse?!
ThomasG wrote:[…] A member of a small persecuted minority group or a resistance fighter is not an "average Joe".
To be a member of the resistance is to make a conscious choice -- just like joining the NSDAP or joining the Communist party. One does not choose one's ancestry.
ThomasG wrote:[…] It has been proved with sourced statistics about food rations etc.[…] The war reparations Germany had to pay after the war exceeded that sum
Prove it.

--Patzinak

Return to “Life in the Third Reich & Weimar Republic”