New photos of Occupied Paris

Well these seem to be controversial....
Oh what a lovely war! The dazzling photos of innocent Parisian fun that make the French so ashamed | the Daily Mail

Given that the sole Jerry is wearing the M43 Feldmutze , these pics must have been taken either in '43 or '44. It should be obvious that they're not representative of the full picture, so why the talk of censorship? The museum at La Coupole V2 site outside St. Omer has a full gallery showing the reality of the occupation in the Pas de Calais; this is just another facet to me.

 

Thankyou for that T_H that is very controversal isn't it, considering that we are constantly told of how hard the french had it with the germans.

 

Nice pictures.
Few more here: Slide show: Parisians under occupation - europe - International Herald Tribune

I'm with Gordon, they don't seem that controversial at all to me.

Cheers,
Adam.

 

So images taken on a sunny day by a photographer working for a German propaganda publication is used as the barometer on how the French, all the French, in the whole of France, really had it during the occupation......? Excuse me if I find Mr. Hardmans's assertions to be naive and shallow to the point of ridiculous and misleading. Mr. Hardman has only proven to me that even after 65+ years after the war, he is gullible to the point of falling for German propaganda sources.

Yes, Mr Hardman, the French had it "so well" during the occupation. Then again, you work for the Daily Mail, so one shouldn't be surprised. Perhaps Mr. Hardman should write an article about how the Mail was sympathetic to Mosley's British Union of Fascists.

Taken from wiki:

Support for Nazism and Fascism
In early 1934, Rothermere and the Mail were sympathetic to Oswald Mosley and the British Union of Fascists. Rothermere wrote an article, "Hurrah for the Blackshirts", in January 1934, in which he praised Mosley for his "sound, commonsense, Conservative doctrine"[6], though after the violence of the 1934 Olympia meeting involving the BUF, the Mail withdrew its support for Mosley.
Rothermere was a friend and supporter of both Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler, which influenced the Mail's political stance towards them up to 1939. During this period, it was the only British newspaper consistently to support the German Nazi Party.[7][8] Rothermere visited and corresponded with Hitler on many occasions. On 1 October 1938, Rothermere sent Hitler a telegram in support of Germany's invasion of the Sudetenland, and expressing the hope that 'Adolf the Great' would become a popular figure in Britain.
In 1937, the Mail's chief war correspondent, George Ward Price, to whom Mussolini once personally wrote in support of him and the newspaper, published a book, I Know These Dictators, in defence of Hitler and Mussolini.
Rothermere and the Mail supported Neville Chamberlain's policy of appeasement, particularly during the events leading up to the Munich Agreement. However, after the Nazi invasion of Prague in 1939, the Mail changed position and urged Chamberlain to prepare for war, not least, perhaps, because on account of its stance it had been threatened with closure by the British Government.[citation needed]
The paper continues to be referred to on occasion by critics as the Daily Heil, referring to its conservative stance and its past support for Mosley.[9]

 

It seems like the Nazi propaganda from Signal still works ......
The little boy who is playing with a sailboat toy in the Seine had his parents arrested and send to the death camps only weeks later...... So long for German picture of peaceful life. Only one picture shows a Jew with a yellow star. Many of these pictures were taken next to the rue des Xantrailles where thousands were tortured by the Gestapo. As a results a commitee od historians will now comment these picutres. In the meantime the visitors get a document telling them this is propganda and absolutely does not reflect the persecutions, the lack of freedom, the torture and the deportations.
Hardman should maybe apply at the Propganda Staffel, he seems to be quite convincing, in the meantime his article is an insult to the 75.000 jews that were arrested and mostly deported from Paris, the 80.000 deported Resistant fighters, the thousands who were locked up at Paris Fresnes, these included allied airmen by the way.

 

So you think that the picture is Nazi staged propaganda, 'look how good life is under the third Reich'?

 

Here we go with the newspaper snobbery again. Why is it that people attack everyone else for allegedly reading the "wrong" paper?! So what's the "right" paper then-one which only prints news they personally agree with?
And as for it being referred to as "the Daily Heil", what illegal recreational substance was the so-called author on when he wrote that binload of sh**? It might be true amongst the Metropolitan chattering classes, but only because they're sheep anyway.
If you had actually READ that reference, the Daily Heil snipe came from online comments on an article on football in the The Guardian 18 months ago; some half-wit posted it on December 4th 2006.

 

Nobody denies this , the photgrapher was working for Signal. The problem is that the organisers in Paris ommited to state so, so some visitors may not realize this is propaganda. The organizers have however promised to remedy to this and in the coming days it will be clearly mentionned that these were propaganda pictures. I don't blame anybody neither the people who fell for it, nor the organisers who failed to mention it, but it's a shame because this is how people get the wrong idea. You'd almost think the occupation was a blessing.

 

The_Historian,

I do not recall attacking you, or accusing you of "newspaper snobbery". I, in fact, vented my frustrations towards the papaer itself and Mr. Hardman. Whether or not the Daily Heil snipe was attributed recently or during the war, it seems to escape many that given the pattern the paper and it's writers seem to have woven for themselves, the reputation appears to have been well deserved.

From a historical standpoint (and Skipper alludes to this), Mr Hardman conclusion of the photo exhibition is intentionally narrow and his conclusion are astoundingly amateurish and completely devoid of any analysis or perspective. Given my many years of study of France during the war years, I find Mr. Hardmans's article to be so misleading in this regard, it smacks of revisionism it is viewed with such tunnel vision.

A question I would like to pose to Mr. Hardman, and while I'm at it, to all UK members of this forum: Had the British Isles been overrun and occupied, does he, or anyone else believe the British people would have acted any differently than the French? I dare say that the British people would have done much the same. A fine example I would like to point out is the occupation of Jersey and Guernsey. Some would have gone underground, some would have simply struggled to survive without rocking the boat, others would have thrived in the Black Market, and yet others still would have collaborated. And yes, there would have been those as well who would willingly turned over the Jews to the enemy. Yes, The British, the Amercians, Canadians, and many others would have very much like the French under those circumstances.

To paraphrase Anthony Eden from the excellent and widely misuderstood documentary "The Sorrow and the Pity", Eden stated -"If you have not lived under the horrors of an occupation by an foreign enemy power, and everything that entails with this occupation, then you have no right to pronounce judgement upon a people who have lived through it.".

(again, I'm paraphrasing to the best of my memory as it has been a long time since I've watched this film.)

For Mr. Hardman or the Daily Mail to even hint otherwise is sheer elitism on their part. It is plainly obvious he has no idea what he is writing/talking about, and the article, I feel, is a great disservice to all those who struggle to learn more and better understand the war from a civilian standpoint. It is also an insult to those in the Resistance and the various underground movements who fought hard for not only the Allies but their own people as well. In diminishing their sacrifices to a mere footnote, as many other have tried to do, is to spit on their collective memories. What disturbs me the most is that Mr. Hardman is paid with real money for his drivel. I have a good mind to tell him so too.

 

I never said you did.

In YOUR opinion.

Again that's YOUR opinion. Why are you entitled to one but not Hardman?

Nice of you answer your own question, and in doing so state the blindingly obvious. Your conclusion isn't 'news' to anyone in Britain.

And denigrating opinions as being 'typical' of certain newspapers is also elitism.

So who is stopping you? That's the beauty of democracy- the freedom both to have an opinion AND express it; something you seem keen to deny anyone who dares work for the Daily Mail.

 

come on chaps keep it gentle. Von Poop provided a nice link of the herald Tribune Slide show. It had 10 pictures, but this time there is a small comment and there is also a picture of a German parade and a picture of the almost empty Jewish quarter called le Marais. The conclusion is objective in my opinion. Let us not forget that one of the purposes is to show the artistic aspec tof these pictures too. It must have been hard to get these situations together and erasing the martial aspect of the occupation must have been difficult and Zuccha was good at it.

 

Thanks for reinforcing some of the stuff I've read around the web Skipper. So was the exhibition presented as objective & general truth? Or simply an error of omission of context? If the latter, and they're rectifying it, then this really seems a lot of fuss about very little.
Anyone who used/uses those pictures as some kind of genuine illustration of how positive an experience the occupation was would be being a bit dim really (as newspapers, absolutely regardless of which one, so often are when dealing with more complicated areas). They're just another part of a massive story, a fascinating detail in the correct context.
They don't seem that strong an example of everything being fine to me either though (Perhaps why they were never published in Signal). More a fairly unsurprising set of shots from a great city and the multitude of people within it, occupation or not. An exhibition that showed every citizen in sackcloth and ashes and every second image an atrocity, or illustration of some negative incident of the time with no mention whatever of even the smallest degree of collaboration would equally require some placing in context wouldn't it?

Does anyone know if the exhibition itself has a website? I can't find one and was wondering if they'd perhaps sensibly taken it down while the arguing goes on. It'd be nice to hear some sort of statement from the 'horses mouth' of the organisers.

Cheers,
Adam.

 

An opinion which seems to be shared by many, but yes, it is only an opinion.

I never suggested Mr. Hardman should be denied an opinion. I merely implied that Hr. Hardman is a complete daft.

Nor is the occupation of France any more "news" to the French, but thanks for not answering the question anyway. So what is Mr. Hardman's point then? Is he stating to all readers at how historically illiterate he really is, or is this just another "sticking it to the French" article?? What was it then, the whole point of the article?

By this logic, we should also give Signal the benefit of the doubt and discuss the merits of it's articles? For Mr. Hardman and/or the Daily Mail to give life under the occupation an thorough examination, or even interest is one thing. It is another for Mr.Hardman and the Daily Mail to stoop to a propaganda piece and draw conclusions from it. What next - Der Sturmer to be used as a credible and viable source?

There was a clear distinction, and Mr. Hardman chose to ignore it.

 

Again, that's YOUR opinion.

A bit pointless answering a question which you yourself had already answered.

He was commenting on a piece of news. The only one who seems to have an ulterior motive around it seems to be you.

Picture Post and The War Illustrated from the same period weren't impartial either.

Interesting that you think reporting news is "stooping to a propaganda piece".

An amusing comment from someone who quoted an inaccurate entry on wikipedia.

 

The second solution Adam, the organizers never meant to biase the show but they forgot that the general public did not know how to read between the lines. The making of new name tags will take a few days so in the meantime the visitors get a photocopied warning which tells them what Signal was and that Paris wasn't a Paradise those days.



Guys please keep this cordial, I would hate having to close this thread if it gets too hot. It would be a shame, especially as the pictures are interesting from an artistic point of view.
Several were made with AFGACOL in 1942 which was almost impossible to get those days in occupied Europe . If anyone knows how to see all of them on the internet , let me know.

 

Skip,
I think the point about the scarcity of AGFA film is being overlooked by a lot of people. If the photographer had only used B &W film for his pics, would there have been the same sense of 'being there'? Would they also have been dismissed as 'propaganda'?
If an ordinary Frenchman had wandered around with a camera, he would probably have been arrested. This guy used his position to capture scenes in colour, and is being denounced as a propagandist for his trouble. If he had photographed scenes of atrocities, that would also have been denounced. Damned if he did, and damned if he didnt.
Everytime wartime colour photos of Britain are shown, they're hailed as a unique window. No-one immediately denounces them as 'unrealistic' or 'propaganda' because they don't show scenes of fighting and destruction.
My father has a B & W photo of damage caused by a German landmine to local houses, one of which belonged to a relative. Several family members are standing in front of the ruins in the photo. Is it a memento or propaganda?

 

You are making a point Gordon, but would an ordinary Frenchman have gotten this impossible to get AGFACOL film? Obviously he was helped by the Germans. I am absolutely not condemmning these high quality pictures, but the interpretation that some make of them. It is easy to make them say what you want when you get a special context and the Germans were experts at it . Also I take this opportunity to say that I did not mean to offend you by criticising Hardman's article (I may just as well praize his next) but I think nothing good comes from making believe that occupied Paris was "lovely" even if this is meant to be humor or sarcasm.

 

Skip,
Relax, I'm NOT offended by anyone's criticism of the actual article, just the usual 'what-do-you-expect-from-the-Daily-Mail' tripe. I regularly post links to articles in papers I wouldn't dream of reading, usually without criticising either the paper or its readership. I find it hard to understand people who don't do likewise.
You're right; an ordinary Frenchman wouldn't have got hold of this film, or been allowed to use it publicly. This guy may have been using his position to capture pictures of relatively normal scenes for his own use; think I'm right in saying none of them were published originally?
I don't see the difference between that and Allied correspondents taking snaps for their own use that weren't published later; the photographer's position doesn't automatically make them propaganda.
The fault lies with people who misinterpret either deliberately or through ignorance. They don't mean life was an idyll during the Occupation, any more than Victorian photos showing clean pavements and no litter meant no-one actually lived in squalor. They should be taken for what they are; a unique window on the past.

 

Great pics, I like the color shots. Thanks!!

 

Gordon,

I believe we're at an impasse. If, as you claim, you are not offended by anyone's criticism of Mr. Hardman's article, then I am a bit perplexed at how profusely you seem to reject my arguement, especially given it is an opinion, as you so much like to point out. My main arguement is that Mr. Hardman's piece is severly lacking in any form of thoughtful analysis, which more importantly, demonstrates a lack and/or unwillingness to do any further research on the subject matter.

Therein lies the larger problem: When such a cavalier attitude is taken on subject matter past or present, especially when it may be a sensitive one, it brings into question the integrity and even motive of the writer as well as the publisher. I see no problem in questioning this method or the sources involved.

This was my point all along, thank you for finally coming to this realization.