VG, couple of points noted below.
What were they supposed to look like...army soldiers? After over 4 years of wearing the same clothes with few means to replace them, they're obviously going to look like a band of troubadours.
See note below. It is not what the exhibit showed, it was what it excluded.
There is a good explanation for this: Gen. de Gaulle explicitly asked that weapons drops did not occur over large metropolitan areas as these were the areas that were predominately controlled by Communist factions of the Resistance. A post-Liberation Communist government in France would have spelled disaster for the Allies in regards to clearing France of the Germans, as they were more liable to take orders from Moscow than the western Allies. The fact that most of the Paris Resistance were armed with the odd assortment of weapons is no surprise when this fact is taken into account.
Most of the intelligencia/anarchist/"peots" had already been deported to the death camps, executed, or were in hiding by mid 1944, writing underground leaflets. The Paris insurectionists were more or less evenly split between Communists and Gaullist factions by August 1944, with a slightly larger majority going to the Gaullist (FFI) forces.
Actually, there were plenty of them left, if this exhibit was anything to go on. As noted, there were something on the order of 125-150 pictures in the exhibit and none of them showed the French 2nd or US 4th. Just the two shots from Omaha Beach. If you saw the exhibit, it looked as though the people of Paris rose up, overthrough their oppressors and drove to the beaches to help the landings. It was truely funny.
As for the French DB, they lost approx. 45-55 killed when entering Paris, with almost twice that many wounded and many vehicles destroyed, so it wasn't all "parade" for them. As for German artillery, I belive you're correct on this, there appears to have been none in the near viscinity, though immediately after the lberation of Paris there was a Luftwaffe raid which killed about 250 people, wounded a further 1,000, and destroyed several blocks of the city. Additionally ( and unknown to most, V-2 rockets did strike Paris as well).
Nothing far-fetched at all, it was witnessed by many people. A slight correction however, the French tank gunner (a tank destroyer) did not knock out the Panther, but he disabled it by hitting one of it's tracks. The Panther's gun was then blocked by a lamp post. A second French tank (a Sherman) then appeared on the Place de la Concorde and rammed the Panther, setting it ablaze but not before it's crew escaped.
True. How many exactly I'm not sure, but I think they were mostly the M-35 Hotchkiss types, though there was a Char-B in their possesion which was later recaptured by the FFI and parked at the southern end of the Grosskommandanture (Hotel Crillon) and used as a stationary gun, shooting at whatever German transport came through the wide intersection.
By the way, the lat time I went to Paris, I inspected closely the area where the Panther was first disabled and then rammed. The curb side where the Panther was pushed onto is still caved in a bit.
Since this book was written, it's been since proven that Cholitz had every intention of destroying as much of Paris as possible. The only reason he didn't is because he lacked the means to do it. He actually had far less expolive charges than he was led to believe. I disagree with you on the level of fighting: While most sections of the city saw "sporadic" fighting, there were some areas which saw pitched battles, included Place de l'Etoile, Jardin de Luxembourg, and Place Saint Michel. The Senate building in the Luxembourg gardens actually had an SS detachment, and there was quite a bit of blood letting there.
While I agree there were parts of Paris that saw fighting, that is the definition of sporatic. If we look at the fighting in other cities that was serious, the fighting in Paris was minor in comparison. If the Germans wanted to make a show of it, they could've. This was no Warsaw, Manila, Berlin, ect. It was a place they were clearing out of, for the most part.
I'll conceed your point on Cholitz but think he could've done a job of it he wanted to. Have heard statements made from him after capture, between himself and other German officers that were recorded where he points out they German Army should've shown moral standards greater than they did. In this, he was pretty isolated amongst the Generals in captivity. Most were of the line of "just following orders". I consider it a factor in the non-event that was the destruction of Paris.
Gen. Leclerc's 2e DB lost most of their vehichles in the suburbs of Paris prior to entering Paris via Porte d'Orleans. A well placed German 88 gun ensured this.
I think it's a mistake to make this comparison for one very important fact: The Paris Uprising was no less dramatic or popular as that of Warsaw's. The difference here lies in the fact that at Warsaw, the Red Army sat on the other side to allow the Nazis to get rid of the resistance there. The Western Allies were thankfully, much more humanitarian and understanding than the Russians and rushed to the aid of the Parisians. The Nazis destroyed Warsaw because the Red Army allowed them to do it, which in turn meant less political resistance to Stalin. The two uprisings were thus not determined from within, but their destinies were determined from outsides influences.[/QUOTE]
What were they supposed to look like...army soldiers? After over 4 years of wearing the same clothes with few means to replace them, they're obviously going to look like a band of troubadours.
See note below. It is not what the exhibit showed, it was what it excluded.
There is a good explanation for this: Gen. de Gaulle explicitly asked that weapons drops did not occur over large metropolitan areas as these were the areas that were predominately controlled by Communist factions of the Resistance. A post-Liberation Communist government in France would have spelled disaster for the Allies in regards to clearing France of the Germans, as they were more liable to take orders from Moscow than the western Allies. The fact that most of the Paris Resistance were armed with the odd assortment of weapons is no surprise when this fact is taken into account.
Most of the intelligencia/anarchist/"peots" had already been deported to the death camps, executed, or were in hiding by mid 1944, writing underground leaflets. The Paris insurectionists were more or less evenly split between Communists and Gaullist factions by August 1944, with a slightly larger majority going to the Gaullist (FFI) forces.
Actually, there were plenty of them left, if this exhibit was anything to go on. As noted, there were something on the order of 125-150 pictures in the exhibit and none of them showed the French 2nd or US 4th. Just the two shots from Omaha Beach. If you saw the exhibit, it looked as though the people of Paris rose up, overthrough their oppressors and drove to the beaches to help the landings. It was truely funny.
As for the French DB, they lost approx. 45-55 killed when entering Paris, with almost twice that many wounded and many vehicles destroyed, so it wasn't all "parade" for them. As for German artillery, I belive you're correct on this, there appears to have been none in the near viscinity, though immediately after the lberation of Paris there was a Luftwaffe raid which killed about 250 people, wounded a further 1,000, and destroyed several blocks of the city. Additionally ( and unknown to most, V-2 rockets did strike Paris as well).
Nothing far-fetched at all, it was witnessed by many people. A slight correction however, the French tank gunner (a tank destroyer) did not knock out the Panther, but he disabled it by hitting one of it's tracks. The Panther's gun was then blocked by a lamp post. A second French tank (a Sherman) then appeared on the Place de la Concorde and rammed the Panther, setting it ablaze but not before it's crew escaped.
True. How many exactly I'm not sure, but I think they were mostly the M-35 Hotchkiss types, though there was a Char-B in their possesion which was later recaptured by the FFI and parked at the southern end of the Grosskommandanture (Hotel Crillon) and used as a stationary gun, shooting at whatever German transport came through the wide intersection.
By the way, the lat time I went to Paris, I inspected closely the area where the Panther was first disabled and then rammed. The curb side where the Panther was pushed onto is still caved in a bit.
Since this book was written, it's been since proven that Cholitz had every intention of destroying as much of Paris as possible. The only reason he didn't is because he lacked the means to do it. He actually had far less expolive charges than he was led to believe. I disagree with you on the level of fighting: While most sections of the city saw "sporadic" fighting, there were some areas which saw pitched battles, included Place de l'Etoile, Jardin de Luxembourg, and Place Saint Michel. The Senate building in the Luxembourg gardens actually had an SS detachment, and there was quite a bit of blood letting there.
While I agree there were parts of Paris that saw fighting, that is the definition of sporatic. If we look at the fighting in other cities that was serious, the fighting in Paris was minor in comparison. If the Germans wanted to make a show of it, they could've. This was no Warsaw, Manila, Berlin, ect. It was a place they were clearing out of, for the most part.
I'll conceed your point on Cholitz but think he could've done a job of it he wanted to. Have heard statements made from him after capture, between himself and other German officers that were recorded where he points out they German Army should've shown moral standards greater than they did. In this, he was pretty isolated amongst the Generals in captivity. Most were of the line of "just following orders". I consider it a factor in the non-event that was the destruction of Paris.
Gen. Leclerc's 2e DB lost most of their vehichles in the suburbs of Paris prior to entering Paris via Porte d'Orleans. A well placed German 88 gun ensured this.
I think it's a mistake to make this comparison for one very important fact: The Paris Uprising was no less dramatic or popular as that of Warsaw's. The difference here lies in the fact that at Warsaw, the Red Army sat on the other side to allow the Nazis to get rid of the resistance there. The Western Allies were thankfully, much more humanitarian and understanding than the Russians and rushed to the aid of the Parisians. The Nazis destroyed Warsaw because the Red Army allowed them to do it, which in turn meant less political resistance to Stalin. The two uprisings were thus not determined from within, but their destinies were determined from outsides influences.[/QUOTE]
