How Would A Rebuilt Paris Look?

kernals12

Banned
Let's Imagine that the Nazis are fought to standstill in Belgium/Northern France and Paris is spared. It's obvious that then the Nazis would start bombing the shit out of France's cities, Paris included. With, say, London levels of destruction, how would Paris have been rebuilt once the war ended?
 
Modern centre, like Rotterdam and London. Probably a rebuild of some historical monuments if they got hit, but housing will be modern.
 
There are some false premises like the fact that Germany would have been able to continue the war, that Germany would have been able to suppress the French Air force long term or that the Luftwaffe would have had the capacity to perform strategic bombing with an intact French Air Force..
It is more likely that IF Germany had been halted in Belgium/Northern France that it would have been pushed back behind the Siegfried Line. It would even be possible that the superior English and French mechanized armies used their heavy armor to push through the Siegfried line (Or simply go North through the Netherlands and capture the German Industrial area.

That being said, had a situation similar to WW1 occurred and Germany assaulted Paris with artillery and bombers there would have been significant damage but given how spread out Paris is it would most likely be localized.
Given that Paris had already went through a massive restructuring in the Napoleonic era which made it a relatively modern city and that national pride would have pushed the French to restore i think that Paris would most likely be the same as today.

The biggest question is where the damage is located. Perhaps some damaged areas will be replaced by parks and memorials, but it is doubtful it will be modern.
 

kernals12

Banned
There are some false premises like the fact that Germany would have been able to continue the war, that Germany would have been able to suppress the French Air force long term or that the Luftwaffe would have had the capacity to perform strategic bombing with an intact French Air Force..
It is more likely that IF Germany had been halted in Belgium/Northern France that it would have been pushed back behind the Siegfried Line. It would even be possible that the superior English and French mechanized armies used their heavy armor to push through the Siegfried line (Or simply go North through the Netherlands and capture the German Industrial area.

That being said, had a situation similar to WW1 occurred and Germany assaulted Paris with artillery and bombers there would have been significant damage but given how spread out Paris is it would most likely be localized.
Given that Paris had already went through a massive restructuring in the Napoleonic era which made it a relatively modern city and that national pride would have pushed the French to restore i think that Paris would most likely be the same as today.

The biggest question is where the damage is located. Perhaps some damaged areas will be replaced by parks and memorials, but it is doubtful it will be modern.
In World War 2, bombs could not be dropped with any degree of accuracy. You could send dozens of bombers to destroy a railyard and the railyard would suffer minor damage while the surrounding area would be filled with craters.

So basically, all of Paris would get hammered.
 
In World War 2, bombs could not be dropped with any degree of accuracy. You could send dozens of bombers to destroy a railyard and the railyard would suffer minor damage while the surrounding area would be filled with craters.

So basically, all of Paris would get hammered.

Don't get me wrong, i am well aware of the lack of accuracy of WW2 bombing. However this is not a question of accuracy, but one of capacity.
Germany simply lacked the strategic air force to level a city the size of Paris. Germany suffered from having a primarily tactical air force.
JU-87: accurate, but small payload.
Ju-88: Fast, but moderate payload at best.
He-111: moderate payload.
Do-17: Nickname the flying coffin. Need i say more?
ME-110: Zerstorer, heavy fighter, small bomb load.
The only 4 engine Bomber in German inventory was the FW-200 which had range and speed, but not an impressive payload.

I understand that you want Paris destroyed by a German Blitz in order to rebuild it, but with additional losses from being pushed back in Belgium the Luftwaffe simply lacked the capacity for large scale Bombing in 1940. That being said, this topic is not about a question IF the LW could destroy Paris, but how Paris would have been rebuild IF it had been destroyed.

If you like a new topic can be created specifically with the question if the Luftwaffe could do it or not.

--
Edit: As for my opinion on the rebuilding process, i think Paris will be restored rather than rebuild.
 
In World War 2, bombs could not be dropped with any degree of accuracy. You could send dozens of bombers to destroy a railyard and the railyard would suffer minor damage while the surrounding area would be filled with craters.

So basically, all of Paris would get hammered.

Or, alternatively, have the Germans destroy Paris in 1944, when the Allies are on the verge of taking it (look up Is Paris Burning? for more information)...
 
Why not have the Allies stall for a few weeks, or a different German Commander in 1944, and have Paris burnt to the ground and the ash salted?
 

kernals12

Banned
Don't get me wrong, i am well aware of the lack of accuracy of WW2 bombing. However this is not a question of accuracy, but one of capacity.
Germany simply lacked the strategic air force to level a city the size of Paris. Germany suffered from having a primarily tactical air force.
JU-87: accurate, but small payload.
Ju-88: Fast, but moderate payload at best.
He-111: moderate payload.
Do-17: Nickname the flying coffin. Need i say more?
ME-110: Zerstorer, heavy fighter, small bomb load.
The only 4 engine Bomber in German inventory was the FW-200 which had range and speed, but not an impressive payload.

I understand that you want Paris destroyed by a German Blitz in order to rebuild it, but with additional losses from being pushed back in Belgium the Luftwaffe simply lacked the capacity for large scale Bombing in 1940. That being said, this topic is not about a question IF the LW could destroy Paris, but how Paris would have been rebuild IF it had been destroyed.

If you like a new topic can be created specifically with the question if the Luftwaffe could do it or not.

--
Edit: As for my opinion on the rebuilding process, i think Paris will be restored rather than rebuild.
The Luftwaffe were able lay waste to much of Downtown London, why is doing the same to Paris so hard?
 
The Luftwaffe were able lay waste to much of Downtown London, why is doing the same to Paris so hard?

Primarily Geography and city planning.
First of all London is very easy to find. Just follow the river Thames. In 1940 it was also a very crowded city with narrow streets which made it very vulnerable to bombing.

Paris on the other hand is spread out. Many small villages have been gobbled up by the mammoth Paris so bombing the outskirts is an exercise in futility.
The layout of the city is in 1940 already relatively modern due to the Bonaparte remodeling. Blocks of apartment buildings and wide lanes (designed to be easily isolated and accessible by cavalry in case of revolt or riot) made the city spacious and less vulnerable for bombing.

Harsh as it may sound and not to diminish the valiant effort of the RAF and Britain as a whole, the successes of the Luftwaffe during the Battle of Britain were more a testament to the weakness of the RAF than a token of strength of the LW.
 
I'd like to see Paris done up in Art Deco.

I can see why some may like it, but it is not my preferred style.
If France and Paris suffered extensive damage, i think that sentiment (rebuilding old familiar styles) and cost reduction will take precedent.

Art Deco may also remind people of the dark days following the Great War (WW1) so i cannot see it being used in reconstruction of the city/country.
 

kernals12

Banned
I can see why some may like it, but it is not my preferred style.
If France and Paris suffered extensive damage, i think that sentiment (rebuilding old familiar styles) and cost reduction will take precedent.

Art Deco may also remind people of the dark days following the Great War (WW1) so i cannot see it being used in reconstruction of the city/country.
Perfectly recreating Paris is impossible. Architectural plans will have been lost. And I think you are overestimating sentimentality. Paris, like all cities of the time, was a dirty and overcrowded metropolis before the war. There will be great temptation to knock down old tenements, move the residents to the suburbs, and put in sleek office buildings
 
Perfectly recreating Paris is impossible. Architectural plans will have been lost. And I think you are overestimating sentimentality. Paris, like all cities of the time, was a dirty and overcrowded metropolis before the war. There will be great temptation to knock down old tenements, move the residents to the suburbs, and put in sleek office buildings

We view things differently. Compared to other large cities Paris was in decent shape thanks to Napoleon.
As for the sentimentality, in your scenario France and Paris have been put through the meat grinder which is likely to cause a minor national trauma. Following the end of the war people will long for that which is safe and familiar so if there is one thing which is NOT to be underestimated it is sentimentality.

From an outsider's point of view it may be best to rebuild and start over, but for a population which has just been through hell this may not be the case. Best example is the rise of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaullism in OTL.
I can see your point of view and where it is coming from, but in this case i simply do not think it is a realistic scenario.
 
Subbed. Might be interesting to see other opinions on this, but it'd be a pain to find the topic once it vanishes from page 1.
 
Top