Paris Burns

[HueyLong]

He was talking about how destroying the physical city (ignoring casualties) was still tantamount to killing people.

The people killed during the firebombing are casualties, yes, thats obvious. But the destruction of the houses is not the death "of unborn lives".

And not everyone will die. Look at the Dresden firebombings, done with better tech and more planes.....

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Warsaw was completely destroyed after WW2. The Poles still rebuilt it.

Yes, but it ceased to be of historical interest - you can rebuild, but it's just not the same. Compare the old town of Krakow (not destroyed in the War) with Warsaw's or Gdansk's - there is just no comparison. Also, you can't rebuild all the destroyed art.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Millions of lives? No. Thats not a good trade-off.

New people can always be born, though, as much as a city can be rebuilt. Life is only inanimate matter made organic, sentience is only electricity moving through an organ. At least a city can live for centuries. Furthermore, a healthy city allows more people to reproduce, creating even more life. A lost home is worth many unborn lives.

This makes me a physically ill. Loss of Paris would be a tragic, huge, and shattering loss, but it's a little sociopathic to suggest that inanimate objects are more valuable than hundreds of thousands of lives. You do realize that human beings build the cities, don't you? Without the creativity of the "mere unanimate matter made organic" there would be no Paris.

 

[Fletch]

This makes me a physically ill. Loss of Paris would be a tragic, huge, and shattering loss, but it's a little sociopathic to suggest that inanimate objects are more valuable than hundreds of thousands of lives. You do realize that human beings build the cities, don't you? Without the creativity of the "mere unanimate matter made organic" there would be no Paris.

I agree entirely.

To bring in another point, if you believe that Paris was worth more than a ten million lives, whats your opinion on Great Britain carrying on the war during the Blitz, where quite a bit of every major British City was flattened? Surely in your opinion as soon as the Blitz started, the UK should have sued for peace?

 

[CalBear]

Millions of lives? No. Thats not a good trade-off.

New people can always be born, though, as much as a city can be rebuilt. Life is only inanimate matter made organic, sentience is only electricity moving through an organ. At least a city can live for centuries. Furthermore, a healthy city allows more people to reproduce, creating even more life. A lost home is worth many unborn lives.

Darkest, have you totally flipped out?

The Holocaust KILLED 6,000,000 Jews and an additional 500,000-1,000,000 other HUMAN BEINGS just because they pissed them off by existing. (I might add that, had they been a significant presence, this number would undoubtedly have included every member of the LDS that they could have laid hands on.) The Nazis killed, in many cases by working them to death under allaping cinditions, in addition to Jews, Roma (Gypsies), Gays, Jehovah Witnesses, Catholic clergy who objected to them, Communists (opps, guess they capped you twice), Soviet POWs, and anyone else who dared to stand up to them, even in the smallest way.

A City, ANY City is a bunch of Wood, Brick, Concrete, and Steel, with some asphalt and cobble stone thrown in. In other words, it is meaningless. Yes, the loss of some of the Art Works within Paris & the loss of historic buildings would be an insult to civilization, but compared to the Holocaust??

I know the numbers are hard to imagine, so let me try it this way... You are, based on your post, in Switzerland. Great place by all accounts. the Nazis KILLED THE EQUIVALENT OF THE SWITZERLAND'S ENIRE POPULATION. Yep, they killed the population of an entire &^#$%* country!!

How can you, as a Christian, hell, as a thinking human, find any level of comparison between blowing up buildings and tossing little kids into a gas chamber (of course, you pack it with adults first, then just sort of chuck the little ones on top, sort of like a garnish.)

You disappoint me. I thought you'd matured since the whole "Somalia war" fiasco.

Guess not.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Yes, the loss of some of the Art Works within Paris & the loss of historic buildings would be an insult to civilization, but compared to the Holocaust??

I think the destruction of Paris would be considerably moer than just an "insult to civilization" - it would be a gigantic catastrophe, with the loss of a great portion of the highest achievements of Western Civilization (and a good proportion of those of non-Western Civilizations), but I generally agree.

Also, all those people can't suddenly be housed somewhere else nor the distribution network of a large metropolis instantly replaced and a lot of them are going to die of famine, disease, and exposure, so it will be a huge human disaster as well...

 

[atreides]

Yes, from a logical point of view, human beings take precedence over a city, no matter how beautiful. But the destruction of Paris would entail the destruction of tens or hundred of thousands of Parisians (unless evacuated, and I don't think they were going to be). So this thought experiment in real life would have counted as another genocide. In practice you can't decouple mass destruction of "mere architecture" and mass killing of citizens, that is, genocide.

But it is also true that the destruction of Paris would be another kind of genocide: not only of people, but of what people love and are proud of: their work! The legacy of beauty, intelligence, culture, and accumulated love that is Paris since many centuries, irrepetible.

In fact, it would mean the destruction of things that many people would be willing to die for. If it was your life or the Mona Lisa, what would you do? Or the statues at Bamiyan? Already people kill and die for the posession of inanimate buildings such as the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem, for example. That "inanimate architecture" seems to matter...

So yes, in basic human suffering the Holocaust is far worse, no argument. But a body count isn't the only coin of loss, powerful as it is. The destruction of Paris would be another kind of Holocaust, still horrific in lives lost, and absolutely devastating in the loss of what all decent people cherish.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

This is nicely put, but there's a difference between willingness to die for Paris and being killed along with it - in that one is a choice you make for yourself.

Yes, from a logical point of view, human beings take precedence over a city, no matter how beautiful. But the destruction of Paris would entail the destruction of tens or hundred of thousands of Parisians (unless evacuated, and I don't think they were going to be). So this thought experiment in real life would have counted as another genocide. In practice you can't decouple mass destruction of "mere architecture" and mass killing of citizens, that is, genocide.

But it is also true that the destruction of Paris would be another kind of genocide: not only of people, but of what people love and are proud of: their work! The legacy of beauty, intelligence, culture, and accumulated love that is Paris since many centuries, irrepetible.

In fact, it would mean the destruction of things that many people would be willing to die for. If it was your life or the Mona Lisa, what would you do? Or the statues at Bamiyan? Already people kill and die for the posession of inanimate buildings such as the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem, for example. That "inanimate architecture" seems to matter...

So yes, in basic human suffering the Holocaust is far worse, no argument. But a body count isn't the only coin of loss, powerful as it is. The destruction of Paris would be another kind of Holocaust, still horrific in lives lost, and absolutely devastating in the loss of what all decent people cherish.

 

[HueyLong]

Dresden only had about 25,000-35,000 casualties, and it held a little more than 800,000 people.

Paris had about 1.9 million people at the time (around 1.6 million fled the city upon the German invasion.)

So, a little more than twice as many still only gets you about 100,000 casualties. Paris is not a major shipping center, or food-producing or processing center, so there won't be many deaths based on its economic loss....

There will likely be an evacuation, and any French government will try to accomodate the refugees (even the Vichy government)

 

[fhaessig]

Dresden only had about 25,000-35,000 casualties, and it held a little more than 800,000 people.

Paris had about 1.9 million people at the time (around 1.6 million fled the city upon the German invasion.)

So, a little more than twice as many still only gets you about 100,000 casualties. Paris is not a major shipping center, or food-producing or processing center, so there won't be many deaths based on its economic loss....

There will likely be an evacuation, and any French government will try to accomodate the refugees (even the Vichy government)

Dresden was defended, had a raid warning system, shelters, and operating water system ( the parisian one was to be shut down for this ), firefighters and medics ( Parisian ones were not allowed to operate at night for this ) and was under blackout and not couvre feu ( In Paris, the zone to be bombed was to be specially marked and people were forbidden to go into the streets at night - there would specifically have been no evacuation and the time was targetted at dawn when all were in bed - ).

Also, the bombers raiding dresden were not operating 8 km from the city and so could not make 10 bombing runs each during the attack, at low altitude, with maximum bombs load ( one of the goal of the operation was to get rid of all Luftwaffe ammo left ).

The 800,000 number is the number of people living in the area targeted for total destruction ( from Montmartre to Pantin and from buttes chaumont to La Vilette ). The fact that there would be no survivors is from the Luftwaffe officer who planned this operation.

 

[Darkest]

Others have backed up my original feelings about the loss of Paris. Look, Ive already stated that I overexaggerated when I said it would be as equally as bad as the Holocaust. For six million lives, killed in the most brutal ways, I would sacrifice Paris. But a little under that, say two million, maybe only just a million... well, Im not the one who controls the universe, but if I could I would hope theyd give themselves up to save the city.

Furthermore, I was NOT saying that I wasnt taking the casualties due to the burning of Paris in mind. There would have been a huge body count, as fhaessig stated, and I think that makes it all the more horrible. If 800,000 would have died, that leaves me with about 200,000 people in this cruel, evil bargain that I would say, yes, I would sacrifice them for the well-being of purely the structural health of Paris. I would hope theyd sacrifice themselves, really... but I would also hope they wouldnt be so selfish and stupid to be angry about the decision.

Plus, I am pretty sociopathic. Im sorry! Ive struggled with this for a long time but no matter how much I suck it up inside of me I cant value peoples lives all that much. What can I do? I cant just magically change the way I think, no matter how much you guys try to convince me. Its a difference in the very foundation of my character, and I try to take your comments to heart, but its really hard for me.

 

[stodge]

Devastated Paris..

The other consequence of a devastated Paris would be a delay to the Allied advance into north-east France and Belgium as Paris is the hub of the French road and rail network.

Having to either by-pass or fight through a ruined city would put days on the Allied advance. The swift drive into Belgium in late August and early September would almost certainly be prevented though probably not Patton's drive to the south.

The Germans might be able to rally somewhat further west than occurred in OTL and it might be that the key port of Antwerp would remain in German hands for much longer than in OTL. Would it change the eventual outcome of the conflict ? No.

I suspect we wouldn't see an Operation Market Garden unless it were on a smaller scale around Antwerp. There might also not be a Battle of the Bulge either or it may be directed more at Patton's forces.

 

[Jason]

I assume you are willing to be amongst the 1 million who die?

can I, as someone working in a 'heritage profession', just state that I would happily see every museum in London, Paris and every other city, every work of art in the world, destroyed than one life lost.

(in mentioning my work, I am not trying to claim any greater authority on the subject matter, merely that despite my career I still feel this way)

Others have backed up my original feelings about the loss of Paris. Look, Ive already stated that I overexaggerated when I said it would be as equally as bad as the Holocaust. For six million lives, killed in the most brutal ways, I would sacrifice Paris. But a little under that, say two million, maybe only just a million... well, Im not the one who controls the universe, but if I could I would hope theyd give themselves up to save the city.

 

[atreides]

Abdul, good point.

I found this to be quite moving:

Plus, I am pretty sociopathic. Im sorry! Ive struggled with this for a long time but no matter how much I suck it up inside of me I cant value peoples lives all that much. What can I do? I cant just magically change the way I think, no matter how much you guys try to convince me. Its a difference in the very foundation of my character, and I try to take your comments to heart, but its really hard for me.

Darkest, at least you recognize you have a problem, which is half the solution. Don't give up. Perhaps you're still young and can, with time, relate more to others. Get more involved in life, specially at a human level, and you'll find that your empathy will grow, and you'll feel better that you have ever felt. One of the hardest lessons in life is the simple one that we really need the "others" to be complete. Once understood, the inmature pride of the lonely youth changes into the mature pride of the sharing adult. Relate, participate. It's ok. You were born for it.

 

[fhaessig]

The other consequence of a devastated Paris would be a delay to the Allied advance into north-east France and Belgium as Paris is the hub of the French road and rail network.

Having to either by-pass or fight through a ruined city would put days on the Allied advance. The swift drive into Belgium in late August and early September would almost certainly be prevented though probably not Patton's drive to the south.
.

ACtually, the allied original plan was to bypass Paris and go around it. It was the paris insurrection and De Gaulles insistance that changed things.

 

[Darkest]

Id love to do a timeline for this if someone else doesnt, once I get back from Europe, at least a short one. It has to have some effect on the war, possibly on where lines are drawn to prepare for the Cold War (big maybe). There you have another reason why destroying Paris would be so bad, so many more living under communist oppression (perhaps killed during the Soviet rape of their half of the country).