Paris destroyed after Normandy Landings

So, last night I watched the film Diplomacy, a joint French-German film that tells the story of General Dietrich von Choltitz, the last Nazi Governor of Paris, and his decision to defy Hitler's orders that the Allies could only take back Paris if it was a smoldering ruin.
In the film, they briefly go over the plans, which called for the destruction of all but one bridge over the Seine, the resulting rubble from the bridges would cause massive flooding as the river's normal course is blocked. Notre Dame, the Eiffel Tower, the Louvre, the Acr de Triomphe, and other famous landmarks were all to be blasted to oblivion.

What would have been the long term effects of this after the war had Choltitz not decided to ignore Hitler's orders?

In the film (and I'm not sure exactly how accurate this is), the Swedish Consul in Paris spends the night working to convince Choltitz to not destroy Paris, and his decision is last minute, though it is shown that the General privately is not happy with his orders, but fears what will happen to his family if he disobeys (Sippenhaft law in effect)
 
From what I understand even had he wanted to follow the order, he didn't have the necessary resources at command to make a ruin of Paris.
 
Assuming for the moment that he had the capability to do so and carried out his orders the immediate post-war period the administration and looting of the French occupation zone in Germany is going to be much more severe. In the rebuilding phase you've just given Le Corbusier, or one of his ilk, an opening to try and implement his Plan Voisin or similar ideas, so that's Paris blighted for at least several decades. It's going to seriously poison Franco-German relations. I honestly can't see anything like the European Coal and Steel Community being allowed to happen by the French public no matter how favourably the politicians and civil servants might look on the idea. Hell, expect to see France trying to hold onto the Saar for longer and push for more say in the Ruhr as well. This is likely to put back European integration a decade or more from our timeline.
 
„Paris darf nicht oder nur als Trümmerfeld in die Hand des Feindes fallen.“
Paris must not fall into the enemy's hand except lying in complete debris
Hitler order of 23. August 1944

The problem Dietrich von Choltitz had no the time, no idea how to do that.
because Paris experienced a famine and the Germans mindlessly not care, so the Parisian run over to the Résistance.
as Allies show the Wehrmacht in Normandy what Turbo Blitzkrieg is, several German high commanders in Paris surrender to the Résistance !
the Résistance start to fight for Paris, pushing Dietrich von Choltitz to demand for a truce

Original the allies wanted by passing Paris and push the Frontline to Belgium and later liberate the City
but change of situation in Paris, forced De Gaulle to intervene and Allies Moved fast to Paris.
as General Philippe Leclerc's 2nd French Armoured Division enter Paris first, the Résistance had took over all key positions in City and fighting successful against the Germans.
General Dietrich von Choltitz try to fight also Franch army but surrender, as US 4th Infantry Division enter Paris and join forces with 2nd French Armoured Division and the Résistance.

question in a interview, 1964, von Choltitz say about Hitler Order to destroy the City.

"If for the first time I had disobeyed, it was because I knew that Hitler was insane"
 

MrP

Banned
In the film (and I'm not sure exactly how accurate this is), the Swedish Consul in Paris spends the night working to convince Choltitz to not destroy Paris, and his decision is last minute, though it is shown that the General privately is not happy with his orders, but fears what will happen to his family if he disobeys (Sippenhaft law in effect)
The film takes some liberties with historical accuracy, condensing the negotiations between Nordling and Choltitz into a single night for dramatic effect, when in fact they took place over several days.

A TL was written about what would have happened if Choltitz had carried out Hitler's order, Is Paris Burning? by Amerigo Vespucci.
 
a realistic scenario would be

That a SS Officer take over Control of Paris, he deal with famine situation to keep the Parisian calm.
The allies bypass Paris, but the SS Office loyal to Hitler orders, begin to destroy the City, before the Allies can intervene.
here the Résistance has not majority like OTL and are to uncoordinated to be effective

Destroying Key Position like blowing them up, burning them down, flood the Metro etc
next to destruction of monument like Ark the Triumph, Eiffel tower, museums and Library it would also hit Ministry
its would decapitate France because Paris is the administration center of Centralize Government of France.

Not only they had to rebuild Paris, but also start a complete new Administration for French Republic.

By the way,
rebuild Paris, i just realize that would perfect timing to unleash Le Corbusier
Post war Paris could look like this

8onw.jpg
 
a realistic scenario would be

That a SS Officer take over Control of Paris, he deal with famine situation to keep the Parisian calm.
The allies bypass Paris, but the SS Office loyal to Hitler orders, begin to destroy the City, before the Allies can intervene.
here the Résistance has not majority like OTL and are to uncoordinated to be effective

Destroying Key Position like blowing them up, burning them down, flood the Metro etc
next to destruction of monument like Ark the Triumph, Eiffel tower, museums and Library it would also hit Ministry
its would decapitate France because Paris is the administration center of Centralize Government of France.

Not only they had to rebuild Paris, but also start a complete new Administration for French Republic.

By the way,
rebuild Paris, i just realize that would perfect timing to unleash Le Corbusier
Post war Paris could look like this

8onw.jpg

That looks very Soviet Zeerusty.
 
He did have the resources, it is known (AKA I don't have a source but it is common knowledge among people who know their stuff, take it as you wish) that we found the wired bombs on all the bridge.

It was just that he never gave the order because (same un-source as above) he was a lover of the arts and didn't want to turn Paris into rubbles
 
The fact is that if germans destroy Paris or parts of they know that not a single one is going to leave the country alive. The choice was to surrender to the first allied military unit or to the mob. If Germans destroy Paris you can expect the FF division "not to be able to take into custody" so any prisoners...

If oyu have a look at the situation, von Choltitz had very limited forces. The main units were outside Paris so as to keep the city (it had numerous bridges). Theyr defense was looking like a thin but hard crust and the 2nd AD had a hard day as they basically ran into 88mm ambushes. On the other hand the population helped them a lot, phone lines were still working and they know the area, allowing them to bypass many German units (and Germans could not blow bridges as it would have cut their own units).

The most dangerous thing as that Germans had planes a little bit north of Paris and many bombs. They could have tried a night bombing even without von Choltitz agreement.

It's not that good but you have some basics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberation_of_Paris
 
to destroy a city is much easier as you think.

There is no need to bombing the city

petrol, gasoline, spirit even Paper do the job, if you enkindle a City Archive, town hall, Library, Art museum and ministry with all there paperwork.
and with out a fire brigade to fight the fire it burn like hell

948422-burning-building.jpg

This happen to a Office building during London riots were fire brigade were attack by rioters.

BA2.jpg

This could happen to Notre Dame Cathedral
(Saint-Donatien in Nantes June 2015, two worker who made "waterproofing work" accidentally start the fire)

von Choltitz had not that opportunity to do that, even he follow Hitler orders.
he had hand full to fight the Résistance, who de facto had take over the control over Paris
 
Last edited:
it is indeed possible, now what will happen to the german troops with the resistance around... who's going to end in the fire?

You need a POD with really significant reinforcement and something like "allies NEED Paris" and Germans don't want to leave the city so you can end with a Stalingrad like thing.

The problem is that it's easy for allies to surround the city as it's a flat plain.
 
If the Germans are inclined to actually blow up things they could do worse than to attack the railroads in the Paris region. This was a major hub for northern France & had significant support facilities still intact. Eliminating every railroad bridge alone would damage the Allied logistics effort through the remaining year. Wrecking switches, communications, repair shops, rolling stock, switch yards, ect... would be much more of the same.
 
Yes, Paris was a major railway hub.
One of my great uncles died a couple of days befoe D-Day. He was flying an RCAF Bomber Command Halifax, bombing a rail yard at Versailles, a few kilometres west of Paris.
Downing a dozen railway bridges would have crippled transportation in and out of Paris for months. Who cares whether the bombs were dropped by American or German airplanes ... or artillery ....
 
to destroy a city is much easier as you think.

There is no need to bombing the city

petrol, gasoline, spirit even Paper do the job, if you enkindle a City Archive, town hall, Library, Art museum and ministry with all there paperwork.
and with out a fire brigade to fight the fire it burn like hell

948422-burning-building.jpg

This happen to a Office building during London riots were fire brigade were attack by rioters.

BA2.jpg

This could happen to Notre Dame Cathedral
(Saint-Donatien in Nantes June 2015, two worker who made "waterproofing work" accidentally start the fire)

von Choltitz had not that opportunity to do that, even he follow Hitler orders.
he had hand full to fight the Résistance, who de facto had take over the control over Paris
.......................................................................................

Good point about fire-storms being able to ruin cities: Chicago, Dresden, London, Rome, San Francisco, Seattle, Tokyo, Vancouver, etc.

Fire-storms were not a recent invention either.
They were popular back around 1300 when the major gothic catherdrals were built in a ring around Paris. Most gothic cathedrals were built on the sites of earlier chapels. Amazingly, most of those old chapels burnt down just as city acquired a "building bishop" and the local economy was strong enough to support a major construction project. Some of those mysteriously-timed fires were started by roofers or repairmen, but the majority were caused by lightning .... yeah! ... right! .... sure! .... Despite more than a dozen gothic cathedrals surrounding Paris, only two old chapels had to be pulled down.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
The thing is, by 1944, a fair percentage of the German officer corps

So, last night I watched the film Diplomacy, a joint French-German film that tells the story of General Dietrich von Choltitz, the last Nazi Governor of Paris, and his decision to defy Hitler's orders that the Allies could only take back Paris if it was a smoldering ruin.
In the film, they briefly go over the plans, which called for the destruction of all but one bridge over the Seine, the resulting rubble from the bridges would cause massive flooding as the river's normal course is blocked. Notre Dame, the Eiffel Tower, the Louvre, the Acr de Triomphe, and other famous landmarks were all to be blasted to oblivion.

What would have been the long term effects of this after the war had Choltitz not decided to ignore Hitler's orders?

In the film (and I'm not sure exactly how accurate this is), the Swedish Consul in Paris spends the night working to convince Choltitz to not destroy Paris, and his decision is last minute, though it is shown that the General privately is not happy with his orders, but fears what will happen to his family if he disobeys (Sippenhaft law in effect)

The thing is, by 1944, a fair percentage of the German officer corps were well aware the end of the war was in sight; as fanatical as some were, and especially the SS, things like the July plot and (in fact) von Choltiz' decision not to fight it out makes clear that not everyone in Germany was deluded.

Similar sort of thing in Rome, of course; the Germans could have laid waste to the city if they had so chosen, but there was enough realization of the consequences - and, presumably, various back-channel communications - thay they did not...

If the Germans had taken the other road, it's not like it was going to end well for them; the Japanese absolutely destroyed Manila in 1944 (unlike the Americans in 1941-42, who declared it an open city) and yet they gained almost nothing militarily from the decision.

If the Germans had destroyed Paris, my guess is the French would have asked for, and received, compensation in terms of finances, art works, and territory from Germany, and the British and Americans (and the Soviets as well, presumably) would not have objected. Paris was the city of the pre-war era, more so than New York or London.

I'd think the Rhine as a frontier is not out of the realm of possibility.

Best,
 
Top