Photos of daily life in German Occupied Paris.

Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share
1

Fascinating photos of Paris under German occupation. They were created as propaganda. But I see no indication anything was staged. These appear to me as normal street scenes of people living their lives. People should look at them and decide for themselves.

Paris was surrendered to Germany and completely undamaged. Initially there wasn’t any organized French resistance and there was no need for aggressive German military patrols in Paris. That’s not to say the Germans didn’t take charge, round up Jews, and cause intense suffering for some of the people. But that was all quietly done behind the scenes and probably not that noticeable in the daily lives of many Parisians. The food shortages and rationing would come later as Germany began to lose the war.

Photos are part of an exhibt of Andre Zucca’s work.

2

Am I correct that German soldiers traveled to Paris for leave and R&R? I’m pretty sure it was a vacation destination during the war’s early days. Things changed as the French resistance organized and began harassing the occupying German forces.

No one wanted to vacation in Paris after the allied invasion on D Day. :wink: But very soon the allied troops took their R&R in Paris.

3

Allow me to introduce you to the concept of Potemkin villages
Ok, Paris isn’t quite a Potemkin village, but I would be incredibly easy to stage propaganda shots that showed happy, normal people in a city like paris.

4

If they were staged, then why include the homeless guy’s photo and pictures of Jews wearing the gold stars?

<shrug> There’s some big crowds of happy people in those photos. That’s not to say the German wouldn’t stage photos if needed. They were very good at producing propaganda.

5

I don’t think there’s any suggestion that the photos themselves were staged, but rather that that the Nazis made a conscious effort to try to maintain a sort of pre-war normalcy in the picturesque parts of Paris for propaganda purposes. It was sort of like a Potemkin city. I don’t think that really detracts from the historical value of the pictures, though, especially since it appears there’s a few that slipped through (although were never published) that show hints of the true reality. Thanks for sharing them.

6

The photos are quite a time capsule of life in the early 1940’s. Especially the women’s fashion, street markets, and other daily life. I was surprised the women in the sunbathing photo were wearing two piece swimsuits. I didn’t realize they were worn before the 1950’s.

I noticed one comment someone posted mentioned that some of the zoo animals fed the Persians when food was very scarce. Maybe the zoo animals in the photo didn’t survive the war? One elephant would feed a lot of hungry people.

7

This happened during the siege of Paris in 1870. The zoo animals were used as food since it was impossible to feed them. Elephant, camel , bear and antelope were on the menu. I don’t know if this happened during the the German occupation but it seems unlikely .

Sorry I can’t provide a link but a Google search of Paris siege zoo menu should yield results

8

The article does point out that those were for his private collection, and not published in Signal. I think that the truth was complicated, and that while there were shortages, life still has to go on, even when your city is occupied. And Paris was sort of a show city. The Germans didn’t try to do a lot of the stuff there that they did in, say, Warsaw.

9

He was provided the spiffy film to take photos for the propaganda effort, and added some that he did not submit that he kept for himself - I have never seen any photographer turn in 100% of the pictures on the negatives [digital is different] so it would not be hard to turn in 75 really good propaganda pictures and keep back 20 or 30 real nonpropaganda pictures like the ones of the people rummaging through the garbage tips and the Jews wearing stars and shabby clothing.

[I still have issues with the thought of actually sticking around if someone started removing my rights to work certain jobs, live in certain areas and marry/befriend anybody I wanted. mrAru and I agree that we would be packing up, selling off and scarpering away even if we had to buy a boat and sneak off.]

10

Pretty interesting. Thanks.

11

…decide for themselves what exactly?

12

I assume something like “to what degree did the average Parisian collaborate with the Nazis – and by collaboration I include, say, living something like one’s previous life, rather than, say, becoming a Resistance warrior.”

13

Not wishing to offend; but in such a situation as World War 2 German-occupied France – trying to do that, would risk extremely bad consequences in the likely event of one’s being caught in the attempt. If that were to happen, one’s lot would be worse that if one had stayed put and endured conditions as they were.

(If one were Jewish, it would be a different story – might as well risk all in an escape attempt. Of course, hindsight is 20/20; in general, Jews in Nazi Europe early in the war did not know or suspect that the severe privations and discrimination to which they were subjected from the first, would escalate to their being rounded up and sent off to be killed.)

14

Actually, it’s not that unusual. In the film days, when I worked editorial freelance, it was typical to send all the film to the publisher. (You’d get it back, though, provided you weren’t “work-for-hire.”) Shooting for the wires, though, was another story. We were generally required to scan and transmit our negs on site, and then send the film and the surrounding frames to the main office. For big events, like the NBA finals, we were required to send in all our film. Those were, essentially, work-for-hire arrangements.

15

Collaboration is still a touchy subject in France. I’ve read that many of the collaborators were punished after the war. A woman known to have dated German soldiers might be shunned in her village or even get attacked (head shaved, beaten). It all depended on how closely she was associated with the Germans. How comfortable her life had been during the occupation.

It must of been a tough moral choice that everybody had to make. Where do you draw the line at survival and collaboration?

16

…well you can’t tell that from a photo. Give me a camera and a location and twenty minutes and I can tell twenty different stories. (In fact, I’ve decided I’m going to do this next week.) The camera lies. These images are propaganda. They are fantastic images. But they tell the story the photographer has decided to tell, nothing more.

17

A couple of humorous “side-lights”, if I might be permitted them, on an overall far-from-funny situation; but often finding something to laugh at, keeps people sane in adverse circumstances…

I’ve seen a photograph (might have been by our friend Zucca, or might not) taken in Paris during the Occupation – showing a German soldier in uniform, with easel and canvas all set up, busily painting a Parisian scene. The guy appears as un-menacing as a member of an occupying military force possibly could: bespectacled, of slight physical build, and looking about twelve years old. Photo shows him painting away, surrounded by middle-aged French ladies looking on with interest. One speculates that if he could understand the comments being made by his audience, he’d be packing his gear up and going back to his barracks, in tears…

And a tale heard, of occupied Paris. Background bit: extremely rude French word, “con” – means literally, female genitalia; has a close parallel in English; calling a person a “con”, implies that they are utterly contemptible and worthless.

A German soldier there, got into the habit of buying the German-language daily newspaper, from a particular French newsagent’s shop, which was presumably under orders to carry and sell said paper. Each day, when he came to get his newspaper, the proprietress glared at him, snatched the money off him, and all-but threw the paper at him, with the words “Tiens voilà, petit con” [There you are, you little ****]. One day, the German asked a French friend, what “con” meant. The friend (one speculates, a French Nazi, but a kindly soul who didn’t want to get his misguided compatriot into trouble) said that it was short for “conquérant” [conqueror] – so the lady was paying the soldier a compliment. Soldier was greatly pleased; on getting his newspaper the next day, after enacting of the daily ritual, he said in his very imperfect French, to the shoplady: “Moi, petit con; Hitler, grand con.”