OMG FACTS
1449 replies · 215996 views
The incredible new lights from Notre Dame of Paris !
Kamikaze Sperm!!
55 minutes ago, 17 Moments of Spring said:
Ah ! Cool link, thank you !!
Before/After >> http://www.ufunk.net/en/photos/avant-apres-evolution-du-monde/
Mum and her two children rescued from Italian horror house
I was at the Eakins Oval (up close) and the two of the female statues looked like Constance Jablonski.!.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eakins_Oval
On 11/17/2017 at 7:30 PM, jj3 said:Before/After >> http://www.ufunk.net/en/photos/avant-apres-evolution-du-monde/
paris was lucky for not being bombed or sieged.
13 minutes ago, 17 Moments of Spring said:
paris was lucky for not being bombed or sieged.
We're still wondering how. I guess even NAZI had limits.
Also, bombed or not, Paris was the best before, and the best after 
19 minutes ago, jj3 said:
We're still wondering how. I guess even NAZI had limits.
Also, bombed or not, Paris was the best before, and the best after
^
I don't think it's a mystery..:-D
The allies achieved a breakthrough at Normandy in August 1944 (Operation Cobra). German forces retreated towards the Westwall. Some of them were encircled and destroyed in the Falaise pocket. The new frontline never settled at Paris (The General in command refused to turn it into a fortress and surrendered).
It was known throughout the world war that staying too long in France and Paris tended to soften up the Wehrmacht and lower their combat readiness 
40 minutes ago, 17 Moments of Spring said:
paris was lucky for not being bombed or sieged.
I know it must sounds pretentious to say that, and God knows we knew wars on our territory. But look :
Like we say, Rome hasn't been made in one day. Well the same for Paris. The Paris we know today is the result of more than a century of work.
Of course, the architectural projects and works transformed Paris. It's been the biggest achievment of napoleon III. If there had one lol And since, Paris is evolving all the time. The next big step being the Olympic Games in 2024.
In a personal note, i always thought architecture was the pure expression of a people pretentions, desires, and embitions as well.
Yesterday we were building our glorious futur, with majestuous temples, using stones, and glorious past references. Now we're building our present, with temporary structures ... Not the same embitions obviously.
6 minutes ago, Cult Icon said:(The General in command refused to turn it into a fortress and surrendered).
The General in charge of Paris garrison was Dietrich von Choltitz. The man who destroyed Rotterdam a few years before. Why not Paris then. I'm sorry, but it's still a mystery why he did not answered to Hitler orders to destroy Paris as well. Many think he wanted to go out of the war with less charges, knowing what he dones on the Eastern Front. Well ...
6 minutes ago, jj3 said:
The General in charge of Paris garrison was Dietrich von Choltitz. The man who destroyed Rotterdam a few years before. Why not Paris then. I'm sorry, but it's still a mystery why he did not answered to Hitler orders to destroy Paris as well. Many think he wanted to go out of the war with less charges, knowing what he dones on the East Front. Well ...
There was no point in holding Paris with so few troops and isolated. All "festerplaz" were usually quickly exterminated in the East and the garrisons in the West soon fell. I doubt that he had anywhere the level of munitions to destroy the city anyway. Warsaw was wiped off the map but 2nd and 9th Army were holding the front.
12 minutes ago, Cult Icon said:
I doubt that he had anywhere the level of munitions to destroy the city anyway.
True. But still ... The city has been occupied during more than 3 years ... I'm still considering it's a miracle.
The fact, the french gov from 1940 declared Paris like open city to ovoiding big destruction surely helped lol
C. de Gaulle wanted to resist street by street, like Soviets did in Stalingrad. And then, to transfer the french armies from the norther front to Britain, and to resist there, if Paris falled...
12 minutes ago, Cult Icon said:
There was no point in holding Paris with so few troops and isolated. All "festerplaz" were usually quickly exterminated in the East and the garrisons in the West soon fell. I doubt that he had anywhere the level of munitions to destroy the city anyway. Warsaw was wiped off the map but 2nd and 9th Army were holding the front.
They destroyed many eastern cities, because nazis had huge condescending feelings for Eastern populations. That's why they were very harsh there.
14 minutes ago, Enrico_sw said:
They destroyed many eastern cities, because nazis had huge condescending feelings for Eastern populations. That's why they were very harsh there.
I meant "Festerplaz" - as in Stronghold/fortress cities. This was a "Hitler" concept and there was so much resentment among the German generals about it that it should have been common knowledge by August 1944. The resentment built up since Stalingrad. What typically happened was that Hitler would name a city "Festerplatz", and then order the troops to fight to the death. The idea behind this was to stop the German's general frontline from retreating and force a stand. Also, and even more important- he would use the german troops inside as 'sacrificial lambs' so to speak, and tie down as many allied/soviet forces as possible. Encircling a city requires numerous divisions and generally weakened the Allied/Soviet offensive.
While some Festerplatz held, what typically happened was that the Festerplatz's garrison would hold out until their supplies ran out and they would surrender or in some cases, fight to the death (Tarnapol, April 1944). Sometimes there was a prolonged drama in form of an encirclement battle, such at Korsun (Jan 1944).
At Paris, Hitler wanted a repeat but the strategic situation didn't allow it in any form. To me, the garrison commander made a common sense decision.
26 minutes ago, jj3 said:
True. But still ... The city has been occupied during more than 3 years ... I'm still considering it's a miracle.
The fact, the french gov from 1940 declared Paris like open city to ovoiding big destruction surely helped lol
C. de Gaulle wanted to resist street by street, like Soviets did in Stalingrad. And then, to transfer the french armies from the norther front to Britain, and to resist there, if Paris falled...
I think it's because there was no great uprising in Paris (like the 1944 Warsaw Uprising). In 1944 Warsaw was razed to the ground, and a gigantic number of civilians were killed and much of the population was deported into concentration camps. The actual destruction of Warsaw took place slowly and over the course of many weeks as German combat engineers blew up buildings in a manual manner. Meanwhile, the German armies in front of Warsaw were fighting for their life against various Soviet offensives. August- Oct 1944.
It is ultimately good that the French did not do an uprising imho.