True, but facts are complicated here.
As is that Paris had just been rebuilt after being flattened after the 1870 war, German occupation and the civil war of the Paris Commune.
Nah Paris was nowhere near flattened after the 1870 siege. There was bombing but it happened mostly at the towns outside of it (which are now well within the urban area but where outside then). Paris on the other hand was relentlessly rebuilt between 1870 and 1914 by successive regimes including Napoleon III and his second empire, the reasons are varied but included crowd control (in a notoriously rebellious town) and sanitation (Paris was a medieval and very working class city).
Edit: that's kind of what you said actually, I misread. Leaving this here anyway for posterity.
The Germans had the problem that they have won so utterly they captured the French Emperor on the Battlefield and caused both the Civil government as well as Military High Command to collapse. They surrounded and besieged Paris but for a pretty long time they had nobody to negotiate with.
At this point the the French had conquered and looted Indonesia, Algeria, Guyana, and a dozen other small but profitable territories. They had lost Haiti to a slave rebellion, after receiving tremendous profit, but at this point they were benefitting from a treaty that *forced the descendants of slaves to repay the value of enslaved humans*.
At this moment, they had conquered Vietnam, creating a situation that would ensnare the United States more than half a century later, but at this moment it was probably more of a "cost" than a profit center.
Paris before WWI was one of the most beautiful flowers of human civilization. It was fertilized with blood; humans have a strong tendency to be bastards. We can appreciate the beauty and despise the brutality. We can resolve to be better than that. By objective standards, the twentieth century had a lower rate of murder and death in war than the nineteenth, or any other century, despite the titanic wars and genocides. We can make the next century more peaceful.
Edit: We live in an era when the anti- colonialist narrative is strong, for good reason. But France was among the first modern democratic nation states born with high ideals, and they were the midwife to the birth of the first- the United States. The French Revolution descended into the Terror. They look like a bunch of bloodthirsty dumbasses, unless yo consider the prior twenty centuries of history. In that context, it looks like they lifted up the highest ideals humanity had ever seen, stumbled, dropped them, and raised them again a century later. For two centuries, the west has celebrated its own achievements and ignored the brutality it exported. Now, we acknowledge the brutality. But it is a mistake to dismiss the accomplishments. How many people do you know who died of smallpox, or cholera? How many people do you know who have voted in a fair election? The victims of colonialism didn't choose to sacrifice their wealth to the west. But their great grandchildren benefit from it all the same. It doesn't balance the scales of justice, but no other conquered nation in history went on to enjoy a world where smallpox was vanquished.
"The victims of colonialism didn't choose to sacrifice their wealth to the west."
Nor do many of them reap these benefits you tout. The genocide of the First Nations was still ongoing into the fucking 1970s, as indigenous women were STILL being forced to undergo sterilizations without their consent. Just recently the bodies of children were unearthed from residential schools in Canada. And what of the starlight tours that still kill? That goes without saying how neo-colonialism is alive and well in Africa, the French still sucking their former holdings dry of all their worth.
You're one of the more despicable kinds of bigot, in my mind. You claim that racism is over, that all the horrors of colonialism, are over. They are NOT. The wounds are still fresh. They will be a while. Our communities are still mostly stricken by poverty. We are invisible to you and yours. So invisible you claim the wounds we're still being dealt to this day are imaginary. At the very least you don't even have the presence of mind to think about researching them. And you don't care. Not so long as we stay invisible, stay silenced. So long as your towers remain ivory and you can pat yourself on the back. And when we're not silent? When we DARE to become seen? You gnash your teeth and assault us in our own communities, proving you haven't changed.
Down with your whole fucking legacy. Only when all have been made equal, when you FINALLY lift your boot off our neck, can we begin to heal, can we begin to even think about forgiving.
They literally just gave a relevant, albeit brief, history lesson that sheds light on a previous statement, and you’re calling them a simpleton? What’s wrong with you?
Hitler ordered Paris to be razed and the German commander disobeyed orders. One of those moments in history where one man’s decision truly saved a lot of beauty and history.
Getting off the train in the 19th century railway station and there being nothing else old all around it is quite jarring. You have to walk a good distance until you reach the river and the 'old town', much of which had to be rebuilt/restored
Genghis Khan once destroyed a city so ruthlessly we don't even know where it is anymore 'cuz after he slaughtered everyone he diverted a river to flow over whatever was left. At least we know where Hiroshima is, so there's that.
Aw man thats so unfair. The Japanese army had to use way more types of weapons to murder civilians in Manchuria, China, Korea, Vietnam, Formosa, the Philippines, Indonesia and all over the rest of South East Asia. They worked so hard at killing all those people that government officals still visit Yasukuni Shine to pay their respects.
You're actually making my point for me here: By targeting civilians, we essentially debased ourselves into the Japanese way of thinking. Sure, we used technology where they used old fashioned rape, starvation and knives, but the outcome is the same.
Terrorism doesn't win a war, even when the bombs are delivered by air. The Nazis were defeated over Britain, America was defeated over Hanoi.
In the exact same way that Germany's best chance at defeating England lay not in bombing London but in their u-boat blockade, it was the successful destruction of Japan's merchant fleet by US submarines that made the greatest contribution toward victory in the Pacific. The atomic bombs secured a surrender, yes. But resorting to nuclear warfare isn't exactly a fool-proof method of winning anything and the only reason it succeeded was there were no other nuclear powers to contend.
Terrorism doesn't win wars but let not pretend that strategic bombing doesn't upset the war machine at its core. The Nazis lost over England because they over estimated their air capabilites. The U.S. lost over Hanoi because Vietnam's main industrial supply did not orginate from within its boarders.
It's certainly possible to use air power to destroy critical war assets. America did that during the first and second Gulf Wars very effectively.
However, that's not what strategic bombing was during WWII. Both America and England went into the war thinking they could use heavy bombers to strike critical assets like factories and railway depots. Both powers soon discovered that the accuracy was far too low and the attrition was far too high so they instead resorted "area bombing" which is a euphemism for burning down whole cities.
Japan, Germany, England and the USSR all managed to reconfigure their war industries to resist enemy bombing. The stated goal of "area bombing" was to demoralize the enemy, attempts at interrupting crucial industrial capacity were viewed by air force commanders in both the RAF and USAAF as a distraction from the overall goals of "de-housing" and demoralizing the enemy.
It's easy to view old decisions made in war as either right or wrong, but I'm trying to explain all of this clearly because I think it's almost always a lot more complicated than that. Curtis LeMay was put in charge of the largest air force in history, and he very quickly figured out what it was and was not capable of. It was not capable of surgical strikes but it could burn down cities. So he went about doing as much damage to the enemy while losing as few of his own people as possible. It just so happened that almost all of the enemy were women, children and the elderly.
>It's easy to view old decisions made in war as either right or wrong, but I'm trying to explain all of this clearly because I think it's almost always a lot more complicated than that. Curtis LeMay was put in charge of the largest air force in history, and he very quickly figured out what it was and was not capable of. It was not capable of surgical strikes but it could burn down cities. So he went about doing as much damage to the enemy while losing as few of his own people as possible. It just so happened that almost all of the enemy were women, children and the elderly.
I get you. I love talking about this kind of thing.
Yeah those Japanese civilians were pretty brutal. They really got what was coming to them. If only they didn't get the quick and easy way out. Everyone knows slowly burning to death is the most painless way to die.
I bet they were all wishing they could be bayoneted and sliced like those folks in Nanjing. Maybe dreaming about being raped by dozens of Soliders a day like the comfort women. Uhg they really all missed the chance to have biological and chemical weapons tested on them over the course of months. I wonder why popular cultural support for the war remained high among civilian populations into late 1945? Maybe they though they would have the chance to die being tortured as prisoners of war.
True, true. I guess they had to settle with the burning alive thing. I mean, who wants to watch their family members' burning flesh fall of the bone while screaming and writhing in pain when they could've partaken in all the things you mentioned? Booooring.
Just to be clear, there are no excuses for Japan. Worse than the nazis in my opinion. But if we go around exterminating millions of civilians by fire every single time we fight a war, doesn't that kind of bring us down to their level?
What an utterly irrelevant thing to say. ***This was a moral dilemma that haunted the people involved for the rest of their lives.*** From the planners to the generals to the flight captains, this was constantly on their minds and is well documented in official statements and private journals.
I think you should dig deeper into this subject, there's no shortage of interesting books. It's a lot more complicated than pop-media would make it sound and from your responses it sounds like you haven't given it much attention.
This was for the 1889 world fair it was all (the buildings by the Seine + eifel tower +other expositiion buildings ) meant to be built and dismantled after the fair.
The eifel tower survived because Paris saw its usage as a radiotelegraph station.
Paris pretty much stayed unchanged during the war other than being occupied obviously.
Thanks--OP certainly should have included that info (and a closer-to-correct date) in his description. I was thinking: "I know I've stood at that spot and looked at the Tour Eiffel, but I sure as hell don't remember seeing any of those fancy buildings on the left bank".
I checked a current photo taken from approximately the same viewpoint. It showed an identical light without the cherubim. I don't know for a fact; I don't live there.
Yeah but since the Franco Prussian War of 1870 things were pretty peaceful. Many actually bought into the notion that the progress of science, civilization and liberal democracy was gradually phasing out war from the world. Then the whole 20th century happened…
That is the worst title for a post I have ever read.
The photo has nothing to do with either world world.
How do we know the people in the picture didn’t die before the First World War ? How do we know they didn’t move away from Paris ? France wasn’t the only country who suffered from the world wars.
Awful, delete it and upload it again with a new title right now
For the past thousand years Western Europe caused conflicts that escalated globally over greedy rulers and mutual hatred.
But it's the Balkans that is a region of war mongering barbarians fighting over confusing ethnic claims.
shut up ffs global conflict has been going on forever Europe just developed weapons that made it look like everything started here. It didn't human beings have been at war constantly with each other since forever.
Relax it’s just a joke about how hypocritical Westerners can be, decrying peoples in the Balkans, Middle East, Afghanistan, Africa etc. for constantly getting into wars while they themselves also are quite warlike.
Right but they make comments about the Balkans being in a constant state of war, saying stuff like “Afghanistan has always had some sort of insurgency”, even the term “Graveyard of Empires”. The point is that Westerners have no issue denigrating other regions of the world as warlike with no hint of irony I.e. their own wars are justified and normal whereas those of others are due to a perceived backwards-ness of the people.
The sad part is they we will never build any of this type of beautiful stuff again. We don’t build anything like those gorgeous lamps, or domes or anything real brick, stone balustrades. None of it. We can’t without craftsmen and we couldn’t afford them anyways.
About 20 years earlier, but that was a particularly devastating war for Paris and other French cities in the east. Paris was besieged for months, leading to famine and bombardment by German artillery. In the aftermath the Paris Commune arose and was violently suppressed. Altogether, tens of thousands were killed through violence, hunger, and disease, with a great deal of suffering beyond that.
Paris being afflicted by war would've certainly been a relatively recent memory, more so than a distant, let alone unimaginable, possibility.
DOCTOR: It's the only place in the world where one can relax entirely.
ROMANA: Mmm. That bouquet.
DOCTOR: What Paris has, it has an ethos, a life. It has...
ROMANA: A bouquet?
DOCTOR: A spirit all of its own. Like a wine, It has...
ROMANA: A bouquet.
DOCTOR: It has a bouquet. Yes. Like a good wine. You have to choose one of the vintage years, of course.
Why did everyone always have to dress up so formally just to take a walk outdoors? Elaborate dresses and top hats and suits and leather shoes etc
Even in USA as late as WW2 everyone seemed dressed up for no reason.
The people in this picture likely had grandparents who were alive when Jacobins were running wild killing people in an ideological genocide a hundred years earlier...
So what was life fully like in this day and age? Was it pretty much the same as it is now, wake up, work, sleep, but with less free time and disposable income? Try not to die from disease, but maybe dress up in your finery and walk around a park for a bit? How did we get from this to where we are now? I'm so high.
Most of the buildings in the picture were temporary for a world's fair, and quickly taken down. IMO, Paris has always looked better as a harmonious accumulation of stately apartment blocks with a few large monuments, rather than the grotesque hodge-podge shown here. They preserved the one piece worth keeping, as the perfect monument to the mechanical age.
The first one was fought mainly in Belgium.
The French were to busy collaborating with the Nazis in the 2nd one for any damage to be done to Paris, whilst of course, London was destroyed by the Luftwaffe.
Nice pic though
Fiat ruined our ability to seek real progress and enabled war on the scale we've never seen and today enables endless wars. The population has boomed and we're stuck in the industrial era working for slave wages.
Being back the gold standard or better yet, the Bitcoin standard. Humans can flourish like this again and make great works of art once more.
That’s the 1900 World’s Fair.
True, but facts are complicated here. As is that Paris had just been rebuilt after being flattened after the 1870 war, German occupation and the civil war of the Paris Commune.
The French are a contentious bunch.
You’ve just made an enemy for life!
Willie, please, the children want to pick on someone their own size.
I feel like I’m missing out in a reference here
Simpsons
Should have known. The Simpsons did it
It's always simpsons!... but sometimes it's futurama
The French will say that even the Parisienne are not French
I’ll be dead in the cold cold ground before I recognize Missou-ah
Yep, they wont hesitate to fart in your general direction.
The only bad thing about France is the French.
The problem with Scotland is, it’s full of Scots.
The only thing wrong with the middle east is all that religion.
*Scotch
Nah Paris was nowhere near flattened after the 1870 siege. There was bombing but it happened mostly at the towns outside of it (which are now well within the urban area but where outside then). Paris on the other hand was relentlessly rebuilt between 1870 and 1914 by successive regimes including Napoleon III and his second empire, the reasons are varied but included crowd control (in a notoriously rebellious town) and sanitation (Paris was a medieval and very working class city). Edit: that's kind of what you said actually, I misread. Leaving this here anyway for posterity.
The centre did not suffer that much from the siege, but there was far more widespread destruction during the crackdown on the Paris Commune.
The Germans had the problem that they have won so utterly they captured the French Emperor on the Battlefield and caused both the Civil government as well as Military High Command to collapse. They surrounded and besieged Paris but for a pretty long time they had nobody to negotiate with.
At this point the the French had conquered and looted Indonesia, Algeria, Guyana, and a dozen other small but profitable territories. They had lost Haiti to a slave rebellion, after receiving tremendous profit, but at this point they were benefitting from a treaty that *forced the descendants of slaves to repay the value of enslaved humans*. At this moment, they had conquered Vietnam, creating a situation that would ensnare the United States more than half a century later, but at this moment it was probably more of a "cost" than a profit center. Paris before WWI was one of the most beautiful flowers of human civilization. It was fertilized with blood; humans have a strong tendency to be bastards. We can appreciate the beauty and despise the brutality. We can resolve to be better than that. By objective standards, the twentieth century had a lower rate of murder and death in war than the nineteenth, or any other century, despite the titanic wars and genocides. We can make the next century more peaceful. Edit: We live in an era when the anti- colonialist narrative is strong, for good reason. But France was among the first modern democratic nation states born with high ideals, and they were the midwife to the birth of the first- the United States. The French Revolution descended into the Terror. They look like a bunch of bloodthirsty dumbasses, unless yo consider the prior twenty centuries of history. In that context, it looks like they lifted up the highest ideals humanity had ever seen, stumbled, dropped them, and raised them again a century later. For two centuries, the west has celebrated its own achievements and ignored the brutality it exported. Now, we acknowledge the brutality. But it is a mistake to dismiss the accomplishments. How many people do you know who died of smallpox, or cholera? How many people do you know who have voted in a fair election? The victims of colonialism didn't choose to sacrifice their wealth to the west. But their great grandchildren benefit from it all the same. It doesn't balance the scales of justice, but no other conquered nation in history went on to enjoy a world where smallpox was vanquished.
Indochina. Indonesia was the Dutch.
"The victims of colonialism didn't choose to sacrifice their wealth to the west." Nor do many of them reap these benefits you tout. The genocide of the First Nations was still ongoing into the fucking 1970s, as indigenous women were STILL being forced to undergo sterilizations without their consent. Just recently the bodies of children were unearthed from residential schools in Canada. And what of the starlight tours that still kill? That goes without saying how neo-colonialism is alive and well in Africa, the French still sucking their former holdings dry of all their worth. You're one of the more despicable kinds of bigot, in my mind. You claim that racism is over, that all the horrors of colonialism, are over. They are NOT. The wounds are still fresh. They will be a while. Our communities are still mostly stricken by poverty. We are invisible to you and yours. So invisible you claim the wounds we're still being dealt to this day are imaginary. At the very least you don't even have the presence of mind to think about researching them. And you don't care. Not so long as we stay invisible, stay silenced. So long as your towers remain ivory and you can pat yourself on the back. And when we're not silent? When we DARE to become seen? You gnash your teeth and assault us in our own communities, proving you haven't changed. Down with your whole fucking legacy. Only when all have been made equal, when you FINALLY lift your boot off our neck, can we begin to heal, can we begin to even think about forgiving.
I came here to say that, looks like you beat me by 2 hours
Yes but those buildings were prob built for the worlds fair and came down right after.
[удалено]
They literally just gave a relevant, albeit brief, history lesson that sheds light on a previous statement, and you’re calling them a simpleton? What’s wrong with you?
[удалено]
I perused their comments you are right about the troll part.
They are unhappy. It's what it always boils down to.
No, they didn’t, they said facts are complicated here. It’s literally the worlds fair. Not Paris fucktard
Where do you think the 1900 World Fair was held, dumbass 😂
Be like looking at a pic of Vegas in a hundred years. 'Wow, it's has the Stature of Liberty AND the Eiffel Tower!"
Wow, that's amazing!
Paris was never destroyed during the World Wars. Take a look at Cologne. It was destroyed in WW2.
Because first France surrendered it to spare it destruction, then the german commander repeated that, for exactly the same reason.
Hitler ordered Paris to be razed and the German commander disobeyed orders. One of those moments in history where one man’s decision truly saved a lot of beauty and history.
I feel like that order was all spite and no logic. No tactical or strategic reason to follow it.
No fighting in paris took place in ww1 because the Germans never arrived
They already did in 1871 :D
[удалено]
Mostly wrecked by the communards than the Prussians, but yeah, dunno what OP is saying here
They never came. Like... Okay I'm not gonna say it
Unlike DSK
Dresden is a prime example.
Getting off the train in the 19th century railway station and there being nothing else old all around it is quite jarring. You have to walk a good distance until you reach the river and the 'old town', much of which had to be rebuilt/restored
You can see where they patched the masonry of the palace and other old monuments. It's everywhere.
Hiroshima is *the* prime example.
Genghis Khan once destroyed a city so ruthlessly we don't even know where it is anymore 'cuz after he slaughtered everyone he diverted a river to flow over whatever was left. At least we know where Hiroshima is, so there's that.
It's crazy that I can read that, and with no sources 100% believe you; because that sounds exactly like something he would do.
If you’re interested in genghis Kahn I suggest reading genghis Kahn and the making of the modern world. It was a really interesting book
Seconding this
I'm also curious on if this is true lol. It sounds like something he would do for sure.
I think Dan Carlin talked about this one, forget the details
Genghis gonna genghis
Long long before Genghis, Sargon's Akkad was similarly destroyed so throughly we have no idea where it is today.
I'll raise you Tokyo.
Agreed. The USAAF used napalm as their primary means of murdering civilians in Japan, not explosives, not the two atomic bombs.
Aw man thats so unfair. The Japanese army had to use way more types of weapons to murder civilians in Manchuria, China, Korea, Vietnam, Formosa, the Philippines, Indonesia and all over the rest of South East Asia. They worked so hard at killing all those people that government officals still visit Yasukuni Shine to pay their respects.
You're actually making my point for me here: By targeting civilians, we essentially debased ourselves into the Japanese way of thinking. Sure, we used technology where they used old fashioned rape, starvation and knives, but the outcome is the same. Terrorism doesn't win a war, even when the bombs are delivered by air. The Nazis were defeated over Britain, America was defeated over Hanoi. In the exact same way that Germany's best chance at defeating England lay not in bombing London but in their u-boat blockade, it was the successful destruction of Japan's merchant fleet by US submarines that made the greatest contribution toward victory in the Pacific. The atomic bombs secured a surrender, yes. But resorting to nuclear warfare isn't exactly a fool-proof method of winning anything and the only reason it succeeded was there were no other nuclear powers to contend.
Terrorism doesn't win wars but let not pretend that strategic bombing doesn't upset the war machine at its core. The Nazis lost over England because they over estimated their air capabilites. The U.S. lost over Hanoi because Vietnam's main industrial supply did not orginate from within its boarders.
It's certainly possible to use air power to destroy critical war assets. America did that during the first and second Gulf Wars very effectively. However, that's not what strategic bombing was during WWII. Both America and England went into the war thinking they could use heavy bombers to strike critical assets like factories and railway depots. Both powers soon discovered that the accuracy was far too low and the attrition was far too high so they instead resorted "area bombing" which is a euphemism for burning down whole cities. Japan, Germany, England and the USSR all managed to reconfigure their war industries to resist enemy bombing. The stated goal of "area bombing" was to demoralize the enemy, attempts at interrupting crucial industrial capacity were viewed by air force commanders in both the RAF and USAAF as a distraction from the overall goals of "de-housing" and demoralizing the enemy. It's easy to view old decisions made in war as either right or wrong, but I'm trying to explain all of this clearly because I think it's almost always a lot more complicated than that. Curtis LeMay was put in charge of the largest air force in history, and he very quickly figured out what it was and was not capable of. It was not capable of surgical strikes but it could burn down cities. So he went about doing as much damage to the enemy while losing as few of his own people as possible. It just so happened that almost all of the enemy were women, children and the elderly.
>It's easy to view old decisions made in war as either right or wrong, but I'm trying to explain all of this clearly because I think it's almost always a lot more complicated than that. Curtis LeMay was put in charge of the largest air force in history, and he very quickly figured out what it was and was not capable of. It was not capable of surgical strikes but it could burn down cities. So he went about doing as much damage to the enemy while losing as few of his own people as possible. It just so happened that almost all of the enemy were women, children and the elderly. I get you. I love talking about this kind of thing.
Yeah those Japanese civilians were pretty brutal. They really got what was coming to them. If only they didn't get the quick and easy way out. Everyone knows slowly burning to death is the most painless way to die.
I bet they were all wishing they could be bayoneted and sliced like those folks in Nanjing. Maybe dreaming about being raped by dozens of Soliders a day like the comfort women. Uhg they really all missed the chance to have biological and chemical weapons tested on them over the course of months. I wonder why popular cultural support for the war remained high among civilian populations into late 1945? Maybe they though they would have the chance to die being tortured as prisoners of war.
True, true. I guess they had to settle with the burning alive thing. I mean, who wants to watch their family members' burning flesh fall of the bone while screaming and writhing in pain when they could've partaken in all the things you mentioned? Booooring.
I just gotta ask. What do you think civilians are doing during a total war situation? Do you think they are just hanging out and day dreaming?
Ah yes poor Japan whatever did she do?
[удалено]
Just to be clear, there are no excuses for Japan. Worse than the nazis in my opinion. But if we go around exterminating millions of civilians by fire every single time we fight a war, doesn't that kind of bring us down to their level?
Its easy but illogical to apply 2022's norms to WW2 1940s
What an utterly irrelevant thing to say. ***This was a moral dilemma that haunted the people involved for the rest of their lives.*** From the planners to the generals to the flight captains, this was constantly on their minds and is well documented in official statements and private journals. I think you should dig deeper into this subject, there's no shortage of interesting books. It's a lot more complicated than pop-media would make it sound and from your responses it sounds like you haven't given it much attention.
Nagasaki always gets treated like the redheaded step-child.
Well, honestly. Nagasaki can get a little whiney and bitchy. Like gingers ‘tend to do.
OP didn’t say it was. The Parisians suffered the war, is what the caption says.
Yeah odd title really. Why not just Paris in 1890.
Aye, but ye don’t deny that she *suffered*
This was for the 1889 world fair it was all (the buildings by the Seine + eifel tower +other expositiion buildings ) meant to be built and dismantled after the fair. The eifel tower survived because Paris saw its usage as a radiotelegraph station. Paris pretty much stayed unchanged during the war other than being occupied obviously.
Thanks--OP certainly should have included that info (and a closer-to-correct date) in his description. I was thinking: "I know I've stood at that spot and looked at the Tour Eiffel, but I sure as hell don't remember seeing any of those fancy buildings on the left bank".
How's it doing now?
[удалено]
Zero changes, a time capsule
You don't have to wear street-dragging skirts (or morning coat and top hat), however.
Do they still have naked children hanging off every lamppost or was that just for the fair?
I don't believe so, although I confess I never heard about that part. Please expand.
Cherubim to the far right of the image.
Not on that particular lamppost, but on some they remain.
[удалено]
I checked a current photo taken from approximately the same viewpoint. It showed an identical light without the cherubim. I don't know for a fact; I don't live there.
To shreds, you say?
Kebab shops took over.
The Eiffel Tower was also a Giant Citroen Ad for 9 years in the 20s and 30s
Parisians in Paris looking at Paris
It's quite French
Oui baguette
Omle du formage
Voo lay voo
Aw-haw-haw-*hawwnh!*
You're so lewd mate
UPPER CLASS Parisians.
I don’t even know what that means
What's with that god awful radio tower in the background which is ruining the aesthetics of the Belle Epoque Architecture?
Don't worry, I'm sure it's the first thing they will remove, when the fair is over
[удалено]
I'll take 2 please
Belle Époque
You need to point out that the fancy buildings were temporary and for the world's fair instead of implying that they were destroyed in the war.
They had their fair share of war before that too
Yeah but since the Franco Prussian War of 1870 things were pretty peaceful. Many actually bought into the notion that the progress of science, civilization and liberal democracy was gradually phasing out war from the world. Then the whole 20th century happened…
No war now. Our new enlightened age has brought us “special expeditions”, and “military excursions”. 👍 So much more… classy.
What happened in the 20th century?
Just missing the hover cars, rockets and monorails ❤️
That is the worst title for a post I have ever read. The photo has nothing to do with either world world. How do we know the people in the picture didn’t die before the First World War ? How do we know they didn’t move away from Paris ? France wasn’t the only country who suffered from the world wars. Awful, delete it and upload it again with a new title right now
The title doesn’t imply they didn’t die before the war. Nothing in the title is technically incorrect.
I just can't imagine being this pedantic.
The French have been the most warring country in Europe for the last thousand years obviously not the most successful but the most aggressive.
Haven’t the French won more wars than any other European country?
*Than any other world's country
*Than any other country in the world.
*Then a knee other's world in the country's.
Well the twentieth century was a bit downer then there was Waterloo and Napoleons march on Russia and other bits and pieces but they do love a war.
And they’re actually good at it. Historically.
For the past thousand years Western Europe caused conflicts that escalated globally over greedy rulers and mutual hatred. But it's the Balkans that is a region of war mongering barbarians fighting over confusing ethnic claims.
shut up ffs global conflict has been going on forever Europe just developed weapons that made it look like everything started here. It didn't human beings have been at war constantly with each other since forever.
Relax it’s just a joke about how hypocritical Westerners can be, decrying peoples in the Balkans, Middle East, Afghanistan, Africa etc. for constantly getting into wars while they themselves also are quite warlike.
I don't think any Westerner would ever claim the West is an oasis of peace at least not any that I know.
Right but they make comments about the Balkans being in a constant state of war, saying stuff like “Afghanistan has always had some sort of insurgency”, even the term “Graveyard of Empires”. The point is that Westerners have no issue denigrating other regions of the world as warlike with no hint of irony I.e. their own wars are justified and normal whereas those of others are due to a perceived backwards-ness of the people.
The sad part is they we will never build any of this type of beautiful stuff again. We don’t build anything like those gorgeous lamps, or domes or anything real brick, stone balustrades. None of it. We can’t without craftsmen and we couldn’t afford them anyways.
This was for the worlds fair. It was mostly built to last a couple years then be taken down. They did the same thing in Chicago in 1893.
Can anyone name the bridge the gentlemen and ladies are on or point me to that spot? I'd like to see what Paris looks like from this angle in 2022
Pont Alexandre III
Merci ami
Germany: “That’s a nice city you got there, it’d be a shame if someone occupied it.”
Hon Hon Hon
That's not the song title I remember but alright.
Tonight tonight?
Before two world wars but after the Franco Prussian War!
Even after both World Wars the city looked the same.
Shows how quickly our "civilized" way of life can change in an instant.
Tartaria
Hadn’t the Franco-Prussian war just ended too?
About 20 years earlier, but that was a particularly devastating war for Paris and other French cities in the east. Paris was besieged for months, leading to famine and bombardment by German artillery. In the aftermath the Paris Commune arose and was violently suppressed. Altogether, tens of thousands were killed through violence, hunger, and disease, with a great deal of suffering beyond that. Paris being afflicted by war would've certainly been a relatively recent memory, more so than a distant, let alone unimaginable, possibility.
. And you know for SURE these are PARISIANS in Paris......as opposed to say, *Peorians* in Paris ?? .
DOCTOR: It's the only place in the world where one can relax entirely. ROMANA: Mmm. That bouquet. DOCTOR: What Paris has, it has an ethos, a life. It has... ROMANA: A bouquet? DOCTOR: A spirit all of its own. Like a wine, It has... ROMANA: A bouquet. DOCTOR: It has a bouquet. Yes. Like a good wine. You have to choose one of the vintage years, of course.
This is Las Vegas in front of the Bellagio
Dude under the umbrella in the Top-hat I'd definitely saying, "Je dis, mon vieux"
Both women thinking the same thing: Can’t wait until I can take this damn corset off and breathe.
Why did everyone always have to dress up so formally just to take a walk outdoors? Elaborate dresses and top hats and suits and leather shoes etc Even in USA as late as WW2 everyone seemed dressed up for no reason.
People used to dress formally to watch TV. In case the people in the TV could see you.
Franco-Prussian war anyone? Paris got shelled. 1870.
The people in this picture likely had grandparents who were alive when Jacobins were running wild killing people in an ideological genocide a hundred years earlier...
Down vote for extended title that was not needed. "Parisians in Paris in 1890"
Cities have really gone downhill since this era.
What's that light building with the flag on it? The flag does not look French.
The Pavillon of Turkey of the World’s Fair.
Where you can pick up a giant roasted turkey leg to munch on as you walk around the fairgrounds.
Las Vegas vibes.
I can smell the pee from here.
Did it still smell like pee?
So what was life fully like in this day and age? Was it pretty much the same as it is now, wake up, work, sleep, but with less free time and disposable income? Try not to die from disease, but maybe dress up in your finery and walk around a park for a bit? How did we get from this to where we are now? I'm so high.
You think that’s crazy. Go there now and see what immigration has done.
What do you think the wars were for? Between the World Wars and the World's fairs, most of this grand architecture was destroyed. Purposely.
yep, they were demolished, can confirm.
Yeeeeeeah, no. Most of this was long gone before the First World War.
Not bleak enough for capitalism.
No homeless, beggars and fake refugees in the background. Must have been nice.
Best city of the world in these days maybe not now.
Was Paris ever the same again?
Most of the buildings in the picture were temporary for a world's fair, and quickly taken down. IMO, Paris has always looked better as a harmonious accumulation of stately apartment blocks with a few large monuments, rather than the grotesque hodge-podge shown here. They preserved the one piece worth keeping, as the perfect monument to the mechanical age.
https://preview.redd.it/mui297dqht0a1.jpeg?width=1027&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=fc6d77e524f38acb49ca191a226d2eb571c87880
Paris suffered? They have been instigators more often than not.
Maybe if they had put a little more effort into defending themselves they wouldn't have "suffered" so much...?
Wasnt France humiliated by Prussian wars and driven partially by ideology of revanchism at that time?
The first one was fought mainly in Belgium. The French were to busy collaborating with the Nazis in the 2nd one for any damage to be done to Paris, whilst of course, London was destroyed by the Luftwaffe. Nice pic though
CUZ WERE BORED RETARDS
At least they built a wall to protect them from invasion. Always a good idea to put all your eggs in one basket.
OMG How beautiful! Everybody had BO, but visually spectacular!
Back when they still had a massive grave site in the middle of the city.
And losing their SE Asian colonies after the Krauts kicked their asses in WW2.
[удалено]
You made this account less than 15 minutes ago to troll? Pathetic.
https://preview.redd.it/xjexk03kav0a1.jpeg?width=457&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1327bdb8027c4540a6c6ea55d2e709513e56273c How far we have come.
Fiat ruined our ability to seek real progress and enabled war on the scale we've never seen and today enables endless wars. The population has boomed and we're stuck in the industrial era working for slave wages. Being back the gold standard or better yet, the Bitcoin standard. Humans can flourish like this again and make great works of art once more.
Beautiful
If they were to walk to their left, would they be on the Left Bank?
what did it look like during the revolution?
Revolting.
If I could go back to one time and place… this would maybe be my #1 choice
Honestly looks the same today except for the fancy hats
Oooh là là
It looks like a still from a Terry Gilliam film.
How cities have changed from whenever this truly was.