Is Paris Burning?

And How!

Too bad we don’t know anybody there.  I would feel much reassured to know that A) there’s nothing going wrong, and B) it’s all Trump’s fault.

9+

Users who have liked this post:

  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar

23 thoughts on “Is Paris Burning?”

  1. Someone on Twitter said the Jeu de Paume art museum was burning, but an art historian chimed in & said, that’s a museum for postmodern art so nothing valuable is being lost.

    7+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
  2. Pencilvania:
    Someone on Twitter said the Jeu de Paume art museum was burning, but an art historian chimed in & said, that’s a museum for postmodern art so nothing valuable is being lost.

    Indeed, I saw a headline that multiple fires had been set at the Jeu de Paume Museum of Modern and Post-Modern Art, doing over 1.5 million dollars in improvements.

    5+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
  3. I have been to Paris twice (1984 and 1995). Both times, London was adjacent on my itinerary. Both times, I did a lot of walking or driving (as a passenger) in the two cities.

    What struck me was that: 1) London was hideously scarred by the war; and 2) Paris was not.

    London was full of three main artifacts of the war: 1) many brick buildings showed extensive patching of damage; 2) there were no large areas (blocks, not miles) of intact prewar buildings; and 3) there were large numbers of hideous post-war replacements (the period 1945-1960 was clearly the low point in the history of architecture).

    Paris was the opposite. Whereas hardly a block in London was unscarred, one could go for miles in Paris looking at near pristine old buildings.

    5+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
  4. ctlaw:
    Paris was the opposite. Whereas hardly a block in London was unscarred, one could go for miles in Paris looking at near pristine old buildings.

    Capitulation works very well for preserving urban architecture.  At least for a while.

    2+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
  5. I find it ironic that fires are in the city with the eponymous Agreement on Global Warming. It would seem that lower taxes would be a way to compact this near term Man-made Global Warming.

    1+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
  6. John Walker:

    ctlaw:
    Paris was the opposite. Whereas hardly a block in London was unscarred, one could go for miles in Paris looking at near pristine old buildings.

    Capitulation works very well for preserving urban architecture.  At least for a while.

    I wish I knew more French history. How does the country with the slogan On ne passe pas ! (They shall not pass) become a country that is associated with “Come in and stay a while”? Is it the fact that so many brave French soldiers died in World War I?

    0

  7. Oh sure it’s Trump’s fault: he backed us out of the climate agreement, and showed the world how low a country’s taxes and inexpensive its gas could be. He’s such a showoff.

    2+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
  8. 10 Cents:
    Is it the fact that so many brave French soldiers died in World War I?

    In World War I, France had between 1,697,000 and 1,737,800 killed, or around 4.3% of its population.  This fraction of population exceeded Austria-Hungary, Germany, the United Kingdom and colonies, Russia, and the United States (where war deaths were 0.13% of the population).

    Even in World War II, where France signed an armistice in 1940, its deaths as a percentage of population were 1.44%, which was greater than the U.K. (0.94%) and the U.S. (0.32%).  All of these fractions were small compared to Nazi Germany (including subjugated territories) (8.5%) and the Soviet Union (13.7%).

    In his history of World War II, Winston Churchill noted that during the brief period before the armistice, French casualties in World War II exceeded the rate of casualties in World War I.

    2+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
  9. John Walker:
    In his history of World War II, Winston Churchill noted that during the brief period before the armistice, French casualties in World War II exceeded the rate of casualties in World War I.

    As it did again when they started handing over their Jews.

    1+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
  10. John Walker:
    In World War I, France had between 1,697,000 and 1,737,800 killed, or around 4.3% of its population.

    I think France lost their best.   They are still suffering.

    3+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
  11. France bled white in WWI.  As easy as it was for Britons to fool themselves in the run-up to WWII, imagine the pressure for the French to believe whatever they needed to regarding the prospect of war.  I cannot fault their soldiery except some of the very high rank, but they were all trapped in a political horror.

    2+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
  12. MJBubba:

    John Walker:
    In World War I, France had between 1,697,000 and 1,737,800 killed, or around 4.3% of its population.

    I think France lost their best.   They are still suffering.

    The demographic effect of having around a third (quarter?) of marriageable men ages 20-35 killed or maimed would have been terrible.

    4+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
  13. Haakon Dahl:
    Too bad we don’t know anybody there.

    Oh, come on. Of course we have an intelligent, reliable, and unbiased person on the scene to assure us that everything is just fine. Move along, nothing to see here.

    1+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
  14. ctlaw:
    London was full of three main artifacts of the war: 1) many brick buildings showed extensive patching of damage; 2) there were no large areas (blocks, not miles) of intact prewar buildings; and 3) there were large numbers of hideous post-war replacements (the period 1945-1960 was clearly the low point in the history of architecture). Paris was the opposite. Whereas hardly a block in London was unscarred, one could go for miles in Paris looking at near pristine old buildings.

    I have mixed feelings about these observations that I, too, shared while visiting both cities. I’ve always laughed at the old joke about the Frenchman trying to sell a WWII firearm with this pitch “Never been fired and only dropped once,” I have been known to tell off a rude native, “You’d be speaking German save for those vulgar Americans,” etc.

    And then I saw the splendor of Paris and for my own selfish reasons, I was glad for the opportunity to witness such glorious beauty.

    2+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar

Leave a Reply