The "blanche-2" review starts with the old joke saying that "Paris has never been defended"; maybe a good joke but a historical untruth!
Since the end of the Roman Empire, Paris has been besieged by Attila (461), by Childeric Ist (465), and by Clovis (494).
During the Viking invasions, Paris has been attacked in 845, 856, 857, 866 & 876, then besieged during two years (885-887) when the Franks under Eudes, count of Paris, did defend successfully the city; but in the end the Emperor (Charles le Gros) chose to pay off the Vikings.
The 978 siege, by Emperor Otton II was thwarted by Hugues Capet.
During the Hunded years war, Paris was besieged eight times (by the Burgundians, the English and the French); eventually reclaimed for King Charles VII by Marshal Ambroise de Loré.
Let us forget the sieges of Paris during the internecine wars (Guerre du Bien public, 1465; Guerres de Religion, 1567, 1588, 1589, 1590, 1591; and Guerre de la Fronde, 1649).
In 1814, after the defeat of Napoleon during the campaign of France, Paris was energetically defended (6'000 dead) but Marshal Marmont soon capitulated; after which the Russian Emperor Alexander Ist opted for the return of the Bourbon Kings. In 1815, at the end of the Hundred days, Paris was only briefly defended. Napoleon's Marshals signed an Armistice three weeks after Waterloo: the Emperor had been persuaded to abdicate, and the restoration of Louis XVIII had been masterfully engineered by Fouché and Talleyrand. During the 1870-1871 war, Paris was besieged unsuccessfully for six months by the Prussians. When the French government signed the peace (march 1871), the much bombarded but still untaken Paris revolted under the leadership of the Paris Commune. The siege became that of the Government army against the 'Communards' (at least 7'000 dead), with the Prussians watching by. The 1914-1918 war, demonstrated that the fortified redoubts around Paris would have been useless, had the German army been able to come close to them. Accordingly, a law was voted (1919) to dismantle the fortifications: the city became utterly indefensible - save for a "house to house guerilla" retarding action.
The city in 1940 was never meant to be defended; it was evacuated by the French government early June and declared "Open city"(June 11, '40) - in the same way as have been Brussels ('40), Oslo ('40), Belgrade ('41), Rome ('43) and Athens ('44). In 1944, the Allied armies did not intend to penetrate Paris, not wishing to be glued in "house to house fighting". The decision to send in two divisions (French 2d Armored Div., Gen. Leclerc de Hautecloque; American 4th Infantry Div., Gen. Raymond O. Barton) occurred several days after the revolt of Paris (Interior 'Resistants', Police forces, and the ill-armed populace) and was only taken by Gen. Eisenhower after a strong political request by de Gaulle - who feared a massacre in Paris, similar to the one which was occurring in Warsaw this same month of August '44.
Thus Paris was for a few days on the brink of catastrophe, and this is the subject of the play turned into this excellent film by Volker Schlöndorff. There is a striking similarity between « Diplomatie » and another play turned into a film: « Le Souper » (1992, with Claude Brasseur as Fouché and Claude Rich as Talleyrand). A lively dialogue within closed doors and windows; the subject is the 1815 invasion of Paris by the Allies: what next? Fouché and Talleyrand discuss alternatives. But the focus of "Le Souper" is power, that of "Diplomacy" is moral decency.
Even for a Parisian interested in history, there are things to be learnt from « Diplomacy » - in particular what would have been the consequences of a blowup! But this history is to be "learnt with a grain of salt": Obviously some artistic latitude has been used to strengthen the intrigue (of the play and of the parallel film script) - save for some actual WWII footage. This does not distort the general picture of the immense good resulting from the negotiation carried out between Von Choltitz and his counterparts, Raoul Nordling and the Mayor of Paris, Pierre-Charles Taittinger. Still, the unanswered question for this viewer is: how much romanced is the history in this gripping and masterfully played film? ___.
In 1814, after the defeat of Napoleon during the campaign of France, Paris was energetically defended (6'000 dead) but Marshal Marmont soon capitulated; after which the Russian Emperor Alexander Ist opted for the return of the Bourbon Kings. In 1815, at the end of the Hundred days, Paris was only briefly defended. Napoleon's Marshals signed an Armistice three weeks after Waterloo: the Emperor had been persuaded to abdicate, and the restoration of Louis XVIII had been masterfully engineered by Fouché and Talleyrand. During the 1870-1871 war, Paris was besieged unsuccessfully for six months by the Prussians. When the French government signed the peace (march 1871), the much bombarded but still untaken Paris revolted under the leadership of the Paris Commune. The siege became that of the Government army against the 'Communards' (at least 7'000 dead), with the Prussians watching by. The 1914-1918 war, demonstrated that the fortified redoubts around Paris would have been useless, had the German army been able to come close to them. Accordingly, a law was voted (1919) to dismantle the fortifications: the city became utterly indefensible - save for a "house to house guerilla" retarding action.
The city in 1940 was never meant to be defended; it was evacuated by the French government early June and declared "Open city"(June 11, '40) - in the same way as have been Brussels ('40), Oslo ('40), Belgrade ('41), Rome ('43) and Athens ('44). In 1944, the Allied armies did not intend to penetrate Paris, not wishing to be glued in "house to house fighting". The decision to send in two divisions (French 2d Armored Div., Gen. Leclerc de Hautecloque; American 4th Infantry Div., Gen. Raymond O. Barton) occurred several days after the revolt of Paris (Interior 'Resistants', Police forces, and the ill-armed populace) and was only taken by Gen. Eisenhower after a strong political request by de Gaulle - who feared a massacre in Paris, similar to the one which was occurring in Warsaw this same month of August '44.
Thus Paris was for a few days on the brink of catastrophe, and this is the subject of the play turned into this excellent film by Volker Schlöndorff. There is a striking similarity between « Diplomatie » and another play turned into a film: « Le Souper » (1992, with Claude Brasseur as Fouché and Claude Rich as Talleyrand). A lively dialogue within closed doors and windows; the subject is the 1815 invasion of Paris by the Allies: what next? Fouché and Talleyrand discuss alternatives. But the focus of "Le Souper" is power, that of "Diplomacy" is moral decency.
Even for a Parisian interested in history, there are things to be learnt from « Diplomacy » - in particular what would have been the consequences of a blowup! But this history is to be "learnt with a grain of salt": Obviously some artistic latitude has been used to strengthen the intrigue (of the play and of the parallel film script) - save for some actual WWII footage. This does not distort the general picture of the immense good resulting from the negotiation carried out between Von Choltitz and his counterparts, Raoul Nordling and the Mayor of Paris, Pierre-Charles Taittinger. Still, the unanswered question for this viewer is: how much romanced is the history in this gripping and masterfully played film? ___.