Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T03:17:52.078Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Anti-Semitism and Urban Development in France in the Second World War: The Case of Îlot 16 in Paris

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 June 2014

ISABELLE BACKOUCHE  and
SARAH GENSBURGER
ISABELLE BACKOUCHE
Affiliation:
EHESS, 190 avenue de France, 75013 Paris, France; [email protected]
SARAH GENSBURGER
Affiliation:
CNRS – ISP, 200 avenue de la République, 92001 Nanterre Cedex, France; [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Examining an ordinary town-planning decision made during an extraordinary period, this article highlights the interaction between the local urban redevelopment policy and the state policy of racial persecution in 1941. However, it argues that this interaction was far more complex than the implementation of an anti-Semitic ideology by two separate administrations to which it is usually reduced. Instead of trying to assess the ‘reality’ of the ‘representation’ of the housing area (îlot) as a ‘Jewish quarter’ the article takes as fact the notion that representations are realities, and vice versa, and attempts to understand if, and by what mechanisms, an ethno-religious characterisation of the îlot played a role in the redevelopment operations under consideration here.

In 1921 a memo from the Seine prefecture had been presented to the city council, identifying seventeen insanitary îlots in Paris as having above-average mortality rates from tuberculosis. These îlots were to be razed to the ground and rebuilt. The sixteenth îlot on the list was located in the southern section of the fourth arrondissement. This ‘îlot 16’ was apparently known as an area where the majority of its inhabitants were foreign Jews. In October 1941, when the persecution of the Jews was at its height, the Seine prefecture began a massive redevelopment of this urban space. The issue of areas of bad housing had been nagging at officials since the beginning of the century: but how are the actions of the Seine prefecture to be explained from 1941 onwards? Why, during the Second World War, were city officials so determined to prioritise, indeed to focus exclusively on, îlot 16? Why was it that a Paris construction project of a scale not seen since Baron Haussmann's time was planned at this point, when the actors themselves described the economic and political situation as unfavourable?

Antisémitisme et aménagement urbain: l’exemple de l’îlot 16 à paris durant la seconde guerre mondiale

S’intéressant à une décision administrative ordinaire d’aménagement urbain prise dans une période extraordinaire, cet article montre comment, en 1941, la politique urbaine locale et la politique étatique de persécution raciale ont interagi. Cependant il défend la thèse que cette interaction fut infiniment plus complexe que la mise en œuvre d’une idéologie antisémite par deux administrations distinctes, mise en œuvre à laquelle elle est le plus souvent réduite. Cet article ne cherche pas à estimer la ‘réalité’ de la représentation de l’îlot comme un ‘quartier juif’ mais, plutôt, prenant comme acquis que les représentations sont des réalités, et inversement, il tente de saisir selon quels mécanismes, une caractérisation ethnico-religieuse de l’îlot a joué un rôle dans la conduite des opérations d’urbanisme dont il est question.

En 1921, un mémoire du préfet de la Seine présenté au conseil municipal délimite 17 îlots insalubres parisiens dont la mortalité par tuberculose est supérieure à la moyenne et qui sont appelés à être rasés et reconstruits. Le 16ème sur cette liste est implanté au sud du 4e arrondissement. Cet ‘îlot 16’ jouit alors d’une réputation durable: sa population serait majoritairement composée de Juifs étrangers. En octobre 1941, au cœur des persécutions antisémites en France, la Préfecture déclenche une vaste opération d’aménagement de cet espace urbain. Puisque la question des îlots insalubres était lancinante depuis le début du siècle, sur quoi repose le volontarisme de la préfecture de la Seine à partir de 1941? Comment expliquer la détermination des édiles à s’attaquer en priorité et exclusivement à l’îlot 16 durant le second conflit mondial? Pourquoi décide-t-on alors d’engager un chantier parisien à une échelle ignorée depuis les travaux du Baron Haussmann alors même que les acteurs décrivent une situation économique et politique peu propice?

Antisemitismus und stadtplanung französischer behörden im zweiten weltkrieg: der fall des îlot 16 in paris

Dieser Beitrag beleuchtet anhand einer zu einer ungewöhnlichen Zeit gefällten gewöhnlichen stadtplanerischen Entscheidung die Wechselbeziehung zwischen lokaler Stadtentwicklungspolitik und der rassisch motivierten Verfolgungspolitik des französischen Staates im Jahre 1941. Die Autorinnen vertreten die These, dass diese Wechselbeziehung äußerst komplex war und weit über eine bloße Umsetzung der antisemitischen Ideologie durch zwei separate Verwaltungsbehörden hinausging, auf die sie häufig reduziert wird. Anstatt zu untersuchen, inwiefern die Darstellung des Häuserblocks (Îlot) als „jüdisches Viertel“ der Realität entspricht, nehmen die Autorinnen es als gegeben an, dass Darstellungen „Realitäten“ sind und umgekehrt. Sie versuchen nachzuvollziehen, inwieweit die ethnisch-religiöse Einordnung des Îlot die Umsetzung der stadtplanerischen Maßnahmen beeinflusste und welche Mechanismen dabei eine Rolle spielten.

Bereits im Jahr 1921 hatte der Präfekt des damaligen Département de la Seine dem Stadtrat eine Denkschrift vorgelegt, in dem 17 sanierungsbedürftige Häuserblöcke ausgewiesen waren. In allen lag die durch Tuberkulose verursachte Sterblichkeit über dem Durchschnitt. Infolgedessen sollte der Gebäudebestand abgerissen und neu aufgebaut werden. Der an sechzehnter Stelle genannte Häuserblock auf dieser Liste befindet sich im Süden des 4. Arrondissements. Das Îlot 16 genoss über Jahre einen Ruf als Viertel, das mehrheitlich von ausländischen Juden bewohnt wurde. Im Oktober 1941 – auf dem Höhepunkt der antisemitischen Verfolgungen in Frankreich – leitete die Präfektur großangelegte städtebauliche Entwicklungsmaßnahmen für dieses Wohngebiet ein. Die sanierungsbedürftigen Häuserblöcke hatten sich ja bereits Anfang des Jahrhunderts als drängende Frage dargestellt. Aus welchen Gründen begann die Präfektur ausgerechnet zu diesem Zeitpunkt – im Jahr 1941 – mit der Umsetzung der Pläne? Wie lässt sich die Entschlossenheit der Stadtväter erklären, sich während des Zweiten Weltkriegs vorrangig und ausschließlich auf die Sanierung des Îlot 16 zu konzentrieren? Warum beschlossen sie, eine Großbaustelle in einem seit den Arbeiten von Baron Haussmann ungekannten Ausmaß in Angriff zu nehmen, während sie selbst die wirtschaftliche und politische Lage als ungünstig beschrieben?

Type
Articles
Information
Contemporary European History , Volume 23 , Issue 3 , August 2014 , pp. 381 - 403
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The administration of Paris was conducted jointly by the Seine prefecture and the city council.

2 The îlots insalubres were of various sizes (see Map 1), but always larger than a single block.

3 The section was labelled ‘16’ because ‘this îlot has the sixteenth lowest tuberculosis rate of the seventeen in question’. Hereafter ‘îlot 16’.

4 This view had been prevalent in the city government at least since 1910. See Archives de Paris (hereafter AP), VO NC 1342, Rapport à monsieur le préfet, 17 Nov. 1910. From then on articles written about the neighbourhood, mainly for journals produced by local scholarly associations, witness to the enduring nature of this representation. Examples include Charles Fegdal, ‘Le Ghetto parisien contemporain’, La Cité, Bulletin de la Société Historique et Archéologique des IVe et IIIe Arrondissements de Paris, LV (July 1915), 221–36 and Raymond Lecuyer, ‘L’Îlot insalubre n° 16’, L’Illustration (22 Feb. 1941), 191–5.

5 Médiathèque de l’Architecture et du Patrimoine (hereafter MAPA), 81/075/04, carton 1, letter from Guy Périer de Féral to the Ministre Secrétaire d’État à l’Éducation Nationale, 2 Feb. 1944. On the same day, Périer de Féral sent very nearly the same letter to the Délégué Général à l’Équipement National.

6 Prefectural order of 25 Oct.1941 denouncing the general degradation and sordidness of îlot 16, Bulletin Municipal Officiel, 319, 21 Nov. 1941.

7 Lévy-Vroeland, Claire, ‘Le Diagnostic d’insalubrité et ses conséquences sur la ville. Paris 1894–1960’, Population, 54, 4–5 (July–Oct. 1999), 707–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Fijalkow, Yankel, ‘Surpopulation ou insalubrité: Deux statistiques pour décrier l’habitat populaire (1880–1914)’, Le Mouvement Social, 182 (Jan.–Mar. 1998), 79–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar, both suggest the same idea, but put it less strongly.

8 Vichy law required all persons subject to expropriation or eviction to declare their racial status. For Jews, compensation payments were to be paid into separate accounts in their names, but to which they had no access (law of 22 July 1941 on ‘Aryanisation économique’).

9 We plan another study to cover the nature and mechanisms of the eviction, analysing its impact on the Jewish inhabitants. Our current project aims to analyse the persecution of the Jews from a social and territorial viewpoint. This epistemological and methodological approach underlies some (but lamentably few) research projects devoted to areas outside Paris: see e.g. Croes, Marnix, ‘The Netherlands 1942–1945: Survival in Hiding and the Hunt for Hidden Jews’, Netherlands Journal of Social Sciences, XL (2004), 157–75Google Scholar; Ménager, Camille, ‘Roundups, Rescue and Social Networks in Paris (1940–1944)’, in Andrieu, Claire, Gensburger, Sarah and Semelin, Jacques, eds, Resisting Genocide: The Multiple Forms of Rescue, tr. Bentley, Emma and Schoch, Cynthia (New York: Columbia University Press, 2011), 411–31Google Scholar; Mariot, Nicolas and Zalc, Claire, Face à la persecution: 991 Juifs dans la guerre (Paris: O. Jacob, 2010)Google Scholar.

10 ‘Domaine privé et spoliation: Les acquisitions immobilières de la ville de Paris entre 1940 et 1944 proviennent-elles de la spoliation des propriétaires et locataires concernés?’ Final report of the Conseil du Patrimoine Privé de la Ville de Paris, with the co-operation of its group of experts, 16 Oct. 2000.

11 In reaction to Vital-Durand, Brigitte, Domaine privé (Paris: F1rst, 1996)Google Scholar.

12 The 1900 W inventory (AP) contains the eviction and expropriation files for îlot 16. For a long-term approach to the question of insanitariness in Paris, see Wakeman, Rosemary, ‘Nostalgic Modernism and the Invention of Paris in the Twentieth Century’, French Historical Studies, 27, 1 (2004), 115–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Backouche, Isabelle, ‘Rénover le centre de Paris: quel impact sur les marges? (1940–1970)’, in Florence Bourillon and Annie Fourcaut, eds, 1860: Agrandir Paris (Paris: Publications de la Sorbonne, 2012), 325–40Google Scholar.

13 Paxton, Robert O. and Lyotard-May, Andrée, ‘La Spécificité de la persécution des juifs en France en 1942’, Annales ESC, 48, 3 (1993), 605–19Google Scholar.

14 For a synthesis see Cole, Tim and Giordano, Alberto, ‘On Place and Space: Calculating Social and Spatial Networks in the Budapest Ghetto’, Transactions in GIS, 15, s1 (2011), 143–70Google Scholar.

15 See the discussions in Tooze, Adrian, The Wages of Destruction: The Making and Breaking of the Nazi Economy (London: Allen Lane, 2006)Google Scholar; Aly, Götz, Hitler's Beneficiaries: Plunder, Racial War, and the Nazi Welfare State (New York: Metropolitan Books, 2006)Google Scholar.

16 To date, this line has been followed chiefly by German scholars: Wolf Gruner, ‘Berlin, Vienna and Other Municipalities: A Comparative View on Local Anti-Jewish Policies in the Third Reich’, Annals of the Institute for Comparative Studies of Culture, 67 (Tokyo: Tokyo Woman's Christian University, 2006) and ‘Die NS-Judenverfolgung und die Kommunen: Zur wechselseitigen Dynamisierung von zentraler und lokaler Politik 1933–1941’, Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte, 48, 1 (2000), 75–126.

17 See Malberg, Nathalie Carré de, ‘Les Fonctionnaires (civils) sous Vichy: Essai historiographique’, Histoire@Politique, 2 (Sept.–Oct., 2007Google Scholar). The author's main concern is with the history of the Seine prefecture during the occupation; our interests evidently lie in the same domain. In addition, see the pioneering work by Baruch, Marc Olivier, Servir l’État français: L’Administration en France de 1940 à 1944 (Paris: Fayard, 1997)Google Scholar; Bancaud, Alain, Une exception ordinaire: La Magistrature en France: 1930–1950, nrf essais (Paris: Gallimard, 2002)Google Scholar; and Joly, Laurent, Vichy dans la ‘solution finale’: Histoire du Commissariat Général aux Questions Juives 1941–1944 (Paris: Grasset, 2006)Google Scholar.

18 Joly, Laurent, L’Antisémitisme de bureau: Enquête au coeur de la préfecture de police de Paris et du Commissariat Général aux Questions Juives (1940–1944) (Paris: Grasset, 2011)Google Scholar; Bruttmann, Tall, Au bureau des Affaires juives: L’Administration française et l’application de la législation antisémite (1940–1944) (Paris: La Découverte, 2006)Google Scholar.

19 Gerson, Judith M. and Wolf, Diane L., eds, Sociology Confronts the Holocaust (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Varese, Federico and Yaish, Meir, ‘The Importance of Being Asked: The Rescue of Jews in Nazi Europe’, Rationality and Society, 12, 3 (2000), 307–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Browning, Christopher, Ordinary Men: Reserve Police, Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland (New York: HarperCollins, 1992)Google Scholar; Hilberg, Raul, Perpetrators, Victims, Bystanders: The Jewish Catastrophe 1933–1945 (New York: Harper Perennial, 1993)Google Scholar.

20 See Backouche, Isabelle, ‘Rénover un quartier parisien sous Vichy: “Un Paris expérimental plus qu’une rêverie sur Paris”’, Genèses, CXXIII (2008), 115–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For a broader approach covering the public health and architectural aspects, see Jackson, Julian, France: The Dark Years: 1940–1944 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

21 This opposition was suggested in 1990 at a conference organised by the Institut d’Histoire du Temps Présent, and was taken up again by Azéma, Jean-Pierre and Bédarida, François, eds, Vichy et les Français (Paris: Fayard, 1992)Google Scholar.

22 Le Crom, Jean-Pierre, ‘Droit de Vichy ou droit sous Vichy? Sur l’historiographie de la production du droit en France pendant la Deuxième Guerre mondiale’, Histoire@Politique: Politique, Culture, Société, IX, 3 (Sept.–Dec. 2009)Google Scholar.

23 See Ravid, Benjamin, ‘Tous les ghettos juifs étaient des quartiers juifs, mais les quartiers juifs n’étaient pas tous des ghettos’, Cahiers du Judaïsme, XXV (2009)Google Scholar and the illuminating article by Cole, Tim, ‘Contesting and Compromising Ghettoization: Hungary 1944’, in Roth, John K., Petropoulous, Jonathan and Rapaport, Lynn, eds, Lessons and Legacies Volume IX: Memory, History and Responsibility (Chicago: Northwestern University Press, 2010), 152–66Google Scholar.

24 Lepetit, Bernard, ‘La société comme un tout: Sur trois formes d’analyse de la totalité sociale’, Les Cahiers du CRH, 22 (1999), 32Google Scholar.

25 Our principal archive sources for the persecution of the Jew are: archives of the despoliation of the Jews in the Archives Nationales (hereafter AN), Series AJ38; the restitution orders for looted property, AP 47 W, 1994 W, 2330 W; war damage files, 50 W and 1131 W; the Seine prefecture's files on local families; the Drancy camp file; the files from the Drancy camp; the archives of the Union Générale des Israélites de France, and the Mémorial de la Shoah.

26 Relevant material in the AP includes papers from the Seine prefect's office (Pérotin Series), the city council (Conseil municipal) (13W, D4K3, D5K3, 2331 W), the Seine prefect's memoranda sent to the Conseil municipal (D9K3), the official municipal bulletin from the City of Paris (D3K3), the 1936 and 1946 censuses, the Crédit municipal archives (1ETP), the ‘Arrêtés de réquisition des parcelles’ (58 W), ‘Bureau du contrôle des sociétés immobilières de la ville de Paris’ (1397 W), ‘Gestion des îlots insalubres’ (1427 W, VONC 1342), lease statements from the 4th arrondissement (1833 W), school registers (2630 to 2639 W), the sommier foncier (DQ18), the cadastral map (1937–1968), the Bottin du commerce (2mi3), and Gestion du domaine privé de la ville de Paris (3067 W). We also explored the following archives: MAPA, the Archives of the Vieux Paris Commission (Généralités, îlot 16), the archives of the police prefecture (Répertoire analytique du quartier Saint-Gervais, CB 14–71 to 14–77, May 1938–Dec. 1945) and the AN (Fonds Albert Laprade, 403 AP; Commissariat Général aux Questions Juives, AJ 38).

27 Dean, Martin, Constantin Goschler and Philipp Ther, eds, Robbery and Restitution: The Conflict over Jewish Property in Europe (New York: Berghahn Books in association with the US Holocaust Memorial Museum, 2007)Google Scholar.

28 Albert Laprade, one of the three architects who in the end directed the operation, is an example. See L’Illustration, ‘Les métamorphoses de Paris’, MMMMCMLXIX, 28 May 1938.

29 AP, 13 W 139, Report from the Seine prefecture, 20 Dec. 1938 and AN, F/2/4212, letter from the Seine prefect, Magny, to Darlan, minister of the nterior, 2 May 1941.

30 AP, 1427 W 89, Correspondence between the Plan de Paris and the public health and housing departments, 24 July 1941.

31 Commission du Vieux Paris, Îlot 16, Généralités (CVP16G), carton 1.

32 The archives relating to the operation are held in the Collection 1900 W, AP: Expropriation de la zone non aedificandi et du quartier Saint-Gervais (îlot insalubre n° 16), 1792–977.

33 AP, 1427W87, Projet de la Société d’études pour l’aménagement urbain d’îlots insalubres and AN, Fonds Laprade, 403 AP 500, item 1, Mar. 1941.

34 The loi sur les abords restricts building on land in the vicinity of buildings of recognised historical or aesthetic importance. The law was passed on 25 Feb. 1943, and published in the Journal Officiel on 4 Mar. 1943.

35 This number was calculated as follows. First we calculated the total number of households reported to the prefecture as ‘Jewish’ at the time of the eviction. We then added those unaccounted for by this procedure which we located from sources outside the 1900 W inventory. This total was then compared to the number of inhabited apartments according to the 1936 census data. Evidently, we may have failed to account for certain Jewish households. Our percentages provide a relative scale for the purposes of comparison and represent minimum values; we have used them in order to compare social structures and administrative policies. At this juncture we are not interested in decisions made by actors who, by definition, were unaware of these percentages at the time. We will return to that question later.

36 Operation 12 may be considered separately: the only two buildings concerned adjoined the school on the rue Geoffrey L’Asnier, and were expropriated in order to enlarge this school.

37 Gensburger, Sarah and Dreyfus, J-M, Nazi Labour Camps in Paris, tr. Jonathan Hensher (New York: Berghahn, 2011)Google Scholar; Gensburger, Sarah, Images d’un pillage: Album de la spoliation des juifs à Paris (1940–1944) (Paris: Editions Textuel, 2010)Google Scholar.

38 This is confirmed by our research: 93% of the heads of Jewish families were born outside metropolitan France and 64% of them were not of French nationality.

39 The order for Operation 5 was put into effect on 20 July 1942; it had been drawn up on 16 July. The mass arrest is referred to as “Vél’ d’Hiv” because 8,160 of those arrested were initially interned inside Paris's Vélodrome d’Hiver.

40 CVP, Îlot 16, Généralités, carton 1, ‘Mémoire sur les îlots insalubres présenté au conseil municipal le 23 décembre 1921’. Another memo, dated 1934, also refers to these obstacles: AP, 13W54.

41 Law of 21 Sept. 1941 dealing with the renovation of îlots insalubres in Paris, Journal Officiel, 10 Oct. 1941, p. 4371; law of 1 Mar. 1942 dealing with insanitary buildings and the areas covered by the old city wall, Journal Officiel, 5 Mar. 1942, p. 916.

42 L’Illustration, ‘Les métamorphoses de Paris’.

43 From August 1941 to August 1944, Jews awaiting deportation were held at the Cité de la Muette in Drancy; 65,000 of the 76,000 Jews deported from France spent some time there.

44 AP, 1 ETP 624, letter from the department of architecture and urban services to the director of the Crédit Municipal, 10 Jan. 1942, and memo to the director informing him of the Dienststelle Westen's was blocking some of the deposit, 19 Apr. 1944.

45 CVP16G, carton 1, memo from the director of architecture and urban services to the secretary-general for economic and social affairs, 9 Sept. 1942. The German ordinance, dated 22 May 1942, prohibited all unauthorised construction projects costing more than 100,000 francs.

46 Various voices were raised in opposition when the operation was started: CVP16G, Généralités, carton 3, letter to the Seine refect, 12 Dec. 1941.

47 The problem appeared on the Seine prefecture's agenda in September 1942, but it was not new. As early as March of the same year, the tenants of 16 rue Charlemagne had sent a request and petition to the Seine refect and the municipal council of the 4th arrondissement, calling for the demolition of the building to be postponed. CVP16G, carton 1, request and petition.

48 CVP16G, carton 1, memorandum to the general secretary of the Seine prefecture from the director of administrative and technical affairs, 21 Sept. 1942.

49 AP, 1397W 184, Archives of the upervisory authority of the Paris city housing organizations, correspondence from 17–24 Sept. 1942. A similar decision was taken as early as 1933 in Berlin: see Gruner, Wolf, Judenverfolgung in Berlin 1933–1945: Eine Chronologie der Behördenmaßnahmen in der Reichshauptstadt, 2nd edn (Berlin: Stiftung Topographie des Terrors, 2009)Google Scholar.

50 AP, 1397W 184, Archives of the supervisory authority of the Paris city housing organisations, letter from the housing department, 17 Sept. 1942.

51 CVP16G, carton 1, memorandum to the assistant director of the General Secretariat, 10 Apr. 1943.

52 Willems, Susanne, ‘Der entsiedelte Jude’: Albert Speers Wohnungsmarktpolitik für den Berliner Hauptstadtbau (Berlin: Hentrich Druck, 2002)Google Scholar.

53 Aly, Götz, Hitlers Volksstaat: Raub, Rassenkrieg und Nationaler Sozialismus (Frankfurt: Fischer, 2005)Google Scholar.

54 CVP16G, carton 1, report from the director of the department of architecture and urban services of the Seine prefecture, 29 July 1942.

55 AP, 1900 W and A. N., AJ 38, topographic index.

56 R. Lecuyer, ‘L’Îlot insalubre’, L’Illustration, 16.

57 ‘Loi du 21 septembre 1941, relative à l’aménagement des îlots insalubres de Paris’, Journal Officiel, 10 Oct. 1941, article 3.

58 The number was perforce a minimum (see n. 35 above); moreover, other sources, yet to be fully confirmed, suggest that the number was in reality probably larger. These sources include the ‘rouleau Epstein’ held at the Mémorial de la Shoah. In all likelihood, this document is a register of donations made to the Union générale des israélites de France (UGIF, general association of Jews in France imposed by a French law under pressure from the Nazis) by Jews from various Paris neighbourhoods in November 1942.

59 In the course of our research it became clear that only 23%, and not the majority, of households in the îlot were actually Jewish.

60 CVP16G, carton 3, letter from Michel Roux-Spitz to Périer de Féral, 20 Aug. 1942.

61 CVP16G, carton 2, letter of 1 July 1944.

62 CVP16G, carton 2, memo on the maintenance of buildings to be conserved after redevelopment, 18 June 1944.

63 Archives of the Seine police prefecture, CB 14–75, daybook entries from 21 Oct. 1942 to 20 Jan. 1944.

64 CVP16G, carton 2, Note, 8 Feb. 1944.

65 AP, 3067W 898. In the case of an eviction for reasons of public utility, the city is prohibited from leasing to a new tenant.

66 For an overview of Jews living in post-war Paris, see Auslander, Leora, ‘Coming Home? Jews in Postwar Paris’, Journal of Contemporary History, 40, 2 (2005), 237–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Fogg, Shannon L., ‘Displaced Persons, Displaced Possessions: The Effects of Spoliation and Restitution on Daily Life in Paris’, in Sandra Ott, ed., War, Exile, Justice and Everyday Life, 1936–1946 (Reno: Center for Basque Studies, University of Nevada, Reno, 2011), 363–5Google Scholar.

67 Paris-Midi, 21 Aug. 1943.

68 AP, 1900 W 203. Register summarising Operation 6B.

69 AP, Seine prefect's communication to the municipal and general councils on the problem of accommodation and development plans for Paris and its suburbs, 1946.

70 Wolf Gruner, ‘Berlin, Vienna and Other Municipalities’, 36 and 40.

71 Fogg, Shannon L., The Politics of Everyday Life in Vichy France: Foreigners, Undesirables, and Strangers (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009)Google Scholar.

72 Bruttmann, Au bureau. On Paris, cf. Joly, Antisémitisme de bureau.

73 Margairaz, Michel, ‘Les politiques économiques sous et de Vichy’, Histoire@politique: Politique, Culture, Société, IX (Sept.–Dec. 2009)Google Scholar.

74 Andrieu, Claire, ‘Ecrire l’histoire des spoliations antisémites (France, 1940–1944)’, Histoire@politique: Politique, Culture, Société, IX (Sept.–Dec. 2009), 13Google Scholar.

75 This was true of the Beaux-Arts sector, and also of family policy-making. Capuano, Christophe, Vichy et la famille: Réalités et faux-semblants d’une politique publique (Rennes: Presses Universitaires de Rennes, 2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

76 Leleu, Jean-Luc, ‘Les Déplacements de population’, in J.-L. Leleu, Françoise Passera, Jean Quellien, Michel Daeffler, La France pendant la Seconde Guerre Mondiale: Atlas Historique (Paris: Fayard, 2010)Google Scholar; Alary, Eric, L’Exode: Un drame oublié (Paris: Perrin, 2010)Google Scholar.

77 Nicolas Mariot and Claire Zalc, Les 991, Archives Départementales du Pas-de-Calais, 1Z499.

78 For a German precedent, see Loose, Ingo, Christoph Kreutzmüller and Benno Nietzel, ‘Nazi Persecution and Strategies for Survival: Jewish Businesses in Berlin, Frankfurt am Main, and Breslau, 1933–1942’, Yad Vashem Studies, 39, 1 (2011), 31–70Google Scholar.