Skip to main content

Primarily a Franco-American Affair?

I notice that the Government of the French Republic has described the commemoration of the 65th anniversary of the Normandy landings as "primarily a Franco-American affair" .

Once again it shows President Sarkozy in a pretty bad light.

Of the 156,000 troops landed on Omaha, Utah, (American) Juno, Gold and Sword (British and Dominion, primarily Canadian) beaches 73,000 were American and 83,115 were under British command, including a contingent of 900 Free French under the command of General Leclerc.

D-day itself was not, noticeably, a primarily Franco-American affair. The largest military contingent was from Britain and the Commonwealth.


The Queen is not merely Head of State of the United Kingdom, but also of Queen of Canada, Australia and New Zealand amongst others- and Head of the Commonwealth. All of which nations participated in the Normandy landings and the liberation of France.

My Great-uncle Claude was a short man. It was just as well, because when he jumped out of the landing craft on D-day he went underwater and was not hit by the machine gun fire. Few of the others in his craft made it to shore. He did not talk about what happened until almost the last year of his life. I have little doubt that D-Day was one of the worst days of his life. When the trumpets blair on June 6th I wonder if M. Sarkozy or Mr. Brown will even understand the sacrifices those young men made 65 years ago.


How could the government of the French Republic failed to have given a personal invitation to the only serving Head of State to have put on a uniform in the Second World War, and who knew the commanders personally? How could the government of the United Kingdom not have insisted that The Queen be invited?


Of course The Queen could not now accept a late invitation, grudgingly given, and will now not attend the ceremony. It is hard not to be incensed by the incompetence of the British government and absolutely outraged at the contemptuous way President Sarkozy has handled this affair.

Of the 1.7 million war grave maintained by the Commonwealth war graves commission, the vast majority are in France. 350,000 of these relate to the Second World War.

Nicholas Sarkozy should be utterly ashamed.

Gordon Brown should be utterly embarrassed.

Comments

Edis said…
No surprise here. France has for many decades enjoyed ‘Meaningful Amnesia’ (in the words of the historian Robert Frank) in which The Americans, Russians, Free French and the Maquise take the credit for French Liberation in 1944. Frank says that for the French to remember Britain’s true contribution to restoring French freedom is just too painful a reminder of the ‘different destinies of the two countries’.

See discussion in Robert and Isabelle Tombs book ‘That Sweet Enemy’ (p595) citing Franks 1994 book ‘La hantisse du decline: le rang de la France en Europe 1920-1960’.
Newmania said…
Delighted to have an opportunity to agree, how many generations does it take to learn the meaning of ingratitude?

‘Trois ‘

Interesting about Claude .My grandfather was at the Somme, he was shot in the shoulder and pay there until he was dragged back to the trench at night and thence to Blighty. He would otherwise never have made it no-one else did form his lot .He did have a permanently disabled arm and was shall we say ....temperamental, died young( nuts by then and long before me ) . Still he had six children , one ,my father, very late , and god knows how many grand children and great grand children , three of them are mine.
Anonymous said…
After several years in Spain I moved to France a couple of years ago. I bought a Larousse CD-ROM encyclopedia to help me with my french and the entire section about the D-Day landings doesn't mention Britain or the British contribution once. I guess any nationality has it's blind spots on certain issues.

Popular posts from this blog

Waiting for the Barbarians

What are we waiting for, assembled in the forum? The barbarians are due here today. Why isn’t anything going on in the senate? Why are the senators sitting there without legislating? Because the barbarians are coming today. What’s the point of senators making laws now? Once the barbarians are here, they’ll do the legislating. Why did our emperor get up so early, and why is he sitting enthroned at the city’s main gate, in state, wearing the crown? Because the barbarians are coming today and the emperor’s waiting to receive their leader. He’s even got a scroll to give him, loaded with titles, with imposing names. Why have our two consuls and praetors come out today wearing their embroidered, their scarlet togas? Why have they put on bracelets with so many amethysts, rings sparkling with magnificent emeralds? Why are they carrying elegant canes beautifully worked in silver and gold? Because the barbarians are coming today and things like that dazzle the barbarians. Why don’t our distingui...

Liberal Democrats v Conservatives: the battle in the blogosphere

It is probably fair to say that the advent of Nick Clegg, the new leader of the Liberal Democrats, has not been greeted with unalloyed joy by our Conservative opponents. Indeed, it would hardly be wrong to say that the past few weeks has seen some "pretty robust" debate between Conservative and Liberal Democrat bloggers. Even the Queen Mum of blogging, the generally genial Iain Dale seems to have been featuring as many stories as he can to try to show Liberal Democrats in as poor a light as possible. Neither, to be fair, has the traffic been all one way: I have "fisked' Mr. Cameron's rather half-baked proposals on health, and attacked several of the Conservative positions that have emerged from the fog of their policy making process. Most Liberal Democrats have attacked the Conservatives probably with more vigour even than the distrusted, discredited Labour government. So what lies behind this sharper debate, this emerging war in the blogosphere? Partly- in my ...

Lib Dem v. Tory (Round 2)

The Liberal Democrats stand for a distinct political ideology. It is an ideology built around both socially and economically liberal precepts. In as far as our ruling Labour government can be said to have an ideology at all, it coincides with Liberalism only incidentally. Labour stands for pragmatism, and where it does not there is still a core of values that are collectivist and not individual. Sometimes people are prepared to claim the moral high ground for policies of social solidarity and redistribution of wealth. Liberals may argue in favour of equality of opportunity, we can not argue in favour- as Socialists do- of "and equal society". The reason is simple: Socialism does not work. If one places equality above freedom, then eventually we get tyranny. This is why, while we may argue in favour of a more equal society as being a stronger society, the tools that we may use to gain -in our view- socially desirable outcomes must rest upon freedom above all else. As PJ O'...