But creating a special memorial to commemorate just some people who served in WW2 does just that. Everyone who fell is already commemorated. The people singled out for special treatment are the missing, out of respect relatives who have no graves where they can find closure. That is why we hold out national commemorations at these memorials, which are built at sites of significance on the major overseas campaigns. Sure, by all means erect monuments and interpretation boards where stories are not already told. The British story in Normandy is not well supported by interpretation or memorials. The battlefield between Caen and Falaise seems to have been given up to the Canadians. There is no British memorial or interpretation at Lambert-sur-Dives, where British troops played a big part in the destruction of the encircled Germans and closing the Falaise Pocket. There is little interpretation to inform visitors of the bitter battle for Tilly-sur-Suelles, the month long struggle at Hill 112, Apart from Sidney Bates there is little to tell of Op Bluecoat or the capture of Mount Pincon. There is nothing to tell of the battle for Pont l'Eveque by the paras or the Seine crossing. There are places crying out for investment to tell the story of British servicemen. But this is not big or focused enough is it? Nor is there any memorial or interpretation to support the other big battle of Summer 1944, the defence of the UK against the V weapons. 50,000 men and women of AA Command as well as the RAF and USAAF have no commemoration or interpretation. Sorry, but the Normandy Memorial stinks of self importance. It is a project built around a nexus of public enthusiasm for commemoration, sentimental support for old guys who believe that their campaign deserves special recognition and a pile of LIBOR cash.