If you remember there was an outcry in the US against the French that they would not come in and join in "the war on terror" on the battlefield.It got so bad that the US press replaced French derived words in US English such as French Fries and the like with US English. The French nation as a whole, were berated in the US press because they did not follow the US lead. I see today, in our press that Simon Heffer accuses Sarkosy of an appalling snub to the Queen in her not being in Normandy and accuses the French of rewriting history. Incidentally I have seen many US troops in the Republic of Ireland but they are not serving in the Republic, indeed there was local opposition to their presence in Shannon whilst passing through the place as a staging post. The US and British governments have spent some considerable effort since 2003 to motivate those NATO partners,already involved in the "war on terror" to take up a greater role in sharing the burden.The US will always use their power and influence to achieve their foreign policy aims and the courting of a newly led France is all part of that strategy. Now whatever we say here,even if there has been widespread awareness by official sources of the resentment portrayed by the media and felt by the UK population,the Queen will not be in Normandy this year.
Well, I think it is a shame and disgrace that your Queen will not be at Normandy this year---she was part of WW2 and a credit to your Nation for these many years--our Obama cares little for the military regardless of the political bull he passes out since getting into the White House---both of our countries have been lessened in stature by the quality of leadership we have allowed into high office but on one point we can agree and be proud---we saved the world and gave millions freedom for 65 years and no politician can take that away from history---God Bless America and God Save the Queen-- USA Normandy vet
Well, I think it is a shame and disgrace that your Queen will not be at Normandy this year---she was part of WW2 and a credit to your Nation for these many years--our Obama cares little for the military regardless of the political bull he passes out since getting into the White House---both of our countries have been lessened in stature by the quality of leadership we have allowed into high office but on one point we can agree and be proud---we saved the world and gave millions freedom for 65 years and no politician can take that away from history---God Bless America and God Save the Queen-- USA Normandy vet Cmomm, As a proud Englishman thank you for those kind words about our Queen. People like me should be thanking people like you for saving the World during it's darkest hours. At least next weekend gives me the oppurtunity to do that, and of course pay my respects to those that didn't make it back home Steve
British yellow journalism really took to a new low over this issue, blaming France without any close look at what really happened. Putting it simply, Brown cocked up on his duties. It saddens me still to see that some of those who lived through those times have also taken up the banner of French-bashing without looking closely at the details. One would think that after their experience, they would naturally be a little skepticle of such baiting. Remembering the beaches | Robert Fox | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk "It seems that the main culprit is not Sarkozy, whose forebears had a dreadful experience in the second world war in the ghetto of Thessaloniki and in Hungary. According to the Daily Mail, not entirely reliable on matters of royal pique and foreign relations, the French president told the British government to nominate who they wanted as representing Britain and the Commonwealth in Normandy. At first Gordon Brown said has wasn't going, now he has said he is. First he said there should be a memorial service for the Normandy campaign at Westminster Abbey next month, and now he has called it off. For a man who purports to have such a deep interest in history, at times his understanding of it, and its legacy in the collective memory, seems remarkably shallow. His dithering and grudging decision to attend the ceremonies means that many of those nations who went ashore under British and Canadian command in 1944, including Poles, Jews and refugee units from across occupied Europe, will be under-represented. Brown's own history of support for the armed forces has, if anything, been worse than that of Tony Blair." I hope those who go to Normandy enjoy themselves thoroughly, but I also hope that while you're there, you understand the fault over the Queen not recieving her invite lies not with France, the French, or even Sarkozy, but with Brown alone. I am truely disturbed by what I am reading in the British press, and by extension the American press. It's 2003 all over again. :-(
I am truely disturbed by what I am reading in the British press. :-( Disturbed, yes Arsenal but surley not surprised. Those sorts of headlines and stories are the norm for the British xenophobic, narrow minded rags that print them.
BBC NEWS | UK | Queen 'welcome at D-Day service' Gordon Brown has said he will arrange for the Queen to attend next Saturday's D-Day events in France if she wants to. The prime minister told BBC One's Andrew Marr programme if any royal wants to be at the commemorations on 6 June he would "make that possible".
Its confusing. That's funny because when I had a quick look at a US Washington news item, they were blaming the US Government for not inviting her. Then looking in the Sunday Times today, in a report from Paris,the blame is put firmly on Sarkozy, who it is said to have arranged this Franco -American event. Brown gets two references,one from a British veteran of Gold Beach who states "If he'd been more of a man,he'd have more done to insist on us being recognise.The other "an unapologetic French Government said there had never been any question of inviting the Queen and seemed to blame Brown for her absence." It is said that Sarkosy hopes to be alone with Obama as his guest when they visit Colleville sur Mer military cemetery.The report alleges that Sarkosy is trying to manipulate the event for political reasons related to the European parliamentary elections on 7 June. Rod Liddle in his Sunday Times Comments column scrambles them all with an 88mm aimed into the French camp.States that the French will be celebrating an ability to capitulate almost as soom as the first bullet is fired.He continues that "Very late in the day Nicolas Sarkozy invited the Queen to the ceremony,but she should tell him to obtenir farci".(I have to say, he should refresh his military history awareness.) There's an abundance of column inches being turned out over the occasion.Its very confusing.
I'm afraid that the French are to blame a little more than some people here would like to believe. It is hard for people who haven't lived in France to appreciate, but the French really do believe that they liberated themselves in 1944 (de Gaulle told them that for years), and anyone of Sarky's generation will firmly believe it. They acknowledge an American input, but only reluctantly the British & Commonwealth contribution, and of that they aren't certain what we did, if anything. You may think I am over-egging the oeuf here, but aside from the areas that directly saw British & Commonwealth troops, the majority of France, and especially the French media, think this way. It is not essentially anti-British, it's much more complex than that, but it is ignorance and part of the French denial of what happened in WW2 - and that denial runs right through subjects like the years of collaboration, attitudes to the concept of a resistance movement, how the Jews were treated, and on to the period of Liberation. And no, I'm not anti-French. In fact, I have French blood running through my veins and I lived in France for more than a decade. I can only repeat what many French produced books now call Normandy... the start of the "American liberation of Europe" (direct quote).
I'm afraid that the French are to blame a little more than some people here would like to believe. It is hard for people who haven't lived in France to appreciate, but the French really do believe that they liberated themselves in 1944 (de Gaulle told them that for years), and anyone of Sarky's generation will firmly believe it. They acknowledge an American input, but only reluctantly the British & Commonwealth contribution, and of that they aren't certain what we did, if anything. You may think I am over-egging the oeuf here, but aside from the areas that directly saw British & Commonwealth troops, the majority of France, and especially the French media, think this way. It is not essentially anti-British, it's much more complex than that, but it is ignorance and part of the French denial of what happened in WW2 - and that denial runs right through subjects like the years of collaboration, attitudes to the concept of a resistance movement, how the Jews were treated, and on to the period of Liberation. And no, I'm not anti-French. In fact, I have French blood running through my veins and I lived in France for more than a decade. I can only repeat what many French produced books now call Normandy... the start of the "American liberation of Europe" (direct quote). Mr. Reed, I can understand why the charge of "yellow journalism" could probably have someone's tea boiling, but it does not change the fact that the British press ( and several US medias as well ) bit the proverbial hook, and without any inclination for cross referencing or checking to see if the charges were true, exploded in it's usual fury of French-baiting. Your follow-up post had absolutely nothing to do with this shameful reporting among the tabloids and free-presses, so it does strike as a bit bizarre you should feel compelled to write a litany of greivances in what you percieve as overly ethnocentric history from the French. It goes without saying that I very strongly disagree with you, giving my experience in France, UK, Germany, and the US. You are entitled to your opinions, but it just that, an opinion. I would like to take this moment to state that in my opinion, British historians have done pretty much the same, as have the Ameicans, Russians, and any other country which found itself a major participant in the 2nd World War. Case and point, one of my favorite points of study is Dunkirk. When I read and compare accounts from both British and French perspectives, I often wonder if I'm not reading about two different wars. The fact is, in over 20 years of my interests and studies of the 2nd world war, it's has been my observation that while all countries involved will naturally put an ethnocentric spin onto history, I've found the French to be amongst the most open about their past, to the point of incessant self-flagellation in regards to some of it's darker periods. I've found the French perpective to also be much more inclusive of other nation's efforts and sacrifices than what I've found in the British perspective, which I feel not only treats the French contributions with the back-handed dismissiveness usually reserved by opposing political parties during debates, but also with a certain condecension and derision which is often quite unbecoming of historians. The American perpective often parrots the UK point of view, though it will unabashedly claim it "saved" the world at every turn, with a little British help. From the little Russian I can translate (or have my good collegues do so for me) only Russia, and Russia alone defeated the Nazis, though it will sometimes mention minor campaignes in N. Africa and western Europe. As you may well know, a very recent ruling in that country has made it against the law to criticize Russia's tactics during the war, this has undoubtedly included giving other countries credit for their own actions elsewhere. As for your mentioning of the Jews, please be careful when treading these waters, since British exceptionalism will not pass on this one. Perhaps you may wish to visit the Holocaust Museaum in Washington D.C., the next time you're here. Coincidentally, at this very moment there is an interesting expose on the German occupation of the Channel Islands. It goes without saying that the exhibit gives a stinging critique of the behavoir island residents showed towards the tiny Jewish presence there. The fact remains, I've not seen any other country than France go put herself through so much introspection that it would probably put most other countries to shame were they to do the same. The fact remains, I've found the historical works of many British historians to be borderline anti-French, from Keegan, Ousby, to Sebag-Montefiore. It is a pattern of consistency which I've come to expect, and why comparative research and cross referencing historical records is an absolute necessity. Edit: If I may give a small measure of comfort, I feel the best and most objective historian on WW 2 French history is Julian Jackson, who is British. You see? L'entente Cordial still exists.
Mr. Reed, As for your mentioning of the Jews, please be careful when treading these waters, since British exceptionalism will not pass on this one. Perhaps you may wish to visit the Holocaust Museaum in Washington D.C., the next time you're here. Coincidentally, at this very moment there is an interesting expose on the German occupation of the Channel Islands. It goes without saying that the exhibit gives a stinging critique of the behavoir island residents showed towards the tiny Jewish presence there. The fact remains, I've not seen any other country than France go put herself through so much introspection that it would probably put most other countries to shame were they to do the same. With respect, I don't need a lecture on the Holocaust from you. I would love to be in a position to visit the French side of my family, and debate this very issue, but sadly they were wiped out at Auschwitz in 1944. I'm afraid I don't agree that France is "open" about its past. It had a President who claimed to be a resistance fighter but was a collaborator, and for many years would not admit officially that it's army had mutinied in 1917. In fact documents relating to that are still closed to historians.
With respect, I don't need a lecture on the Holocaust from you. I would love to be in a position to visit the French side of my family, and debate this very issue, but sadly they were wiped out at Auschwitz in 1944. Since you feel it is necessary to inject family matters in this, allow me then to state that my grandparents on my mother's side are survivors. I am in posession of my grandfather's striped cap. I'm not sure if it was your intent to derail the thread from the original topic with Holocaust, Mitterand, or the 1917 mutinees (???????). NONE of which has anything to do with the fact that the British presses were in error in their anti-French attacks over the purported "snub" of the Queen by sarkozy. Please place the blame where it belongs: squarely on Mr. Brown.
Its confusing. That's funny because when I had a quick look at a US Washington news item, they were blaming the US Government for not inviting her. Then looking in the Sunday Times today, in a report from Paris,the blame is put firmly on Sarkozy, who it is said to have arranged this Franco -American event. Perhaps if the Queen went with the German delegation...
Perhaps if the Queen went with the German delegation... Za, you do have a lovely way defusing things Jim
Perhaps if the Queen went with the German delegation... Or roll on Christmas...Now that is definately Mary's fault
Before reading through this thread I had believed that the situation was: 1. 60 years was to be the last "official" comemoration 2. President Obama expressed a wish to attend for the 65th aniversary and so plans were changed to accomodate him with the resulting SNAFU. Several of the re-enactor & Vehicle preservation sites were looking forward to moving arround the area without the problems of security that there will now be. I also don't think that the UK as a whole was particularly aware of the 65th aniversary untill the press started stirring things up. For example there seems to be verry little planned for TV compared to what was put on for the 60th. Just a few observations there - will probably be proved wrong again. Noel
I was speaking to another member today about this and we both came to the this conclusion: In the middle of the politician speeches and other such boring rubbish a British RSM Vet should pull out a bull horn and tell all the Vets to fall in, in three ranks. Promptly bringing them up to attention and turning them to the right in three's they should 'By the left in column of route, quick March!' only halting at the first pub. With the RSM having the last word: 'To the pub (And mines a pint of Tetley's lads), Fall..........Out!' Priceless !
All I can say is 1. Stuff all Politicians (most of them anyway). 2. God save the Queen. 3. R.I.P. our brave servicemen and women who have lost their lives in all conflicts and not forgetting the injured and those who have lost their loved ones.
I'm as shocked as the rest of you. What especially galls me is the fact that so many British and Canadians died in Europe to liberate the French, Dutch, Belgians and the rest yet they won't sacrifice any of their soldiers to actually fight in Afghanistan. Any of their soldiers who died were killed accidentally, not in facing the enemy with a weapon in their hands. My son is going to Afghanistan in October and I hope our visit to him in July isn't the last we'll see him. By the way, Franco American is the name of a tinned spaghetti in the US. Tells you lots, doesn't it!
