This snub is an insult to D-Day veterans
Monday 1st June 2009, 2:59PM BST.
From Peter Anthony Troy.
THE French Government’s snub to the Queen by not inviting Her Majesty to the official 65th anniversary celebrations of the D-Day landings on 6 June is an insult to the British and Commonwealth veterans who will proudly salute their fallen comrades, as well as an insult to the memory of 17,566 British and 5,316 Canadian troops who died in the battles for the liberation of France from Nazi occupation in the summer of 1944.
French President Sarkozy is making much political capital of the hugely popular US President Obama’s attendance, yet French officials have been dismissive of suggestions that the Queen, as head of State of the UK and Canada, should also be included in the events.
Massive media attention is to be given to the French and US Presidents jointly attending the key events. The French snub is particularly disrespectful when one considers that Queen Elizabeth is the only present head of any state in the world to have served in military uniform during the Second World War.
Britain will not be without representation at the official ceremonies in Normandy next week, the UK Prime Minister, the junior defence minister and other British politicians having at the last minute requested invitations from the French when they realised that they would lose out on the publicity opportunities when they were informed that Barack Obama and, consequently, most of the world’s press corps will be attending; every one wants to be seen to be best friends with the most popular politician on earth.
As arrangements stand though there are no plans by the French organisers for Gordon Brown to visit any of the three beaches that were stormed by British and Canadian troops, nor will the Prime Minister attend the final march of the Normandy Veterans Association prior to their disbandment.
So there we have it, 65 years after the start of the liberation of Western Europe, at a huge cost in human lives, the most long-standing and respected head of state in the western world, with direct personal connections with the events that are to be commemorated in Normandy, is to be shamefully excluded.
This is clearly because it is feared that Her Majesty’s presence would upstage the overtly image conscious, self-focused French and US Presidents. In that assumption, the French Government is correct.
Bergendal, Bon Air Lane, St Saviour.
The Queen's Diamond Jubilee
JEP Jubilee Editions
Saturday 2 June: Guide to Celebrations
Wednesday 6 June: Souvenir of Events
View The Queen in Jersey supplement
Travel
To, from and around the Island
Airport Arrivals/Departures
Harbours Arrivals/Departures
Bus Information/Timetables
This is Jersey
Jersey Evening Post
Useful links
In contrast to the above may I make the following comments?
I wonder what the French thought about the BEF deciding to withdraw across the Channel leaving much of the French military behind to face the Nazi’s on their own?
Or when Churchill ordered the destruction of part of the French fleet in Mers-el-Kebir, Algeria, on 3rd July 1940, I believe, with the loss of 1,297 French personal, because he didn’t trust the French Commander, who had told him previously he wouldn’t let his fleet come under control of the Nazi’s.
This commander sent Churchill a letter later on in the war when the French scuttled their fleet in Toulon, in November 1942, in Vichy France after the Nazi’s went in to get it, to tell Churchill that he had kept his promise.
What is rarely, if ever, mentioned is that British troops were spat at on their march across France after D-Day. I know, a friend of mine’s dad had this happen to him on numerous occasions. He wasn’t the only one to report this. He too commented on this ommission from official history.
I would say things are not as straight forward as would be believed on reading the letter above.
Yes there were big sacrifices made by all involved, but nevertheless people also have a habit of never forgetting things either.
Report abuse
I think it is the sinking of the fleet which still holds the minds of a lot of French. However, it may be worth pointing out that I believe (and I may be wrong) the French Commander also said that he did not blame Churchill for ordering the ships destruction. In fact he may have done the same himself given the dire situation Britain was facing.
I wasn’t around in the occupation but I guess it would be a similar case for Islanders and similar for those who lost loved ones and died in the bombing of Coventry. They were left to suffer because Churchill thought that to risk liberating Jersey and protecting Coventry would jeopardise the bigger mission – to liberate everyone.
At the risk of upsetting people I think he did the right thing… After all Britain was never invaded by the German navy, the Nazis never knew the Allies had cracked the Enigma code and D-Day was a success as a result of all these decisions. The people involved in all these terrible incidents can take some consolation that we owe our grateful freedom to those more than most.
Report abuse
Oh dear, what a distorted ‘understanding’ Adrian appears to have of the Second World War in Europe.
The main factor that led to the defeat of France in the Summer of 1940 was primarily French Military incompetence and under preparation (and an over reliance on the Maginot Line which was far too short! ). A defeatist and seriously divided political leadership in France also clearly assisted Hitler’s plans.
On 13 June, 1940, Winston Churchill took one of several trips to France during Hitler’s attack. After convincing the French not to sign a separate armistice with Germany just two months prior, Churchill was being begged to asset France to capitulate under the best terms they could manage. When a country loses its will to fight, there’s not much you can do to inspire them to anything but quit and the French did just that. That left Churchill with a loose-end on his mind: The French Fleet.
By June 10, 1940, the French Army was shattered, but the French Navy was amazingly intact. The Admiral of the French Fleet told Churchill point-blank that the Fleet would be sunk before it was surrendered to the Germans. Churchill later remarked of Admiral Darlan that he had “but to sail in any one of his ships to any port outside France to become the master of all French interests beyond German control.” Darlan could have become “the chief of the French Resistance with a mighty weapon in his hand.”
But that was not to happen. Although Admiral Darlan said he was strong in his commitment to prevent the Germans from seizing a single French ship, Churchill was not convinced and indeed secret French signals intercepted by The Admiralty supported the PM’s fears. Losing Britain’s last fighting ally in the war is one thing but allowing that ally’s fleet to fall in the hands of the Germans was something much more serious. The concern was not over the French using their fleet to assist their new conqueror. The real concern was that Germany would train their own sailors to command those ships.
On 24 June, France and Germany signed an armistice. Part of that agreement was the French could keep their fleet. Churchill’s message to the French Fleet was clear: sail to Britain, sail to the USA, or scuttle your ships in the next six hours. The French refused to speak to negotiators.
The British intercepted a message from the new Pro-German Vichy Government ordering the French fleet to resist British orders. Churchill was done playing games and ordered the attack fearing that the German Navy was about to take over the huge French Fleet and of course use it against Britain.
In less than ten minutes, 1,297 French soldiers were dead and three battleships were sunk. and most of the others damaged beyond repair. One battleship and five destroyers managed to escape, later to ‘surrender’ to the Germans.
The day after attacking the French, Churchill went to the House of Commons to explain why he ordered the attack on the former ally. Churchill declared, “However painful, the action we have already taken should be, in itself, sufficient to dispose once and for all of the lies activities that we have the slightest intention of entering into negations. We shall prosecute the war with the utmost vigor by all the means that are open to us.”
For the first time since taking over as Prime Minister, Churchill received a unanimous standing ovation. Churchill had a message for the British, for Hitler, and for the world. The message was heard loud and clear That was The UK would not make peace with Hitler and the country was in this war for the long haul. The rest is as they say is history.
Peter Troy – Editor of the blogsite Very British Subjects.
Report abuse
Thank you Peter for a very informative post.
Report abuse
All of this history is very interesting and as a keen reader of history I am grateful for all the detail, but can we return to the original point made by Mr Troy in his excellent letter to the JEP.
The French government do not want our Queen to be to be in Normandy this week because in will take the attention away from their President glad handing Obama. It is typical of the third rate politicians that govern Britain today that they did not protest and demand that the Queen attends probably because they were far to interested in filling out their expense claim forms. Hardly Churchillian sprit. OK Prince Charles is now going to be there as a compromise but Her Majesty’s war veterans as Mr Troy rightly states should be able to salute their Queen as is right and fitting.
As for the comments that French civilians spat at British Tommys maybe a few French Nazi sympathisers did, they were not all in the resistance and a few made a good profit from the Germans so they would ne upset at being ‘liberated’.
Many thousands of dead British troops deserve to be remembered properly by their old comrades and they French are wrong to deny them that right. God Save our Queen from French Politics.
Report abuse
Peter can you explain what was wrong with what I said? As far as I am concerned they are all facts, maybe you beg to differ?
How would people in Britain have taken things if the roles had been reversed and the French had blow up their fleet at Scapa Flow?
Yes the French were under prepared but it appears you are saying the British weren’t, if you are can you explain their spectacular retreat then?
Susan it wasn’t Nazi sympathisers, they had enough problems with their own people who were trying to string them up as collaberators.
As per Churchill he didn’t have a distinguished early career in politics did he? If it hadn’t been for WW2 he would not even be known now. Churchill was a motivating force but remember it was actually Chamberlain who gave Britain a chance to resist with his extra year of peace. If Churchill had been in charge a year or so earlier it would have been a completely different picture. People tend to overlook these things, just as they forget that it was a strategic blunder by the Germans that let Britain off the hook.
Yes it would have been nice for the Queen to go but there will be plenty of others in attendance. I was just pointing out that maybe there are other reasons behind this?
Report abuse
In reply to Adrian.
The BEF was indeed under resourced out maneuvered and seriously out numbered by a vastly better equipped enemy – the French reaction was to surrender their country. Though there was fierce French resistance to the invading German Army by a largely conscripted French Army near the old battle ground on the Somme of the First World War two days after the evacuation from Dunkirk the political will to resist was minimal.
As I mention the French Fleet was considered by the British War Cabinet in danger of being handed over intact to the Germans by the French. At that stage of the War that would have been a disaster for the British.
I do not understand what point Adrian is making about Churchill. What is quite clear is that without the great man’s leadership between May ’40 and June ‘ 45 and indeed despite the strategic blunder of Hitler’s invasion of the USSR in 1941 Jersey would have remained under Nazi occupation perhaps until modern times. Lest we forget the sacrifice of so many young men in the fight to free Europe of one of the most evil dictatorships (as witnessed by Jersey folk) that the World has ever seen.
Report abuse
Peter you never answered my question reference if the boot had been on the other foot for some reason. What do you think the British public opinion would have been? Would they have been outraged at this unprovoked attack or not?
As per the worries about the French fleet do you think another country has a right to dictate to another what to do, and an ally at that? However the more important point was that Churchill was told that the fleet would not end up under the Nazi flag and this is what actually happened. Churchill was therefore mistaken to do what he did.
As far as I am concerned to kill allies by mistake is bad enough but to do it deliberately?
France surrended because it had no choice, it was overrun and then it was been left on its own. What do you think Britain have done if German troops had got to London?
My point reference Churchill is clear enough he made major mistakes whilst in government pre WW2. It was only for 5 years that people remember him. Even then he was afforded this chance because Mr.Chamberlain gave Britain a vital extra year before the war started to re-arm with his piece of paper.
Do you really think the 1939 RAF would have held on in an earlier Battle of Britain? They barely managed it in 1940, as you well know actually having every plane available in the air on the 15th September.
No way would they have managed it a year earlier when the RAF had less Hurricanes and a lot less Spitfires and still had many First World War Bi-planes in service!
If the Germans had of continued their bombing of the RAF air bases instead of bombing London it is very doubtful that Britain would have prevailed. It is this one change of tactic that enable Britain to resist the inevitable invasion and subsequent surrender, in my honest opinion.
Fate save Britain in its hour of need, as it did Churchill only a short while later when he should have been killed by a bomb detonating under his car when he was inspecting more damage to London in the blitz.
As I have commented before, the Channel Islands were left undefended in their hour of greatest need, hence they needed liberating. I see the Channel Island occupation as being due to British and allied incompetence shown to Hitler in the 1930′s allowing him to become a major threat only a few short years later.
Also if Germany hadn’t been so badly treated at Versailles, Hitler wouldn’t have had his chance to get into power in the 1930′s. This is the direct cause of WW2, and with it the Occupation of the Channel Islands, and the suffering of all involved regardless of sides.
These are valid points even if you yourself don’t agree with them.
Report abuse
Adrian invites further comment – well here it is:
It is simply not correct to state that France was over run when it was diserted by the British in 1940, there are numerous sources all available on the internet from which the facts of History can be read and easily understood. The French had neither the political will nor the military ability to defend themselves from Hitler’s military ambitions in the Summer of 1940. Whilst the British Expeditionary Force (BEF) that fought in France was not one of Britain’s finest military endeavors, the fall of France was at the end of the day the fault of the French not the British.
The policy of the leaders of the Western Europe in the 1930′s towards Hitler’s very obvious intentions were to placket, compromise and appease and there lies the principle cause of the Second World War.
Chamberlin as Prime Minister was the leader of the British Government’s appeasement policy in 1936/7/8 . That policy was primarily the reason the the UK was unprepared for war when it came. Chamberlin was apart of the problem not the solution.
The ‘piece of paper’ (“Peace in our Time”) from the Munich Agreement signed on 30 September 1938 inspired complacency not rearmament and most certainly the agreement did not give Brittan extra time to prepair for war. The purpose of the Munich conference was to discuss the future of Czechoslovakia in the face of territorial demands made by Hitler The politicians at the conference gave in to Hitler’s demands, and an agreement was signed by Germany, France , UK and Italy which permitted German annexation of Czechoslovakia’s Sudetenland and thus gave Hitler the confidence to march into the rest of western Europe in ’39 and ’40.
As for the the German’s error in its change of strategy from bombing English City’s rather than RAF Airfields in the south of England in September 1940, during The Battle of Britain, that was one of many fatal interferences by Hitler over his military commanders. It is correct to say that had the Luftwaffe’s raids on the airfields continued it is possible that air supremacy could have been achieved over the English Channel long enough for the German’s to mount an invasion. However the strength of the Royal Navy at that time would have made a successful landing of sufficient troops to march on London unlikely.
Had though a landing occurred in September or October 1940 and secured a bridgehead on the English south coast it probably could not have been reinforced quickly enough (due to Royal Navy Bombardment of supply ships)) to advance. Additionally the ten divisions held in reserve under the command of a certain Lt-General Montgomery (and history has proved how effective he was) 50 miles in land would have fought to the last man. Unlike most of their French counterparts a few months before.
As for the treatment of the defeated German Nation at Versailles in 1919, the problem was that Germany was not treated (politically) harshly enough, manly due to the interventions of Woodrow Wilson the then US President. Hitler’s initial rise to power was as much to do with the failings of the post First War Vimar Republic’s failings rather than any other factor. It must remembered that the time of the Armistice of November 1918 no fighting had occurred on German soil. A mistake that Churchill, in his brilliance as a war leader, was to insure would not be repeated at the end of the Second World War.
The devil of History is in the detail Adrian – not ifs and buts!
Peter Troy – St Saviour Jersey.
Report abuse
Sorry Peter France was overrun, due, as much to France’s failure to repulse the better equiped Germans, by the failure of the BEF that you yourself admitted to! It is therefore fair to say both were at fault. Your analysis of the BEF is very kind, it was a complete debacle on the part of the British, probably only matched by the shambles in the American War of Independence as far as I am concerned.
If shock troops had been parachuted into strategic UK cities, this would have bypassed the Royal Navy’s effectiveness. Yes they would have been able to inflict damage on the German Navy, however the German U-boats would have also inflicted immense damage to them so it was not guarenteed that they could have held their own anyway against aerial bombardment from German planes and a well organised attack from the German Navy.
You assert that British reinforcements would have fought to the last man, well if this didn’t happen anywhere else in Europe why would it be any different in Britain? It never happened in the Channel Islands either and they have lots of beaches, so why would the mainland have made such a difference? I myself believe this was mainly retoric aimed at bolstering moral, and that the majority would have accepted their lot. Most people tend to value life over death.
As per Versailles it was the direct cause of WW2 due to the very harsh conditions of armistice enforced on Germany by Britain and France in particular. The Weimar Republic had no chance of succeeding with this massive handicap and this left a power vauum that was ripe for exploitation by others. People were starving to death on German streets because they had no food, I doubt any state could have survived this, epsecially when the population knew they were in this position due to harsh war reparations by the enemy.
Hitler seized his chance to exploit this to maximum effect, even being given some backing from the western powers for a period, who thought this man would sort out their arch enemies in Moscow. However this was to backfire spectacularily a few years later wasn’t it?
You are correct Chamberlain was part of the appeasement policy preferred by the British in the later 1930′s. However as I have correctly pointed out he held Hitler at bay from 30-09-38 until the German invasion forced the British hand on 3-09-39. Had Churchill been in charge then Britain would have been at war as of September 1938 if not earlier, and this would have more than likely given a different outcome with Britain probably being run by Oswald Mosley.
If you look at what was made and when it was made, you will find that the British were actively gearing for war once this agreement was signed and many Spitfires and Hurricanes that were one of the deciding factors in the Battle of Britain were built between September 1938 and September 1939. Without these the result would have been different.
As you point out Churchill was good at rousing people to a cause, just like the other war time leaders were. However he just happened to be in the right place, at the right time, and no more, as far as I am concerned. Just take a look at his earlier efforts in government and you will he made major mistakes. He was anything but invincible.
As you say the details make interesting reading!
So to summerise basically we have:-
Versailles,
starvation,
collapse of the Weimar republic,
worry over the spread of communism into Germany,
Hitler seen as a good by most, even in the west as he was anti-communist,
Hitler coming to power,
re-armament,
appeasement (when the west realised their mistake),
German expansion,
invasion of Poland,
WW2.
Therefore Versailles set off a chain of events that ended up with WW2.
Report abuse
We can discuss the causes of the Second World War and the reasons for the fall of France and all the ifs and buts ad infinitum, perhaps we should agree that it was (as I argue all wars are) a failure of politics.
The salient point about Winston Churchill is that he was the man for the moment. That moment was 10 May 1940 (and indeed up to the surrender of Germany five years later). Chamberlin failed and the establishment of the day sought to replace him as PM with Lord Halifax; had that occurred the UK would have undoubtedly have done a deal with Hitler (as Halifax sought to do up to 1941) and Nazism would have prospered. By that critical May afternoon Churchill had ensured by shrewd political maneuvering that the King could only call upon him to form a coalition government for the duration of the War. It was, I believe the most important political decision of the War, the Churchillian effect was instantly effective.
Churchill was without doubt the most celebrated Prime Minister of twentieth century and arguably the most renowned British Prime Minister ever. Churchill is an icon of modern History. I agree that though he was at the forefront of the political scene for almost sixty years, without World War II he might have been remembered as nothing more than a major player in the dramas of British government but the war happened and Churchill consequently is regarded rightly as a great man.
Curiously Adrian in his comments ignores the fact that between 1939 and 1941 Britain stood on a knife edge. Churchill’s inspired leadership was integral to victory and the survival of democracy in western Europe.
Perhaps Adrian and I should jointly write a book about the ‘Ifs of the Second World War’, including what could have happened if the Mountbatten plan to invade Jersey had been put into action. The book’s launch could be held on a summers day next May in some rather beautiful gardens at St Berlade, where we could speculate how many dead British soldiers there would have been on the beach and how many civilian casualties on the road to St Helier if it had it not been for Churchill insisting that no such recapture of ”our dear Channel Islands” was to be attempted.
Peter Troy, St Saviour Jersey.
Report abuse
So then to recap, the total failure of the BEF had no impact or effect on the collapse of France, as it was all their own fault.
No planes were built by Britain between September 1938 and May 1940, as Chamberlain was an appeaser. However once Churchill got his feet under the table, by the summer of 1940, when the Battle of Britain was fought, they had built all the Spitfies and Hurricanes needed to defeat the might of the German airforce.
Churchill was the reason the allies prevailed.
Britain would never have collapsed like France did, once it had been invaded, as it was made above all that.
The local British population would have fought to the last man, woman, and child on the beaches, (because Churchill said so) over every inch of British soil etc, but not in the Channel Islands.
It was necessary to liberate the whole of Europe by whatever force was needed, and no matter what casualties, but not the Channel Islands, as it was decided to blockade them and wait for the Germans to call it a day.
Just one thought for you, what would have happened if the Germans had got upset and shot everyone as reprissals for this? What would have happened then?
Report abuse
Preparation for War in Britain in prior to the summer of 1940 was inadequate but what was carried out happened despite considerable opposition to the appeasement policy of the British establishment of the day.
Churchill was the leader of the realists which is why he emerged from the political wilderness in September 1939 to be recorded in History as the great war leader he clearly was.
In George Bernard Shaw’s classic play, Joan says:
“If ifs and ands were pots and pans,
there’d be no need of tinkers”.
What more can I add?
Peter Troy, St Saviour Jersey CI
Report abuse