June 6th is marked indelibly in most British schoolboy's memories - it's when 'D-Day' occurred.
'D-Day' took place in the final year of World War II; an invasion of Nazi-occupied France by Allied troops, which resulted in the eventual collapse of the German war machine.
As far as military operations go, it was mind-boggling. Over 160,000 troops landed on French soil that day, while over 5,000 ships provided transportation, support and offensive fire. It was a hard fought conflict - the Allies were outnumbered two-to-one - but D-Day saw them establish a toe-hold on the continent without which, the war could have continued indefinitely.
2009 is the 65th anniversary of D-Day and, as befits such an historic date, will be marked by solemn services of remembrance. French President Nicholas Sarkozy has invited President Obama to a commemoration at Colleville-sur-Mer, site of the American military cemetery.
However, one very important person has been pointedly left off the guest list for this important occasion - Queen Elizabeth II.
The Queen - who, unlike Sarkozy or Obama, actually served in the military during World War II (the only living Head of State to have done so) - didn't even receive an invitation.
She was deliberately left off the guest list because, in the words of French spokesman Luc Chatel, "the June 6 celebration is foremost a Franco-American celebration."
Understandably, the British are upset about this. The Daily Mail ran the headline: "A diminutive egomaniac, the stain of Nazi collaboration and why the French can't forgive us for saving them in the War."
...and as much as I hate to jump in on the nationalistic zealotry, I have to admit that they do have a point. This whole situation makes me as angry as when an American sneers "You Brits would be speakin' German if it wasn't for America."
Let's just quickly examine the facts:
For a start, Britain contributed over 60,000 troops to the Normandy invasion - over 40% of all soldiers entering battle. Considering nearly half of the Allied forces were made up of British soldiers, it seems totally incomprehensible that France would blindly ignore our contribution to their liberation.
Secondly, Britain contributed more than just men. It's not jingoistic pride that inspires me to write this - just cold, hard historical fact - but without Britain, more than any other contributing nation involved in World War II, the Nazis would have won.
They'd have conquered Europe (in fact by 1940, aside from the UK, they already had) and without the UK as a final fortress to stage from, all of America's might, wealth and power would have been useless in trying to reclaim that territory.
The Nazi regime would have ruled Europe, the Jewish people would have been ruthlessly eradicated and the world as we know it would have been hurled into a darkness from which it might never have escaped.
Why was the role Britain played so important?
Well, just look at the dates. 'World War II' started either in 1938 (after the Germans annexed Austria) or 1939 (when they invaded Poland) depending on your timeline. In any event, American troops didn't touch European soil until 1942 - and didn't see action against the Nazis until 1943.
During at least three years of the war - during which every other country in Europe was occupied by, or in cahoots with, the Germans, Britain stood alone in defying them.
If Britain had fallen, there'd have been no air-base from which to bombard Germany. There'd have been no staging post from which to plan an invasion. There'd have been nothing, except a Nazi stronghold separated from their American enemy by 3,000 miles of cold, inhospitable ocean.
Don't get me wrong - without America's sheer strength, it would have been impossible to eventually eliminate the German war machine. The United States delivered the killing blow that ended the war once and for all.
But without Britain supplying the leverage - holding firm in the face of impossible odds - the Americans would never have had the opportunity to end the conflict in the first place.
So Sarkozy's decision to snub Queen Elizabeth - and, by extension, ignore Britain's contribution to D-Day - is rude, ungrateful and an insult to the 2,700 Brits who become casualties that day.
6 comments:
One can make the case that the start of WW2 was the Japanese annexation of Manchuria in 1931.
It's not clear that the war couldn't have been won without Britain. It certainly would have been more difficult... but Operation Torch, the invasion of North Africa, was launched directly from the US.
By 1943, Rome was taken. Rome to Berlin is less than 800 miles, slightly (but not absurdly) above the combat range of a B-25, and far less than that of the B-29.
(Heck, Tunis to Berlin is only 1,100 miles. That's less than the 1,500 mile trip from Guam to Tokyo.)
Couple that with the Manhattan project, and you have a plausible scenario for an Allied victory in WWII even if the UK had capitulated.
Of course, this alternate history doesn't mean much. In the real world, the British did choose to fight on, and they repelled the threat of German invasion. A few years later the Normandy invasion was launched from places like Dartmouth, Portland, Southampton, Portsmouth, and Shoreham, among others. The troops involved were British, American, Canadian and French.
And that's what really matters... not what could have happened, who could have done what without whom... but what really did did happen. And that's why Queen Elizabeth should have been invited.
Two more things:
First, it's easy, here in the west, to forget those who fought on the Eastern Europe front of WWII. Don't.
Finally, here's a link to Ronald Reagan's speech on the 40th anniversary of D-Day. It's worth a listen.
Good point about the Russkies, Tom. Arguably they might have pushed back the Germans to Berlin all on their own - and kept on going. Then the Cold War would still be going on.
But you're right! It's all alternative history conjecture. I just understand the anger about the Brits being left out.
Well, let's give some credit to the Russians, especially the Russian people and their infinite capacity to suffer. But still, the Queen should have been one of the first invitees on the list. When the French were capitulating and collaborating (and thousands more than the pitiful few who joined the Resistance did), Britain and her people were standing fast in the Battle of Britain. (So let's not also forget the Polish and Czech airmen who made up to 40% of those airmen.)
That said, Sarkozy sucks.
Interestingly enough, today I'll be getting in the mail "The Few", a book about the 7 Americans who flew in the Battle of Britain. (Largely by lying and claiming they were Canadian.)
It is absurd to describe it as a Franco-American celebration. The historian Andrew Roberts has calculated that the 4,572 allied servicemen who died on the first day of the Normandy landings day were from the following countries:
USA 2500
UK 1641
Canada 359
Norway 37
Australia 13
New Zealand 2
Belgium 1
France 19
The French were hardly involved. The appallingly high proportion of American deaths was because of the difficult conditions on their sector.
Tom must know that the first major defeat of the Nazis was carried out by the British Army in North Africa in 1942 before the Americans had asked to join in.
The many allies of the British throughout the war, who also suffered terrible losses included those from Africa, India and the Caribbean
Anonymous: Actually, I'd probably say the first major defeat was before that. Either the Battle of Britain (October 1940-May 1941), or the Battle of Moscow (October 1941-January 1942).
My point about Operation Torch was not to neglect the British troops already in Africa, but merely to point out that the US was able to launch a transatlantic amphibious assault, and hence could probably have gotten enough of a foothold in Africa to stage B-29 raids on Berlin.
This is purely theoretical, as I suspect that if the UK had left the war, the US would not have joined the war in Europe.
Again, what matters is that the British were there on June 6, 1944. And the few remaining veterans will be there again on June 6, 2009. And that's why the Queen should have been invited, along with the heads of state of Canada, Norway, Australia, New Zealand, and Belgium.
Post a Comment