D-Day snub to Queen

#2
Basically because he wants to spent quality time rubbing shoulders with Obama at St Mere Eglise. If the Queen came then she would want to visit the British beaches and then Sarkozy would have to split his time.
Oh, and because he is a cnut obviously. If you had to pick one single world leader that should be there it would be the Queen, being as how she is the only one who played any part in the war effort, along with Phil obviously. My american colleagues here are horrified too and think they would rather the Queen was there than Obama.
Brown is invited though, but by the latest account he wasnt planning to visit the British beaches either. Though I suspect there will be an outcry about that soon and as with all the other public outcrys he will fold like a pack of cards sooner or later (usually too late after everybody else obviously), and then lie that it was always his intention to go to Arromanches too... :roll:
 
#5
A French Government source said: "He will, of course, be concentrating on the British commemorations, away from the American beaches, as is appropriate. This is very much a Franco-American occasion."

Of course they're not visiting the British beaches - didn't you know that the war was won entirely by American forces?

Jockass: where did you find the info that Brown wasn't planning on visiting the British beaches either? - I didn't see that in the article.*** Sad to see that he's far more interested in trying to bask in Obama's glow than doing what is arguably his job as Prime Minister, but in all seriousness, did anyone expect any less from the man?

***Edit for Mongness - just re-read the Mail article properly
 
#7
DPM_Sheep said:
... and the poor Canucks only get a passing mention :x
And the Poles, South Africans, Indians etc etc

Its always encouraging to see everyone remembered equally :x
 
#8
And the roughly 20,000 French civilians killed during the bombings...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Overlord#Casualties

19,860 French civilians were killed during the liberation of Normandy, and an even greater number were wounded. The number excludes the 15,000 civilians killed and the 19,000 wounded in the bombings of Normandy in preparation of the invasion.

Many cities and towns in Normandy and northern France were totally devastated by the fighting and the bombings. As many as 70,000 French civilians may have been killed during the liberation of France in 1944.

(Beevor, A (2009), D-Day: The Battle for Normandy. Historiska Media, p. 555 )
 
#9
fantassin said:
And the roughly 20,000 French civilians killed during the bombings...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Overlord#Casualties

19,860 French civilians were killed during the liberation of Normandy, and an even greater number were wounded. The number excludes the 15,000 civilians killed and the 19,000 wounded in the bombings of Normandy in preparation of the invasion.

Many cities and towns in Normandy and northern France were totally devastated by the fighting and the bombings. As many as 70,000 French civilians may have been killed during the liberation of France in 1944.

(Beevor, A (2009), D-Day: The Battle for Normandy. Historiska Media, p. 555 )
And your point is?
 
#10
Great to see that Sarkozy wants to get up close and personal with a man of colour. De Gaulle banned the 3,500 Morrocan and Algerinan members of 2 French Armoured Div from appearing during the symbolic "taking" of Paris.

When the French pulled out of NATO, De Gaulle demanded that all American Forces be removed from French soil immediately. President Johnson cabled back..............'does that include all the dead ones?'
 
#11
Werewolf said:
fantassin said:
And the roughly 20,000 French civilians killed during the bombings...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Overlord#Casualties

19,860 French civilians were killed during the liberation of Normandy, and an even greater number were wounded. The number excludes the 15,000 civilians killed and the 19,000 wounded in the bombings of Normandy in preparation of the invasion.

Many cities and towns in Normandy and northern France were totally devastated by the fighting and the bombings. As many as 70,000 French civilians may have been killed during the liberation of France in 1944.

(Beevor, A (2009), D-Day: The Battle for Normandy. Historiska Media, p. 555 )
And your point is?
That the French were quite happy as they were? Or as long as it meant not dying. Rather Franco-centric statistics, let's look at the rest...

"the Anglo-Canadian Army-Group suffered 16,138 killed, 58,594 wounded and 9,093 missing for a total of 83,825 casualties. The American Army-Group suffered 20,838 killed, 94,881 wounded and 10,128 missing for a total of 125,847 casualties. To these casualties it should be added that no less then 4,101 aircrafts were lost and 16,714 airmen were killed in direct connection to Operation Overlord. Thus total Allied casualties rises to 226,386 men. 78 Free French SAS (Special Air Service) killed, 195 wounded in Brittany from 5 June to the beginning of August."

Egads! Another 78!
 
#12
Funny as the August 1944 Provence Landing which involved more French Troops than any other nation is never mentioned in some circles...

As for the so called eviction of coloured troops, that utter BBC propaganda; since when black and moroccan troops had the education and technical training to operate armoured vehicles in 1944 ? most of them could not even read. They were used as infantry troops and were very good at that. The French settlers recruited in Morroco and Algeria provided the core of the unit which freed Paris; there were also some spanish republicans in the RMT and some africans in some support units. Most left during the winter of 1944-45 as they could not cope with the harsh conditions in Alsace and Germany to be replaced by French volunteers recruited in recently liberated areas.

About losses, if you want details, here they are :

France WW2 losses : 567,600 or 1,35% of the 1939 population
UK WW2 losses: 449,800 or 0,94% of the 1939 population

For the 1940 campaign, it was 97,000 KIA for the French and about 3,500 for the Brits....
 
#13
fantassin said:
Funny as the August 1944 Provence Landing which involved more French Troops than any other nation is never mentioned in some circles...

As for the so called eviction of coloured troops, that utter BBC propaganda; since when black and moroccan troops had the education and technical training to operate armoured vehicles in 1944 ? most of them could not even read. They were used as infantry troops and were very good at that. The French settlers recruited in Morroco and Algeria provided the core of the unit which freed Paris; there were also some spanish republicans in the RMT and some africans in some support units. Most left during the winter of 1944-45 as they could not cope with the harsh conditions in Alsace and Germany to be replaced by French volunteers recruited in recently liberated areas.

About losses, if you want details, here they are :

France WW2 losses : 567,600 or 1,35% of the 1939 population
UK WW2 losses: 449,800 or 0,94% of the 1939 population

For the 1940 campaign, it was 97,000 KIA for the French and about 3,500 for the Brits....

Who is this francophile?

Thanks for the scewed stats cnut, from your own source, we learn that MILITARY deaths were:

British: 382,700
French: 217,600

almost 200,000 more. And that's pretty low for france considering the whole country was conquered, shows how much of a fight they put up, and how much of a fight they gave to get it back.
It stands to reason that french civil casualties are going to be much higher because it was INVADED twiceover, and occupied for 4 years.

So well done the glorious french army! Your army failed to defend your own civilians, which eventually had to be liberated by forein troops.

Ungreatful, snooty, pompous, lazy, cowardly french bastards.
 
#15
airborne_artist said:
When the French pulled out of NATO, De Gaulle demanded that all American Forces be removed from French soil immediately. President Johnson cabled back..............'does that include all the dead ones?'
What a put down!
 
#16
Countrylad said:
DPM_Sheep said:
... and the poor Canucks only get a passing mention :x
And the Poles, South Africans, Indians etc etc

Its always encouraging to see everyone remembered equally :x
Well, considering your own Gov't refused to allow the Poles to march in the Victory Parade, for fear of upsetting the new Commies in charge of Poland.......

Agreed it's a travesty that HM wasn't invited. Sounds as much a fault of Broon and co. as a fault of the French. Perhaps if Broon's negotiators had uhhhhh...MENTIONED that HM wanted to attend, the French would have invited her?
 
#17
airborne_artist said:
Great to see that Sarkozy wants to get up close and personal with a man of colour. De Gaulle banned the 3,500 Morrocan and Algerinan members of 2 French Armoured Div from appearing during the symbolic "taking" of Paris.
Actually, from what I've read that was a consensus decision on the part of the US, UK and French governments. Not just a De Gaulle decision. I seem to recall communications from US HQ saying the presence of colored troops in the parade would not be "desireable". Ditto sentiments from HM's gov't.

Also, there was a good deal of controversy regarding alleged atrocities by Moroccan goumiers, particularly regarding alleged widespread rape of Italian women (and according to contemporary stories, boys and old men, too...) true or not, the stories were widely believed, there were courts martial and executions, and French military authorities arranged to transport Moroccan women to Italy to assuage the goumiers' needs. Their participation in the parade would have been controversial for these reasons as well.
 
#18
Actually, from what I've read that was a consensus decision on the part of the US, UK and French governments. Not just a De Gaulle decision. I seem to recall communications from US HQ saying the presence of colored troops in the parade would not be "desireable". Ditto sentiments from HM's gov't.
My reading of the article was that de Gaulle requested it, and the USA and UK allowed it, but with reservations, but they kept quiet.
 
#19
airborne_artist said:
Actually, from what I've read that was a consensus decision on the part of the US, UK and French governments. Not just a De Gaulle decision. I seem to recall communications from US HQ saying the presence of colored troops in the parade would not be "desireable". Ditto sentiments from HM's gov't.
My reading of the article was that de Gaulle requested it, and the USA and UK allowed it, but with reservations, but they kept quiet.
Not having references available to peruse, all I can say is that a desire to exclude colored troops would not be shocking if such were the expressed policy of US authorities. Racism in the US military was a matter of institutionalized policy as well as personal bigotry on the part of overwhelming numbers of commanders. Remember, segregation was the rule, and justified on "scientific" grounds which assessed colored troops to be inferior to whites in several areas. Even US Army Corps of Engineer manuals mandated alloting something like twice the amount of time for any tasking if it were being carried out by colored troops. I'm leary of pinning all this on one French general. If anything the US military was more racist than French society. Not sure of British attitudes in this era.
 
#20
fantassin said:
About losses, if you want details, here they are :

France WW2 losses : 567,600 or 1,35% of the 1939 population
UK WW2 losses: 449,800 or 0,94% of the 1939 population
I assume your figures for les Tombees Du Guerre include the French citizens murdered by the Nazis in eg. gas chambers? You might care to consider who else was complicit in this, mon vieux...
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads