I think I have watched Saving Private Ryan about a dozen times, love the film, but one gets the impression that too many Americans believe Operation Overlord was a mostly American show. It was not an overwhelmingly American operation, most of the troops who landed on the Normandy Beaches were from other countries. No it was not a Franco-American initiative, nor was it an Anglo-American one, unless you believe the 15,000 Canadians who landed on Juno Beach that fateful day was a minor event. Remember that "Anglo-American" is a British invention, most Americans would probably rather not share the glory, but neither would most Britons want to share it beyond those two.
Properly told, D-day was a triumph of the English-speaking peoples. Yes, a battalion of Free French came ashore that day, as did some Polish and Norwegian units, but it was predominantly the work of three nations, many of whom died fighting for King and Country. What a travesty the Queen couldn't be there.
Let's not mince words. Operation Overlord was an overwhelmingly British and Commonwealth venture, from planning to execution. Of all its elements, American infantry manpower--as helpful as it was--was the only one whose absence would not have rendered the operation totally impossible. Could D-Day would happened without the Royal Navy? Would it have been possible (or even worth doing) if the British had not invented the artificial Mulberry harbour, which made the Normandy beach-head usable as a supply point? Of course not.
ReplyDeleteSarkozy's insult was a total disgrace, and I think the French ambassadors to Canada and the U.K. should have been given a sharp dressing down. Moreover, shame on Obama for not insisting that we and the Brits be present at the main ceremony. It appears we had to beg Sarkozy to be there. Perhaps we should give France back to the Germans and America back to the French.
For the record, I find Saving Private Ryan to be unwatchable Yankee-boosting stodge. Basically a cinematic embodiment of Stephen Ambrose's toxic Anglophobia, it's a slap in the face to all of the Commonwealth soldiers of 21st Army Group who died in their fight against elite, fanatical Panzer and SS troops, while the Americans got a free ride facing second-rate un-mechanised regular Wehrmacht in the south.
Good article, but this American-bashing, especially by Sir Francis, is ridiculous and unworthy of such an otherwise-terrific blog. I don't think it's true that "most Americans would probably rather not share the glory"--I'm an American, and I know of none who feels that way.
ReplyDeleteThe Allied defeat of Germany would not have been possible without all the participants: Sir Francis's jingoism--"Could D-Day [have] happened without the Royal Navy?"--is no better than that of the very Americans he criticizes.
Geoff Ross
Champaign, Illinois
Sir Francis (Walsingham?) is a fanatical and fanatically loyal servant of Her Majesty. Do not cross him.
ReplyDeleteEver.
"but neither would most Britons want to share it beyond those two."
ReplyDeleteWell, when reading Churchill's work, or Montgomery's, you don't even get that perception, Monty calling us the best troops in the world (Us Canadians, along with the ANZACS) and Churchill, well, he knew how to appreciate us.
Geoff, it is very hard for an American to understand, but us in the Commonwealth are very very often put off badly by the attitudes of some Americans in regards to the Second World War and at times merely want to vent. It may not be the large proportion of you fellows that are like that, but having to live in a world saturated by American Media does gets trying at times.
This is the case especially considering we were in the war much longer and took the very non glamorous job in Normandy of drawing the enemy Panzers onto us (6 of the 8 divisions) so that you could break out, and then getting criticized for it! (For not being more aggressive, breaking out as you did etc.)
This is all inflamed, to an extent, by the neglect of our Queen by a President, a President of France no less, who takes it upon himself to personally invite another very popular President, but one who is only a few months in office and extremely inexperienced. All this understandably, causes resentment, especially when our Queen deserved to be at those ceremonies just as much, if not more, than those Presidents who come and go like a swarm of bumblebees, here today, gone tomorrow.
I think both British manpower and American materiel were both deciding factors. We cannot have come ashore without all those landing craft.
ReplyDeleteLet's not mince words indeed. Montgomery and Patton turned the European theatre into a megalomaniac contest, and both British and Americans fought for who was going to take most of the glory, while the Canadians were given the thankless task of mopping up the Sheldt Estuary, like good obedient Tommy Canucks that they were.
I am not totally convinced that Monty was party to that, I have been reading through his biography and he was just concerned that the whole affair was being handled most unprofessionally (as it was) unlike Normandy (Which he was in charge of.)
ReplyDeleteIn the end Monty was right, both Victory in 1944 and Berlin were forfeited...
As a Canadian I hold nothing against Monty in that regards, we were given a job just as anyone else was, and if the British were going for Glory they (And we) would not have taken the job we did in Normandy.
It's not quite true that Queen Elizabeth II was the only Head of State to serve during the Second World War. Pope Benedict XVI also served in that war, but for the other side. In 1943, when was 16, he was drafted into the German anti-aircraft corps.
ReplyDeleteWho of the men pictured above, would one want at the helm in a time of conflict as serious as was faced in WWII?
ReplyDeleteI can’t speak for other countries, but as an American, I am confident that President Obama would not be up to the task….by a long shot. Here is a man who has snubbed his western allies, whilst embracing and reaching out to third world thugs.
I believe that it should be a prerequisite for any head of state to have served in the military.
And I much prefer The Longest Day over Saving Private Ryan. It is historically more accurate and one that is accessible to the entire family.
I find the protocol displayed in this photo (and all the others) from the most recent D-Day anniversary. Here we have the Prince of Wales and two presidents walking in stride with two prime ministers, as though all were of equal rank. I was also sure that in some of the video footage I saw of the event, at one point, Charles was somehow relegated to the back of the pack. Who arranges these things in such a manner?
ReplyDeleteSorry, that should have been: I find the protocol displayed in this photo... to be odd.
ReplyDelete>while the Canadians were given the thankless task of mopping up the Sheldt Estuary
ReplyDeleteClearing out the Scheldt Estuary was critical to the whole of the Western Front effort! The port of Antwerp was needed extremely urgently in order for the Allies to get the supplies needed in order to confront the Western Wall. With the cleaning out of the Scheldt, advance on the Western Wall was finally even possible. But, of course, the Germans had something else in the wings to try to hold up the Allies, the Battle of the Bulge.
With all due respect, not a single soldier from any one of the commonwealth countries would have gotten near Normandy's shore with the might of American industrial production. Thus any bickering about the who and what of the landing parties seems a bit of a moot point...also as much as I respect and admire the British monarchy, it seems ridiculous to assume that Prince Charles has any right to the old etiquette as he doesn't seem to respect or deserve it much...furthermore, if anyone deserve deference it would be the American President who is easily ten or fifteen orders of magnitude more important than the rest of bunch combined and power was the reason for the deference in the first place.
ReplyDelete"with" should be "without"
ReplyDeleteWe have an Obamamaniac amongst us, it would seem. And one who misses the point entirely, no less.
ReplyDeleteAh James, thank you for elucidating the point...so helpful...perhaps if ill placed condescension is the game of the hour you could at least carry it off with some wit, aplomb, or even coherence. Anyways, I would like to know the point I so dramatically missed.
ReplyDeleteThanks, "Sir" Francis, for the best laugh I've had today. That first paragraph, although bereft of facts, contrary to history, and belied by the outcome of the War, was a wonderful example of sophisticated satire -- supercilious, bombastic preening at its best.
ReplyDeleteGood work, “Sir.” I tip my three-cornered hat to you.
(By the way, by appreciation of your satire in no way diminishes my opinion that the two presidents treated the Queen atrociously.)