I've no idea why France decided to commemorate D-Day without representation from Britain and Canada by way of not inviting the Queen. The stench of distaste looms indeed but does it merit a vociferous reaction?
I certainly would like a better explanation from what French have offered.
If it was meant to be a private affair between the U.S. and France, then why pick June 6th? The 6th is a seminal date in Western history as you know. Maybe France didn't "mean" to politicize the day (which is unlikely) by making it an intimate affair between two nations but they left themselves open to all sorts of criticisms as a result of their odd decision.
While many nations took part in various ways (Australia, Belgium, Czechoslovakia, (Free) France, Greece, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway and Poland - which I supposed each can feel a tad upset) the major players were Great Britain, the United States and Canada.
Personally, from where I sit, those three nations should always receive an invitation sans exceptions.
Was it merely a calculated distasteful oversight or a disrespectful snub?
Interestingly, I did a semi-thorough search on Google regarding the subject. As far as I can tell, conservative newsites and pundits have covered this subject. In Canada, the National Post covered the story but I couldn't find anything on the CBC.
See my comment on Neil Mckentie's blog.
ReplyDeleteI hate the term "USAers". But that's me.
ReplyDeleteI know we tend to trump up the fact we were there "first" and by all accounts the Canadian army went beyond what was expected of them winning even the respect of the Germans. Our contribution to the war effort relative to our size was outstanding.
However, let's not kid ourselves, without the Americans, late or not, we don't win that war. It's as simple and stark as that. Their massive resources and sheer idea of the Americans coming to help was enough to propel us to victory.
Nice post. Can we exlinks?
ReplyDeleteThe Green Man In His Green World
How can the French ever admit someone had more success that they did, or that they saved their ass because of 'them', especially the British. We have debated this before: they are totally deprived of any sporting spirit.
ReplyDeleteIn the past I explained why I use USAers and not Americans for the inhabitants of the US of A. The latter term lumps up all the inhabitants of the Americas and shows the imperial nature of the federation as thought by the Fathers who envisioned a union of all the colonies...not to happen.
ReplyDeleteSo logically I say Canadians, Mexicans, USAers, etc are all Americans and I think the inhabitants of each country deserve their local names distinct from all the others and not creating confusion elswhere. When one says I am from America he should not have to explain that he is not American.
I agree we likely would have lost both WWI and WWII without the US intervention...what I deplore is that both time they looked on and profited by it until their precious hides were burned, the Lusitania in 1915 and Pearl Harbor in 1941. Both times, had they intervened sooner the wars would have been shorte...and maybe Pearl Harbor would never have happenned...but we will never know nor all the victims of both wait and see!
@Paul
ReplyDeleteIs USAers an invention of yours or is it utilised also by others?
@Commentator
I think Americans or USAers didn't intervene earlier in both WWs because of their isolationist nature. Once I called it ‘insularity’ and you didn’t like it but what I meant is just a type of behaviour, not geography only. More important than geography in my opinion is the fact that they are both huge and like ‘complete’ in themselves. Russia is the same, and it doesn't lie between two oceans.
Canada could be different – tighter connection with UK etc., more attention to different cultures etc. - , but in truth I don’t know.
So only when something happens 'at their hides' ‘the Americans’ are in a position to mobilize their entire population and go to war.
@MoR, I guess "USAer", is not common;y used. I may be the creator and sole User but one or two others have taken up the word on Neil Mckentie's blog on blogspot.
ReplyDelete@Commentator, yes the USA is an island unto itself and so is Russia and, to some extent, China.
@Paul
ReplyDeleteYes, of course, China too is a universe of its own.
Here's how I see the name thing: To me Americans are from the USA. I don't get caught up in the semantics. That's why Brazilians are Brazilians, Mexicans are Mexicans and so on. No one attempts to claim to be 'America'. The term 'American' is related to the fact, as you know, the country is called 'United States of America'. It may not be "right" or "accurate" but they branded it.
ReplyDeleteSorta like pasta: Maybe it was the Arabs (yes, the history is a little more involved than this) who brought dried pasta to Italy, but Italy alone made it what it is today. So it's 'Italian'. All this "it came from China' (which is misleading since theirs was a rice flour pasta while Italy is made of durum wheat...anyway) or somewhere else is besides the point.
Same with basketball. We in Canada keep harping about Naismith being Canadian (which should be a source of pride) but it was AMERICA (Yes, AMERICA) who popularized and perfected the game so they have a legitimate (at least equal) claim to it in my mind.
MOR, I think you're right about France. It seems in every political calculation they come up with it's about "pissing off" the Americans or British. De Gaulle, who so hated all things English from what I read, still had no problems "leading" France during "la resistance" FROM? BRITAIN!
I agree with the isolationist part. The war wasn't seen as affecting their interests (much like how Quebec viewed it for the record) but once attacked they has no choice and it suddenly became a war between fascists/Nazis and the free democratic world - which it was.
I'm not as concerned as Paul seems to be as to why they joined; they joined. Canada joined by proxy and as part as the British empire. Totally different set of circumstance. I agree, the wars could have ended sooner had they joined earlier but what can you do? Conversely, had Britain and France shown some moxy on the Rhine when Hitler was testing them maybe things would have been different. "Peace in our time" my ass.Churchill was proven a sane dude when he scoffed at this.
I think we should be more critical of how "neutral" countries like Sweden and Switzerland profited from the war by "collaborating" with Nazi Germany.
Sure thing Marky.
ReplyDeleteI agree, Commentator, with your line of reasonning. And you are right about De Gaule and his hatred of things English. Churchill also hated De Gaule...but they had to work toghether so both held their noses and did it.
ReplyDeleteHowever even if I know you are right I still resent the annexation of the words America and Americans by the residents of the US of A.
Hey dear Canadian guys,
ReplyDeletedid you read 'A year in the merde' by Stephen Clarke?
Published in 2004, it's the story of an English guy who spends one whole year in Paris, and since he is English, it's one year 'in the merde' for him.
I have a French translation: 'Les Francais vivent dans la représaille permanente...'. Terribly funny.
Paul, annexation is good for relaxation. Don't know what that means but it rhymes.
ReplyDeleteMOR, never read it but will explore...eventually I'm sure.
Annexation, relaxation, vexation all rhyme.
ReplyDeleteMoR, I have not read that book. will look if available over hear.
I don't have the original in English, since my daughter bought it in French to practice this language. The French title is: 'God save la France'. Who knows, it's possible they didn't dare to present the original title to the French public lol.
ReplyDelete