# Sarkozy refuses invite royals D Day 65th-Anniversary



## bigZ (May 28, 2009)

D-Day snub to Queen: Palace fury as Sarkozy refuses to invite royals to 65th Anniversary - and Brown won't act | Mail Online

I am no royalist but this wound me up. As the head of state of both Canada and Britain it shows a huge disrespect to over half the troops who participated in the D-Day landings.


----------



## Freebird (May 28, 2009)

Bloody disgraceful!

The official French press release "This is very much a Franco-American occasion."


"'Surrounded by French and American veterans, the presidents Obama and Sarkozy will pay homage to the thousands of Americans who lost their lives on the Normandy beaches in their fight for liberty."

And just WTF were the British Canadians giving their lives for?


----------



## bigZ (May 28, 2009)

I should have also mentioned the commonwealth forces involved.


----------



## Catch22 (May 28, 2009)

Well the French WERE victors in WWII. 

They just needed us to win it for them. Save for the Free French.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 28, 2009)

I honestly can not believe how they can do this. It was Allied invasion and Britain and Canada made up a big part of it. 

In my opinion* if* this is true, France is disgracing the honor of the other allied soldiers who died to liberate France. Very ungrateful! I think there has to be more to this. They had to have invited at least the British Prime Minister. 

I have a feeling there is more to this and the Press is blowing it way out of proportion. If you read the article it says that the British are invited, and they get to decide who comes. The French govt. will not dictate who the British delegation is.

I don't know...


----------



## pbfoot (May 28, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I honestly can not believe how they can do this. It was Allied invasion and Britain and Canada made up a big part of it.
> 
> In my opinion* if* this is true, France is disgracing the honor of the other allied soldiers who died to liberate France. Very ungrateful! I think there has to be more to this. They had to have invited at least the British Prime Minister.
> 
> ...


Our PM is there thats good enough for me


----------



## Arsenal VG-33 (May 28, 2009)

A little rush to judgement by some it would seem?

From one of the NY Times articles:

_When accounts of the dispute made the headlines of the British tabloids on Wednesday, the diplomatic gloves came off, at least somewhat. “Palace fury at D-Day snub to the Queen,” roared the Daily Mail, the first time in days that its front-page splash has been on something other than the furor over British parliamentarians’ expenses. A Buckingham Palace spokesman declined to comment beyond a terse, one sentence statement that “no invitation has been issued as yet to any member of the royal family.” 

The tabloids quoted anonymous palace officials as *saying it was the Brown government that dropped the ball, possibly because of reported strains between Mr. Brown and the queen*. Among other issues, the queen is said to have cooled on Mr. Brown because of his habit of appearing late for their weekly audiences. The Daily Mail quoted one “senior palace official” as saying that the palace had made clear to the government that the queen would have liked to go to Normandy._ 


From what accounts I've read on other sites, most are pointing out the fact that the first mentioning of the "un-invite" was from a UK tabloid press. Not exactly a bastion of truth.

From AP:

"_The dispute seems to have taken French officials somewhat by surprise. They insist the monarch was welcome at the ceremony and blamed the British government for mistakes in the handling of what they called a "Franco-American" ceremony. 

"It is not up to France to determine the British representation," French government spokesman Luc Chatel said. "There will be other 6ths of June_." 

"_The absence of a personal invitation is baffling to royal watchers, who say the Queen is known to enjoy a warm relationship with French President Nicolas Sarkozy, the host of the event_. "

Seems to me someone in PM Brown's cabinet f****d up and forgot to name a few people in the official invited list, so the tabloids go after France.


----------



## evangilder (May 28, 2009)

Oy! What a mess.


----------



## Freebird (May 29, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I honestly can not believe how they can do this. It was Allied invasion and Britain and Canada made up a big part of it.
> 
> In my opinion* if* this is true, France is disgracing the honor of the other allied soldiers who died to liberate France. Very ungrateful! I think there has to be more to this. They had to have invited at least the British Prime Minister.
> 
> ...



It does look like a deliberate snub though, if I am reading the calendar correctly, the British Canadians also landed on June 6.... 

It would have been very simple to mention with a few words - "'Surrounded by French and American veterans, the presidents Obama and Sarkozy will pay homage to the thousands of Americans, British Canadians who lost their lives on the Normandy beaches in their fight for liberty."

It doesn't seem as if the French are planning a similar ceremony at Gold, Sword or Juno.

Sarkozy hails U.S. help in beating Hitler... but there's no mention of Britain's sacrifice | Mail Online

Below is the headline from the Daily Mail
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sarkozy lavishes U.S. with praise in Victory Day speech, but makes no mention of British sacrifice in World War Two

By Peter Allen
Last updated at 8:47 AM on 09th May 2009

Comments (14) 
Add to My Stories 


French President Nicolas Sarkozy praised the American contribution to victory over Germany in World War Two today – with no mention of the British whatsoever.

Instead he heaped compliments on his U.S. counterpart Barack Obama for agreeing to travel to Normandy for the 65th anniversary of D-Day next month. 

British veterans reacted with anger to the snub, with former infantryman David Churchcroft, who stormed on to Gold Beach in northern Francein 1944, saying: 'Without us, the French would not have stood a chance of getting rid of the Germans.'


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (May 29, 2009)

Why would The French government do that? I know there's still some animosity between the two countries, but England and Canada were vital in Operation Overlord. Without them, I don't think the US would've been able to secure the beacheads.


----------



## Arsenal VG-33 (May 29, 2009)

freebird said:


> It does look like a deliberate snub though, if I am reading the calendar correctly, the British Canadians also landed on June 6....
> 
> It would have been very simple to mention with a few words - "'Surrounded by French and American veterans, the presidents Obama and Sarkozy will pay homage to the thousands of Americans, British Canadians who lost their lives on the Normandy beaches in their fight for liberty."
> 
> ...



With all due respect freebird, the UK press - with a great deal of help from the tabloids is really making outrageous claims over a non-issue, here is why: To the best of my knowledge, Sarkozy is not required to send an invite to Buckingham. This would have been a nice thing to do, but frankly he probably sees the queen from the perspective of the post-war generation, unlike his predecessors Chirac and Mitterand. He followed the strict protocol of inviting the acting head of state, in this case PM Brown. It is my understanding that it is then Brown's reponsibility to follow-up that invite to others who wish/express desire to attend the said event, or whoever should be part of the official entourage. Brown should have been automatically included the queen first and foremost. This is what Blair, Majors, and Thatcher have done in the past, yet Brown somehow didn't come around to this for whatever reason, and now it is the French who are suddenly "ungrateful", "forgetfull", and blah blah blah. True, Sarkozy could have done the appreciative formality of sending a personal invite to the Queen, but because he didn't hardly qualifies this as a deliberate snub. The criticism is quite frankly unjust, unfair and malicious.

As an example, the last paragraph in this column from TIMES:

Queen Elizabeth Snubbed: Britain Declares War on France - Yahoo! News

_"French people young and old still express enduring gratitude for the sacrifices of the Allied forces that drove the Germans out of France - an effort that cost the Allies some 37,000 lives in Normandy. That feeling prompted many in France to wince at the British tabloid accusations of wartime fecklessness and current ingratitude."_


As for the link you provided, the ceremony which this article refers to is the "Anvil" landings in southern France, a mainly French-American endeavor. Besides, I'd like to know when the the last time the contributions of the Free French, Resistance, and helpers of the Escape Lines were given tribute in any ceremony in England in regards to WW 2? Could you find a recent one? They are all forgotten! When GWB went to Normandy for the 60th anniversary, I don't recall him sayig anying either. Was that also a deliberate snub?

Place the blame where it belongs, on PM Brown. He is a complete klutz for having procrastinated on the invitations and allowing this issue become the diplomatic row it is. Sarko certainly may have made a gaffe by overlooking an important detail in making seperate invites as Chirac and Mitterand did, but Brown failed in his duty to the queen to include her as part of the British representation.

Freebird, I give much respect to your thoughts as we've had some very good and constructive debates on this forum, but I must say, that personally, I cringe when anything is referenced to the Daily Mail. IMO, the DM is as much an authority on France as Al-Jezeera is an authority on Israel.


----------



## RabidAlien (May 29, 2009)

Regardless of what the tabloids may scream, there are still many who recognize the actions of ALL involved in liberating Europe, N. Africa, CBI and the Pacific. Of ALL nationalities. Y'all have my respect!


----------



## fly boy (May 29, 2009)

this is sad really really sad


----------



## BombTaxi (May 29, 2009)

The _Mail_ and _Express_ are just desperate for any news that can get them away from the MPs expenses scandal  Of course, if that news gives them the chance to bash thier favourite 'enemy' over the water, so much the better. For a change, Sarko has done nothing wrong, and as Arsenal says, Brown is at fault for not doing his own end of the job properly. Mind you, with his MPs dropping like flies around him, and being forced into a humiliating U-turn over Gurkha settlement rights, one might understand that he has been a little distracted...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 29, 2009)

freebird said:


> It does look like a deliberate snub though, if I am reading the calendar correctly, the British Canadians also landed on June 6....
> 
> It would have been very simple to mention with a few words - "'Surrounded by French and American veterans, the presidents Obama and Sarkozy will pay homage to the thousands of Americans, British Canadians who lost their lives on the Normandy beaches in their fight for liberty."
> 
> ...




I agree that it still is a snub to British and Canadian vets, but I still think the Press is blowing this out of proportion. As pB just noted, the Canadian PM will be there. PM Brown from England will be there as well. 

They are not snuffing out the allies in that sense. 

*Now I do agree with you that they need to give just as much praise and respect to the British and Canadian vets as they do the American Vets, D-Day was a joint operation.* I however do not believe that the fact that Queen is not coming is a snuff. She even decided not to attend on several occasions on her own accord.

If there is a British and Canadian delegation (which there is, as both PM's will be there) then as a delegation that is good enough.


----------



## Freebird (May 29, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I agree that it still is a snub to British and Canadian vets, but I still think the Press is blowing this out of proportion. As pB just noted, the Canadian PM will be there. PM Brown from England will be there as well.
> 
> They are not snuffing out the allies in that sense.
> 
> ...




My apologies if you were offended Adler, I wasn't taking aim at you in that post, I was trying to point out how the original statement *should* have been worded. 

My mistake in quoting you, because I don't take issue with any of your post.

As for which stuffed shirts attend, not a big concern with that either.



DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I agree that it still is a snub to British and Canadian vets...



That's the point I was making.

Just found the statement mentioning only the Americans to be rather disrespectful of the other participants, as just last month I had someone rather condecendingly point out my error in referring to a Canadian landing beach at Normandy, "Since of course it was only the Americans who landed there"...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 29, 2009)

freebird said:


> My apologies if you were offended Adler, I wasn't taking aim at you in that post, I was trying to point out how the original statement *should* have been worded.
> 
> My mistake in quoting you, because I don't take issue with any of your post.



Ah I get you...

When I first read the post, I thought you were implying that I was saying otherwise. I misunderstood you.

I apologize. I am just having a bad day. Pay no attention to my post them, in fact I will edit it out.


----------



## Freebird (May 29, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Ah I get you...
> 
> I apologize. I am just having a bad day. Pay no attention to my post them, in fact I will edit it out.



No worries, I didn't quote that very well. 


It may not seem like a big deal either to some, but it's unfortunate because it leads ignorance of history that some people have in the US. {and Canada too!}


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 29, 2009)

freebird said:


> It may not seem like a big deal either to some, but it's unfortunate because it leads ignorance of history that some people have in the US. {and Canada too!}



I agree. I believe that not recognizing the contributions of all of the allies is a shame and disgraceful. I also have to agree with you on the US. Unfortunately many of my countryman believe that it was only the US that shed blood and won WW2.


----------



## Freebird (May 30, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I agree. I believe that not recognized the contributions of all of the allies is shame and disgraceful. I also have to agree with you on the US. Unfortunately many of my countryman believe that it was only the US the shed blood and won WW2.



What do you think the problem is?

I wonder if it isn't a certain lazieness in the media to report things accurately? And perhaps a somewhat US-centric reporting about history?

For example, CNN or FOX might report "the 65th anniversary of the American landing in Normandy" instead of the more accurate "Allied" landings.

It's not that I'm going to get picky about every fact, but I have been surprised to meet many Americans that didn't know the Australians fought in VietNam, or that Canadians participated in Desert Storm, Afganistan Korea etc. 

What? I don't remember seeing any Canucks on M*A*S*H....


----------



## Arsenal VG-33 (May 30, 2009)

freebird said:


> I wonder if it isn't a certain lazieness in the media to report things accurately? And perhaps a somewhat US-centric reporting about history?



Every country which took part in any major event which has gone done in the annals history has naturally put their national spin on it. It's only naturally that people take pride in what their own forces did. Over the recent years however, this has evolved in over emphasizing their importance and leaving out the sacrifices/contributions of others. 

Anyone who uses any of the major television sources (CNN, FOX, CBS, etc.,etc.) as a outlet for their own education is a lost cause (not _you_....but society in general). It's been my observation that people who tend to watch/listen the telly/radio the most, are also the most easily influenced, more often than not by the_ last thing they've seen/heard_. With telly and radio personalities achieving quasi-celebrity status, combined with flashy and repetitive visual and audio bling, people who watch/listen on a regular basis, _and without doing any cross referencing whatsoever_, tend to be very accepting of the information received, regardless of how true or false it is, (mostly the latter). Lastly, I truely worry over democracies where the press is running headlong into the venue of sensational tabloids. You tell them that polar bear paratroops landed in Berlin long enough and loud enough, they'll believe you. Was there not a report only 1 or 2 years ago, stating that most people in a certain age bracket were getting most of their information from late-nite talk show hosts???

There is no substitute for a good book - many of them - comparative research and cross referencing.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 30, 2009)

freebird said:


> What do you think the problem is?
> 
> I wonder if it isn't a certain lazieness in the media to report things accurately? And perhaps a somewhat US-centric reporting about history?
> 
> ...



It very well could what you describe. I also think it starts in the schools. History is not being taught the way it happened, but the way they want people to know it.


----------



## BombTaxi (May 30, 2009)

That is always an issue. The teaching of history here in the UK is fairly grim, there is an effort to teach the entire history of the UK from before the Roman invasion, but that is obviously a lot to fit in, and at GCSE and A-Level, the whole focus is on the World Wars and international relations - or it was when I did the exams almost a decade ago. Most kids leave school with no understanding of our history, not understanding why England is a Protestant country, for example, or why there has been such violence in Ireland for the last five centuries. The problem is further compounded by the rise of the right-wing and anti-EU parties who hijack history to promote thier agendas.


----------



## ToughOmbre (May 30, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> It very well could what you describe. I also think it starts in the schools. History is not being taught the way it happened, but the way they want people to know it.



Absolutely true, unfortunately. I could hardly believe the stuff in my kid's history books going back 20 to 25 years ago. The texts showed the influence of PC and revisionist historians.

TO


----------



## Ferdinand Foch (May 30, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I agree. I believe that not recognizing the contributions of all of the allies is a shame and disgraceful. I also have to agree with you on the US. Unfortunately many of my countryman believe that it was only the US that shed blood and won WW2.



Unfortunately, history textbooks in middle and high school only touch on briefly the second world war, and most of the time it's not the best info. out there (unless you are in a higher up class).  
Personally, I would be a lot happier if the history of World War Two (and even the first world war) were taught in a seperate class. That would give the kids the education they need on these events.


----------



## Arsenal VG-33 (May 30, 2009)

So, finally there are those who are able to see the incident for what it really is:


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjoypNuGm2E_


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (May 31, 2009)

Ferdinand Foch said:


> Unfortunately, history textbooks in middle and high school only touch on briefly the second world war, and most of the time it's not the best info. out there (unless you are in a higher up class).
> Personally, I would be a lot happier if the history of World War Two (and even the first world war) were taught in a seperate class. That would give the kids the education they need on these events.



Forget it Foch, I was in the same history classes as you, and we missed a lot of stuff. I think the only class I learned a lot was Civil War history, but since I'm into military history well. A reason why I'm glad I'm a part of this forum, learned quite a bit.


----------



## vikingBerserker (May 31, 2009)

Well, the way I see it the Germans didn't invite the British or Canadians either, but they still showed up.

Hell with PC protocal, show up anyway.


----------



## RabidAlien (May 31, 2009)

vikingBerserker said:


> Well, the way I see it the Germans didn't invite the British or Canadians either, but they still showed up.
> 
> Hell with PC protocal, show up anyway.



A-FRIKKIN-MEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  That's gotta be the best response I've read yet!!


I recall hating history classes in middle and high school. It was all about rote memorization of names and dates and countries...something I didn't do very well at. I came out knowing that the Battle of the Bulge happened, and that Rommel was an evil man who was defeated only by the shining and stellar example of Patton. Etc etc. It wasn't until nearly a decade later when I started reading WW2 history, especially the personal accounts, that I realized that Rommel wasn't an evil man, that his troops loved him for who he was, and his enemies respected him for the same...that Patton was a hard-headed, foul-mouthed egotistical bastard who got the job done, and managed to rub Montgomery's nose in it every single time. That the Battle of the Bulge, instead of being a travesty caused by ____ dropping the ball (insert "green troops" or "British troops" here, depending on textbook), was instead a small slice of Hell on ice where the average Allied grunt dug in and really showed the world what they were made of, regardless of race, creed, or color. With all the PC crap coming to the forefront these days, I'm really scared of what my daughter will be forced to choke down. The one comfort I have is that she will grow up with as thorough an understanding of WW2 (and to a lesser extent, WW1/Korea/Vietnam/GulfWar/Iraq) as I can give her. She will have a thorough respect for the military forces of all nations. And she will know how to politely tell her PC teachers exactly where they can stuff it.


----------



## A4K (Jun 2, 2009)

I never trust the press, they always exaggerate things for the sake of a story. My faith in the school education system is on about the same low level. I just hope there are enough people with brains in the world to remember what exactly took place 65 years ago, and who to thank for it.


----------



## Njaco (Jun 3, 2009)

Don't know if its a snub, media overload or what but at least an invitation to the one Head-of-State that actually served in WWII - the Queen - would have been nice.


----------



## DFM+BB (Jun 4, 2009)

I'm french and I just wanted to say that I'm sorry for this...


----------



## BombTaxi (Jun 4, 2009)

It's none of the above Njaco, it is up to Brown to invite the Queen, not Sarkozy. No-one is snubbing anyone, although it is well known that Brown's relationship with the Queen has been disintegrating since she stepped in and told him to sort his government out. At the moment, he'll be lucky to be PM this time next week, so let's hope the next one does a better job...

Rabid, I was interested by your claim that some textbooks blame the British for the early disasters in the Battle of the Bulge. My own understanding was that British troops weren't involved - although if you read some histories, you would think the British stopped fighting after Alamein anyway...

EDIT: DFM, you have nothing to be sorry for mate, it seems to be a blundering idiot this end that is causing the problem.


----------



## Ferdinand Foch (Jun 4, 2009)

RabidAlien said:


> The one comfort I have is that she will grow up with as thorough an understanding of WW2 (and to a lesser extent, WW1/Korea/Vietnam/GulfWar/Iraq) as I can give her. She will have a thorough respect for the military forces of all nations. And she will know how to politely tell her PC teachers exactly where they can stuff it.



Great idea RA, I think I'll follow your example when I have kids.  Events like these are just too important to be told to students in all of about ten minutes. 

DFM: Don't worry man, we have idiots on our side of the atlantic too. I remember back in middle school, when the Second Gulf War started, that we had a lot of people (especially down South) call French fries "Freedom fires," and French toast "freedom toast."


----------



## badbear (Jun 8, 2009)

Bl**dy french T***pot .? no offence to you dfm+bb


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jun 8, 2009)

Ferdinand Foch said:


> DFM: Don't worry man, we have idiots on our side of the atlantic too. I remember back in middle school, when the Second Gulf War started, that we had a lot of people (especially down South) call French fries "Freedom fires," and French toast "freedom toast."



(VB plays the banjo to help get the full effect)


----------



## badbear (Jun 8, 2009)

And as for gordon brown what a complete%^*t and a *%£er nuff said can,t stand the bloke should be stood in a field and napalmed sorry if thats a bit strong but he really gets my back up.BB


----------



## HerrKaleut (Jun 8, 2009)

Just a small point. Protocol and precedence dictate that an invite is sent from the French gov. to Buckingham Palace and a CC to Downing St. Although Brown is P.M., Her Maj. is still the head of state (albeit with no real constitutional powers). How many years have these commemorations been happening,one would have thought they could get it right. Both sides of the channel knew what should have occured.
IMO it was a snub of the first magnitude, and if it is down to Gordon Brown.....to the Tower of London with him As for the french, send a gunboat up the Seine and nail the Union Flag to the top of the Eifel Tower


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Jun 8, 2009)

It's too bad this happened. The British did a tough job on D-day, just watch the movie.


----------



## Bernhart (Jun 8, 2009)

I read somewhere intial plan was to be just a franco american thing, from The French governments plan.


----------



## A4K (Jun 10, 2009)

RabidAlien said:


> . And she will know how to politely tell her PC teachers exactly where they can stuff it.



Just choose her words carefully! I made an enemy for life with an ex RNZAF WWII vet when I was 12. He taught us GSK in the local ATC unit, and tried to tell us one day that "The only contender for the Spitfire in WW II was the Messerschmitt 109". I asked "What about the Focke-Wulf 190? The Mk.V was developed to counter it". He just rambled off angrily that he 'wasn't talking about the 190!' and never liked me from that time on!

Had a few similar run-ins with him and others later on too. Just because someone is younger dosen't mean they don't know anything!


----------



## RabidAlien (Jun 12, 2009)

BT, its been years since 9th grade History, but I recall bein rather confused as to whether or not the Bulge was caused by our replacement troops, sent to the "quiet" Ardennes for seasoning, or because Montgomery panicked and took forever to get back on the offensive. I guess every country wants a version of history that makes their guys look better, its only natural. Still, I know enough now to know better. Had it been Eisenhower hitting a seam between the Germans and the Italians (provided they weren't intermingled to provide some good German backbone to the Italian forces), the plan might've worked. The Allies (all of em) were made of better stuff.


----------



## Naoned (Jul 12, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I honestly can not believe how they can do this. It was Allied invasion and Britain and Canada made up a big part of it.
> 
> In my opinion* if* this is true, France is disgracing the honor of the other allied soldiers who died to liberate France. Very ungrateful! I think there has to be more to this. They had to have invited at least the British Prime Minister.
> 
> ...




i give you the real reason: N Sarkozy wanted to be alone on the pics with B Obama !!

I'm french and i can tell you i was realy disgused by that decision,in fact the queen is the only person who realy participated to WW2 !!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 12, 2009)

Naoned said:


> i give you the real reason: N Sarkozy wanted to be alone on the pics with B Obama !!
> 
> I'm french and i can tell you i was realy disgused by that decision,in fact the queen is the only person who realy participated to WW2 !!



There is much more to the story, finish reading the thread.


----------



## Freebird (Jul 12, 2009)

RabidAlien said:


> BT, its been years since 9th grade History, but I recall bein rather confused as to whether or not the Bulge was caused by our replacement troops, sent to the "quiet" Ardennes for seasoning, or because Montgomery panicked and took forever to get back on the offensive. .



More likely the former, as the British didn't have much to do with the Bulge, except at the end were brought in as reserves as the situation was becoming critical


----------

