Category: france

A friend came to tea last Sunday afternoon. He had been away on holiday in Jonzac. There he had discovered that two resistance fighters were killed helping the allied invasion in June 1944. In relating his story, he made reference to ‘le débarquement américain’. ‘Le Débarquement américain ?’, I asked. Yes, he said, June 1944. I asked again, ‘le débarquement américain?’. He repeated the affirmation. So a history lesson ensued.

I pointed out that the Normandy Landings of 6th June 1944 were an Allied assault, not just an American enterprise. Ah yes, he said, as recollection of certain details began to permeate the received French notion that the Americans set them free in 1944.

Having witnessed the 75th anniversary commemorations of the D-Day landings courtesy of French media and French State stage management, I anticipate the usual distortions of the historical record come the 80th anniversary of the Allied Assault on Normandy on June 6th 2024.

Let me explain what French television reporting and commentary did with the 75th anniversary commemoration, before I outline my history lesson from last Sunday.

President Macron and President Trump shared the platform at the American D Day cemetary at Colleville-sur-Mer. French television covered the event most of the day, following every move of the two Presidents. Colleville-sur-Mer was the only media setting for the 75th anniversary celebrations.  It was very clear that this was a Franco-American commemoration. After all, it was the Americans who saved France – virtually all the video footage which you ever see on French television concerning D Day and its consequences portrays American soldiers being hailed by joyful French people.

By contrast, the British Imperial contribution is a footnote in French consciousness, and this was reflected in French media treatment of the 75th anniversary. The television reporting of another commemoration at a British cemetary that day was limited, for example to a brief insertion in the evening news – a footnote to the main event of the day at the American Cemetary.

Now, let’s put that French impression in perspective with some raw statistics. One source says that 132,700 soldiers were involved in the primary assault: the Americans constituted 43.3% and the British and Canadians 56.7%. There were 2 British, 1 Canadian and 2 American landing beaches.

I pointed out to my retired teacher friend that the operational commander for Overlord was General Bernard Montgomery, the British architect and commander of the El Alamein victory. Montgomery also determined the strategy for the battle of Normandy, and was in command before, during and 6 weeks after the landing.

Operation Overlord was an extremely difficult operation which entailed great risk – it was by far the largest amphibious assault ever undertaken. Montgomery executed his strategy brilliantly.

What was his strategy ?

The Canadians and British were positioned on the left flank of the attack, the Americans on the right. Each flank had its task. The left flank was to meet the inevitable German counter-attack around Caen, and hold it off, pinning down vital German forces while the right flank gained strategic ground, sweeping in a great arc around the back of the Germans from the right. In doing so, the Americans were to secure the vital seaports of Cherbourg and Brest. Montgomery used the metaphor of a door on a hinge: the left flank was the hinge and the right flank was the door intended to swing wide open to the right and rear of the German defences. This was precisely how the operation unfolded …

But of course, this strategy was designed to win a strategic military campaign; it was not concerned with writing history.

What goes into the public consciousness of such events, however, are certain aspects of what actually happened, NOT how and why the whole strategy played out. So the French collective memory of the invasion of Normandy tends to revolve in my experience around 3 aspects of what happened, and not the entire record and its explanation.

One aspect of French collective memory is the British bombardment of Caen, seen as gratuitous destruction. That military tactic  feeds into the underlying general, historical distrust of “les Anglais”. Another aspect is the suffering and death endured by the Americans pinned down at Omaha beach. And the third aspect arises from the fact that the Americans were charged with the big sweeping movements to outflank the Germans. That meant that the Americans were highly visible as they sped through France towards Paris, liberating town after town.

That was all part of the plan. But the public impression was that the Americans were doing the liberating while the useless and perfidious British failed to take Caen. The plan, however, required Canadian and British imperial troops to take the main weight of the German counter-attack so that the Americans on the right flank could establish the Allied hold on terrain well beyond the initial bridgehead. The failure to break out of the bridgehead at Anzio in early 1944 could not be repeated in this critical and strategic operation in Normandy.

So, to this day, the Americans remain the real heroes of the hour in the French collective memory. That is understandable, but it is not the whole story, it is not the whole truth. As such it is not history but impression or legend selected according to the predispostions of the French: in their eyes, the Americans are fellow Republicans and defenders of the rights of the people; whereas the British are monarchists and the historic foe which cannot be trusted – perfidious Albion. Impressions based on aspects of the whole truth and which reinforce received prejudice are legend or propaganda, they are not history.

Yet this is the sloppy approach by leading academics in history, and other disciplines in the University of Oxford concerning analysis of the Russian invasion of Ukraine since February 2022. Such predisposition and consequent editing of evidence are worthy of political protagonists, not academics in a great University. See The Faculty of History, for example, in my previous post titled: “Will incoming Vice Chancellor Irene Tracey investigate the evidence of aberration at Oxford and take corrective action ?”