...I would say a lot of Americans don't even know about it.....what about the Europeans? it affected them more
I doubt that 10% of Americans under the age of 30 could tell you what happened on June 6, 1944. Same with Dec. 7th, 1941. I also doubt that 50% could tell your what happened on Sept. 11, 2001. (Damn! Where did the time go?)
yes, good call ..I'll put this ''nicely'' = and even the ones under 30 that do know about it, would perceive it as what it is not [ opposite/etc ] of what it truly is
We have practically every Major WW2 incident mentioned in the newspapers. Most of us don't forget. However some do not care but we have like on Mannerheim's birthday big celebrations on tv. It is a day for Him and the Finnish Army and it is a day for Army's marching every year to remind us of the soldiers who kept our freedom 1944.
There was a lot of live coverage on UK television stations yesterday of the opening of the British Normandy Memorial in Ver-sur-Mer, Normandy. It was also nice to see that some of the surviving veterans were able to make it there for the opening. British Normandy Memorial
I thought the Veterans were at the National Memorial Arboretum in the UK watching it live on big screens due to travel restrictions.
Sorry to appear a party pooper, but just because an old man sets himself a mission to build a memorial doesn't make it a great idea. It is wrong to claim that Britain has not done enough to commemorate those who served and died in the Liberation of Europe. The Commonwealth has an established way to commemorate war dead. Everyone who fell has a named grave stone or appears on a memorial for the missing. The people singled out for special treatment are the missing, out of respect for relatives who have no graves where they can find closure. That is why we hold out national commemorations at these memorials, which are built at sites of significance on the major overseas campaigns. This is where our monarch and political leaders pay their respects on behalf of the nation. The Bayeux memorial commemorates ALL who died in France during the period, not just those involved in the dramatic cross channel assault that is the trigger for national remembrance and a media moment. There are men who died as PoW or in the invasion of southern France or as members of the Special Forces in the French interior. They all did their bit and deserve recognition. The Bayeux War Cemetery is a historic location as the cemetery was started in wartime and the graves are witnesses of the story. The dead include allies from Poland, Czechoslovakia and the Soviet Union as well as members of the merchant marine. They also include Germans, a fallen enemy but current day ally. Our war cemeteries are humbling but majestic places. They are fitting locations for acts of Remembrance. The media commentary suggests that the new memorial is intended to be the new focus for national commemoration. Replacing Bayeux as the focus for British commemorations is a rotten idea. It undermines the established custom of focusing commemoration on the memorials to the missing in each campaign theatre. It separates the act of remembrance from the graves themselves. With a special memorial for D Day and Normandy, those who served and fell anywhere else are therefore not special and their sacrifice is not as important. or will we have a race to erect special memorials for any and every action? Ver-sur-Mer is not a great place to hold an event with tens of thousands of spectators. It will be a nightmare to participate in an event there. It ain't great at Bayeux, which is at least served by a dual carriageway and on the motorway network. I stood for three hours waiting for coaches at the 75th anniversary at the Normandy American Cemetery 2019. The Canadians had similar problems with major commemorations at Vimy Ridge, served by two access roads. These sites were determined by the location of key battles. Deliberately choosing somewhere inaccessible is irresponsible. Sure, by all means erect monuments and interpretation boards where stories are not already told. The British story in Normandy is not well supported by interpretation or memorials. The battlefield between Caen and Falaise seems to have been given up to the Canadians. There is no British memorial or interpretation at Lambert-sur-Dives, where British troops played a big part in the destruction of the encircled Germans and closing the Falaise Pocket. There is a museum but little interpretation to inform visitors of the bitter battle for Tilly-sur-Suelles or the month long struggle at Hill 112 and in the Odon and Orne valleys, Apart from the grave of Sidney Bates there is little to tell of Op Bluecoat or the capture of Mount Pincon. There is nothing to tell of the battle for Pont l'Eveque by the paras or the Seine crossing a Vernon. There are places crying out for investment to tell the story of British servicemen. But this is not big or focused enough is it? Nor is there any memorial or interpretation to support the other big battle of Summer 1944, the defence of the UK against the V weapons. 50,000 men and women of AA Command as well as the RAF and USAAF. 1900 fell flying against the V weapons and their sites have no commemoration or interpretation. Sorry, but the Normandy Memorial stinks of self importance. It is a project built around a nexus of public enthusiasm for commemoration, sentimental support for old guys who believe that their campaign deserves special recognition and a pile of LIBOR cash.
Owen, apologies for the vagueness of my last post. I was actually referring to the vets who attended the event in Staffordshire.
My friends, Finland was sorta forced to fight on both sides, but after giving some 12 Jews for some reason to Germans, Mannerheim told Himmler " Finland has no Jewish problem" although several Finnish Jews were given EK2 that were thrown in the forests and rivers. In the 30's visiting Anti-jewish Germans were thrown at with stones. On the other hand, we needed the German wheat, Kuhlmey Stukas and the German Sturm unit to stay independent. Then again, we threw them out of Lapland after the peace negotiations with the Soviets. It ended in the burnt Lappland By Germans. If the Allied on the other hand had fought for Finland 1940 the Soviets would have propably considered you the enemy forever. So Finland was to be sacrificed but we did not give up.
We fought for independence why our forces stopped autumn 1941 and did not move until 1944.Our war was more like Ww1 trench war. Why did we do It? At least not for GrossFinland. That is what the Soviet politics say. After the arnistice September 1944 the Red Army attacked Joensuu area 1944 to take us again but we again destroyed the attacking forces. After that the peace started.
I remember watching the 75th anniversary 2 years ago, I had a few words with some my friends about it and all three didn't even know what D-Day was. It was actually rather astounding how little people today know about it or anything else just as notable that happened in history. I read a poll commissioned for the 100th anniversary of the armistice in 2018 and something like 8 percent of Canadians actually think they're country fought the French in WWI.
