D-Day and old heroes who became traitors

By Mary Mostert

At the 60th commemoration of D-Day, where 2500 to 5000 Americans died on the beaches of his country, France's President, Jacques Chirac said:

"France will never forget. She will never forget that 6th of June 1944; the day hope was reborn and rekindled. America is our eternal ally, and that alliance and solidarity are all the stronger for having been forged in those terrible hours."

It is encouraging that Chirac remembered America's sacrifice for France that day in June of 1944. There are some similarities between what America did when it invaded a very reluctant France in 1944 and what America did in invading Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003. After all, the Germans were not a threat to America in 1944. No German bombs ever fell on American cities.

Hindsight would suggest that the Germans were clearly on the run. In 1943 the American shipyards built in incredible 12,384 new military ships, an increase of 12, 283 over their 1939 production figures. From 1942 to 1944 the number of Allied ships the Germans were able to sink dropped from 8,245 to 1,422.

In 1944, most of Europe, including France, was still over-run with Nazi troops and the German Concentration Camps were at the peak of their killing of civilians in the Holocaust. But that really did not directly affect the United States of America. That affected the people of Europe.

Why didn't the Americans just walk away from the whole thing, like we did in Somalia and South Vietnam and as many, including the French government, and some major American politicians, John Kerry comes to mind, that have demanded that we do in Iraq? On the floor of the Senate on October 2, 2003, Senator Kerry, criticized George W. Bush for actually GOING to war in Iraq, thereby following a resolution that Kerry had voted for, because, in Kerry's mind, the resolution was not to be taken seriously but only as a THREAT to invade to make it "clear to the world we are contemplating war not for war's sake, but because it may be the ultimate weapons inspections enforcement mechanism.'

Why did French General Henri Philippe Petain, the much respected and honored leader of French troops in the Battle at Verdun during World War I, immediately surrender to the Germans after being named premier on June 16,1940? Petain requested an armistice the next day, on June 17, 1940 and France recognized Hitler as its conqueror on June 22, 1940 when the armistice was signed.

The French discovered the hard way that electing a "hero" from the last war isn't always a good thing to do. Petain quickly transformed himself from "hero" to a German sympathizer.

The horrendous loss of American lives in the invasion of Normandy might have been greatly reduced if Petain, France's World War I #1 hero, as head of the Vichy government had not urged the people of France to be "quiet and orderly, not to aid the armies that were liberating his country. Like of those opposing President Bush's actions, they thought, "Only a cooperative neutrality could protect French interests, property, and lives." In October 1940, Petain met with Hitler to offer his collaboration. At his treason trial after the war, Petain claimed he was playing cunning "double game, hoping to shield France from destruction until Germany's defeat. In fact, Petain persistently sought to trade his government's cooperation with Germany for a nonpunitive peace, the maintenance of the French empire, and an important role for a regenerated France in the new order that he believed would be established after Germany's victory over Britain."

Petain was convicted of treason, all his honors and medals taken from him and he was condemned to death, which France's new leader, General Charles de Gaulle modified to life imprisonment.

What, really, was Petain's problem? Why did he fall from being France's most decorated hero to conviction as a traitor? Did he hate France? No. He had two problems. He lacked vision and he thought the comfort of the French was more important than the lives of others — Americans, for example.

My e-mail, research and discussions with those who oppose President Bush's determined and sometimes lonely fight against worldwide terrorism tell me Petain's disastrous approach now infects many Americans. For example, Senator John Kerry was one of 12 Democrat Senators voting against the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan Security and Reconstruction Act of 2004 that, following in the tradition of the Marshall Plan, was designed to rebuild Iraq. His reasons for opposing it certainly would have been even more appropriate for my generation following World War II.

The World War II generation, in a population of 135 million, lost 405,000 soldiers and when the Marshall Plan was approved, had a massive Federal deficit and years of unmet needs among its people. John Kerry's reasons for opposing the bill to do for Iraq and Afghanistan what America did in Japan and Germany were:

1. He didn't think $20 billion for "reconstruction of basic services, such as water, sewer, and electricity, and for training Iraqi security forces," was something America should do.
   
   
2. He opposed American companies reaping financial benefits of Iraq reconstruction contracts
   
   
3. He didn't trust President Bush with the money, preferring it be done by the UN
   
   
4. He opposed American taxpayers paying for Iraq's reconstruction
   
   
5. There is no need to "rush forward" right now.
   
   

In 1944, the United States spent double the amount of money it received in taxes. D-Day was expensive, not only in the loss of lives, but also in money. FDR spent $95 billion and received $43.6 billion in taxes in 1944 to free the French and others in Europe from Hitler's grasp. That was 23.3% of America's entire gross domestic product in 1944. In 2003 Bush received $2 trillion in taxes and spent $2.1 trillion in taxes or 2.2% of America's gross domestic product.

Sixty years later, everyone seems to think the invasion of Normandy to save the French nation was worth it. But, at the time, not even the leader of France was willing to support it the invasion. Should have listened to Petain and the French Government of 1944? Should we have listened to Saddam Hussein and his supporters and not invaded Iraq?

Apparently we will get to vote on the question in November.

© Mary Mostert