The_Historian,

I do not recall attacking you, or accusing you of "newspaper snobbery". I, in fact, vented my frustrations towards the papaer itself and Mr. Hardman. Whether or not the Daily Heil snipe was attributed recently or during the war, it seems to escape many that given the pattern the paper and it's writers seem to have woven for themselves, the reputation appears to have been well deserved.

From a historical standpoint (and Skipper alludes to this), Mr Hardman conclusion of the photo exhibition is intentionally narrow and his conclusion are astoundingly amateurish and completely devoid of any analysis or perspective. Given my many years of study of France during the war years, I find Mr. Hardmans's article to be so misleading in this regard, it smacks of revisionism it is viewed with such tunnel vision.

A question I would like to pose to Mr. Hardman, and while I'm at it, to all UK members of this forum: Had the British Isles been overrun and occupied, does he, or anyone else believe the British people would have acted any differently than the French? I dare say that the British people would have done much the same. A fine example I would like to point out is the occupation of Jersey and Guernsey. Some would have gone underground, some would have simply struggled to survive without rocking the boat, others would have thrived in the Black Market, and yet others still would have collaborated. And yes, there would have been those as well who would willingly turned over the Jews to the enemy. Yes, The British, the Amercians, Canadians, and many others would have very much like the French under those circumstances.

To paraphrase Anthony Eden from the excellent and widely misuderstood documentary "The Sorrow and the Pity", Eden stated -"If you have not lived under the horrors of an occupation by an foreign enemy power, and everything that entails with this occupation, then you have no right to pronounce judgement upon a people who have lived through it.".

(again, I'm paraphrasing to the best of my memory as it has been a long time since I've watched this film.)

For Mr. Hardman or the Daily Mail to even hint otherwise is sheer elitism on their part. It is plainly obvious he has no idea what he is writing/talking about, and the article, I feel, is a great disservice to all those who struggle to learn more and better understand the war from a civilian standpoint. It is also an insult to those in the Resistance and the various underground movements who fought hard for not only the Allies but their own people as well. In diminishing their sacrifices to a mere footnote, as many other have tried to do, is to spit on their collective memories. What disturbs me the most is that Mr. Hardman is paid with real money for his drivel. I have a good mind to tell him so too.