Belgian/French Resistance 1914-1918

[barney5042]

Hi Emmanuel,

Thank you so much for taking the time to translate this detailed account of the events surrounding the group of British soldiers hidden in the Mormal Forest. It closely agrees with the three first-person accounts written by Lieut. Bushell (published in "A History of the Queen’s Bays"), Princess Marie de Croÿ ("War Memories"), and Louise Thuliez ("Condamnée à mort"). The only difference is that, upon learning that the group of soldiers had surrendered themselves, Mlle Thuliez and Princess Marie de Croy both indicated that Lieutenant Bushell had a breakdown, Mlle Thuliez going so far as to indicate that his service revolver had to be taken away from Bushell, such was their concern that he was going to kill himself. ("Lieutenant Bushell, who had not known until too late of the surrender of his men, had such a fit of despair when he heard the news that he had to have his revolver taken from him.") In Bushell's account, he downplays this, simply writing that he was "naturally very much upset".

I look forward to the account of Bushell's escape. For reference, I've attached a photo of Bushell's medals.

Barney

[cdr]

The " de Croy " family was very active in the organisation of escape routes. One of the next steps in this route was the well known Miss Edith Cavell. Her brother Prince Reginald de Croy was also a member of this organisation. One of their pass words was " yorc" Croy spelled backwards.

The most succesfull intelligence gathering group was the group best known as " La Dame Blanche " active between 1916 and 1918. It covered the occupied part of Belgium was well organised and had about 904 members. Only two of its members were executed.

Carl

For English readers , a member of the Croy family was killed fighting for the French at the battle of Agincourt

[bob lembke]

Carl;

Thanks. Very interesting that Miss Cavell was related to the de Croy family. Probably explains what could be explained as "risky behavior", to say the least.

Bob

[James A Pratt III]

The book "Armour against Fate Britsh Military Intelligence in the 1st World War" does have some info dealing with intelligence operations in occupied Belgium ect.

[bob lembke]

I am sure that the events in Belgium in 1914 between the German Army and Belgian civilians are an important part of "Belgian/French Resistance 1914-1918", and I posed an important question in another thread, and no one rose to the bait. Let me pose it here. An important book on this question is a book by a Captain Morgan entitled The German Book of War, in which he translated a (to me) obscure book published in 1902 in Germany, and in an explosive foreword of about 67 pages claimed that it was the most important book in Germany, used to form German policy and to train generations of German officers.

A critical claim of his in the foreword (Captain Morgan was a professor of military law and an expert on Germany and German, and I think partially educated there) is that the Hague Conventions hold that the civilian population of an invaded country can take up arms while dressed in their civilian clothes, fight against the invading army, presumably kill some enemy soldiers, and then drop their weapons and surrender, and that then the invading army, taking them prisoner, must accord them all of the protections of a surrendered enemy combatant, food, conditions, and certainly not try them or punish them as someone who has violated the rules and usages of war. This, of course, if true, would grant franc-tireurs the protection of international law, and any punishment of franc-tireurs, including shooting them, would be a war crime.

Now, I have never read the Hague Conventions, but this opinion flies in the face, in my case, of 60 years of interest in and reading on military matters. It also certainly seems to be at odds with what current practice seems to be in Iraq and Afghanistan. (Not "trying to go there", just citing it to illustrate what seems to be the current view of the rules of law). Is this interpretation of international law correct? It is quite an important point. It also bears on a currently active thread on WW I naval war.

Bob Lembke

[cdr]

Well

As I said before i'm no lawyer (and certainly not specialised in international law) but here i go.

Article 2 of the Hague convention states :

....Die Bevölkerung eines nicht besetzten Gebiets, die beim Herannahen des Feindes aus eigenem Antriebe zu den Waffen greift, um die eindringenden Truppen zu bekämpfen, ohne Zeit gehabt zu haben, sich nach Artikel 1 zu organisieren, wird als kriegführend betrachtet... (sorry my textbook is in german)

(the population of a not occupied territory, which takes up arms at the approach of the enemy to fight the invading troops without having had time to organise in the way set out in article one, is seen as combatant...)(my translation)

This article can according to me, be interpreted to cover the (alleged) franc tireur activity during the invasion of Belgium.

I think however that better legal minds should talk on this.

Carl

[Heid the Ba]

Carl touches on one of the problems of international law, treaties do not always say the same things in the various translations. I don't know how the german above compares with the english version:

"Article 1. The laws, rights, and duties of war apply not only to armies, but also to militia and volunteer

corps fulfilling the following conditions:

1. To be commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

2. To have a fixed distinctive emblem recognizable at a distance;

3. To carry arms openly; and

4. To conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

In countries where militia or volunteer corps constitute the army, or form part of it, they are included under the denomination "army."

Art. 2. The inhabitants of a territory which has not been occupied, who, on the approach of the enemy, spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading troops without having had time to organize themselves in accordance with Article 1, shall be regarded as belligerents if they carry arms openly and if they respect the laws and customs of war. "

It is clear from this that civilians can have the protection of international law provided they behave like soldiers, even if they are unformed and un-uniformed. Once an area was occupied this protection ceased. It would be interesting to compare the german version with the english (sorry my languauge skills are sub-optimal) and also with the Belgian. Would the Belgian versions be bi-lingual or only in french? [sentences removed in light of subsequent edit.]

I make no claim to be a better legal mind than anyone . . .

Edit to add: Occupation:

"Art. 42. Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.

The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised. "

So simply being there is not enough to occupy a territory in terms of the Convention, an administration must be set up. Military occupation does not equate to Convention occupation. In the english version at any rate.

[bob lembke]

Carl and "Heid";

Thank you. Quite surprising, and clearly quite hard to sort out the situation in actual situations. My sense from a lifetime of reading of materials on military matters is that organized armies do not appreciate being fired on by civilians or irregulars and seem to usually shoot same when possible. We should not beat current situations to death, but this adversion and resorting to a harsh response seems to extend down to the present day. Another puzzling current situation is when a power actually occupies a foreign country, but insists that they are not actually occupying the country, but are merely guests. Examples come to mind.

In regard to Belgium, one has to wonder at the point at which the area behind the German lines ceased to be just bypassed and became formally occupied. If a regiment passed down a road thru a town, was the town occupied while the regiment passed thru? If it was, once the regiment passed down the road was the town then de-occupied, until a military government was set up? My grand-father, in a letter from Belgium, described a situation where he became aware of a situation and collected some men and went into the woods, where there was a field-gun and limber, with the crew all shot. (Unfortunately, he did not explicitly state that it was German artillery, but the description and context suggested that it was.) He had the gun and limber collected and sent off to German stores. Once the afore mentioned regiment rolled thru the town, could the local civilians shoot down supply trains or artillery moving up in support of the regiment, and if tracked down simply lower arms and surrender? In another letter he described how very close to his location people raided a first aid station behing the lines and killed 43 wounded soldiers. That of course would be over the top, but what about shooting up an unescorted supply train? German accounts repeatedly mention telegraph and telephone troops and facilities being shot up.

What about "carrying arms openly"? Franc-tireur activity would often seem to require concealed arms until firing. How long could a civilian group not adopt "a fixed distinctive emblem recognizable at a distance" and still be legally a combatant formation? The statute seems to allow not wearing destinctive emblems only due to a lack of time to organize same.

Generally, it seems that the civilians had a limited time to resist in a flexible fashion, in civilian fashion, but after a few days their behavior would descend to banditry. And it seems that they have to carry their arms openly to be extended the protection of the law. The statute calld for them to "respect the laws and customs of war", but I am not convinced that the customs of law extend to tolerating civilians firing on troops.

If these regulations were applied in a scrupulous fashion, it would seem that some franc-tireurs behaved within the complexities of the Convention, but that others did not. However, I would guess that if caught under arms while carrying out military activities, most of them did not receive the benefit of the doubt.

Bob Lembke

[vals59]

Hello all,

Here is my translation of the last episode of Lieutenant Bushell's story in France.

Reading this, it seems to be quite "easy" to cross the Dutch border. I think that René Delame forget or softened some facts. I also think that Lieutenant Bushell was certainly more explicit in his book concerning the extrem dangers he encountered.

Emmanuel

ESCAPE OF THE CAPTAIN PRESTON AND THE LIEUTENANT BUSHELL

"The Germans made searches upon searches, mainly at the princess of Croy.

During each of their manhunts, Captain Preston and Lieutenant Bushell, who were always in the castle, hid in the tower. One time, so that the Germans do not notice that the room had been occupied, Miss Parnell came to put herself in their bed just as the Germans penetrated into the room. They apologized for disturbing her, and left.

Prince Reginald of Croy, who had managed to return from England by the Holland, brought to both officers news of their families. The situation becoming too precarious, and not wanting longer to compromise their pleasant hostess, they resolved to go as soon as possible to Holland.

It was the day before Christmas; The Commandature had made take in the park a beautiful fir tree to celebrate the Christmas Eve. Naturally, their choice fell on the one who sheltered, under his roots, the rifles of the British soldiers. The tree was brought down, but weapons were not discovered, fortunately. It is with the deep emotion that our two escapees watched from their tower this small operation.

Prince Réginald and princess of Croy organized their passage. Captain Preston left, a bread under the arm, with the gardener, and at night of December 29th, Lieutenant Bushell, accompanied with Miss Thuliez, crossed the Belgian border, to take refuge at the countess's of Belleville, from where they left both the next day for Elouges.

There, they took, the streetcar for Dours which was full of Germans, having a book in hand, not to be obliged to speak: it had been their loss, because they did not know French.

Arrived in Dours, they again had to change streetcar for Mons. As it was crowded, they were obliged to stay on the platform, side by side with the Germans. After many frights, they arrived at eleven o'clock in the morning, always accompanied with Miss Thuliez, in Mons, where prince Réginald waited for them to give them his last instructions.

Becoming used to the danger and pushed by the hunger, the small band entered a Germans' crowded hotel. They took their meal with the princess of Croy there and Miss Thuliez . Bushell washed his hands, when a German officer came to the washbasin: fortunately he did not speak to him. The prince, having said to them his farewells, returned at night to Bellignies.

In the afternoon, they took the streetcar to Brussels, always accompanied with Miss Thuliez. Thanks to their book, that they did not leave eyes, the conversation did not make a commitment with the travelers, although a lady sat in front of them wanted to. The dangerous point was Enghien, the streetcar stopped half an hour for the visit of passes.

Captain Preston and Lieutenant Bushell who naturally did not have passes, had received the instructions to go out of the streetcar from the arrival of the officer, to go to the part of the streetcar already verified. Having executed the instruction, they were once again saved, and arrived to Brussels.

Miss Thuliez, having led them at the abbot of Longueville's house, put back them in the evening in the hands of the countess of Belleville who accommodated them, in an uninhabited house belonging to her cousins. Useless to say the precautions which it was necessary to take to arrive at ten o'clock in the evening, without being seen neither from Germans, nor from neighbours who would have been able to suspect thieves. Miss Thuliez, who had performed her mission, returned to Bellignies.

The countess of Belleville came from the morning to bring them their lunch and led them in the city, in an agreed place where they found the abbot of Longueville who had to organize their passage in Holland.

They went together to the photographer, to obtain their ID card and, on January 2nd, 1915, went to the City hall where the city agent was interested in them. The name of Bushell was replaced by Jacques Carpentier, a hairdresser, been born in Mons, living in Louvain road, in Brussels.

The day after, the abbot of Longueville took them at five o'clock in the morning, and they went on foot to take a streetcar outside the city. They were seven in the same conditions, among which three Belgians also who want to go to Holland.

Accompanied with their new guide, at six o'clock they leave Brussels for Malines, making the road either on foot, or by streetcar, or by car, to avoid the German posts. It was exactly in the daytime of market; they got involved to the crowd to enter in town, the Germans verifying ID cards to some passers-by only.

Again they escaped this control and found their guide at the marketplace. Having taken their buffet in a friendly café, they left for Antwerp, making the road left by streetcar and on foot. Before entering the city, they rose in a car which waited for them and went directly to the hotel where they rested after a so thrilling day.

Having changed horse, they left early in the morning, but they had to pass on foot one after the other, the bridge on the outskirts of the town where the sentinel asked them for their identity cards and for their profession. The moment was very critic, but as this soldier spoke only about some words of French, it examined their passes and accepted a good cigar. Saved again, all went back up a little further by car to cross the border where new difficulties had to appear...

This zone became more dangerous because it was covered with barbed wires, mostly electrified; sentinels and numerous patrols guarded it. The guide went to see the most convenient place to cross it, and on a dark night, crawling 200 metres on knees, allowing to pass the patrols, Captain Preston and Lieutenant Bushell arrived finally at their purpose.

Hardly they had made some steps that they were arrested and thought themselves taken; but they were very fast reassured because they had met Dutch sentinels who allowed them to pass. The guide leaves them to retrace his steps and begin again again his precarious profession.

He had previously indicated them the streetcar which had to drive them in Bergen. There, after half an hour of wait, they took the other one for The Hague, where they arrived in the evening. They were pleasantly surprised finding the abbot of Longueville there who waited for them and who from the following morning led them to the embassy of England and to that of Belgium, to warn Princess de Croy of them happy passage.

Then on January 3rd, 1915, the ambassador of England having given them any ease, they embarked to Flessingues on S S Moeklenberg, onto whom Lieutenant Bushell met two men of his regiment who had also managed to escape. They landed at 4 am to Folkestone.

After so many hardships and moral sufferings, they were so changed, that upon their arrival in London, Lieutenant Bushell’s parents did not recognize their son whom they found one hour later in the Metropol hotel. But the purpose of their journey was not reached, it was necessary to carry out their promise, and to avenge the surrender of their men. So, having got in touch with the military authority, Bushell resumed his rank in the front of Yser and Captain Preston left for Salonique.

So finishes the odyssey of the fugitives of the Mormal forest which according to us deserved to be published. We have to honour the English bravery and the persons who risked their life to provide them and then make them cross the border.

Those who did not know the occupation cannot realize numerous difficulties and dangers which we ran to cross lines, also I am going to give it the other examples. So many young people were killed or taken in captivity, false guides abandoning them in the middle of barbed wires. On the other hand I was very sad in meeting in Valenciennes in the church Notre-Dame during the levying of the men by the Germans, many young people in age to cross lines by Saint-Amand, before the occupation of Lille, what was, still possible at that time.

Regrettably the French authorities did not encourage this movement in spite of the warnings which had been given to them.

There were also in the region many French soldiers who had been able to escape at the time of the surrender of Maubeuge. It was a question of finding them and making them pass. It is what our heroines took in charge relentlessly, until the day of their arrest.

To go through the region, the princess of Croy got dressed as farmer and took the name of Marie Delcroix.

The countess of Belleville, although French, had been a Belgian ID card done. There was a control every month in Mons. The meeting was at eight o'clock in the morning; we were parked on the square watched by the Germans. The authorities arrived only at eleven o'clock in the morning; defence was made, in spite of the cold, to move and even to enter to rest inside a house.

The countess of Belleviïle went to find the secretary to ask him for an ID card, saying to him that she was very in a hurry. He made the card: born in Brussels; and forget to put the nationality so she was able to pass often to Enghien without being worried.

Miss Thuliez took the name of Jeanne Martin, Marie Mouton or Miss Lejeune.

I regret I cannot mention all the persons who devoted themselves to the passage of the men."

[barney5042]

Hi Emmanuel,

Thanks again for taking the time to translate these. They make for most interesting reading.

Barney

[Hedley Malloch]

I have just come across this excellent thread whilst researching Captain Bushell's remarkable story.  Some quick points on 'German atrocities':

 

1.  The German army never recognised The Hague Conventions.  The Kaiser signed them off - but nobody else did.  Not the army, not the General Staff, nor the Reichstag.  In pre-war Germany there was what might be called in modern management parlance, 'a buy-in' problem.  For the Germans, war was an existential problem - the survival end justified the means.  if that meant turning one's back on international treaties, then that is what would happen.

2.  Instead they relied on the 'customs and usages of war', 'military necessity' and 'reciprocation' to guide their management of the occupation.  The problem with these hardy standbys is that they are elastic terms which expand infinitely with panic and fear.  They meant precisely what they are required to mean

2.  Francs-tireurs don't explain the widespread brutality of the German occupation.  The myth can be used to explain if not excuse shootings of French and Belgian civilians during the invasion and its immediate aftermath, but not the rest of it - the réquisitions, forced labour, deportations, the systematic destruction of the industrial infrastructure of France and Belgium,  which went on until November 1918.  Nor does it explain why much of this pattern of atrocities was repeated in German occupied eastern Europe where there was no history of francs-tireur.  We need to move on from Horne and Kramer who, in any case, don't explain much.  They describe - but they don't explain.   In my view ... .

 

And we need to explain the behaviour of Germans otherwise we end up demonising them.  And they were not demons.

[healdav]

I have read a couple of Belgian books about the German invasion, and what becomes clear is that the Germans were utterly amazed that the Belgian civilians were not standing at the side of the orads, bowing to them as they went past. One officer in a cavalry reconnaissance unit, says something like (I don't have my books with me where I am), "As we approached ........ we saw civilians approaching us, as soon as they saw us they ran back to the village. The usual spies".

He then says that they shot quite a lot of civilians in the village for threatening them by hiding!

In another place, the Germans confiscated all the local guns (mostly shotguns which all farmers had), and then accused the villge of shooting at the German soldiers as they advanced. It doesn't seem to have occurred to them that the Belgian army were doing the shooting.

Everywhere they went they accused everyone of being franc-tireurs. The whole thing reads very peculiarly.

Later in the war, they deported an awful lot of Belgian men as forced labour, and to reinforce the numbers whenever they found Luxembourgers (thousands lived and worked in Belgium) they would confiscate their ID cards or write "cancelled" across them, and deport them as 'stateless'!

Edited 29 September , 2017 by healdav

[DemiBelge]

My great grandfather, a wounded Belgian soldier re-entered Belgium via neutral Netherlands in March 1915 at Zelate, to the north of Ghent. My ggf, wounded during the siege of Antwerp was casevac to Tonbridge in Oct 14. On foot he managed to get to Kortrijk and Brussel (to see my newly born grandmother) and then back to England via the Netherlands. He was shipped to the Congo in May 1915. Throughout his time behind German lines he reported on static enemy positions of interest once he returned to the UK.