Jump to content
The Great War (1914-1918) Forum

Recommended Posts

Posted

I am curious to know how long it took to bring the flooded area's back to being productive farmland following the war's end. I would have thought that salt water would have made the land sterile for quite some time.

khaki

Posted

Hi Khaki

I cannot help you with your question however, I hope this panoramic colour postcard shows you some of the areas that were flooded.

Roy


No2


No3


No4


No5


No6


No7


No8

post-7206-0-70382400-1377678418_thumb.jp

post-7206-0-56772800-1377678482_thumb.jp

post-7206-0-58289800-1377678526_thumb.jp

post-7206-0-93502100-1377678570_thumb.jp

post-7206-0-05092500-1377678613_thumb.jp

post-7206-0-42044900-1377678662_thumb.jp

post-7206-0-41312000-1377678711_thumb.jp

post-7206-0-19737300-1377678761_thumb.jp

Posted

What a fantastic postcard. I know noting on the topic so await more information.

Posted

Not something with a simple answer it appears, the classic phrase "it depends" comes into play

More damage is done by flooding , drying out, re flooding etc etc than water just standing. But if the water is drained and the land re flooded several times using fresh water (say by blocking river outflows) this increases recovery rate. Gypsum can be used to treat the land as this breaks down the salt but this is relatively expensive. Salt tolerant grasses can be planted and the land used for low grade grazing whilst it recovers. It all depends on what you do, how much resource you can input etc. The reclaimed land in Lincolnshire where part of my family comes from quickly became very rich agricultural land after once being sea bed.

Posted

Thank you for the replies Roy and Centurion, I agree with Scalyback, great postcard, sorry to post such an open ended question really, but it sort of occurred to me when I was thinking of war damage and reoccupation of those zones. I suppose that the drainage system of Flanders that had been shattered by shelling also took some time to be restored.

khaki

Posted

Inundations have been a regular feature of warfare in the 'low countries' since the 16th Century. In the 17th Century (1638) the French were besieging St Omer. The Spanish built a dike at Watten causing a flood that washed away the French siege works. In the early 18th Century Marlborough was involved with flooding in the Dunkirk to Ypres area. The canals and other waterways were built with sluices for flooding and draining strategic areas quite rapidly. These I think were further back than the area where shell fire disrupted the field drainage systems (creating the terrible mud at 3rd Ypres etc) so that the inundations could still have been emptied quite quickly.

Posted

Very interesting history,

thanks

khaki

Posted

Maybe 'In Flanders flooded fields'by Paul Van Pul can help here?

In the Yzer floodings the assistance of the local sluicemasters was very important. The continuous possesion of the Sluicecomplex was very

important.

Carl

Posted

Thank you for the replies Roy and Centurion, I agree with Scalyback, great postcard, sorry to post such an open ended question really, but it sort of occurred to me when I was thinking of war damage and reoccupation of those zones. I suppose that the drainage system of Flanders that had been shattered by shelling also took some time to be restored.

khaki

I am glad you did as it is something I have always wondered about.

H.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...