Passchendaele - For Belgian Liberation?

[mhurst]

I’m sure that most Pals, if they weren’t actually there, were watching the commemoration of the opening of Third Ypres on TV last week. It was a most impressive production – full of reverence and respect for the fallen, with a touch of the humour which must have helped so many to get though it all. The accompanying discussions, there to set the context and to fill in time before the ceremony started, were unusually interesting, and there was one feature of it that came over to me that I’d never really thought about before. For me, the British were fighting for a variety of reasons: to relieve pressure on the French after the recent mutinies; to eliminate the U-Boat pens on the North Sea coast; and to keep the pressure on the Germans when no other country was in a position to do so at the time. What I had never considered was that the British were fighting to liberate Belgium. Of course, the ostensible reason that Britain had entered the war in the first place was because Germany had violated Belgium’s neutrality, and “Remember Belgium” was an early rallying call for enlistment. However, by 1917 I would imagine that most British soldiers thought they were fighting mainly because their country had called  them to arms, and their sense of duty overrode the terrors they had to face. But what came over in the discussions was that the Belgian people, even in 1917, must have regarded the British and Commonwealth soldiers as their liberators; Ypres, after all, was in one of the last remaining unoccupied parts of Belgium. This helps to explain the lasting bond that has developed between the two nations over this particular town and region over the years, and which will surely survive the leaving of the EU by Britain.

 

That said, does anyone think that the troops on the ground saw their war in the same light, or for them was it simply a matter of surviving, and if they could push back the Germans as well, then that was an added bonus?

[Medaler]

42 minutes ago, mhurst said:

I’m sure that most Pals, if they weren’t actually there, were watching the commemoration of the opening of Third Ypres on TV last week. It was a most impressive production – full of reverence and respect for the fallen, with a touch of the humour which must have helped so many to get though it all. The accompanying discussions, there to set the context and to fill in time before the ceremony started, were unusually interesting, and there was one feature of it that came over to me that I’d never really thought about before. For me, the British were fighting for a variety of reasons: to relieve pressure on the French after the recent mutinies; to eliminate the U-Boat pens on the North Sea coast; and to keep the pressure on the Germans when no other country was in a position to do so at the time. What I had never considered was that the British were fighting to liberate Belgium. Of course, the ostensible reason that Britain had entered the war in the first place was because Germany had violated Belgium’s neutrality, and “Remember Belgium” was an early rallying call for enlistment. However, by 1917 I would imagine that most British soldiers thought they were fighting mainly because their country had called  them to arms, and their sense of duty overrode the terrors they had to face. But what came over in the discussions was that the Belgian people, even in 1917, must have regarded the British and Commonwealth soldiers as their liberators; Ypres, after all, was in one of the last remaining unoccupied parts of Belgium. This helps to explain the lasting bond that has developed between the two nations over this particular town and region over the years, and which will surely survive the leaving of the EU by Britain.

 

That said, does anyone think that the troops on the ground saw their war in the same light, or for them was it simply a matter of surviving, and if they could push back the Germans as well, then that was an added bonus?

 

I am sure the view at the time would have varied greatly dependent on who you were asking. Whilst the day to day business of survival would have been pretty much a full-time job for those actually engaged in manning the front lines, together of course with taking part in either large or small scale attacks, those at rest or driving the prosecution of the war would have a wider view. One thing however is for sure, we were never going to agree to "terms" that saw either French or Belgian territory permanently annexed to Germany. Part of that wider view for the allies doubtless concerned the fact that the Germans were in serious trouble on the Western front during most of 1917. Having been pushed back to the Hindenburg line, and having failed in their objective to inflict massive casualties on the French at Verdun with little cost to themselves, 1917 was a challenging year for Germany. In addition, with the Russian revolution happening at the end of the year, and the USA joining the allies in May, the odds seem not to have favoured Germany for most of 1917. Evidence of this can perhaps be found in the fact that they did not launch one single offensive on the Western front during the whole of that year. By contrast, they found themselves assaulted at Arras, Ypres and Cambrai. Though non of that activity ended the war, I think it fair to say that the allies had high hopes for all of them when they were begun, and that the Germans did not meet them with complacency. It is so easy to look at offensives that failed to meet their objectives with the benefit of hindsight. Nothing was predictable, and the adversaries were evenly matched. If the Germans could have seen that their 1918 spring offensive would ultimately fail, would they have launched it?

 

It's a big subject this, and you will doubtless get many an alternative view of things from other members. I can only give you may opinion. I would however say that, despite all the attention that has been given to the Great War during these centenary years, there has been precious little attention paid in Britain to the plight of the Belgians. I think that is a great pity, and a lost opportunity. As usual we have concentrated on our own national effort and shuffled their very important contribution to the sidelines. We never faced what the Belgians had to endure, and neither did most of France. I wish there was more written in English about the Belgian experience of the war, perhaps our understanding would improve if that gap was to be filled.

 

Regards,

Mike

 

Warmest regards,

Mike

 

 

[Black Maria]

Then of course there is the view of an ordinary British 'Tommy' fighting in Flanders in 1915 .. ' The local Flemings are not nice people . If they

could only choose , I'm sure they would prefer the Huns to ourselves'.

Edited 10 August , 2017 by Black Maria

[hazelclark]

That, apparently, was the view of my grandfather who was severely wounded there. He is reputed to have had the belief that many were "traitors".

Hazel C.

[Aurel Sercu]

I'm surprised when reading postings 3 and 4 .... And a little displeased ...

 

My  ancestors were local Flemings, but they certainly were not "traitors". Sure, there may have been a number of collaborators in occupied Belgium, but that was not where the ordinary Tommy was. And I don't think my grandparents were exceptions, And my grandfather who suffered for 4 years in the Yser and Boezinge trenches, and who did not see his little daughter (my mother) for over 4 years... (She didn't recognize him anymore.) And the thousands of people here in my area (Ypres) who went through hell. Did they prefer the Huns ? I don't think they did ...

 

Black Maria,

Who were the un-nice local Flemings your Tommy met ? Where was that ? 1915 ?... Was that before or after thousands of them in my area (Ypres) fled from the Huns (22 April). I don't think while fleeing they preferred the Huns ...

 

Hazel,

"Many were traitors". Many of who ? Local Flemings ? Where and when was grandfather Andrew Clark wounded ? If it was near the frontlines then there were not many locals left there. Or was your grandfather referring, in 1915 or was it 1917, to the locals in the area where he was taken care of ? Of course, it was 'only' your grandfather's opinion, and he was 'reputed', but none the less surprising. And I have opinions too that were very positive about the Tommies (I have a few negative too), and opinions about the Huns that are not very flattering. But quoting them (and translating) would take a little too much of my time. Besides, I don't see why I should do that.

 

Aurel

 

[Black Maria]

Don't shoot the messenger ! I was quoting from 'Mud and Khaki ' by H.S Clapham . In another thread where this subject was mentioned there was also

a quote by an officer who was billeted on a Belgian farm in late 1915  " The people on this farm are, of course , pro-German I have no doubt they would

betray us if they got half the chance. I have warned everyone that they must now consider themselves as in a hostile country .. " . 

 

So this view of the local Belgian people certainly existed , of course it is only one side of the coin but it is important that it is recognised that not every

Belgian was happy to see the British on their soil.

 

[Ian Riley]

34 minutes ago, Black Maria said:

I was quoting from 'Mud and Khaki ' by H.S Clapham . In another thread where this subject was mentioned there was also

a quote by an officer who was billeted on a Belgian farm in late 1915  " The people on this farm are, of course , pro-German I have no doubt they would

betray us if they got half the chance. I have warned everyone that they must now consider themselves as in a hostile country .. " . 

 

 

 He probably tried to speak French to them ... very loudly so they would understand better  . Not recommended in Ypres/Ieper today

 

More seriously, I am sure opinions might be swayed by matters that were more everyday than geopolitics, such as whether previously billeted 'guests' had flattened their crops, cooked their hens, eaten their pigs or endangered the virtue of their daughters. Anecdotally,  quite a few British people seem to have been  pretty cheesed off to have British soldiers billeted with them. 

[Aurel Sercu]

Hello 'Messenger' Black Maria  :-)

 

So it was from Mud and Khaki.

And I really wonder where that Belgian farm was. (I may try to find the thread.)  I find the 'of course' very offensive. Shocking even! Belgium a hostile country for that British officer ?!

If these views existed (and I cannot doubt you) they were very exceptional. Less than half of the coin.  :-)   But even then : being unhappy to see the British is not the same as being pro-German. Though that apparently was the view of the British officer.)

 

Aurel

[healdav]

12 minutes ago, Ian Riley said:

 He probably tried to speak French to them ... very loudly so they would understand better  . Not recommended in Ypres/Ieper today

 

More seriously, I am sure opinions might be swayed by matters that were more everyday than geopolitics, such as whether previously billeted 'guests' had flattened their crops, cooked their hens, eaten their pigs or endangered the virtue of their daughters. Anecdotally,  quite a few British people seem to have been  pretty cheesed off to have British soldiers billeted with them. 

Agree entirely.

 

[Ian Riley]

12 minutes ago, Aurel Sercu said:

But even then : being unhappy to see the British is not the same as being pro-German. Though that apparently was the view of the British officer.)

 

Aurel

 

I agree entirely, Aurel

 

Ian

[Black Maria]

14 minutes ago, Aurel Sercu said:

Hello 'Messenger' Black Maria  :-)

 

So it was from Mud and Khaki.

And I really wonder where that Belgian farm was. (I may try to find the thread.)  I find the 'of course' very offensive. Shocking even! Belgium a hostile country for that British officer ?!

If these views existed (and I cannot doubt you) they were very exceptional. Less than half of the coin.  :-)   But even then : being unhappy to see the British is not the same as being pro-German. Though that apparently was the view of the British officer.)

 

Aurel

It was mentioned on the 'What book are you reading ' thread . The book in question was ' The War diary of the Master of Belhaven'  and the reader wanted to

know if the author's anti-Belgian comments were common at the time  . I had just read 'Mud and Khaki ' and it seems that at that stage of the war (1915 )

others also shared his views to a certain extent . Clapham also mentions that a Belgian woman came up to him and said " English soldiers are no good ,

Germans good " and he wondered what would have happened to her if she had said the same thing, but the other way round , to a German soldier.

 

[Black Maria]

1 hour ago, Ian Riley said:

 He probably tried to speak French to them ... very loudly so they would understand better  . Not recommended in Ypres/Ieper today

 

More seriously, I am sure opinions might be swayed by matters that were more everyday than geopolitics, such as whether previously billeted 'guests' had flattened their crops, cooked their hens, eaten their pigs or endangered the virtue of their daughters. Anecdotally,  quite a few British people seem to have been  pretty cheesed off to have British soldiers billeted with them. 

I'm sure that these things were a factor and many Belgians no doubt hated the Germans. But on the other hand  there were some who didn't

and were at best pro-German and at worse actually helping them. There are just too many incidents of civilians living near the lines in the early

months of the war who were caught trying to signal to the Germans to believe that there were no 'traitors' living amongst the local population.

 

[Ian Riley]

I have always wondered how many innocent Belgians got shot for hanging their washing out in a 'suspicious' order! I have no evidence (if any evidence were actually taken) but I suspect that there might well have been some rough summary justice. Is there any research on this?  I have just been going through a WW2 diary for a TA battalion on home defence  duties in Suffolk in June 1940 (not Home Guard) in which Divisional Headquarters is in a paranoid stew about 'larger than usual' piles of lime (for treating fields) which 'might glow in the dark' and were thought to 'point to an airfield'.  By the end of that week panic had transferred to suspiciously large barns built by farmers before the war that might be used as aircraft hangars especially since one of the farmers was Dutch and then to the German school party that had visited Windsor Castle in the mid-thirties (presumably to put their beach towels out on the lawns for the parachutists) - sorry Mods and continental friends if that gets me into trouble for stereotyping. 

 

There will always be people prepared to collaborate passively or actively in any country. 

Edited 14 August , 2017 by Ian Riley
Spelling

[Black Maria]

2 hours ago, Ian Riley said:

I have always wondered how many innocent Belgians got shot for hanging their washing out in a 'suspicious' order! I have no evidence (if any evidence were actually taken) but I suspect that there might well have been some rough summary justice. Is there any research on this?  

 

There will always be people prepared to collaborate passively or actively in any country. 

Yes, I'm sure some of it was paranoia and some innocent people were shot , together with the guilty. The only 'evidence' I have seen has been in the memoirs

of those who were there at the time , unless they were all mistaken there must be some fire behind the smoke .

[hazelclark]

Hi Aurel,

 I am sorry if I have offended you or anyone else.  I certainly had no wish to do that.  My stepfather in fact was hidden by a Belgian family after Arnhem and managed to get home.

 

Nor, did I ever meet my grandfather.  My grandparents separated after the war. The information in fact came via my grandmother. She was simply parroting the view held by many ordinary soldiers at the time.  Like BM I have read several memoirs (most recently the Master of Belhaven) in which suspicion or unfriendliness of some of the people in Northern Belgium was mentioned. In folklore, as you well know,it takes only a few cases for many to be tarred with the same brush. Many French people were not particularly friendly to the British either. It just happened to be the Flemish people who were singled out this time.

 

 I have no desire to become embroiled in a discussion about the loyalty of anyone. However, my grandfather, and the authors of those memoirs, spent a great deal of time in the area and were perfectly entitled to their "opinions ", whether correct or otherwise.

 

Hazel C.

[Aurel Sercu]

 

From posting # 12

"many Belgians no doubt hated the Germans. But on the other hand  there were some who didn't and were at best pro-German and at worse actually helping them. There are just too many incidents of civilians living near the lines in the early months of the war who were caught trying to signal to the Germans to believe that there were no 'traitors' living amongst the local population.

 

There were some ...

Any idea of a number or percentage? (But sure, there may have been 'some'. And I do believe there may have been pro-German people helping Germans. But the ones in my village who were suspected (by the French) turned out to be innocent. Except that two brothers were killed, accidentally.)

 

Too many incidents ?

Really ? How many ?(I don't know.)  And was there any evidence that indeed they had signalled to the Germans ? (Does not count: repairing a chimney.) And were they found guilty? By French or Belgian of British troops ?)

 

Meanwhile I found the farm where the Belgium hating officer was, the farm with the of course pro-German people, was in Watou. And one of the reasons the officer hated Belgium was also the weather.

 

Aurel

[AOK4]

Hello,

 

I have read similar comments in a British war diary (unfortunately I can't find back my notes).

 

To be honest, most people just tried to survive. We don't really like any foreign occupation but our genes have grown accustomed to it and by now any government is seen as an occupation by a lot of the people. We try to ignore as much rules coming from above (it is an observation also made by my foreign wife). People in occupied Belgium usually got long quite well with the Germans as they understood them better than the British (especially those coming from the north). Germans were also more keen on sharing whatever they had (which was often very little) with the locals as opposed to the British. Everybody has heard stories about the British throwing away eny excess food while there was shortage for the locals while the Germans handed out even the little food they had. In that way, the Germans were often less militaristic than the other armies. That is what I have learned over the years.

British bombardments (behind the front, often there were more victims from British bombardments than there were fallen Belgian soldiers and victims from German occupation) and the destruction of the area was not particularly liked either.

The number of active "collaborators" with the Germans was very minimal. However a lot of people got into trouble (on both sides) for alleged espionage. While in German occupied Belgium there was definitely espionage from the population, I doubt this was the case among the Belgians in allied territory.

 

Two other remarks: I thought the main reason why the UK entered the war as to regain its number one economical position in the world (or at least in Europe) which it had lost to Germany and can we please stop referring to the Germans as "Huns".

 

Jan

 

[nigelcave]

The reality was that there was very little left of Belgium not occupied by the Germans to be 'hostile' to the allies. I also have seen a fair number of comments about 'hostile' locals and many seemed to have been paranoid about civilian 'spies' - signalling, allegedly, amongst other things by placing the sails of a windmill in particular positions.

 

Unfortunately there is very little available in English (perhaps better to add, of which I am aware) published recently - say in the last fifty years or so - on Belgium's war effort; there is a certain amount in the literature for the opening weeks in 1914 and something about the fighting at Antwerp and the Battle of the Yser and then there is a deafening silence until September 1918. Of all the British armies in 1918, Second Army in autumn 1918, when it came under the command of the King of the Belgians, is probably the least written up.

 

Belgium's historic 'problem' (i.e. predating its establishment was a sovereign nation) was that, as a piece of territory on the Channel coast, with good communications/trade links, with very large and powerful neighbours on three sides, was a strategic prize and had been for centuries: one only has to look at Louis XIV's aspirations on it, nicely symbolised by the ramparts redeveloped by Vauban). Britain's interests lay in trying to ensure that no 'Great Power' inimical to British interests, controlled it - hence the speed with which it moved when there was the revolt against Dutch rule and the establishment of a separate country (in 1830) to ensure that it was 'neutral' (in 1839). It was a major economic gateway to the continent.

 

A further problem is, I think, that most of us know very little about the economic and social tensions between the various 'languages' within Belgium - at the time - and as I understand it - a country dominated in these respects by the French speaking Walloons (with their heavy industries).

 

Not that this detracts from the general statement that there was suspicion about the loyalties of the local population by a good number of the members of the BEF (and, I suppose likely, by members of the French army in Flanders); but the whole issue is complicated and cannot have been helped by the fact that much (if not all?) of the local population in the BEF area spoke Flemish/Dutch - and how many members of the BEF could speak that (I suppose some old Boer War hands might have had a smattering)?

 

I doubt very much that pro German feeling was held by more than a tiny proportion of the Belgian population behind allied lines; they could not really ignore events such at Esen (I strongly recommend a visit there to look at the church and the memorial there to those who were shot/burnt by the Germans in 1914 - it is not far from the normal British stamping ground of the Salient) or the burning of Louvain/Leuven by the Germans, which was a self administered propaganda shot in the foot if there ever was one. I suppose what the local population wanted was that everyone would go away as soon as possible, get off their land, stop destroying their homes and property and let them get on with life. No wonder that they were less than thrilled. And who can blame them?

[SiegeGunner]

Paranoia was clearly rife in the early days, with the Germans seeing franc-tireurs behind every tree and the Allies seeing spies behind every washing line.  But the reality, surely, as Nigel points out, is that only a small corner of Belgium remained unoccupied, and a good proportion of the civilian population of that small corner had fled or been evacuated.  How would a hypothetically pro-German Belgian farmer have developed/agreed a signalling system, and what would he have communicated?  'Please concentrate your heavy artillery on my farm, because there is a British ammunition dump there'? 

 

In some parts of the world, people living at some distance from each other employ simple visual signalling systems to communicate important messages  ...  'Marauding elephants coming your way', 'We have grain to trade', 'Tell X's son that his father is sick' ... and I wonder whether there was any tradition of such signalling in Belgium.  The establishment of fixed lines on both sides must have divided families and friends, who would then want to keep in touch by some means.  Was there, for instance, postal communication between occupied and unoccupied Belgium via Holland?

 

I don't doubt that the Germans sent agents into unoccupied Belgium, but I am very sceptical indeed about Belgian civilians actively aiding the Germans.  Is there any credible evidence of such collaboration? 

[Aurel Sercu]

SiegeGunner Mick,

 

Credible evidence ? Going through my Boezinge WW1 history books, I don't find any. Only a dozen cases of alleged espionage which in a way are funny. Except to the victims, who had to prove that they were not spies, that they were only fixing a chimney, or had to explain why they had a German pre-war letter in their possession, related to when they had sold a horse or two to a German farmer before 1914. That sort of things ... And true, being a miller was a dangerous job, no matter how the wings were positioned. (And 100 years ago, there were no marauding elephants in Flanders fields ...  :-)  )

 

I also went through a book with testimonies and stories by locals. (Van den Grooten Oorlog, registerd in the 1970s) Dozens there are telling how nice and friendly the relationship with the British troops was. And not only for the children who got chocolate and cigarettes. (Only one negative: a woman telling that she and the young girls when going to school ran away from the 'jampots', standing there with their trousers down, perverts ('smeerlappen'), randy ('bestierd'), for as they were away from home ('weg van hun kot') ... And now and then farmers who did not like their presence on their farms. Crops, barns on fire, ... (They did not like the unhygienic French soldiers on their farms either.) And maybe a recurrent 'complaint' : The British soldiers were too generous with their food. "Even the dog grew tired of all that tinned meat (bollebief, corned beef)...". But (my opinion), those 'negative' comments are very far away from : "Please, let the Germans come!...' As to Germans, I'm afraid the stories are far less positive, to say the least. (And I think if the stories are true, understandably. But let me add that I am speaking of the front area.)

 

As to 'The Master of Belhaven', that 'highly recommended' 'classic' read, of the officer who became (again) so depressed and full of hate for the Belgians and Belgium ('vile country', 'hostile') when he crossed the French-Belgian frontier in Watou on 5 October 1915... The book unfortunately is not in the In Flanders Fields collection (yet). So I'll never know why this grumpy (?) old (?) man considered the people in Northern Belgium unfriendly and hostile. (We sure cannot be blamed for our weather only ...  :-)  )

[healdav]

9 hours ago, AOK4 said:

and can we please stop referring to the Germans as "Huns".

 

Jan

 

I agree with everything you said, especially the last.

 

[healdav]

18 hours ago, Aurel Sercu said:

 

From posting # 12

"many Belgians no doubt hated the Germans. But on the other hand  there were some who didn't and were at best pro-German and at worse actually helping them. There are just too many incidents of civilians living near the lines in the early months of the war who were caught trying to signal to the Germans to believe that there were no 'traitors' living amongst the local population.

 

There were some ...

Any idea of a number or percentage? (But sure, there may have been 'some'. And I do believe there may have been pro-German people helping Germans. But the ones in my village who were suspected (by the French) turned out to be innocent. Except that two brothers were killed, accidentally.)

 

Too many incidents ?

Really ? How many ?(I don't know.)  And was there any evidence that indeed they had signalled to the Germans ? (Does not count: repairing a chimney.) And were they found guilty? By French or Belgian of British troops ?)

 

Meanwhile I found the farm where the Belgium hating officer was, the farm with the of course pro-German people, was in Watou. And one of the reasons the officer hated Belgium was also the weather.

 

Aurel

I discovered that one man was arrested by the Germans for signalling to the French. Problem was, he was on the Luxembourg German border, and the French were way across the other side of the county, and much further.away. The signal was lighting a fire, and cutting wood. As he was a forester it was quite likely that he was doing these things.

 

[nigelcave]

To be fair, there were frequent early (note the 'early') references to the 'Hun'; at the front, this was of very limited duration (tho' a few, doubtless, continued with it). Hamilton (as in Master of Belhaven) was far from alone. Aurel, do not judge the memoirs on his clear dislike of 'his' part of Belgium! It really is a superb memoir and well worth your time. Ernest Shephard, for example, also had robust views about the Germans, and used 'Hun' early on his arrival (referring to an aircraft) and with rather more vim and vigour when referring to gas and Hill 60 (and was very forthright about them when it came to any talk of another Christmas truce in 1915). The biggest users of the term, without a doubt, were newspapers/magazines and in propaganda.

[hazelclark]

Nigel and Seige Gunner. Thank you for your contributions.  Unfortunately Although I read continuously, I can never remember where I read what as I don't have time to take notes, but the "Master of Belhaven" just happened to be one of the most recent. I think you have stated the case very well. 

 

The reason I commented at all, was because by the time I came along, my grandmother had been apart from my grandfather for thirty years but the memory obviously stuck with her and she likely heard it from him and his associates. Whatever she had heard obviously made an impression.

Hazel C

Edited 15 August , 2017 by hazelclark
Adding info.

[SiegeGunner]

'The War Diary of the Master of Belhaven' in e-book format  ...  http://dbooks.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/books/PDFs/503077282.pdf

 

The observations and perceptions of those who were there are undoubtedly part of the historical record, but they are not necessarily correct.  The Master of Belhaven seems to have taken against the Flemish-speaking Belgian country folk because they were grubby peasants who spoke a language he could not understand, but evidently believed to be a blend of Dutch and Low German, which he felt disposed them to pro-German sentiment.  He himself spoke French and German, and as one who also speaks those languages, I recognise his unease when confronted with Flemish.  But I think he over-dramatises his antipathy, which must have been based on contact with a very small number of people who were only doing their best to survive in extremely adverse conditions.