Jump to content
Free downloads from TNA ×
The Great War (1914-1918) Forum

Remembered Today:

Hellfire corner gets smaller and smaller


bkristof

Recommended Posts

Hi lads,

today i noticed that the part at Hellfire corner (Ypres) direction station is now residential building zone.

Cranes are removing the trees and nivelating the area. To the right, were the cranes are, the rare British bunker is.

Will it disapear???

Anyone from Ypres who can tell more???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi

They started work a little while ago but seem to have got nearer to the bubker, Jon my husband was also wondering if the Bunker would disappear.

We will go out and take some photo's tomorrow of the situation.

Liz

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is not new. A residential living zone was announced some months ago. I must say I haven't been around there for a few days so I haven't seen the latest situation.

Personally I don't think the bunker is in danger but that is the only positive thing I can say about it.

To place the necessary facilities such as sewers, cables etc. the old railway embarkment has been seriously damaged. Same naturally for the building area. The railway bed (old Ieper -Roeselare line) was virtually untouched until a few years ago the 'Zuiderring' was constructed. Now there is little left of it.

What really outrageous me is that, as far as I know, nobody has shown any interest to have a proper look for WW1 relics which are present without any doubt. I told someone my deception about this and he personally went to have a look. He is a wellknown amateur-archaelogist. Afterwards he spoke to me and told me that indeed it seems a quit interesting place to investigate. He told me the base of a Livens projector was found and at some point(the crane-driver told him) he went through a bundle of wires.

I am not pointing fingers in any direction but, untill someone tells me that I am wrong, nothing has been done in the context of battlefield archeologie.

I am disappointed and my statement is: there is big difference between declarations of intention and reality. In fact they are two separated worlds.

Jacky

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree 100 % Jacky.

I pass the place every day, and I think the bunker is just outside ( only a few meters) the envisaged area, so probably not in danger.

But your fundamental critics are very true: much words, much show, but no structural approach.

Some people spend more energy and resources in lobbying against other initiatives than in positive action in their own backyard.

The old story: listen to my words, don't look at my deeds.

Erwin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With regard to the bunker, I don't know the exceptions but it's against Belgian law to destroy these.

I don't think so, it depends the situation.

If the bunker was sold with the ground, the owner can do what he wants with it.

That is why i am worried in the first place.

And i agree on Erwin and Jacky.

An idustrial zone in Boezinge: Big alarm, Pilkem ridge: Big alarm; Hellfire corner: Huh, what was that again???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just read in one of the Salient Points books, 3 I think, it's illegal to destroy them.

Surely not true. Only if they are under monument protection they can not be destroyed. Most of them are not protected. This is the shameful reality in Flanders.

Kristof has been somewhat more explicit as I was, but he was damn right.

For some people the main concern is to obtain a good press, preferably as much as possible. If not, things are not relevant.

Erwin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Farmers or owners CAN destroy them!

I know for sure, becuase i know the local situation in Zonnebeke were the village is buying bit by bit all bunkers to protect them.Because the owners can do what they want with them.

Erwin,

if you cant't say the truth, what can you say then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Normaly they are acheological monuments. But they have to be official registered and recongnised as important acheological remaining.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another thing which worries me enormously is the fact that possibly the houses will be build nearby or spot on the emplacement of a old cemetery which has been concentrated after the war in another. However I don't find any reference where this reburial took place. I think it was called White House Cemetery if my memory serves me well.

This surely should be or must I say should have been a reason to monitor this area. As I already stated in other threads about old battlefields: only the idea that human remains would be tossed around makes me sick.

Jacky

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(...) nearby or spot on the emplacement of a old cemetery which has been concentrated after the war in another. However I don't find any reference where this reburial took place. I think it was called White House Cemetery if my memory serves me well.

Jacky,

You remember that two weeks ago in the IFFM Doc. Centre I showed you a map where, handwritten, shortly after the war (?), some cemeteries were marked in or near Ypres, cemeteries that since have been removed or concentrated elsewhere ? (Trench maps, drawer "North".)

Was the cemetery you are thinking of marked on the map ?

Aurel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only thing that has been saved from the site is what looks like a big 40 kg iron clapper of a church bell, probably left there by the Germans during WW2 (that's the only explanation I can come up with). An iron frame was found next to it, but thrown away as scrap iron. The clapper was mistaken for ammunition ( it looks like a British 'toffee-apple') and ended up at DOVO, who scanned it and concluded it was solid iron. DOVO than handed it over to the IFF museum.

Regarding the archaeological value of the place, which has been neglected, I will sing my old song again: the ONLY way to protect our archaeological heritage is having EVRY building permit pass by an archaeologist, and more important, having the DEVELOPER, and NOT THE STATE, paying for the excavation. There are plans in this direction, but I assume the Flemish concrete maffia will do everything to have them stay what they are: plans. :angry:

reagrds,

Bert

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aurel,

I recall our conversation but I dont think it was on that map (however not 100% sure about that). It is to be found in the guide I showed you: The Pilgrim's Guide to the Ypres Salient issued by Talbot House.

Bert,

We haven't discussed this issue in depth but just vaguely and you know that I am fully convinced of the things you state. This would be ideal.

However in the mean time the old battlefields disappear very quickly. The lack of law(s) or insufficienty of the existing can not be a alibi or excuse to do nothing about it. In fact why aren't your ideas, which without any doubt are shared by a lot of people, put into reality by the State in expectation of a suitable law. Lack of money or interest ?. To be honest after 5 years back in Ieper I have mixed feelings about the whole issue of 'Battlefield Archaeologie'. It hasn't become clearer lately.

Jacky

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In fact why aren't your ideas, which without any doubt are shared by a lot of people, put into reality by the State in expectation of a suitable law. Lack of money or interest ?.

Jacky,

The answer is simple, and I allready stated it in my posting: Belgium has a powerfull concrete-maffia. Ok, it's probably not fair to judge all developers in one breath, but I think most developers don't really care about archaeology. Developers in the Ypres region have been digging up remains of the first world war for almost 90 years now, and I think they are used to throwing the stuff aside. Again, this does NOT mean that all developers are neglectend towards archaeology. For instance in the region of Bruges or Zottegem, developers and archaeologist tend to get along fairly well, and archaeologists are mostly notified when developers unearth potential archaeological finds. But than again, these remains are Medieval or Roman. Another important issue is that archaeologists are unevenly spread across Flanders. Bruges and the Flemish Ardennes for instance, have a fairly extensive city or regional archaeological service. Western Flanders only has the highly proffessional, but critically understaffed VIOE.

I found that in England, developers are mostly more positive towards archaeologists, whome they have to pay theirselves if the county archaeologist thinks excavation or any other archaeological investigation is needed. This is the result of a guideline called PPG 16, that the developers agreed to follow up. A guideline, not a law. Again, it's dangerous to generalise, but as I understood, most developers were not negative towards PPG 16.

Can you imagine a new law, that forces the Flemish developers to pay for any archaeological research on their site? Imagine that archaeologists would discover the remains of a roman villa... No way I think, every developer in Flanders will go insane over a measure that will add 10.000 euros or more to their costs. And which politician has the heart to stand up to the developers lobby?

There are steps in the right direction with the Central archaeological inventory, in which WW1 trench maps and aereal pictures will also be included, but it will take a while before this becomes fully operational. And as you stated, things are disappearning quickly...

regards,

Bert

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The old salient is disappearing fast. It is hardly recognisable from 20 years ago, let alone 90. Much as though I might wish for it, I simply cannot conceive that the area will become archaeologically protected.

Maybe at least one thing that enthusiasts could do is make sure the area as it is now is thoroughly photographed and documented, before more roads and buildings take away the views and the very shape of the land.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are right Chris.

I will try to make some pics before the bunker is surounded by villa's or even is gone.

Bert has a point to.

I noticed the sign of advertising (next to the bunker) says: Residential ground.

To me that sounds like: For rich people only! maybe i am wrong.

But one thing is sure: the rich have the power! This is one of the things who never change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bert,

If this is possible locally why not generalise it ?. I am particularly phocused on WW1 because it is in our part of the world one of the most, if not the most radical interference which ever occured. It is still deeply incrusted in the mind of people, certainly of my generation.

I agree that VIOE is highly professional and understaffed however I am also sure that WW1 battlefield archeologie is looked upon, by some professionals, as a kind of 'lower' form of archeologie and that is a serious understatement.

Certainly efforts have been made like the Central archaeological inventory but the real thing is outhere on the fields. Thrench maps, aerial fotography and possible other sources are very good and the initiative taken is splendid but they have one big disadvantage in my opinion: they are all instantenious 'snapshots'. Things changed rather quickly on the frontline and even behind the lines.

A good example to me seems the big earthquake from some weeks ago. Scientists agree, in different ways, that the earth has changed. Even if it is a very small change it means that a lot of things are not correct anymore. Same thing for example for a trench. One moment it is there a few moments later hit by a shell and remade 1 meter further.

Anyway as usual there is pro and contra on every issue. I am however glad that at least on this subject we can have a nice discussion on the forum.

Cheers,

Jacky

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jacky,

I agree on what you say about the CAI, but I think (however, I am not sure), that they work with diferent levels of archaeological importance, some areas will be coloured in as archaeologically most important, others will be coloured in as a slight chance of archaeological finds. The problem is however, a d-base like that has to grow, and it needs input from amateurs, farmers, etc. In Holland it took them almost 10 years to create a more or less complete d-base, and it is still growing.

If we cannot fall back on aereal pics and trench-maps, or if we decide they do not offer enough guidance towards the archaeological potential, than the only solution would be to colour in the entire front-area as archaeologically highly important, with an almost certain chance of archaeological finds. This would implie that no developer would be able to built without archaeologists coming in first to asses his site. It would be ideal, but than the city of Ypres has to start up its own archaeological service, or the VIOE of Western Flanders has to take on 10 times as many archaeologists as they have now. And there is no money for that, unless it will come from the developers themselves... so I am back to the point I started off with.

On the point that many archaeologists don't see the importance of battlefield archaeology I agree. But some archaeologists (and not the least) don't even see the importance of post-medieval archaeology in general. However you have to admit that the VIOE of Western Flanders made WW1 archaeology into their pride, for which they get international applause.

regards,

Bert

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no idea how hard or rediculous what I am about to write may sound ... but in the US EVERY SINGLE Building Permit must have an Environmental Impact Assessment ... Thank you Richard Nixon ... While it may bother the hell out of a lot of developers, they've got to do it AND there are all sorts of Environmental stuff they have to do when building ... all paid for by the developer.

Here's the point. How hard would it be to have Belgium do the same thing with History. I mean it would seem to me that the push-back would be EVERY PLACE in Belgium has been a battlefield but even so, these could be reasonably done by the developer and wouldn't be too hard.

Okay, it may be a dream but isn't there some level of Belgian Legislator who's looking for a bully pulpit. Isn't there some sort of press levers you can push to make it a hassle ...

And the solution would be to authorize various semi-professional groups to sign off ... these groups would apply to the Belgian state for certification ....

Okay, I'll go home to Texas now ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

this is really upsetting, unfortunately I never had the chance to see the Salient 20 years ago, however in the last few years I've been able to visit, and have found what is still there amazing.

It's horrific to think these areas are not protected, I just presumed they were? :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Flemish developers are very willing to take any restrictions or measures regarding environment and archaeology into account, as long as they don't have to pay for it.

That's mainly how archaeology in Flanders works: archaeologist are state-employed. If something archaeologically valuable is discovered on a building site (when there is an archaeologist available to follow it up) he can stop the works for a certain amount of days (I think 8 days, but I am not sure), after that he has to come up with a clear plan for the assesment of the site. If the goverment agrees with that, the site can be closed untill further notice, and the developer gets a daily amount of money from the state to compensate his time-loss.

As much as possible, archaeologists try to come in beforehand, but with the lack of a completely wather-thight central archaeological inventory, many things go unnoticed. Following up sites is sometimes done as well, but given the lack of archaeological manpower, not as much as it should be.

Contrary to the US, Belgium is a wellfare-state that spends most of its budget on healthcare and social security. This is more than a blessing for us Belgians, but there's not always much money left for other sectors, such as archaeology.

I don't necessarily disagree on the developing near Hellfire corner. Flanders is one of the most densily populated areas in the world, and people need a place to live, that's the simple truth, although off course environment and material heritage have to be taken into account. The archaeological potential of this site was most likely not extensive enough to preserve it. An archaeologist following up the building works, could have analized and recorded what came out of the earth, and directed the works. Sadly enough there was no archaeologist there, and that's where our system failed.

regards,

Bert

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bert is right in stating that the development of area near the bunker is not necessarily a bad thing. Rather at the contray, better there than in the open area. Indeed it is the neglect of archeological survey which is the problem.

And of course the Belgian and Flemish governments are to blame for poor legislation.

But what is often forgotten is that also local authority is not taking it's reponsability.

This site is within the boundaries of Ieper (Ypres). It is not the first time I see the position of the City is ambigue in these things. The first stage in obtaining permission for building projects is passing the local administration. They are with their nose on it and are the first who have the possibility to react: they can turn down plans, or oblige to adapt them. They can also send in archeologists. All this was clearly not done in this case.

Another sad thing is the bitter competition between archeological amateur groups. The recent launching of again a new group, supported by the city of Ypres, is not very helpful in improving the efficiency of Battlefield archeology. By the way, what have they done at Hellfire Corner? What was the real aim of this initiative?

People abroad are wondering why archeology in Flanders is such a mess ( and I clearly not mean the professionals who do what they can, often against all odds).

This are some elements of the answer.

Erwin

:angry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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...