BEF rearguard action on the Nieuport-Dunkirk canal (May 29th till May 31st 1940)

In the field report of Pioneer Battalion 256 on its deployment in the Netherlands and Belgium, there is this short section on Wulpen:

According to this report, the British managed to appear stronger than they actually were by skillful use of weapons and terrain. Apparently, they had managed to successfully prevent the German crossing attempts with help of just a single tank

 

I find the observation in the second paragraph also quite interesting.
It states that the British were firing smokes, but that those were ineffective due to the wind.
I should check the War Diaries that Andy sent me but, if I remember correctly, the British artillery units entrenched in the neighbourhood of Coxyde were very short on ammo. I suspect they probably started firing smokes because they had nothing left to fire with.

 

It could also be mortar bombs. Vetrans accounts frequently emphasise the lack of HE bombs for the 2 inch mortars, just smoke rounds being available. It's why a lot of 2 inch mortars were thrown away on the retreat.

 

Now that we have gained a reasonable measure of situational awareness on what happened along the stretch of the canal between Wulpen en Nieuport, the next logical step would be to start discussing the combats between Furnes and Nieuport. This may prove to be, however, somewhat more delicate than I initially had anticipated...

Having done some preliminary research in order to create a decent baseline to fuel future discussions, I found that not many British historians dared tackling the subject head-on. I also soon realised why. It would seem that, along this stretch, the Germans managed to cross the canal, break the line and establish a bridgehead. It is also suggested that some elements defending the canal 'withdrew without orders'. A source even uses the terms 'packed up' and 'bolted'. Bearing in mind the legendary British talent to 'weaponise' understatement, this quite disturbed me. I also was quite unsettled to learn that, apparently, some retreating men seem to have been shot by their own side... All this even made me wonder if the sources I consulted so far were trustworthy.

While searching amongst other threads on this forum, except for an 2/Grenadier Guard war diary extract date May 31st 1940, I found nothing of consequence. Perhaps I didn't use the proper search parameters? As the (few) sources I consulted so far are exclusively British, I would be interested as to the German side of the story. I also lack several British war diaries that may perhaps provide some additional insights. Unfortunately, to my knowledge, there are no local (Belgian) accounts of what happened.

Though I'd like to dig deeper, I don't want to reopen old wounds nor do I want to stigmatise anyone.
On the other hand, developing this topic may allow to gain a better understanding of what happened.

Before proceeding further, I would welcome your thoughts and insights.
Advise from the admin/moderator would also be most welcome.
Perhaps the game is not worth the candle.

KR,
Christian

 

A thread on the subject of men being shot by their own side here. The incident relayed by Jimmy Langley was shown in the excellent 2004 BBC drama series Dunkirk.

British Soldiers shot for retiring without permission

I also found this on the BBC’s WW2 People’s War pages:

BBC - WW2 People's War - Dunkirk Secrets

 

This indeed seems to be the very same incident I came across during my initial research.
Yesterday I performed a site survey of the approximate location.
If anything, it gave me a better grasp of the predicament these men had to face.

 

Christian, my feeling is that if you take your customary care in detailing the information available to you, the 1940 sub-forum should be a safe place to discuss such matters. I recall a conflict in the past which arose from focussing on an unsubstantiated allegation by a post-war writer who when pressed had "lost" the evidence. I don't think you'll fall into that sort of trap.

 

Just to put this into context:
When the Wehrmacht, which was as accustomed to victory as it was experienced in battle, advanced in the Soviet Union in 1941, the ineffectiveness of the 3.7 cm Pak against the T-34 and KW-1 led to the so-called ‘Panzerpanik’, in which sometimes even entire regiments were ‘thrown into disarray’: In the KTBs, an euphemism for disorganised escape movements that could often only be contained under the force of arms by energetic officers
This took on such proportions that there was an URGENT demand for better AT-guns, because the problem could not be solved by strict discipline alone:
This was at a time when they were still rushing from victory to victory

 

I don’t know when my Godfather, serving with 22nd Field Regt. R.A., added a note to his war journal about an incident on 27th May 1940 somewhere between Vlamertinghe and Oostduinkerke, but it would have been years after the war ended.

The night of 27th an incident occurred that, for obvious reasons, I did not record at the time:
We had been warned to look out for 5th columnists and, in a cooks’ truck two behind mine, sat L/Bdr. (cook) F***** with his rifle across his knees, loaded and cocked. He was approached in the dark, at a halt, by a man wearing an officer’s mackintosh with web belt & pistol who started to shout at him. Thinking only of 5th column, Fishlock shot him dead. It later transpired that he was GSO I of 3rd Division, a Royal Marine called, I think, Col. B*****. There was a great hullabaloo afterwards about this, but the fact was that the man had lost his cap and was wearing a mackintosh over his uniform; moreover, he was said to have a nervous movement of his right hand which could easily have been interpreted as reaching for his pistol. I believe, though, that GOC 3rd Div. (Maj. Gen. Bernard Montgomery) was not pleased. However, F***** was eventually exonerated.

Heaven knows what the Colonel’s family were told about his death, and, having read the stories in the previous posts, I wonder if L/Bdr F***** ever told his family and how he coped with the incident.

 

A very interesting story John - thanks for sharing! It reminds me of something I came across while reading Field Marshal Viscount Alanbrook's memoires ('The Turn of the Tide'). Monty had sent a dispatch rider and his ordnance officer, LtCol Brown to warn Alanbrooke the Germans had reached Nieuport. As the story goes, Brown however got stuck amidst a French convoy and left his car in order to resolve a traffic jam. His driver heard a revolver shot soon thereafter...

Lieutenant Colonel Vincent Christopher 'Marino' BROWN, OBE, DSC, Royal Marines: 28/05/1940

If (!) the incident your Godfather refers to in his war journal is indeed the one and the same where LtCol Brown got killed, it would exonerate the French. For my part, I can only establish that the date, approximate location and circumstances seem to match.

 

Makes you wonder, doesn’t it…

 

Good heavens.
Col. B***** is Col. Brown.

 

Congratulations John! It would seem you have solved an 85 year-old mystery!
Would it be possible to post a scan of the relevant extract of your Godfather's war journal?

Kind Regards,
Christian

 

Christian,
The diary now belongs to one of my Godfather's daughters who transcribed it for me years ago. I shall try and get in touch with her sometime next week because we are in different time zones (she in England and me in Australia) and this weekend we are up to our ears with family coming to us, and I am sure she is too!
Funnily enough I woke up in the middle of last night wondering whether the diary had any maps and other comments in the journal which could not be transcribed and that I should chat to her about it.
You have also contacted me in a "conversation" thingy about this (and thank you) but I cannot for the life of me see how to reply to you there!! Could you tell me how ........ please ........!
All the best to you and keep on with your excellent research.
John.

 

John,

You asked: You have also contacted me in a "conversation" thingy about this (and thank you) but I cannot for the life of me see how to reply to you there!! Could you tell me how ........ please ........!

The conversation (Private Message aka PM) will show in your Inbox top right after logging in. Click on inbox and it will show the PM or more. Read and if a reply is needed in the bottom right is a 'Reply' button, which when pressed will ope up a new message (the addressee is inbuilt). On the bottom line are three options.

You cannot start a PM until you have posted x5.

 

Christian,

Sorry to be such a dimwit but I still cannot find the "reply" button and I attach a screeenshot of what I am seeing below.
I tried again to find it, I even re-logged in again, me daughter (a computer buff couldn't find it) and even my granddaughter couldn't find it

John

 

Good grief ..... my daughter ...... not me daughter

 

Don't worry about it John!
Just send me what you have via this e-mail: [removed to avoid potential spamming]
And first and foremost: enjoy your weekend!

Greetings from Belgium,
Christian

 

This Easter weekend was the perfect opportunity for me to go and take some photos on the canal stretch from Furnes to Wulpen.
I'll post them forthwith.

Before igniting the discussion though, I feel I should point out the that combats here were perhaps the most intense (the word 'savage' also springs to mind) along the entire Dunkirk defense perimeter and that casualties were very heavy on both sides. Based on the information available to me at this time, I attempted to determine the approximate location where the Germans managed to cross the canal and establish a bridgehead on the northern bank.



Just as on the stretch from Wulpen to Nieuport, the terrain here is also very flat and open - a sniper's paradise! Only a few dispersed farmhouses and waterlogged ditches could provide any cover. As a result, form the Germans' perspective, approaching and crossing the canal unnoticed would have been next to impossible. Since no bridges were available on this stretch of the canal (those at Furnes and Wulpen had been blown), the most obvious way to cross it would have been by using small rubber boats (Floßsacke). With the British waiting on the other bank, this would have been a highly perilous undertaking. Any attempt at building a pontoon bridge would, in my opinion, have been sheer folly. Yet, the Germans did manage to get across sufficient men in order to (temporarily) establish a modest bridgehead. But how?



Nowadays, the canal is mainly used by recreational pleasure craft, you can even hire small electric-powered boats in Wulpen. In those days though, the canal was a vital economic artery for the local industry ; and numerous barges navigated on the canal from Dunkirk to Furnes, Nieuport and Ypres. German pictures show a lot of these barges being moored alongside the canal. Moreover, the 246th Field Regiment's war diary clearly states that, upon arrival East of Furnes, their main task had been to blow up barges in the canal or to secure them on the northern bank.

It is my guess that, somehow, the Germans managed to get hold of an intact barge and maneuver it perpendicular to the canal as to bring their stormtroopers across while their artillery and mortars massively bombarded British positions on the northern bank. I suspect they also used smokes to cover their movements.



At this time, however, this scenario (based on what Belgian troops experienced on the Lys) is still conjecture on my part. It would, however, explain a great many things. For the BEF units on the receiving end, especially for those lacking combat experience and/or unversed in infantry tactics, this experience must have been quite unsettling to say the least.

Please do not hesitate to challenge this theory (or help confirming it).

KR,
Christian

Photos courtesy of a Bundeswehr colleague (now enjoying his Easter holidays here )

 

Not a problem at all if you’re a Londoner like me .