Belgium 1940

Discussion in '1940' started by handtohand22, Aug 4, 2006.

Tags:
  1. LIII1940

    LIII1940 Junior Member

    Statement by Lieut.-Col. Robert Duncan Brown,
    United States Military Attaché to Belgium and Luxemburg May 1940

    THE German Armies in May 1940, supported by immense Air Power, drove west into Holland, Belgium, and France, quickly conquered Holland and broke the hinge of Allied Defence at Sedan. The Sedan break-through compelled the retreat of all Northern Allied Forces and separated the British and Belgian Forces from the French Main Forces. A French counter-attack against the German spear-head aimed at Abbeville might have re-established the situation but this counter-attack never developed. The Belgian Army fought doggedly on successive retreat positions and at last found themselves completely cut off with their backs to the sea.
    Their artillery had fought with extreme
    brilliancy, their large units were well led. However, they were cut off and they had virtually no air power or anti-aircraft artillery protection against German air might.
    The Belgian King's capitulation on May 28th was the only thing that King Leopold could do. Those who say otherwise didn't see the fighting and they didn't see the German Air Force. I saw both.
    ROBERT DUNCAN BROWN.
    October 31st, 1940.
     
  2. Wills

    Wills Very Senior Member

    Robert O'Neill All Souls Oxford - Liddell Hart - A devious,manipulative publicist who was wrong on several key issues on which he claimed later to have been right.

    Also; Montgomery Memoirs 13 October 1958.
     
  3. Suffolk Boy

    Suffolk Boy Member

    Hi All

    Outrageous Fortune - The Tragedy of Leopold III of the Belgians 1901-1941 - Roger Keyes (ISBN 0-436-23320-7)

    A lengthy book which seeks to put the record straight on the conduct of King Leopold and his army. To date I've read UK and US written books on 1940 and was forming a rather negative view of the King and his Army's efforts. This has changed my view and I'd recommend it to all as there's lots of evidence to back up the author's arguments.

    I don't claim vast knowledge of the debate on the 'gap in the North' leading up to the Belgian capitulation on 28 May for example but this account (of the politics rather than the fighting) gives a different perspective.

    It's stated that the King wasn't informed by Gort or Pownall when the retreat to Dunkirk started and the book gives reasons why the Belgians wouldn't retreat to the Yser in the final days but instead chose to stand on the River Lys.

    Anyone else read it?


    Stuart
     
  4. LIII1940

    LIII1940 Junior Member

    http://users.skynet.be/on5np/keyes.wma

    Stuart, here is Lord Keyes speaking about his Book.
    With regards to the issue of the 'gap in the North' leading up to the Belgian capitulation on 28 May .
    Did this gap occur because the Belgians were giving way ? Or because the British were retreating without word to Belgians that they were pulling out ?
    In a message to Gort from Churchill “It is now necessary to tell the Belgians. I am sending to Keyes, but your personal contact with the King is desirable. Keyes will help. We are asking them to sacrifice themselves for us.”
    Therefore the historical fact is that the gap was created by the British need to escape after the failure of the Weygand offensive.
    Although Gort had his orders to tell King Leopold, he did not. Meanwhile the fight on the Belgian front had been continuous for four days.
    Every road, village and town in the small part of Belgium left was thronged with hundreds of thousands of refugees, and low flying aircrafts were mercilessly bombing the refugees and the troops.
    The Belgian army was created solely for defence; it had neither tanks nor aircraft to mount any kind of offensive.
    From the moment it was ordered to retreat to weaker positions, its fate was doomed. With no Royal Air Force (RAF) support, it maintained a 90 kilometre front.
    Most British and French account fails to recognize the significance of the battle along the Lys. Here the Belgian army suffered 40.000 casualties. Yet, it may well be asked what would have happened to the British Expeditionary Force and the Northern French armies if the Belgians had not prepared to fight to the last. Before this important battle, the King promised his troops, no matter what happens, I will share your fate.
    This noble decision cost King Leopold his throne because he went against the wishes of his government, but he had already made his promise to his troops and he was not going to renege on that promise.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    General Pownall Commander of British Forces in Belgium Said “ we don’t give a bugger what happens to the Belgians “
     
  5. Rich Payne

    Rich Payne Rivet Counter Patron 1940 Obsessive

    Keyes was an old man and a personal friend of Leopold. I don't think that we can regard him as impartial.

    The circumstances for defeat were laid by Belgium's refusal to face up to Germany during 1939 and I hardly think it can be said that the BEF withdrew without telling anyone. They fought all the way and had to bring units up from France to fill the gaps left by Leopold's capitulation.

    Why should the Belgian army have expected RAF support ? Belgium didn't allow the RAF access before 10th May, at which point the Belgian airforce was largely caught sitting on the ground ?

    I also find it difficult to lay the blame on the Belgian army being ordered to retreat. The loss of Eben Emael and the failure to blow the bridges on the Albert canal rested with them in the first place. They were on the run after that and it can hardly be called an organised retreat. Many of the RAF bomber crews sent up to destroy the border bridges now lie in the cemetery at Oud Heverlee.

    I would make no general criticism of the Belgian troops individually. Many made the ultimate sacrifice but much of the blame must lie with the high command, and particularly the meddling king who seems to have overstepped his constitutional position, just as his successor Albert II seems to be doing today.
     
  6. LIII1940

    LIII1940 Junior Member

    Therefore if Keyes testimony cannot be regarded as impartial and Liddel Hart is a devious,manipulative publicist. I can't wait for Payne & Wills to pass judgement on Andrew Roberts or Sir Martin Gilbert. They too must be wrong ? From Feeding the Crocodile: Was Leopold Guilty By Richard M. Langworth Editor of the Churchill Society While much has been written on the Leopold matter, there are several recent and rather revealing accounts, the first of which was written by the historian Andrew Roberts about the political aspects of the debate: It is indicative of the changing nature of the King’s [George VI’s] relationship with Churchill that he did not protest against what he knew to be an undeserved slur on King Leopold III of the Belgians by the Prime Minister. Leopold had written to George VI on 25 May warning him of his country’s imminent surrender, a fact proven by the King’s answering telegram to Brussels the next day urging him not to become a prisoner. The King therefore knew that Churchill was guilty of a particularly gross “terminological inexactitude” for his depiction of the Belgian capitulation three days later as a treacherous surprise. On the day of his return from the Continent, Britain’s special envoy to Leopold, Admiral Roger Keyes, was visited by an Intelligence officer, who demanded all the documents from his mission. Keyes successfully concealed them and showed them to the King to disprove Churchill’s calumnies. Thus the King George knew the truth, as did Churchill. Seven months later, sitting in an air raid shelter with Roosevelt’s adviser, Harry Hopkins, he “expressed a good deal of sympathy with King Leopold,” and although he refused to allow his brother monarch to be stripped of his colonelcy in the British army, or have his Garter banner removed from St George’s Chapel, George VI did not, as Leopold had hoped, “insist that his Prime Minister should uphold, rather than pervert, the truth concerning these circumstances.” Admiral Keyes’s son has since stated: “Had the existence of Leopold’s warning letter to George VI, or even a paraphrase of its contents been made public...the French, Belgian and British Prime Ministers’ false allegations would have been completely demolished.” Re: Feeding the Crocodile: Was Leopold Guilty LEOPOLD III Congratulations to Richard Langworth for his excellent article. It will do much to set the record straight. SIR MARTIN GILBERT CBE, LONDON
     
  7. fredleander

    fredleander Senior Member

    Handtohand22,

    Do you have a special interest in Belgium ? I live in Belgian Limburg and regularly cross over the canal bridges at Veldwezelt and Vroenhoven. There are still a numerous defensive fortifications along the canal.

    Our local War memorial has a number of names of both troops and civilians who lost their lives in May 1940.

    I always give the River Dyle a second glance when travelling towards Leuven, it being the point to which the BEF advanced on 10th/11th May. Not really much of a line to hold at all.

    Have you seen the book "Mei 1940" by Peter Taghon ? I have a Dutch copy (it was also available in French) Some wonderful photos of the Achttiendaagse Veldtocht which have not appeared in UK publications. He also has a companion volume over the Liberation.

    Rik.
    I have been to Eben Emael a couple of times. Fascinating to see the marks on the panzer cupolas after the newly developed hollow charges which were used for the first time. Wrote an article once about the German assault.
     
  8. fredleander

    fredleander Senior Member

    Hi All

    It's stated that the King wasn't informed by Gort or Pownall when the retreat to Dunkirk started and the book gives reasons why the Belgians wouldn't retreat to the Yser in the final days but instead chose to stand on the River Lys.

    Anyone else read it?


    Stuart

    This comes as no surprise to me. The Norwegian forces experienced this on several occasions during the campaign in Norway. The most notable being the Allied withdrawal from Narvik.
     

Share This Page