The Belgian's fought bravely ( May 1940)

[LIII]

http://www.supload.com/sound_confirm.ph ... 463342.wma BBC radio
interview

King Leopold III of the Belgians - The Scapegoat Who Saved the British from
Defeat in 1940.

When the true story of the Belgian capitulation comes to be known King
Leopold III of the Belgians
will emerge, not as the cowardly traitor depicted by Reynaud, but rather as
one of the great heroic figures of the war.
I know that this is a startling statement to those unfamiliar with the
facts; but it is a statement that will be borne out by history. The facts
are there and our sources are unimpeachable.

.
It is with humility and with a clear conscience that I provide for you
a BBC radio interview with Lord Keyes, 2nd Baron, naval officer
and author of Outrageous Fortune and son of his famous father, Admiral of
the Fleet Sir Roger (later Lord) Keyes

I recall at this moment the words of our King on May 28th 1940

" Our cause is just and pure "
" History will relate that our army did its duty to the full, Our Honour is
safe "
"We are calmly waiting for the impartial verdict of honest men. "

[Carl Schwamberger]

?????

[Michael Emrys]

LIII,

When a member posts direct quotes from another source, we like for them to use the Quote function to indicate that fact. Otherwise, it looks like (and in fact can be) plagiarism.

Michael

[LIII]

This is in reply to Steen Ammentorp query as to what this thread is about.
We are in the The Allies & the Neutral States thread.


My purpose is to make you aware of the facts surrounding the contribution of the Belgian army to the allied cause, and how events such as the break out in the Sedan forced the Belgian army to abandon its fortified positions and fight haphazardly
on constant retreat and without any air support.
To which, once the BEF decided to with draw to Dunkirk and separate from the Belgian army, the Belgian Army could have surrendered immediately. However, the Belgian armies King as commander in chief pledged to his troops he would not leave, despite the advice of his government. This decision of the King to be a soldier first and a constitutional monarch 2nd
proved very controversaional later and ended in what was called the Royal Question .
Once the British separated from the Belgian Army and made its way to Dunkirk, the Belgian army fought the Germans until there were no reserves left. This fighting is known in Belgium as the Battle of the Lys.
My purpose is to make you aware that this prolonged fighting by the Belgian army contributed to helping the British evacuate from Dunkirk, by tying up many German divisions that were sent in to destroy and defeat the Belgian army.
Which of course they did.
Mean while, the French looking for a scapegoat, blamed the Belgian army for not warning them.
Then the British through Churchill did the same, see Churchill's June 4th speech using the phrase " suddenly and without warning "

The German army had defeated a valiant foe.
My purpose is to make you aware that French & British used King Leopold III as their scapegoat.
My purpose is to make you aware that French & British for over 70 years have never admitted that they lied about the actions of the Belgian King
My purpose is to just tell you what really happened and to set the record straight.

Listen to link from the BBC and draw your own conclusions.

http://www.supload.com/sound_confirm.ph ... 463342.wma you have to down load

[narwan]

British General Allanbrooke wrote the following in his diary during the campaign. About Belgian General van Overstraeten "I found that arguing with him a sheer waste of time, "I found that arguing with him a sheer waste of time, he was not familiar with the dispositions of the B.E.F. and seemed to care little about them. Most of his suggestions were fantastic"and seemed to care little about them. Most of his suggestions were fantastic". On May 12th "Results of the day are not satisfactory as regards resistance put up by Belgians". On the 14th "Gort was not really in the picture as to the troubles and difficulties which I have been having with the Belgians. Nor did he realise their poor fighting quality". On the 19th "If we let go our hold on the Belgians now I feel certain they will stop fighting". On the 25th "Recieved information at 2am that the German penetration through the Belgian front was growing rapidly and that the Belgians were not offering much resistance".

Hitler wrote on May 25 to Mussolini "The Belgian soldier, too, has generally fought very bravely. His experience of war was considerably greater than that of the Dutch. At the beginning his tenacity was astounding. This is now decreasing visibly as the Belgian soldier realises that his basic function is to cover the British retreat".

Though Hitler and Alanbrooke disagree on the ammount of resistance offered by the Belgium army at the start of the campaign, and Alanbrooke may have been to harsh, they both agree that it was almost at an end by the 25th. The Belgium army suffered 23,350 killed and wounded.

Wow, how wrong can you be. Ever heard of the battle of the Leie? Where the much depleted belgian army, short on all sorts of supply, without any support of the british or french held back the germans for several days? Started more or less on the 24th of may. The heaviest fighting was on the 26th and 27th of may. On those two days the belgian army suffered higher casualties per day than any other day of the campaign. On the 24th and the 25th they suffered similar casualties as on the first three days of the campaign.
The remark that the belgian army lost it's 'tenacity' after the first couple of days is nonsense. They kept it up during the entire campaign. In fact, the 'miracle of Dunkirk' was only possible because of the Battle of the Leie. The belgian sacrifice saved the BEF.

Alanbrooke was himself to blame for the poor coordination with the belgians. He was very biased towards the belgians from the start and never got over it. Afterwards, like may others, he used them as a scapegoat, blaming them for just about everything, including his own failures (like not informing the belgians in time of his plans and moves). He is the last person you should use as a source for the fighting quality of the belgian troops.

Remco

[narwan]

Just to ask a question here, which has puzzled considerablly. Before 10 may 1940 the Gelgian Army had deployed a mobile corps in its Ardennes region. The general deployment of this corps made sense. A foward screen was posted on the German Luxembourg border, and the main force was distributed further west around the fortification built in the 1930s. This appears to be a reasonable deployment for a delaying action, or fighting withdrawl.

On the morning of 10 May as the German attack developed it appears a order went out for the screening force on the border to fall back imeadiatly. It also seems this was part of general order to leave the Ardennes as quickly as possible. In any case the Belgians seem to have delayed the Germans for the briefest time & then withdrew north of the Maas River as soon as French soldiers arrived.

Was there infact a order given for the Belgian dfenders to move north so quickly?

Why was this order given, as it abandoned consdierable areas of well developed defenses, bunkers, roadblocks, ect?

There was never any intention on the part of the belgians of defending the Ardennes. If you look at the map you'll see that the Ardennes serve no purpose in defending the rest of Belgium. Defending the Ardennes, especially the south only serves to defend northern France.
The belgians didn't have the troops to mount any serious defense there. The 'mobile' corps (60% bycicle troops, 40% motorcycle troops) they deployed was fairly small and yet contained about half the mobile troops the belgian army had. Only one of the divisions could be deployed in the Ardennes themselves as the other one was needed to cover its retreat in the area between the Ardennes and the Meuse. So just one 'bycicle' division to cover the Ardennes. How many had the US there in december '44? Quite a lot more. No way the available belgian troops could hold back the german advance for any considerable amount of time. The belgians couldn't afford to keep that many of their mobile troops in the ardennes for a prolonged time. Mobile forces would be needed up north to serve as a strategic reserve to deal with any german breakthroughs there.

The belgians did construct quite a few defensive strongpoints. They didn't intend to defend them in strength though. The main purpose of those positions was to be able to block german routes of advance long enough for the rest of the troops to pull back. So when it wasn't necessary any longer to cover the retreat of the rest of the division a position was abandoned and the next one occupied. All the way back to the covering positions between the Ardennes and the Meuse. What the belgians did do was create lots of obstacles and delays for the advancing germans to slow them down. And in several places they did get into very heavy fighting.
Where did you come up with the idea that the belgians held back the germans 'for the briefes't time'? It took german troops about 3 to 5 days to reach the Meuse because of the mainly belgian delays. I don't think that's 'brief', especially considering how few troops the belgians had available.

The belgians also assumed, based on the value of the Ardennes for the defense of northern France and because of declarations of intent by the french army, that the french army would rapidly move into the ardennes in force from the south west while they themselves where withdrawing towards the northwest. They expected to hand over many of these defensive positions to the french who would be better positioned (with regards to their LOC) to use them for prolonged defensive purposes. But the french were slow to move and send too few troops. And the troops they did send where mobile cavalry forces and these rarely took over the fixed positions. They left many empty. The french on their part had assumed the belgians would be forced to stay. They wanted to use the belgians to absorb the main impact of any german attack in this area. Serving as cannon fodder so the french wouldn't have to wasn't in the belgian playbook though.

The lack of coordination between the two countries before the war was certainly a major reason for this fubar but the lacklustre french moves into the Ardenens were a huge blunder. They knew all too well that the (southern) ardennes had to be defended in considerable strength to give their own troops time to properly organise the defense along the Meuse south of Namur yet they failed to do so.

Remco

[pugsville]

the refusal of the Belgians to face facts about German intentions is one of the major critical causes of the allied defeat in 1940. they refused the allies moving into Belgium before the Germans actuality attacked. they wished to be defended by the allies but clung madly to their neutrality despite capturing the German plans. foolish and stupid, they had evidence of the German intention.

IF the allies had been allowed to advance in the phony war period and took up their positions, the ardennes would have been defended, the planned demolitions completed. The German plan defeated.

Belgian stupidity and cowardice by the King was a direct cause of the allied defeat in 1940,

[narwan]

the refusal of the Belgians to face facts about German intentions is one of the major critical causes of the allied defeat in 1940. they refused the allies moving into Belgium before the Germans actuality attacked. they wished to be defended by the allies but clung madly to their neutrality despite capturing the German plans. foolish and stupid, they had evidence of the German intention.

IF the allies had been allowed to advance in the phony war period and took up their positions, the ardennes would have been defended, the planned demolitions completed. The German plan defeated.

Belgian stupidity and cowardice by the King was a direct cause of the allied defeat in 1940,

Apparantly you don't know what neutrality means. Or are you seriously stating that Belgium should have declared war on germany?


Hmm, "the ardennes would have been defended"? By which units? Please, do give a complete listing. It would be the first time ever for me to see such a list. Guess what, the allies had no intention to 'defend' the ardennes. The french did plan to conduct delaying actions in part of the southern ardennes but even then they assumed that the germans would reach the Meuse after about 5 days. The Meuse was their planned defense line. Not the Ardennes.

Hmm, "the planned demolitions completed". Did you ever actually read an account of what happened in the ardennes? Why do you think it still took the germans 3 to 5 days to reach the Meuse even without adequate (french) delaying actions in the southern part and with only a handful of serious engagements with belgian troops? Because of the massive amount of demolitions and the large number of obstacles the belgians left behind! Why else? You think the germans decided to take the scenic route?

Off course you are entitled to your own opinions as to why the allies were defeated in 1940.
Here's a few of mine; the battle was effectively lost not when the germans broke through at Sedan, but in the following days when the french and british failed to launch a massive counterattack. The french 1st army and (bulk of) the BEF should have headed south not west. it would at least force the german armor divisions to hold their own advances west and turn north to meet this threat. That would have bought the allies the time needed to get a decent block between the germans and the atlantic coast. But the french general staff and the commander of the 1st army didn't have the nerve to do so (a really bad time to get a nervous breakdown) and the british were already very eager to get a lot closer to the channel ports.

You know what's most funny about your post? You claim that if the allies had been allowed into belgium prior to may 1940 that the german plan would have failed. But the german plan needed the bulk of the allied armies to be in belgium to succeed! The luftwaffe had orders not to strafe the allied collumns heading into belgium those first couple of days. The whole german plan was designed around the main allied armies being in belgium. You may want to do some additional reading.

Remco

[pugsville]

While the allies devoted few forces to defend the Ardennes in their dyle plan, their were some and they were meant to destroy some of the bridges. They just didnt get far enough early enough. The Ardennes is not easy country to attack through, demolish a few bridges and it is much harder.

The Massive Early counter attack was their best chance to get out of the pocket, but a failure at the intelligence level to understand what was happening, poor command and control hamstrung their efforts.

The Belgians had hard evidence that the Germans would attack. Their neutrality would not be respected. The Allies reasonable asked to enter Belgium. It was a easy decision militarily, you want your country defended against an attack, let your allies in.

IF THE Allies entered they would have been in a much better position. The Allied plan was a bad one, their intelligence poor, command structure divided and their communications poor. But if they hadnt tried to defend Belgium they still might not have been defeated so quickly.

[JBbelgium]

I would like to make some remarks:
*Belgium wasn't completely neutral. It's policy was "armed independance". It adopted this policy on 14 October 1936 after Great-Britain and France failed to react against the remilitarization of the Rhineland on 7 March 1936.
*Armed independance meant that Belgium would defend its borders with all of its strenght + Belgium would not allow an attack on another country through Belgian territory. This meant that Belgium would not allow a preliminary attack by the allies. However this policy was mostly aimed towards Germany since it was obvious that Germany was the agressor.
*By doing so, Belgium provided France with a secured flank and placed Hitler for a choice. Hitler could go through the Maginot line facing just GB and FR. He could go through Swiss. Or he could attack through Belgium and by doing so face 610.000 more troops.

[JBbelgium]

+ some more remarks
*The allies were planning to move only to the Dyle river. Or perhaps to the Albertcanal-Meuse line. No further. This is pretty much an invitation to Hitler to conquer the undefended part. This move would do little more than moving the Phoney War further west. Not an option.
*The Von Manstein plan was cutting of the Allies through the Ardennes. Being already in Belgium wouldn't help (much) to stop that.
*This battle was lost because the allies could not muster the strength to lauch a strong counterattack. Belgium had approx 610.000 troops + various rear-area troops and services out of a population of 8 million. On 10 May the order was given for every boy/man from 16(!!!!!) to 35, not yet called up, to report at recruitcenters. In comparison Germany (80 mill pop) had 3,5 to 4 million troops. What I want to say is that Belgium contributed its fair share and we have to look elsewhere for "the misssing reserves".