Wars and Conflicts听 permalink
King Leopold III of the Belgians, the Scapegoat Who Saved the British from Defeat in 1940
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.听
Posted by LIII 1940 (U3621214) on Tuesday, 25th April 2006
鈥淭he truth is incontrovertible, malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end; there it is.鈥
A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get
its pants on."
-- Winston Churchill
"Legend of infidelity and treason of King Leopold was propagated all over
the world by Winston Churchill"
The cowardly declaration by Paul Reynaud and Churchill's insulting words
became the base of the "Legend of infidelity and treason of King Leopold
III, which, as from 28th of May 1940, was propagated all over the world.
This "legend" would, later on, cause internal problems in Belgium that lead
to the abdication of King Leopold III.
All of the above are historical facts to be found in the official documents
and therefore cannot be denied.
But there is more!
Sir Roger Keyes, Lord of Zeebrugge and Dover, had been appointed by Winston
Churchill, on 10th of May, as a special liaison officer to King Leopold III.
The Admiral remained with the King until the evening of 27th May, when he
and Colonel Davy were picked up by a torpedo boat. They reached Harwich at
8h30 on 28th May.
These two officers were expert witnesses of the heroic battles of the
Belgian army..but Churchill had already made up his mind: he, just like Paul
Reynaud, was going to indicate Leopold III and his army as a scapegoat.
He did not want to hear the real story of the two gentlemen officers;
instead he categorically did forbid Admiral Keyes to speak out publicly.
Even though King George spoke out in favour of Leopold III, Churchill
persevered in his vendetta against Leopold III and the Belgian people which
he seemed to dislike altogether.
Lord Keyes would, many years later, state (in his book: A sea of troubles")
that the references, made by Churchill in his book "The Second World War",
were in fact so unfair and misleading-due to omissions and distortions of
the facts-that his son, Randolph Churchill, (according to the former
archduke Otto von Habsburg) furiously said to him: "What you have said and
written about this, is nothing else but a heap of lies, as you very well
know".
The archduke who was present, describes in his book "Naissance d'un
Continent" this heated discussion, which took place at Chequers, the
official country house of the British prime minister.
He remembers how Churchill admitted, in a provocative way: "Of course these
were lies, but you must not forget that the history of a period is
determined by its best author. I am and will remain this author and
therefore, whatever I wrote will have to be accepted as being the truth".
Winston Churchill had, nevertheless, admitted in 1943 (!): .We went at war,
unprepared and almost unarmed."
Further, in his memoires, he stated about the British Expeditionary Force:
".it was only a symbolic contribution..."
When Winston Churchill died, he took his shameful lies into his grave....
The attack on the honour of King Leopold III and his army, continuous, until
today, to throw a shadow of distrust and resentment in the heart of the
Belgian people, certainly with the thousands of veterans and all Belgians
who are still very well aware of what happened in May 1940.
www.royalarchive.com...
Saturday, 28 May 2005
Leopold III, King of the Belgians - Belgian Bid to Restore His Honour
Topic: In the News
At the start of World War II, Belgium was neutral. However, the Germans, who
had guaranteed Belgian neutrality in 1937, broke their word and, without
warning, invaded Belgium, Holland and Luxembourg on 10th May 1940. The
Belgian Army fought very bravely for eighteen days but, all the time, they
were being pushed further and further back. By the 25th May, the Allies
could see that the crumbling Belgian defence was becoming hopeless and on
the 26th the French army drew up plans to withdraw to the coast. By 1 p.m.
on the 27th, the War Office had issued orders "to evacuate the maximum force
possible". In the early hours of 28th May 1940, Leopold III,
commander-in-chief of the Belgian Army, took the final decision to surrender
to the German Army, despite the opposition of his cabinet. The King wished
to spare his people further bloodshed and suffering - but his action
provoked accusations of treason.
Retired Admiral of the Fleet, Sir Roger Keyes (1972-1945), who had been
recalled to serve as liaison officer to the Belgian King Leopold in 1939,
was appointed Director of Combined Operations from 1940-41. He closely
observed the King's conduct at the time of the capitulation and expressed
his thoughts in his diaries. Later his son, Lord Keyes, 2nd Baron, naval
officer and author (14th March 1919-4th March 2005) [see TimesOnLine
Obituaries] believed, as did his father, that historians had treated King
Leopold III most unfairly and that he had been made a scapegoat for the
defeat of France and the British Army in 1940. He wrote a book, Outrageous
Fortune, published in 1984, in which he set out to exonerate Leopold, whom
he regarded as having been traduced by France and Britain for having ordered
the Belgian Army to lay down its arms on May 28, 1940, after it had
courageously fought the Wehrmacht for 18 days.
Recently, [18th March 2005], Belgian Monarchists, urged Tony Blair to
"restore the honour" of King Leopold III; see Belgian bid to restore honour
of their king. Lt. Col.Louis Van Leemput the president of the Royal
League of Veterans of Leopold III, is asking the Prime Minister to repudiate
harsh comments directed at King Leopold by Sir Winston Churchill and other
British officials, both during the war and afterwards.
"We are not asking for an apology but a letter from Mr Blair, simply
stating that the British Government regrets the position taken by Sir
Winston Churchill, which caused internal problems in Belgium that led to the
abdication of the King," he said.
The league has also written to Belgium's prime minister to ask him to
rehabilitate Leopold, who died in 1983, and "lift the veil of lies which
covers this black page in our history".
I am not an historian but, as an outsider, my sympathies are with the late
King (who died on 25th September 1983). Leopold III continued his defiance
of the Germans right through the occupation. He rejected cooperation with
the Nazis and refused to administer Belgium in accordance with their
dictates. The King did meet with Hitler and successfully negotiated the
release of thousands of Belgian prisoners-of-war - an event which resulted
in some regarding him as a 'collaborator'. Although he was exonerated after
the war, he was never forgiven by the Belgium people as a whole and,
eventually, was forced to abdicate in 1951. The reasons for this are diverse
due in part to old divisions between the Dutch-speaking Flemish people in
the north and the French-speaking Walloons in the south. The reasons
probably also extend to Leopold's private life - his behaviour during the
war, particularly his re-marriage, incurring the violent disapproval of the French speaking
Belgian people. -
Message 2
Posted by Sabre-Wulf (U2142937) on Tuesday, 25th April 2006
Sorry, is it groundhog day today or something? Haven't we had this post before?
-
Message 3
Posted by LIII 1940 (U3621214) on Tuesday, 25th April 2006
The attack on the honour of King Leopold III and his army, continuous, until
today, to throw a shadow of distrust and resentment in the heart of the
Belgian people, certainly with the thousands of veterans and all Belgians
who are still very well aware of what happened in May 1940.
We await the verdict of honest people everywhere. -
Message 4
Posted by Sabre-Wulf (U2142937) on Tuesday, 25th April 2006
It is of capital importance to remember that the Belgian army, lead by the supreme commander, Leopold III, was forced to deliver combats against two German divisions, without any protection on both flanks. The French and
British forces had left their positions already on the 26th of May without informing Leopold III. They were on the run to the beaches of Dunkirk.
These hopeless combats by the Belgian army lasted for two days: May 26th and May 27th
In the meantime, the German Luftwaffe had started murderess attacks on the refugees (1 陆 million) in the combat zone.
Hitler's aim was very clear: surrender or... extermination of the population?
Leopold III was left with only one possible choice: to lay down the weapons.
All communications between the General Belgian Headquarter, the General Allied Headquarter as well as the British Expeditionary Force were
disrupted.
Under these circumstances, Leopold III informed his allies (on 27th of May, at 15h15) about his intentions through general Champon (French Military Attach茅) and colonel Davy (British military Mission) who in turn informed
the War Office where the message was received on May 27th at 16h40 by general Percival. The General Allied Headquarter at Vincennes received the message at 18h30.
Hitler's demand was very clear: surrender without any condition!
On May 28th, at 4h00, the Belgian army laid down their weapons by order of Leopold III. A courageous and noble act of a great man!
Leopold III, Commander in Chief of the Belgian Army, remained with his soldiers till the very end. He did not desert as was advised by his
ministers!
The heroic battles of the Belgian army, especially during the last two days, had provided extra time to the British and French military forces to realize their evacuation to Great Britain.
Without these battles, the British and French forces would have been completely annihilated!
Some 338.000 allied troupes were rescued; they became later on the core of the liberation army!
The great tragedy started when (on May 28th, at 8h30) Paul Reynaud, president of the French Council, held a vicious speech which was
broadcasted, and in which he declared:
"...that the Belgian army had surrendered, without conditions, in open field, by order of its King, without notifying his comrades in arms, French and British, opening the route to Dunkirk for the German divisions..."
In stating this false declaration, Paul Reynaud had no other intention but to indicate a scapegoat in order to cover his incompetence and the shortcomings of the French military organisation (ref. declaration by
general Weygand).
Proof of his incompetence was delivered when, on 16th June 1940, Paul Reynaud felt compelled to resign and to hand over the power to Mar茅chal
笔茅迟补颈苍.
Paul Reynaud succeeded even to impose his campaign of slander onto Winston
Churchill (who appeared to be very pleased with the indication of a common scapegoat):
On 29th May, Sir Roger Campbell, British ambassador in Paris, transmitted a request from Mr. Frossard, French minister of information, to the British Cabinet, urging the British authorities to avoid the disclosure of the truth
as stated by Admiral Roger Keyes. According to Mr. Frossard, the French public opinion had been "horrified by the "apparent treason of the Belgian king" (end of quote). Any denial would therefore be "an approval of defeatism".
On June 4th: Churchill held a speech in the House of Commons where he announced the successful completion of 'Operation Dynamo' (the withdrawal of the British Expeditionary Force from the continent). Until that day, he had left the British people unaware of the defeat. He took the opportunity to denounce King Leopold III in even stronger words than Paul Reynaud did before.
It is above any doubt that Churchill's attitude was dictated by, on the one hand, the political pressure by Paul Reynaud and, on the other hand, the fear to recognize publicly the shortcomings of the British Expeditionary Force: no training, no proper equipment, incompetent leadership of general Gort and general Pownall.
Even worse: these generals deserted on their allies (France and Belgium)without any warning -
Message 5
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Tuesday, 25th April 2006
Re: Message 1.
LIII,
are you Belgian by any chance?
I started my reading about L茅opold III, now some 5 years ago with the two books of the son of Sir Roger Keyes. In the meantime I read some thirty books on the same subject, especially the last ones by young Belgian historians not so much influenced by the emotionality of the after-war years.
I am a Belgian from the Flemish part. Will answer more tomorrow to you after seeking again for my arguments in these newly edited history books as from van de Weyngaerd? (spelling).
Have to leave in some moments for visits.
Welcome to the boards and greetings from near Bruges,
Warm regards,
Paul. -
Message 6
Posted by LIII 1940 (U3621214) on Tuesday, 25th April 2006
Written by Sir Admiral Keyes M.P. Admiral of the British Fleet May 1941
From his memoirs
I quote some important eyewitness passages for the man who was the British Liaison to the Belgian Army during the 18 days of fighting.
He remained with Leopold until May 27 before he returned to England.
Admiral Keyes diaries and papers and numerous documents prove beyond doubt that Churchill, his boss was fully aware of the fact that the Belgian army did not expose the flank of the BEF. The Belgian army by its brave and prolonged resistance until nearly two days after the BEF began its evacuation (without informing Belgians or French)
The Belgian Army held up the advance of what was originally 8 divisions and was increased to 14 divisions supported by the bulk of the Lutwaffe.
By holding up the Germans for this four day period and preventing them from cutting off the BEF鈥檚 retreat to the coast, made the Miracle of Dunkirk possible.
I鈥檓 not saying this; Lord Keyes Admiral of The British Fleet makes this written statement, based on his own eyewitness accounts.
"On the night of May 23, with grave misgivings King Leopold III fell back, as order by the General Weygand from his strong positions on the Scheldt to a very much weaker one behind the Lys river.
On May 24th General Weygand told the commanders of the British Army and French Northern army to attack with vigor southwards, in order to close the gap behind the German Panzer divisions, which had broken through.
By this time the Belgian army was heavily engaged, and it was evident to the Belgian GHQ that they were faced with an attack by eight German divisions, with the object of driving the Belgian army to the northward and severing its contact with the British army, which was now lying behind its pre May 10th phony war winter line on the frontier.
Although King Leopold did not know at the time and no message to this effect ever reached him. Lord Gort had already received orders to with draw to the coast.
In a message to Gort from Churchill 鈥 It is now nessessary 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.
Although Gort had his orders to tell king Leopold, he did not.
Mean while 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 aircraft was mercilessly bombing the refugees and the troops.
The Belgian Army was created solely for defense; it had neither tanks nor aircraft to mount any kind of offensive.
From the moment it was ordered to retreat to weaker and weaker positions, its fate was doomed.
With no RAF support, it maintained a 90-kilometer front.
Most British and French account fail to recognize the significance of the Battle along the Lys. Here the Belgian army suffered 4o,ooo casualties. Yet it may well be asked what would have happened to the BEF 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."
"Wat er ook moge gebeuren, mijn lot zal het uwe zijn鈥.
As long as the Belgian army could fight, it kept on fighting to the last. All reserves were in the fight up until the end.
Knowing he could do nothing further to help his Allies, King Leopold told Keyes, The British and the French that he intended to ask for an armistice.
His Government and the British Government asked King Leopold to leave his country and carry on the war from England.
As commander in chief of his army, he maintained his promise to his troops to share their fate. He made no separate peace and became a Prisoner of War
Written by Sir Admiral Keyes M.P. Admiral of the British Fleet May 1941
From his memoirs -
Message 7
Posted by LIII 1940 (U3621214) on Tuesday, 25th April 2006
Thus a little nation of 8 million souls approved expenditures to raise an
Army of twenty infantry divisions, and one Calvary corps and troops for the
fortifications, in all 650,000 men. To form a strong army of 650,000,
Belgium had to mobilize 8% of her entire population or 46 % of the men
between the ages of twenty and forty years of age. It was a tremendous
effort and strain. Can any historian doubt had the British or French made
the same effort and flexed its muscle, would Hitler have stayed in the
Rhineland? -
Message 8
Posted by JIMBOB52 (U3286524) on Wednesday, 26th April 2006
I'ld have a wee bit more sympathy for the Belgian royal family I wasn't aware of the Belgian Congo policy.
Probably the darkest episode in colonial history, and under the direct command of the Belgian Kings.
Leopold may have been slandered in regard to the war, but by any honest standard the man was a mass murderer and I find it hard to shed a tear for his reputation. -
Message 9
Posted by LIII 1940 (U3621214) on Wednesday, 26th April 2006
JIM3152
You have the wrong Leopold.
My post is about King Leopold III the fourth King of The Belgians.1901- 1983
You are refering to King Leopold II the second King of the Belgians 1835- 1909
I look forward to your comments on Leopold III not Leopold II.
LIII1940 -
Message 10
Posted by LIII 1940 (U3621214) on Wednesday, 26th April 2006
I recommend our readers read
Outrageous Fortune: The Tragedy of Leopold III of the Belgians, 1901-1941 by
Roger Keyes
Long overdue rehabilitation of Leopold III,
Keye's "Outrageous Fortune" casts a strong light into the part of World War
II that most would rather forget. It is also a systemic antidote to the
hagiographic musings of Stephen Ambrose.
The further I get into the book the more impressed I am by Leopold III.
Given the thankless task of spending 24% of the budget on rearming, feebly
buttressed by hypnotically apathetic French and woefully incompetent
British, and having a howling Nazi war machine on the border would snap
lesser men in half.
The thrust of the book thus far is that 1] Leopold had clear intelligence
from within Germany 2] His vigilance postponed the Nazi invasion from Nov
'39 thru to June '40, 3] that the Belgian defense was far superior to anyone
else's [including artillery, which was a big surprise to the Wehrmacht].
What else: Leopold managed to sideline homegrown Belgian Fascist Leon
Degrelle by dint of personal authority and leadership. Only after
capitulation did Degrelle get any play. There is a sympathetic treatment of
Leopold's youth and early years, including his service with father Albert on
his summers off from Eton, on the remaining 20 sq miles of Belgium free of
German occupation.
The book also highlights Leopold's difficulties with fractious Belgian
politics and double-dealing by Churchill. His accomplishments in national
unity were nothing short of astonishing. None of the political parties
(Belgian, French or British) come out looking very good.
I would recomend this as an essential part of any serious scholar or
laymen's understanding the antecedents to the Second World War. -
Message 11
Posted by JIMBOB52 (U3286524) on Wednesday, 26th April 2006
No, I specifically refered to Belgian Kings. I could be wrong here but I don't recall there being any change in policy in the congo after Leopold 3rds acsension to the throne.
-
Message 12
Posted by LIII 1940 (U3621214) on Wednesday, 26th April 2006
Paul: I'm Canadian
However, I'm one of the English speaking spokespersons for THE Royal League of Veterans of His Majesty King Leopold III.
I wish to help them overturn the GREAT LIE propagated all over the English-speaking world by
Winston Churchill.
It will be our mission to vindicate his majesties
reputation with the use of irrefutable historical facts.
LIII1940 -
Message 13
Posted by FormerlyOldHermit (U3291242) on Wednesday, 26th April 2006
I'd personally never heard of this (the remarks or the campaign to get rid of them). I think very few people have ever heard this story and I think you would be doing more damage than repair by continuing to raise awareness of it as some people may just grab at Churchill, not Leopold.
-
Message 14
Posted by LIII 1940 (U3621214) on Wednesday, 26th April 2006
JIM3152
Sir, Leopold II was an autocrat in a time when all European powers exploited their colonies.
He personally owned the Congo and it was annexed by Belgium in 1908 a year before his death.
I agree with you completely that what Leopold II
did was crimes against humanity.
However, be assured with some easy digging you will find other European colonials including the British were far from lily white in their dealings with their colonies.
You say you don't recall?
You use the term mass murderer!
I would respectfully ask that you check your facts and refrain from painting the same brush on Leopold III, its simply unjust. -
Message 15
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Wednesday, 26th April 2006
Re: Message 8.
Jim,
I made a whole series of replies to Tim of Aclea some time ago, based on new information and put it all in the right context also on the not so good historically founded "King's Leopold Ghost" by Adam Hochschild. I don't denigrate what happened, but history writing has its rights. And I could debunk a lot of inaccurate writing.
I started here also a thread about the competent history writer and had a lot of interesting and in depth-thought replies.
Warm regards,
Paul.
PS. It is already the second can of worms I opened today(as about the Holocaust of miss Nathalie on the History Hub and I have no time to start an in depth debate... -
Message 16
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Wednesday, 26th April 2006
Re: Message 12.
Leopold III,
I read your http from Ostend and it is in Dutch. Do you understand Dutch (perhaps from Flemish descent in Canada?).
I lived a whole part of my life in Ostend and now I am a bit embarrassed, because I went to the Roman Catholic College in Ostend in the Vindictive avenue...It is even possible that I know some of these people from the committee.
I wasn't aware that there were still such organisations? I am now nearly 63 and find them a bit old fashioned.
Embarrassed in that way that I borrowed this afternoon three books that I already have read. There was only one tome of the son of Lord Keyes' two books in the local library Bruges Belgium today. I think the second one available in French "L'Echec au Roi". I didn't look in it because I still remember the two books. The first is available in Dutch. It is rather in favour of King Leopold III and of Miss Baels. My father, who was a fishmerchant, and as many others he called her: Miss Crevette (Miss Shrimp) as she was the daughter of Hendrik Baels and his mother was with a fish cart along the streets. He was the governor of the province West-Flanders before the war. There is a Baels in the Ostend committee perhaps family of her (Lyliane Baels)(king Leopold married her during the war and the marriage was done by Cardinal Van Roey)...
If you can read Dutch or French?
The books I brought from the local library of Bruges are:
Written by Leopold III himself and published on his wish after his dead by Princess Lyliane on the one hundredth anniversary of his birtday:
"Kroongetuige" (Crown witness) by Leopold III ISBN 90 209 4378 2 (2001)
Even here comes in his foreword the aversion of the "wildgroei" (proliferation) of the political parties and unions.
"Een koningsdrama. De biografie van Leopold III" (a kingsdrama) by Marc van den Wijngaert, Michel Dumoulin, Vincent Dujardin ISBN 90 223 1587 8 (2001)
"Leopold III de Koning, het Land, de Oorlog" (the king, the land, the war) by Jan Velaers, Herman Van Goethem ISBN 90 209 23870 (1994) This book brings a lot of new information from newly freed national and international archives and personal testimonies as from unpublished writings from key persons as his adviser Count Capelle.
LIII it would lead me to far for this evening to go in every detail, but my conclusions in essence after reading about 30 books about this question, are:
Leopold wasn't responsible for the defeat of the Belgian Army. I just finished an in depth study for these boards about the Battle of France with all the details. I can do it for the 18 days campaign too in Belgium and know a lot more about it.
It seems! that Leopold convinced the government with Spaak for the neutrality course...And the government published it with their support...(one can make a complete study of one tome about this alone)
The Belgian army didn't it not worser than the French army, based on the same policy as the French and not open to the modern (Estienne, de Gaulle, Liddell Hart, Guderian) warfare.
Leopold had authoritarian theories as against the parliamentary democracy.
The key question however is the event of Weynendaele. He had to go with the government to France and that was his big mistake and perhaps it had been better that he was head of the state and not commander in chief of the army, even that was in question legally. But it is perhaps all human...his father had done it and he was also stayed behind the Yser on Belgian soil in WWI resulting in difficulties with the allied higher command...
Hadn't he not been commander in chief than an army general could have negociated with the Germans on part of the government and the king as in Holland on the right moment. And yes there was a bitter fight at the Lys by the Ardeense Jagers/Chasseurs Ardennais (a kind of an elite army) My family was nearly killed at the Lys fight and the reprisals of the Germans against the civilians. But again my mother told me that the Germans had better tactics. While there was a fierce fight at the junction between the Lys and the drainage canal of the Lys, the Germans were crossing some miles further on this canal with rubber boats and made a brigehead behind one side of the Belgians.
And all the other difficulties, if Leopold hadn't stayed in the country, would be avoided, as it was in Holland.
I made also for this boards a survey about the Belgian resistance and collaboration. And yes, there was before the war a rightist monarchist party especially among the army. And when it turned to the National Legion, it was only when it was decapitated by the Germans that it turned to Britain and in the begining not trusted by the Belgian government in London because of its rightist past and its links with the monarchy.
LIII, it is not easy to condense thirty books in some lines and make it understandable (smile).
I want not to offend my Ostend compatriots, but in a time that the monarchy isn't that highlight anymore in Belgium, is it not a bit old fashioned to persist in all this stuff?
Hope I didn't offend you too much and with all my knowledge I stay open to any question and I can answer everything in detail.
Warm regards and welcome to the boards,
Paul.
PS. That is now already the third can of worms I opened today and I have not so much time to explain myself in detail as I wanted. -
Message 17
Posted by LIII 1940 (U3621214) on Saturday, 29th April 2006
Paul
Please contact me via our web site
-
Message 18
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Saturday, 29th April 2006
Re: Message 17.
LIII,
I contacted you on the address you mentioned in the "120,000 French" thread on the History Hub, but it didn't work. Have a look there.
Warm regards,
Paul. -
Message 19
Posted by Plancenoit (U1237957) on Saturday, 29th April 2006
I think it's extremely unwise to disregard Paul's opinions on anything...particularly the history of Belgium, and the Benelux.
This whole concept that Churchill destroyed Leopold's reputation because he surrendered and stayed in Belgium has to be a pile of Pooh.
The Belgian people did not want Leopold as their king as the referendum result on the question was absolutely clear. I suspect he was a brave man, perhaps a little naive in some respects, but his memory is only tarnished by the results of a democratic post war referendum of his own people, not what Churchill (or others) may have said or written.
To post on the 麻豆约拍 boards a message which, when all is said and done, accuses the British/French forces of 'doing a runner' for Dunkirk and abandoning Belgium completely is, quite frankly, bizarre and total nonsense.
Leopold II, is a story in his own right. Leopold III was a very unfortunate, unlucky man, who was totally overrun (in every sense) by circumstances over which he had no control.
Celebrate his memory. Argue his cause, that he acted for the best interests of his people in a European historically freak situation. But please do not alienate the British, or for that matter the French, by passing the blame....when we all know the facts may come back to bite your backside.
All the best,
Dan. -
Message 20
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Saturday, 29th April 2006
Re: Message 19.
Daniel, my British friend from Brussels,
I made an elaborated message about all this, but I think the Mods eliminated it suddenly when I started of the French language public Belgian TV and a forum I saw about around the period of the books I mentioned: 2000.
I am upset because they do it on such a sneaky way. Half past midnight and tired.
It is again a lesson for me to edit them first apart as Tas recommended to me and then submit them to the message board.
Nevertheless warm regards to you, Daniel (not to the 麻豆约拍),
Paul.
PS. I didn't say anything wrong in my opinion. -
Message 21
Posted by Plancenoit (U1237957) on Sunday, 30th April 2006
Paul,
I fell foul of the Mods with a bit of the Italian national anthem.
Apparently posts have to be in English, brief references in other languages are overlooked if it is 'necessary to the context and the point you are trying to make'.
Mine was just playful singing in the bar, and of no importance, but why they remove your posts which are important part of many threads, is a mystery to me.
All the best,
Dan -
Message 22
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Sunday, 30th April 2006
Re: Message 21.
Daniel,
I didn't use one foreign word in my text. I think it has something to do with calling names in my example of the RTBF discussion.
But I start again in episodes, then the mods can eliminate one episode and r
then it isn't that long to renew it.
By reading all the books about Leopold III starting with the two from the son of Lord Keyes, LIII mentioned, I learned a lot about history writing. And yes, my last thread about history writing and the many replies to it and the whole discussion around it applies fully about the evolution in the perception of the King's Question (the Leopold III question).
The issue is more complex than you think and it was and still is an highly emotional matter for the older people. However most youngsters aren't interested anymore. Only old history buffs as me are still looking to it. I give examples in another message.
Warm regards,
Paul. -
Message 23
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Sunday, 30th April 2006
Addendum message 22.
Daniel,
interesting and emotional for the older ones and for old history buffs as me.
I was 7 years old in 1950 and could hardly read, but yet enough to read the frontpage and I even remember the weekly, the "ABC" with on the front page the ascendance to the throne of the young Baldwin, eldest son of Leopold, with some titles in big capitals.
Since I heard a lot of stories from my parents and the events of the "18 days campaign" with my father as soldier in it and my mother and uncle as nearly victims of the reprisals during the fierce fighting at the junction of the Lys with the drainage canal of the Lys on Saterday 25 May 1940.
My mother was in favour of Leopold III. She said he saved Belgium from further bloodshed after they had done what they could, but she said also that it was an authoritarian as all the Coburgs. My father was rather neutral to hostile to Belgium, because he found that Flanders wasn't treated well by the Belgian Francophone upper-class and by that also against the King of Belgium and all things to do with Brussels.
For all these reasons I have always had a big interest in this particular period of Belgian history, but I only started to read about it in depth about 9 years ago.
I will give an example of the still emotional approach in nowadays Belgium in the next message.
Warm regards,
Paul. -
Message 24
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Sunday, 30th April 2006
Addendum message 23.
Daniel,
I saw an RTBF debate I think around 2000, the year when ther were a lot of new publications, sparked perhaps by the book published by Princess Lyliane from the testimony of Leopold III himself.
The debate was done on the RTBF (the Francophone public Belgian TV). There were in the panel historians from Flemish and Francophone side. But also politicians, especially from the Francophone side while it was the French-language TV. (among the historians if I remember it well, authors both from the Walloon or Flemish side who worked together to edit the books that I mentioned in my reply to LIII)
After a documentary about Leopold III there was a debate. But in my opinion the historians (I had then already studied a bit the question) said it all as it really historically was, but the Walloon politicians, especially one (I will not call his name while it isn't important for the British readers) talked a lot of balderdash. only one politician (and as it is positive in my opinion I will call her name) the daughter of Henri Spaak said what was in my opinion reasonable, although it can be that it isn't called reasonable by my Flemish Belgian compatriots (smile).
Only to serve as an example that in the year 2000 after all those studies there wasn't still an unanimous evaluation of the King's Question available among the politicians and as such I think also not by the general population. But for once the historians from both the Francophone and Flemish side seems to agree about what happened and that is a good thing in my humble opinion.
LIII, what is your opinion?
Warm regards,
Paul. -
Message 25
Posted by LIII 1940 (U3621214) on Tuesday, 2nd May 2006
The Royal Question is a by-product of what occurred in 1940.
My aim is to unearth the great lie.
I am dealing solely with the military events and the political maneuvering of the allied governments and that of the wartime Belgian government.
The facts that have been suppressed and the great lie that was propagated all over the world is found in almost every history book.
Retired Admiral of the Fleet, Sir Roger Keyes (1972-1945), who had been
recalled to serve as liaison officer to the Belgian King Leopold in 1939,
was appointed Director of Combined Operations from 1940-41. He closely
observed the King's conduct at the time of the capitulation and expressed
his thoughts in his diaries. Later his son, Lord Keyes, 2nd Baron, naval
officer and author (14th March 1919-4th March 2005) [see TimesOnLine
Obituaries] believed, as did his father, that historians had treated King
Leopold III most unfairly and that he had been made a scapegoat for the
defeat of France and the British Army in 1940. He wrote a book, Outrageous
Fortune, published in 1984, in which he set out to exonerate Leopold, whom
he regarded as having been traduced by France and Britain for having ordered
the Belgian Army to lay down its arms on May 28, 1940, after it had
courageously fought the Wehrmacht for 18 days.
Last year [18th March 2005], Belgian Monarchists, urged Tony Blair to
"restore the honour" of King Leopold III; see Belgian bid to restore honour
of their king. Lt. Col. Louis Van Leemput, the president of the Royal
League of Veterans of Leopold III, is asking the Prime Minister to repudiate
harsh comments directed at King Leopold by Sir Winston Churchill and other
British officials, both during the war and afterwards. -
Message 26
Posted by LIII 1940 (U3621214) on Tuesday, 2nd May 2006
Plancenoit
"To post on the 麻豆约拍 boards a message which, when all is said and done, accuses the British/French forces of 'doing a runner' for Dunkirk and abandoning Belgium completely is, quite frankly, bizarre and total nonsense."
Dan, Iam not saying this!
I'm quoting irrefutable sources, facts that have been suppressed.
My backside need not be protected, because what I have said is the truth.
Your comment about a pile of pooh shows your complete lack of understanding of this issue.
You say its bizarre and total nonsense.
In so far as Paul's opinions are concerned he is not the only expert in this study.
I stand by the best eye witness history has to offer in this issue, the man who was with King Leopold right up to the day of Surrender.
That man was Admiral Roger Keyes later Admiral of the Fleet actually appointed by Churchill.
Retired Admiral of the Fleet, Sir Roger Keyes (1972-1945), who had been
recalled to serve as liaison officer to the Belgian King Leopold in 1939,
was appointed Director of Combined Operations from 1940-41. He closely
observed the King's conduct at the time of the capitulation and expressed
his thoughts in his diaries. Later his son, Lord Keyes, 2nd Baron, naval
officer and author (14th March 1919-4th March 2005) [see TimesOnLine
Obituaries] believed, as did his father, that historians had treated King
Leopold III most unfairly and that he had been made a scapegoat for the
defeat of France and the British Army in 1940. He wrote a book, Outrageous
Fortune, published in 1984, in which he set out to exonerate Leopold, whom
he regarded as having been traduced by France and Britain for having ordered
the Belgian Army to lay down its arms on May 28, 1940, after it had
courageously fought the Wehrmacht for 18 days.
I stand be hind the testimony of Churchill's son Randolph.
Lord Keyes would, many years later, state (in his book: A sea of troubles")
that the references, made by Churchill in his book "The Second World War",
were in fact so unfair and misleading-due to omissions and distortions of
the facts-that his son, Randolph Churchill, (according to the former
archduke Otto von Habsburg) furiously said to him: "What you have said and
written about this, is nothing else but a heap of lies, as you very well
know".
The archduke who was present, describes in his book "Naissance d'un
Continent" this heated discussion, which took place at Chequers, the
official country house of the British prime minister.
He remembers how Churchill admitted, in a provocative way: "Of course these
were lies, but you must not forget that the history of a period is
determined by its best author. I am and will remain this author and
therefore, whatever I wrote will have to be accepted as being the truth".
Winston Churchill had, nevertheless, admitted in 1943 (!): .We went at war,
unprepared and almost unarmed."
Further, in his memoirs, he stated about the British Expeditionary Force:
".it was only a symbolic contribution..."
Sir Roger Keyes, Lord of Zeebrugge and Dover, had been appointed by Winston
Churchill, on 10th of May, as a special liaison officer to King Leopold III.
The Admiral remained with the King until the evening of 27th May, when he
and Colonel Davy were picked up by a torpedo boat. They reached Harwich at
8h30 on 28th May.
These two officers were expert witnesses of the heroic battles of the
Belgian army. but Churchill had already made up his mind: he, just like Paul
Reynaud, was going to indicate Leopold III and his army as a scapegoat.
He did not want to hear the real story of the two gentlemen officers;
instead he categorically did forbid Admiral Keyes to speak out publicly.
Even though King George spoke out in favour of Leopold III, Churchill
persevered in his vendetta against Leopold III and the Belgian people which
he seemed to dislike altogether
When Winston Churchill died, he took his shameful lies into his grave....
The attack on the honour of King Leopold III and his army, continuous, until
today, to throw a shadow of distrust and resentment in the heart of the
Belgian people, certainly with the thousands of veterans and all Belgians
who are still very well aware of what happened in May 1940. -
Message 27
Posted by Plancenoit (U1237957) on Tuesday, 2nd May 2006
The facts that have been suppressed and the great lie that was propagated all over the world is found in almost every history book.
....... believed, as did his father, that historians had treated King
Leopold III most unfairly and that he had been made a scapegoat for the
defeat of France and the British Army in 1940. He wrote a book, Outrageous
Fortune, published in 1984, in which he set out to exonerate Leopold, whom
he regarded as having been traduced by France and Britain for having ordered
the Belgian Army to lay down its arms on May 28, 1940, after it had
courageously fought the Wehrmacht for 18 days.
听
I don't think Leopold III was made a scapegoat for the fall of France in 1940. The French, Belgians, and yes the British too, were defeated by what was at that time a far superior German army. Do you really believe Churchill and the Allies expected Belgium to defeat Nazi Germany on it's own?? or stand and be destroyed by the Nazi forces?? Very doubtful.
What is in question is Leopold's conduct during the occupation of Belgium. Some see him as a hero defending the rights of the Belgian people against their agressors, others see him as a collaborator. Leopold abdicated after the war because he no longer commanded the respect of his own people, as indicated in a free and open referendum in Belgium. Churchill and the Allies had nothing whatsoever to do with that. It was a 'homegrown' decision.
Paul has stated this subject is likely to spark furious debate amongst the older (no disrespect) generation in Begium, and personally I think Belgium has far more pressing and current issues, and an apology from Tony Blair on this issue wouldn't be worth the paper it's written on. The debate will live on.
All the Best
Dan -
Message 28
Posted by LIII 1940 (U3621214) on Tuesday, 2nd May 2006
Is this a history board?
I'm discussing history and I'm doing this for the veterans.
" I think Belgium has far more pressing and current issues"
I agree, it does.
However, for those veterans still alive the issue is very important.
As I mentioned to Paul, The Royal Question is a by-product of 1940.
I'm dealing with the military events and the lie that was perpetrated that had practically every English written historical account tainted because of the great lie.
You know it was Churchill who said.
"A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get
its pants on."
If left unchallenged the issue will be forgotten.
It鈥檚 easy for people like you to pick apart and find fault with comments like
鈥"To post on the 麻豆约拍 boards a message which, when all is said and done, accuses the British/French forces of 'doing a runner' for Dunkirk and abandoning Belgium completely is, quite frankly, bizarre and total nonsense."
Plus a pile of pooh and that my backside is going to be bitten.鈥
Is this how you debate?
Good debaters speak with facts; innuendo only shows weakness with no real substance to score a conclusive factual point. -
Message 29
Posted by Plancenoit (U1237957) on Tuesday, 2nd May 2006
I am speaking with facts. There is no innuendo. There is no lie, which as yet you have failed to explain, merely plagiarise from the works and opinions of others.
Explain yourself. What are you trying to claim?? Leopold did defeat the Nazi's in '40?? Leopold did not decide to save lives and capitulate?? Where are your facts??
In what way are you trying to rewrite history to suit your own campaign or ends??
I challenge you to prove that the Belgians did not vote for Leopold's abdication because he lost the confidence of his people by his actions.
I challenge you to prove their is not a strong feeling that Leopold gave too much co-operation to the occupying forces.
I am dealing with military facts and the 'lie' that is attempting to be born 65 years after the event..... for what purpose?? A letter from Tony Blair will do nothing to change the facts, and I'm sure you know that. Does an apology from the Japanese suddenly change the history of the far east?? Of course not.
It is incredibly easy to pick apart such comments as the ones you have made several times on these boards.
Good debaters speak with facts, and the facts are there for all to see....if you can take the time to look. After all, this is a history board.
All the best,
Dan -
Message 30
Posted by Plancenoit (U1237957) on Tuesday, 2nd May 2006
Absolutely no end of information regarding Leopold, the occupation etc, etc.
I think the only point we are likely to agree on is that the Belgian forces did all that they could, and more, and fought bravely against overwhelming odds. Leopold acted against the wishes of the Belgian Government, and has been vilified for it. However, the fact that he acted with interest of his people at heart is open to debate.
When Belgium surrendered, you could hardly expect Churchill to applaud and suggest Britain follow suit, when he was making his "...fight them on the beaches,..." speeches. It would have destroyed morale.
As I said previously. Leopold was a victim of circumstances, and I would be prepared to leave it at that. After all, I think the majority of Brits respect Leopold, and the Belgians.
All the best
Dan -
Message 31
Posted by LIII 1940 (U3621214) on Wednesday, 3rd May 2006
"There is no lie, which as yet you have failed to explain "
June 4, 1940
House of Commons
Churchill's Speech
Suddenly, without prior consultation, with the least possible notice,
The surrender of the Belgian Army compelled the British at the shortest notice to cover a flank to the sea more than 30 miles in length. Otherwise all would have been cut off, and all would have shared the fate to which King Leopold had condemned the finest Army his country had ever formed. So in doing this and in exposing this flank"
-----------------------------------------------
It is of capital importance to remember that the Belgian army, lead by the
supreme commander, Leopold III, was forced to deliver combats against two
German divisions, without any protection on both flanks.
The French and British forces had left their positions already on the 26th
of May without informing Leopold III. They were on the run to the beaches
of Dunkirk.
These hopeless combats by the Belgian army lasted for two days: May 26th
and May 27th
The heroic battles of the Belgian army, especially during the last two days,
had provided extra time to the British and French military forces to realize
their evacuation to Great Britain.
Without these battles, the British and French forces would have been
completely annihilated!
Some 338.000 allied troupes were rescued; they became later on the core of
the liberation army
In stating this false declaration, Paul Reynaud had no other intention but
to indicate a scapegoat in order to cover his incompetence and the
shortcomings of the French military organisation (ref. declaration by
general Weygand).
Proof of his incompetence was delivered when, on 16th June 1940, Paul
Reynaud felt compelled to resign and to hand over the power to Mar茅chal
笔茅迟补颈苍.
Paul Reynaud succeeded even to impose his campaign of slander onto Winston
Churchill (who appeared to be very pleased with the indication of a common
scapegoat):
On 29th May, Sir Roger Campbell, British ambassador in Paris, transmitted a
request from Mr. Frossard, French minister of information, to the British
Cabinet, urging the British authorities to avoid the disclosure of the truth
as stated by Admiral Roger Keyes. According to Mr. Frossard, the French
public opinion had been "horrified by the "apparent treason of the Belgian
king" (end of quote). Any denial would therefore be "an approval of
defeatism".
On June 4th: Churchill held a speech in the House of Commons where he
announced the successful completion of 'Operation Dynamo' (the withdrawal of
the British Expeditionary Force from the continent).
Until that day, he had left the British people unaware of the defeat. He
took the opportunity to denounce King Leopold III in even stronger words
than Paul Reynaud did before.
It is above any doubt that Churchill's attitude was dictated by, on the one
hand, the political pressure by Paul Reynaud and, on the other hand, the
fear to recognize publicly the shortcomings of the British Expeditionary
Force: no training, no proper equipment, incompetent leadership of general
Gort and general Pownall.
Even worse: these generals deserted on their allies (France and Belgium)
without any warning! -
Message 32
Posted by LIII 1940 (U3621214) on Wednesday, 3rd May 2006
"I challenge you to prove that the Belgians did not vote for Leopold's abdication because he lost the confidence of his people by his actions."
"I challenge you to prove their is not a strong feeling that Leopold gave too much co-operation to the occupying forces "
---------------------------------------------------
I am not an historian but, as an outsider, my sympathies are with the late King (who died on 25th September 1983). Leopold III continued his defiance of the Germans right through the occupation. He rejected cooperation with the Nazis and refused to administer Belgium in accordance with their dictates. The King did meet with Hitler and successfully negotiated the release of thousands of Belgian prisoners-of-war - an event which resulted in some regarding him as a 'collaborator'. Although he was exonerated after the war, he was never forgiven by the French Speaking Belgian people and, eventually, was forced to abdicate in 1951.
However not before a demrocratic plebiste found that 58% of all Belgians wanted his return.
The reasons for this are diverse due in part to old divisions between the Dutch-speaking Flemish people in the north and the French-speaking Walloons in the south. The reasons probably also extend to Leopold's private life - his behaviour during the war, particularly his re-marriage, incurring the violent disapproval of the French speaking Belgian people.
As mentioned before the Royal Question is a by -product of the events of 1940
It should also be noted that the War Time Belgian government waffled three times on King Leopold. At first they were against his majesty.
Then they made a complete about face and spoke nothing but praise for the King.
On the Liberation of Belgium, and the Kings rescue by the Americans in Austria, they invited him back. However, they did not want The Princess de Rethy to accompany him.
To this Leopold balked and the Royal Question took shape.
Paul Henri Spaak more than any other Belgian was reponsible for leading the forces against King Leopold. -
Message 33
Posted by LIII 1940 (U3621214) on Wednesday, 3rd May 2006
Liddell Hart
Although the British military establishment has never publicly acknowledged the King Leopold III and his army, by their prolonged resistance saved the BEF, the world famous military expert Liddell Hart saw no reason for such reticence.
In 1960 delivering a lecture to students and faculty at King College.
Liddell Hart bluntly declared 鈥 The British army at Dunkirk was saved from destruction by King Leopold III of the Belgians.
Captain Liddell Hart said that Sir Arthur Bryant鈥檚 claim that the saving of the BEF was mainly due to Lord Alanbrooke did not stand up to examination.
Hart went on to say, 鈥 the unfortunate Belgian Army absorbed the weight of the German frontal attack from the north. By the time the Belgian front had turned the BEF had slipped out of reach and were nearing Dunkirk.
Liddell Hart went further to say, 鈥 if King Leopold III had left Belgium on May 25th as his ministers and Churchill had urged him to do so. The Belgian army would have surrendered immediately, instead of fighting on until early morning of May 28th.
IF SO, THE BRITISH WOULD HAVE HAD VERY LITTLE CHANCE OF ESCAPING ENCIRCLEMENT, SO THAT IT COULD VERY REASONABLY BE CLAIMED THAT THEY WERE SAVED BY KING LEOPOLD III, WHO THEN WAS VIOLENTLY ABUSED BY BRITON ANF FRANCE -
Message 34
Posted by Plancenoit (U1237957) on Wednesday, 3rd May 2006
Liddell Hart
Although the British military establishment has never publicly acknowledged the King Leopold III and his army, by their prolonged resistance saved the BEF, the world famous military expert Liddell Hart saw no reason for such reticence.
In 1960 delivering a lecture to students and faculty at King College.
Liddell Hart bluntly declared 鈥 The British army at Dunkirk was saved from destruction by King Leopold III of the Belgians.
Captain Liddell Hart said that Sir Arthur Bryant鈥檚 claim that the saving of the BEF was mainly due to Lord Alanbrooke did not stand up to examination.
Hart went on to say, 鈥 the unfortunate Belgian Army absorbed the weight of the German frontal attack from the north. By the time the Belgian front had turned the BEF had slipped out of reach and were nearing Dunkirk.
Liddell Hart went further to say, 鈥 if King Leopold III had left Belgium on May 25th as his ministers and Churchill had urged him to do so. The Belgian army would have surrendered immediately, instead of fighting on until early morning of May 28th.
IF SO, THE BRITISH WOULD HAVE HAD VERY LITTLE CHANCE OF ESCAPING ENCIRCLEMENT, SO THAT IT COULD VERY REASONABLY BE CLAIMED THAT THEY WERE SAVED BY KING LEOPOLD III, WHO THEN WAS VIOLENTLY ABUSED BY BRITON ANF FRANCE
听
That's very good,...but once again you are resorting "IF SO...", I thought we were examining the facts??
We are going round in circles.
The overriding fact is that you will not accept what happened, happened. If only things had been slightly different, there would be no need for this discussion.
Leopold and the Belgian army held as long as they could, and bought precious time for the Allies. Fact, I hope you agree.
The Allies, and Churchill in particular looked for someone to blame, as is always the case in these situations, to prevent a collapse of morale and to keep up the fight against Nazi Germany. The British public were not kept fully informed of the situation in Belgium and Northern France until the majority of the forces British/French/Belgian etc were clear of immediate danger. Leopold took the brunt, because Leopold stayed in Belgium...now Nazi occupied. What is so surprising about that??
The title of your post is "King Leopold III of the Belgians, the scapegoat who saved the British from defeat in 1940". Surely that in itself is an opinion, not a fact.
The BEF and Allies escaped at Dunkirk largely due to a holding action by the Belgians. Fact.
The Allies won the war. Fact.
Leopold got his throne back, only to be turfed out by his own people. Fact.
As for the 'lie' all the facts are there for people, present and future, to make up their own minds whether Churchill 'lied' to destroy Leopold, or 'lied' to go on and defeat Fascism.
An apology from Tony Blair.....for what???
Best regards
Dan
PS please excuse typo, errors..had to rush this. -
Message 35
Posted by LIII 1940 (U3621214) on Wednesday, 3rd May 2006
It looks like the only person on this board that has a monopoly on facts is you Plancenoit.
Fact: Sir Roger Keyes British Liaison to King Leopold III was in fact forbidden by Churchill not to disclose the truth.
Fact: Churchill lied when he stated in his speech that the Belgians had abandoned their allies without proper notice.
Branding Leopold as a traitor.
Although King Leopold did not know at the time and no message to this effect ever reached him. Lord Gort had already received orders to with draw to the coast.
In a message to Gort from Churchill 鈥 It is now nessessary 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.
Although Gort had his orders to tell king Leopold, he did not.
The root of the great lie that was propagated all of the world. -
Message 36
Posted by Plancenoit (U1237957) on Wednesday, 3rd May 2006
It looks like the only person on this board that has a monopoly on facts is you Plancenoit.
Fact: Sir Roger Keyes British Liaison to King Leopold III was in fact forbidden by Churchill not to disclose the truth.
Fact: Churchill lied when he stated in his speech that the Belgians had abandoned their allies without proper notice.
Branding Leopold as a traitor.
Although King Leopold did not know at the time and no message to this effect ever reached him. Lord Gort had already received orders to with draw to the coast.
In a message to Gort from Churchill 鈥 It is now nessessary 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.
Although Gort had his orders to tell king Leopold, he did not.
The root of the great lie that was propagated all of the world.
听
How can I possibly have a monopoly on facts when you seem to be able to ignore everything which is already known!! "Keyes was forbidden to tell the truth" for the love of God man that was 66 years ago, with Hitler at the door!! We all know what happened and why.
Can I therefore take it that :-
a) You do not agree that the Belgians held for as long as possible, and surrendered only when told to do so by Leopold, against the wishes of the Belgian Government??
b) You do not agree that the Allies made Leopold the scapegoat at the time, to save face and to continue the struggle against the Nazis?? (ask Paul Ryckier about propoganda, he will explain better than I can)
c) Therefore, It is a lie (an illusion, perhaps?) that Leopold was returned to throne, with full knowledge of, and without opposition from the Allies (including Churchill), and huge swathes of Brussels are now called 'Churchill' 'Montgomery' 'Roosevelt' etc?
d) Leopold was forced to abdicate by Churchill, not his Belgian subjects??
e) You expect an apology from Tony Blair on behalf of the British people for surviving long enough against Nazi Germany, to be able to co-operate with other countries to liberate Europe, and your beloved Leopold?? Why didn't they put him on trial there and then, and be done with it. Because he did nothing wrong, perhaps??.
Your 'logic' escapes me. You seem to have chosen to ignore historical events and rewrite things according to your opinion, and perhaps the opinion of Mr Keyes.
You are beginning to sound like all those who lost their lives defending, or liberating Begium did so in vain. Purely for the reputation of one man.
"Greater love have no man than this, that he lay down his life for his friend" What price a reputation??
I refuse to back down to your attempted rewrite of history and your search for an apology for events in the wider picture, you just don't seem to be able to grasp.
You can pick and choose a), b), c), and twist as much as you like. Nothing will change. I only hope you will see the light before people start to question your true motives for demanding an apology from Britain and the Allies.
Best regards,
Dan -
Message 37
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Wednesday, 3rd May 2006
Re: Message 16.
Correction.
when I spoke about the Belgian resistance and collaboration I said : "National Legion".
But it has to be "Belgian Legion" "Belgisch Legioen"/"L茅gion Belge" and it later changed during the war to the "Secret Army" "Geheim Leger"/"Arm茅e Secr猫te".
As I said it ememerged from before the war from circles in the army around Leopold III with rightist authoritarian views.
It was still rightist and authoritarian during the war as emerging restistance group. Only when it was decapitated by the Germans they were seeking contact with the English. But the Belgian Governement in London held the boat of in the beginning, but the Belgian Legion slowly turned to a more moderate group the Secret Army, while most "Leopoldists" were taken by the Germans.
All these difficulties and misunderstandements came from Leopold staying in Belgium. -
Message 38
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Wednesday, 3rd May 2006
Re: Message 25.
LIII,
didn't you read my message 16. You seemingly have only read the books of Lord Keyes'son.
For a more appropriate list of books and articles read:
Read especially: I. The War for legitimacy in politics and culture: the second part.
"The centre Lippens, a think tank of Belgian conservative notables..." Yes those "Lippens..."
"after the capitulation the King chose to remain in Belgium. He took intitiatives with a political character, aimed at the continuation of the Belgian state, after the implementation of authoritarian reform, in a continent dominated by Nazi Germany. This subject has been studied by J.Stengers for the year 1940 and by J Velaers and H Van Goethem for the whole period of the war. All these projects were vetoed by the Germans, whose prime concern was the exploitation of the country and the maintenance of peace and order"
LIII, I agree the return of the King was voted in the Plebiscite mainly by the Flemings and some royalist Francophones. And it was due to the Flemings that the whole for Belgium came above the 50%.
But if the mislead Flemings (by a royalist Roman-Catholic press) had known what now came at the surface after in depth historical research it could have been that they also were ranging with Paul-Henri Spaak throwing cobble stones toe the "Gendarmerie".
As for Paul Reynaud and the Belgian ministers you were right as perhaps for Churchill. It was all in the heat of the moment. But they tried to come later to a compromise for the better good of the country and even I read last week up to 1943 they tried to bring him to Britain but he was so stubborn...He was only right and the others were wrong... I have the opinion after reading all these books that he was wrong...
Even after the war an Achille Van acker was for the compromise against all odds. Read once how Leopold wanted to reform the Belgian State (his thoughts during the war for after the war)...And they had to call for him to do that...How he could think in that direction for after the war is beyond my comprehension.
Warm regards,
Paul. -
Message 39
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Wednesday, 3rd May 2006
Re: Message 33.
LIII,
I did a lot of research for Liddell Hart, also on his study the same as General Estienne in France about the use of the tank weapon.
Also for his version of the Hitler "Haltbefehl" which IMO was the survival at Dunkirk. Lidell Hart mentioned a conversation with General Blumentritt about that. But most historians seems not to follow Liddell Hart in his "The other Side of the Hill". I didn't found after an intensive research on the internet not that much about him. I asked why to "John Hyatt" in the time, but didn't receive any concrete answer. Is it because he is not well known as historian in Britain? I ask it again to the British contributors.
And I am not sure if the Belgian army wouldn't have resisted the 26th and 27th May without a King Leopold in the country?
Warm regards,
Paul. -
Message 40
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Wednesday, 3rd May 2006
Re: message 36.
Daniel,
holidays to Spain for a forthnight from the end of the week. Don't know if I will have time to add my drivel to these boards before my leaving for Spain.
And have to reply to the German Thomas on the "WW2 Peoples war" too on the question of the American girl Chelsea about "why the Nazi party came to power in Germany?" and one of his elaborated replies. I was so glad that I saw him back, fearing after all the drivel on the History Hub about Germans as from Matt, that he was deserted from the boards...
Warm regards,
Paul. -
Message 41
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Wednesday, 3rd May 2006
Addendum Message 40.
Daniel,
I had a lot of new items as: what if the British and French had achieved a compromise with Stalin in August 1939? What if Paul Reynaud had had the upperhand in the Government on the 16th of June in Limoges? I read in a new book that I mentioned to Kurt Bronson on the Spanish Civil War that Franco wanted to fight together with Hitler in the beginning, but was pushed away for the Vichy French. Even during the Vichy government Nogues wanted to invade Spanish Morocco...What if Hitler had immediately consented to Franco? What if the Franch fought further from the African Empire and Franco joined the war with Hitler?
Just ended "de Gaulle, le rebelle" from Jean Lacouture and the heated discussions of the two friends Churchill and de Gaulle and the nearly physical repulsion from Roosevelt for de Gaulle heated by Murphy and his plans to "occupy" France by an American-British army. The new money was already printed without reference to a French republic or whatever...I hear already the acclamations to Roosevelt from some contributors...(big, big smile from a Belgian Fleming defending his "southern brethern"...)
Wanted to start also a "Gareth (Ice Cool)" question on the eve of John Galbraith's death...
Warm regards again,
Paul. -
Message 42
Posted by Plancenoit (U1237957) on Friday, 5th May 2006
Paul,
I'm finding this whole subject a bit of a challenge, more so than many others I have been involved with.
Enjoy your holiday in Spain. I'm sure the weather will be better, but you'll be missing the glorious Belgian beer!!
LIII1940,
I accept some of the points you have made, notably the build up to Dunkirk and the question of whether the Belgians were hard done by, but on the subject of Leopold III,.....I think we will just have to agree to disagree.
There can not be a 'yes' or 'no' answer, no 'right' or 'wrong', only opinions based on the facts available. We are not going to find any common ground, as we are at opposite ends of the spectrum.
An interesting topic though, and one which I will research a little further as and when I can.
All the best,
Dan -
Message 43
Posted by LIII 1940 (U3621214) on Friday, 5th May 2006
Plancenoit
Beer is one thing you and I definitely can agree on.
If we ever meet, The Duvel will be on me.
LIII1940
As I side note I'm privileged to be meeting with a very high profile author on this subject.
The meeting will take place in June.
I do not have his permission to disclose his name.
I can tell you he is very well known, and has written many books on one of the principal characters in this discussion. -
Message 44
Posted by LIII 1940 (U3621214) on Friday, 5th May 2006
Plancenoit
For your perusal.
-
Message 45
Posted by Plancenoit (U1237957) on Friday, 5th May 2006
LIII1940,
I'm very familiar with Duvel, unfortunately it doesn't agree with me. It tears the very linings of my bowel....but hey....that's half the fun.
I will do a little more research...I will try to accommodate your opinion...but as a Brit living in Belgium, without your personal experience of Belgian 'living' and history, our only common ground will be beer and chocolate, and the love of liberty.
All the best,
Dan -
Message 46
Posted by Plancenoit (U1237957) on Friday, 5th May 2006
As I side note I'm privileged to be meeting with a very high profile author on this subject.
The meeting will take place in June.
I do not have his permission to disclose his name.
I can tell you he is very well known, and has written many books on one of the principal characters in this discussion.
听
Hey, that's not fair!!!
If this author manages to persuade you, please come back and admit your error, then the beers will be on me.
Who was the guy who joined the RAF and flew up Ave Louise to attack the Gestapo HQ in Brussels, Belgian aristocrat.....there is a statue to him near 'Abbaye' tram stop???
That's a story in it's in own right....can't remeber his name, much to my shame, I'll need to check and get back to you....... -
Message 47
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Friday, 5th May 2006
Re: Message 46.
Daniel,
the last thing I can do for you before "debout" (wake up) for Spain at 3 AM is publishing the website of Baron Jean Michel de S茅lys-Longchamps.
I used it already in my research for these boards (among others... LIII) for my "essay" (smile) about the resistance in Belgium in WWII.
it was this site, with the statue of Jean as "icoon" that I used but now it is changed I see (after some research (smile)) to another website: as I see essential the same as the older one.
For your raid in French: (I think they have it somewhere in English too)
Daniel, see you back in a fortnight.
Warm regards,
Paul. -
Message 48
Posted by Plancenoit (U1237957) on Friday, 5th May 2006
Baron Jean Michel de S茅lys-Longchamps.
Paul. 听
Baron Jean Michel de Selys-Longchamps....Thank you Paul!!
Now, if you want to fight a cause...this is the man.....
He will never be forgotten. But pose this question on the History Hub??????,,,,,
I'm lost for words.
All the best,
Dan -
Message 49
Posted by LIII 1940 (U3621214) on Wednesday, 10th May 2006
Blood Tears And Folly Len Deighton
Page 197 198
The Belgians had taken the weight of the German attack from the north; FOR A
WEEK King Leopold had been warning the allies that his army's capacity to
hold out was limited.
IT WAS THE BRITISH who had let their ally down.
The Belgians were never informed the BEF was abandoning them.
King Leopold was widely condemned as a traitor!
Winston Churchill knew this to be untrue because of what Sir Roger Keyes had
told him.
The beginning of the GREAT LIE -
Message 50
Posted by margriff (U7206416) on Friday, 2nd February 2007
Hello to L1111940 Many thanks for the info for 28/5/1940 This was of particular interest to me as it was my birthdate, it makes me wonder how our generation managed to grow up without counselling ect as seems to be the norm now, shall we all claim for post traumatic stress for being born during a war, I don't think so, we all just got on with life. Strange that when I hear a plane with a certain engine noise I always look up, must be a hang up from early years.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or 听to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
麻豆约拍 iD
麻豆约拍 navigation
麻豆约拍 links
麻豆约拍 漏 2014 The 麻豆约拍 is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.