Chapter 18: Relations with Liberated Countries
The liberation of France and Belgium and part of the Netherlands in the fall of 1944 presented to SHAEF and the Supreme Commander a number of problems in the administration of civil affairs which increased steadily until the end of the year. Because of the political factors involved, many questions which otherwise could have been settled at lower levels had to be handled by the Supreme Commander or his immediate subordinates. They found, of course, that the prompt and proper settlement of these difficulties was essential to smooth-running military operations in the liberated countries.
Relations With France
Civil Affairs Agreement With France
Not until 26 August, the day after the Allies entered Paris and more than two months after they had arrived in France, was a formal civil affairs agreement concluded with French authorities. This agreement, requested by General Eisenhower before D Day and agreed on in principle in Washington during General de Gaulle’s visit there in July was not finally initialed in Washington until 15 August.1 Shortly thereafter General Eisenhower was instructed to exchange ratifications of the agreement with General Koenig on behalf of the United States while the British did the same at foreign minister level. Thus even at the moment of formal agreement, the United States held to its policy of dealing with the French at a military rather than a governmental level. The Combined Chiefs of Staff issued General Eisenhower their directive relative to civil affairs with France on 23 August and the formal exchange of ratifications was made at the Hotel des Invalides on the 26th.2
The Combined Chiefs of Staff in their directive authorized the Supreme Commander to deal with the French Committee of National Liberation as the de facto authority in France. By the terms of the five memorandums which made up the
civil affairs agreement, General Eisenhower was authorized to take all measures essential to the successful conduct of military operations. To simplify the administration of civil affairs in France, the French Committee of National Liberation agreed to the establishment of a forward zone and a zone of interior. In the former, a military delegate, appointed by the French Committee and acting in accordance with French law, was to carry out those measures deemed necessary by the Supreme Commander. In emergencies affecting military operations or where no French authority was available, the Supreme Commander could act alone. The Allied chief was also permitted to ask the French delegate to take action under the French Law of Siege. In the zone of interior, the French authorities had full power of administration, subject to military requirements of the Supreme Commander. The right of the Allies to use ports, fortified naval bases, and troop concentration points in the zone of interior was guaranteed.3
In matters pertaining to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Allied forces over their troops, the establishment of claims commissions, and the procedure for requisitioning supplies and services and the like, the agreement followed the lines already laid down in the earlier civil affairs memorandums concluded separately between the United States, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Norway, and between Great Britain and the same powers. One important memorandum—that dealing with paper currency issued for the use of Allied forces in continental France—settled a problem which had troubled the Supreme Commander in the early days of the invasion. The French Committee accepted this paper currency as if it had been issued by the Central French Treasury and agreed that any similar currency issued in the future would be furnished by the French Treasury and put at the disposal of the Allied forces in the amount deemed necessary by the Supreme Commander. Another important memorandum was that dealing with censorship. By its provisions the Supreme Commander was to exercise strict military censorship in the forward zone. In the zone of interior, the French services agreed to consult the censorship authorities of SHAEF on all matters relating to military operations and to impose censorship instructions given by Supreme Headquarters. French authorities were to have no control over publications intended solely for Allied troops other than French.
SHAEF Mission (France)
Much of the work of dealing with the French was given by the Supreme Commander to the SHAEF Mission (France), which had been organized before the invasion for that purpose. The mission was to provide liaison between the French Government and Supreme Headquarters and was to furnish a staff to aid the French in dealing with civil affairs in liberated France. Maj. Gen. John T. Lewis, formerly commanding general of the Military District of Washington, headed the mission, and General Redman served as his British deputy. The mission was established in Paris on 3 September by Col. Alden K. Sibley. He, and later General Redman, served temporarily as head of the mission until General Lewis assumed command in mid-September.4
General Eisenhower accredited General Lewis to General de Gaulle on 15 September and gave the head of the mission the task of representing the Supreme Commander in official dealings by SHAEF with the French de facto authority. The mission was to be the authorizing and screening agency when commands under SHAEF wished to establish contact with the “French authority.”5
Shortly after the establishment of the SHAEF mission, General Koenig appointed Lt. Gen. Louis Koeltz as his personal liaison officer at SHAEF. SHAEF agreed to the arrangement after it had been made clear that he was merely to report to SHAEF the views of the French Government on questions put to it by SHAEF Mission (France). In particular, General Koeltz was charged with presenting to SHAEF the French views on military dispositions in regard to Germany as well as over-all plans for the use and armament of French forces.6
Problems Arising Out of the Move to Paris
The liberation of Paris and the re-establishment of French authority there were accompanied by a rush to the French capital of military and civilian personnel from outside the Continent. The groups involved were frequently of such importance that requests for transportation came directly to the SHAEF chief of staff and even to the Supreme Commander at a time when operational demands on them were extremely heavy. One of the first such problems arose in early September when General de Gaulle asked for aid in moving some 3,000 administrative officers from Algiers to the French capital. When SHAEF officials held that such “a mass immigration” was impossible and asked the French chief to set a priority for the movement of various echelons of this group, General de Gaulle protested to General Eisenhower that Supreme Headquarters was holding up the shift of French officials to Paris. The Supreme Commander denied any such intent, and repeated the request for a priority list according to which the transfer could be made. This was worked out by 11 September and General Eisenhower ordered that the 100 most important officers be brought immediately by air, and the remainder as and when an opportunity offered. The movement was finally completed by 1 November.7
Special requests to the SHAEF chief of staff and his deputies for movements of various Allied civilian groups and individuals to the French capital multiplied
after mid-September. Indicative of this type of problem, which frequently took the time of SHAEF officials at the highest level, was the request of an Allied embassy for the movement of seventeen members of its staff plus Italian enlisted men, Arab houseboys, and several French and Belgian civilians and their chauffeurs. This plea was brought to the attention of at least three high-ranking members of SHAEF. General Morgan, to whom the problem was ultimately presented, approved the movement of members of the staff but ruled out the additional attached personnel.8
Businessmen as well as officials sought admittance to the French capital. This question of entry was aired in late September by the London Daily Mail. The newspaper alleged that British officials were being held up when they attempted to go to Paris, whereas U.S. businessmen were arriving in the uniforms of Red Cross workers or junior officers and being given special priority. These charges, though not substantiated, were brought to General Smith’s attention by the SHAEF Public Relations Division, which suggested that a fixed policy on the transportation of civilians to Paris be made public. At this point SHAEF also investigated the appearance of an advertisement of a U.S. firm on a billboard along the Champs-Elysees shortly after the Allied forces entered the city. When it was found that a Red Gross representative had acted as intermediary between U.S. and French advertising agencies, SHAEF ordered the man returned home. The Red Cross organization concurred in the action.9
The Supreme Commander was especially concerned about the movement of U.S. personnel into Paris. In England, he had insisted that his own headquarters be moved out of London, and he held that so far as possible military headquarters should stay out of large cities. Despite this often-expressed view, Headquarters, Communications Zone, moved its forward echelon from areas near Cherbourg to Paris during the early days of September before the Supreme Commander was aware of the shift. Army commanders charged that vital gasoline supplies were used in the move, and that the headquarters was out of touch with the supply situation at a time when its control was critically needed. The commanding general of Communications Zone, General Lee, held that the headquarters had to be moved forward in order to keep in touch with the supply situation, and he believed it necessary to go into the chief communications center of France.
Advance parties of General Lee’s headquarters requisitioned most of the hotels and buildings occupied by the German forces in Paris and asked for additional billets. General Koenig on hearing that 8,000 officers and 21,000 men were to settle in the city pointed out that they would require more hotels than Paris possessed. He objected to the requisitioning of schools for billets and suggested that a great part of the U.S. force be located outside the city. General Smith agreed that schools should not be requisitioned, and General Eisenhower promptly prohibited the establishment of any Allied headquarters within the area of Paris without his specific approval. Shortly thereafter a member of his personal staff reported unfavorably on the rapid increase of U.S. personnel in the
city, their dress, discipline, and conduct. He noted in particular, that members of the supply organization were engaged in black market activities near the Arc de Triomphe.
General Eisenhower then issued the Communications Zone commander a sharp order to stop the entry into Paris of every individual not needed there for essential duty, and to send away everyone whose presence was not necessary. He added that the initial move had been made without his knowledge and that he was permitting the headquarters to remain only because of the difficulty of making a shift at that stage of operations. He characterized the influx of U.S. personnel, including the members of General Lee’s headquarters, as “extremely unwise” and insisted that the situation be corrected as quickly as possible without interfering with the operations of fighting units.10
To give force to this directive, General Smith in October held a conference with members of the SHAEF staff and Communications Zone and got a promise that the latter would release one fourth of its 167 hotels and Seine Base Section would release all but twenty of its 129 hotels in the city. Nevertheless, the number of requests by U.S. units for building space in the Paris region continued to increase. M. Francois Coulet, delegate for interallied relations to the SHAEF Mission (France), protested in mid-December that nearly all available premises had been occupied, and that the French people were beginning to think that U.S. Army demands were in excess of those made by the Germans. The Ardennes counterattack within the same week effectively ended complaints on this score for a time.11
The overcrowding of Paris was increased when U.S. and British leave centers were established there. By 1 February 1945, 8,400 U.S. and 700 British soldiers were reaching the city daily on seventy-two-hour passes. Studies at that time indicated that more than 21,000 persons belonging to U.S. units were located in an area bound by a road net approximately fifteen miles from the geographical center of Paris. Troops in the Seine Section outside this zone and the Department of the Seine pushed the total to over 160,000. SHAEF in March 1945 sought once more to move part of this force outside the Department of the Seine, but found the task impossible. The situation had not been greatly improved at the close of the war. Even after redeployment began, the Allies were unable to vacate billet space rapidly enough to meet French needs.12
French Rearmament
One of the chief problems in the fall of 1944 was the rearmament of French forces. The United States and Great Britain, as already indicated, had begun to rearm French troops long before the cross-Channel attack. The United States had taken on this task in North Africa,13 had largely equipped the forces that fought in Italy, and then had furnished supplies for French forces in the OVERLORD and ANVIL operations. By the fail of 1944 eight divisions
equipped by the Allies were in France. Once the liberation of France had been completed, the French authorities pressed for Allied approval of a program, outlined before D Day, for arming liberated manpower. Assuming that a large number of men of military age would be liberated shortly after the invasion of the Continent, the French had asked for aid in raising new divisions. SHAEF explained that its main need was not for fighting men, but for some 172,000 men (of whom 140,000 would be French) to guard lines of communications and maintain internal security. These troops, who would require far less equipment than regular fighting units, would be in a position to relieve fighting men who otherwise would have to be assigned to such duties.14
The French authorities stressed the importance to national morale of arming mobilized personnel as soon as possible. General Grasett, the SHAEF G-5, agreed that the failure to use French liberated manpower in fighting units might have a serious psychological effect on other troops at the front. He warned that the French would never be convinced that maintaining internal security and furnishing unskilled labor in base areas constituted appropriate tasks for their men of military age. General Eisenhower replied that his immediate need was for internal security and garrison troops, but said that he was willing to make an effort to equip a few Commando-type units for combat action. The problem of the proper use of liberated manpower had not been settled at the time of the landings in southern France in mid-August.
The manpower question became more pressing in September 1944 as the rapid sweep of Allied forces across northern France and up the Rhône valley made available thousands of Frenchmen of military age. The French high command set about the task of organizing two new divisions from these troops, and spoke of raising the number to five. This figure, the French indicated, had been accepted in principle during General de Gaulle’s visit to Washington in July 1944. General Marshall then asked that the matter be settled by the Combined Chiefs of Staff.
To deal with questions affecting the French metropolitan forces, the Combined Chiefs of Staff in the fall of 1944 moved to Paris the Joint Rearmament Commission, a Franco-American group which had been organized in December 1942 to deal with the rearmament of the French. In October the group became the Rearmament Division, SHAEF Mission (France). Brig. Gen. Harold F. Loomis, who had headed the commission in North Africa, remained its chief. In December, British members were added to the group and the new integrated staff section was made responsible for rearmament questions concerning all liberated countries in Europe.15
The slowing of the Allied offensive in September 1944 and the growing lack of infantry replacements led General Eisenhower at the end of October to re-examine the possibility of equipping additional French divisions. In September, he had doubted that new divisions could be equipped and trained in time to be of value in the campaigns in northwest Europe, but he now asked that the matter be reopened. He suggested raising two additional French divisions and increasing the liberated manpower ceiling from 172,000 to 460,000. This new figure included 243,000 Frenchmen. The revised estimate was intended to take care of new manpower commitments such as those needed for territorial command headquarters, the gendarmerie, garde mobile, labor battalions, and the like.
In mid-November 1944, the French submitted a proposal to SHAEF for equipping eight new divisions. At SHAEF’s insistence the proposal was revised to meet SHAEF’s needs for security and line-of-communications troops and forwarded to the Combined Chiefs of Staff. That group, despite SHAEF’s declaration that all or any part of the plan would be of great value to the Allied forces, did not act upon it immediately. The proposal was still pending when the enemy counteroffensive of mid-December made Allied manpower a major problem.
Recognition of the French Provisional Government
President Roosevelt was disappointed in his hope that the French Committee would be satisfied with the de facto recognition provided in the August agreement. On 30 August 1944, General de Gaulle proclaimed the establishment in Paris of the Provisional Government of the French Republic. Two weeks later he announced that elections to determine the form of the French government would be held as soon as French sovereignty had been restored, her territories liberated, and the French war prisoners and deportees returned to their homes.16
In mid-September the U.S. political officer at SHAEF, Mr. Samuel Reber, warned the State Department that failure to grant early recognition to the French Provisional Government might cause it to lose prestige and leave it poorly equipped. The Supreme Commander, when asked in October by the U.S. Chiefs of Staff for his recommendations, urged formal recognition of the de Gaulle group as the provisional government of France. This opinion, which coincided with views already held by many European countries, apparently found ready acceptance in Washington. On 23 October, the United States, the Soviet Union, Great Britain, and some five other nations recognized the French Provisional Government headed by General de Gaulle. A French zone of interior in which civil rather than military authority would prevail was proclaimed the same day. The United States named Mr. Jefferson Caffery, who was acting as the American diplomatic representative “near the de facto authority of France,” as ambassador to the new government. As their ambassador, the British named Mr. Duff Cooper. Shortly afterward, General Eisenhower and the head of the SHAEF Mission (France) were told to rely on these two representatives, rather than the British and U.S. political officers at SHAEF,
for political advice on French affairs.17
The proclamation of a French zone of interior on 23 October 1944 followed negotiations of more than a month between General de Gaulle and SHAEF representatives. During late September and early October, SHAEF and French authorities selected the departments to be included in the new zone and exchanged assurances that the civil affairs agreement signed in August would remain in effect in this area. The Supreme Commander on 13 October suggested that the French Government declare that a zone of interior existed within the boundaries of the following departments: Seine-Inférieure, Oise, Seine-et-Marne, Yonne, Nièvre, Saône-et-Loire, Rhône, Ardèche, and Gard. The French made clear that military zones would be established along the Atlantic coast where German resistance still existed.18
The zone of interior was not enlarged until 1945. Shortly after the New Year, the SHAEF deputy G-3 suggested that SHAEF extend it before the French asked for such action, and thus anticipate their complaint that concessions were made only after repeated requests.19 Headquarters, Communications Zone, strongly objected to this proposal, pointing to the various difficulties which would arise in regard to Allied control of railroads, the requisitioning of billets and hospitals, and other administrative questions. SHAEF postponed a decision for the moment and called conferences to settle some of the existing administrative problems. General Morgan, acting in place of the SHAEF chief of staff, held that the difficulties cited would exist whether or not the zone of interior was extended, and he directed the SHAEF G-3 to study the expansion of the zone to include all of France except Alsace-Lorraine. Before the study could be completed, General Juin asked for an enlargement of the zone of interior, but requested less than SHAEF was prepared to give. SHAEF staff members thought the French had purposely omitted departments along the frontiers in the fear that the Ministry of War would have to surrender its control of these regions to the Ministry of the Interior.20 SHAEF approved the French proposals, subject to the proviso that the agreements of 25 August should not be affected. The Atlantic and Dunkerque areas, where the Germans were still resisting, were to continue to be military zones, and hospitals and other military and supply installations in the new zone of interior were to remain in Allied hands.21 The new zone of interior, expanded to include the departments of Pas-de-Calais, Somme, Aisne, Marne, Aube, Haute-Marne, Côte-d’Or, Drôme, Vaucluse, Bouches-du-Rhône, and Var, was announced on 24 April 1945.22
Shortly after conclusion of the armistice with the enemy in May 1945 the French Government asked that all France be included
in the zone of interior, but added that the frontier departments were to remain in the hands of the War Ministry rather than being transferred to the Ministry of the Interior. SHAEF did not object to this extension, asking only that existing arrangements relating to accommodations, transportation, airfields, and ports be confirmed. The extension was put into effect by the French on 13 July 1945.23
Dissolution of the French Resistance Forces
With the liberation of Paris, the French Committee of National Liberation as well as SHAEF became aware of the need of bringing the French Forces of the Interior under the control of the newly established French authority. Fearful of the danger to public order which might come from irresponsible partisan bands after the liberation, General Koenig as early as 11 August issued instructions for receiving volunteers from the French Forces of the Interior into the French Regular Army. Two weeks later General de Gaulle decreed that elements of the Resistance forces likely to participate in coming operations were to be regularly drafted into the Army as the territory in which they fought was liberated. On 28 August he dissolved the high command of the underground forces in Paris and gave its duties to the commanding generals of the different military regions into which France was divided. The commanding generals of existing units were authorized to accept all volunteers from the French Forces of the Interior as replacements or as members of new units. Volunteers were also to be accepted to fill the needs of the gendarmerie, garde mobile, and other local police and defense elements. Units were to be activated to keep order in the rear areas and were held liable to combat duty at the discretion of the commanding officers of the military regions. Further decrees ruled that all the men who had voluntarily fought the enemy during operations leading to the liberation of national territory belonged to the French Forces of the Interior. They were held to constitute an integral part of the French Army and were subjected to Army regulations. Existing FFI units were to be reorganized immediately into separate infantry battalions or so far as practicable into similar units of other arms.24
SHAEF, vitally interested in all measures looking toward the establishment of order in France while military operations were in progress, was especially concerned about the reactions of Resistance forces to General de Gaulle’s orders. The Military Resistance Committee (COMAC) immediately criticized the decree as unfavorable to a national, popular, and democratic army. This reaction, which SHAEF thought might have been politically inspired, also appeared to rest on the feeling of many Resistance leaders that their personal deserts would be overlooked once they were integrated into the Regular Army. Many of the Resistance leaders had acquired high rank in the FFI and resented being placed under Regular Army officers Who had been less active during
the war. In addition, many members of the Resistance preferred to remain under their former commanders. General de Lattre understood this reaction and made an effort to absorb the FFI elements into his army with the least damage possible to the esprit de corps that they had developed. Many members of the FFI gave up their arms and returned to their homes, while 137,000 ultimately joined the 250,000 Regular forces of the Army of the Rhine and the Danube. In parts of Brittany, however, where few Allied troops were left after the rapid advance to the east, Resistance members insisted on retaining their arms to deal with enemy groups that had been overrun.
In September, the French authorities, fearing trouble from Communist-inspired troops, asked SHAEF to divert elements of the First French Army to disaffected areas to preserve internal stability. Operational requirements made it impossible for General Eisenhower to grant this request, but he agreed to recommend that the Mediterranean Supreme Commander send French forces from his theater to France where they could be used for keeping order. SHAEF, he emphasized, desired that order be preserved in France, and by French, not by Allied, authorities. In mid-October General Lewis reported that, while danger of excesses by extremist elements of the FFI still existed, the worst period of disorganization had passed. As late as February 1945, however, General de Gaulle asked for the withdrawal of several large French units from the Army zone for reconstitution and training and to insure that contact was maintained “between certain regions of the country and its organized army.” Despite fears of possible trouble, the dissolution of the Resistance forces throughout France was accomplished for the most part without incident.25
After the official dissolution of the French Forces of the Interior in the liberated areas of France, General Koenig remained in command of these forces in enemy-occupied areas. He was directed on 23 November to relinquish this control at the end of the month, and the French Forces of the Interior in occupied areas were ordered to come under the local military regional commanders. The section of the former FFI headquarters in London, which had remained in operation to deal with Resistance activities in nonliberated France, was also ordered to close on 1 December.26
Relations With Belgium
Civil affairs problems in Belgium differed in some respects from those in France but were no less difficult to settle. King Leopold was in captivity, but the legal government of Belgium, headed by Prime Minister Hubert Pierlot, was returned to power in Brussels by the Allies very shortly after the city was liberated. As a matter of fact, the first task of Maj. Gen. G.W.E.J. Erskine (Br.), head of the SHAEF Mission (Belgium), was to arrange speedy passage for members of the Belgian Government
and Parliament to Brussels in time for the opening of Parliament on 19 September 1944.27 Once this was settled satisfactorily, he gave his aid to the solution of a number of pressing problems, such as rushing the release of a Belgian franc note issue prepared by the Bank of England, disarming the Resistance forces, establishing an armed gendarmerie to keep order, and arming Belgian forces to protect Allied lines of communications.28 As in France, the SHAEF Mission had no desire to interfere in the control of internal affairs but intended to help the existing government prevent any disorders that were likely to interfere with Allied operations.
Belgian Resistance Forces
SHAEF’s two main interests in Belgium in the fall of 1944 were the rapid establishment of order and the raising of special battalions to support the Allied forces. These measures were closely tied up with the dissolution of the Resistance forces in Belgium, which were believed to be infiltrated by left-wing sympathizers opposed to the Pierlot government. The situation was somewhat delicate in view of the valuable contributions made by the Resistance forces to the liberation of Belgium. The underground units had numbered an estimated 30,000 effective members at the time the Allies reached the Belgian border and rapidly increased their forces as the enemy was driven eastward. While the depletion of stores in August had reduced their activities somewhat in the period before 1 September, they had made a valuable contribution after that date. When the Allies crossed the border, they sent Special Air Service forces to aid the Resistance units that were proving to be especially useful in the southern Ardennes and in the Hainaut Province. Placed under Maj. Gen. Yvan Gerard at the end of August, the Resistance elements aided the Allied advance in particular by mopping up isolated pockets of Germans and by protecting the flanks of the Allied armies.29
In asking that the Resistance forces be dissolved, the Pierlot government desired first of all to establish order. In addition, however, it hoped to draw on these elements for manpower to increase the gendarmerie, strengthen the Regular Army, and organize special battalions for the Allies. SHAEF was especially interested in this last objective. In September, U.S. units had used Belgian forces of the interior in the drive across Belgium, but they could not employ them in Germany unless they became part of the Belgian Army. SHAEF favored the Belgian Government’s effort to dissolve the Resistance organizations and integrate their members into Regular Army and police units. As a step toward this end General Eisenhower joined the Belgian Government in inviting the populace to surrender all arms and military equipment. A delay by many in accepting this invitation heightened the government’s apprehension. On 29 September, the Supreme Commander, in an Order of the Day recognizing and praising the great contributions of the Resistance forces to Belgium’s liberation, said that they could now best serve their country by turning in their weapons and waiting for instructions as to the part they
could play in the coming fight against Germany. The Front de l’Independence, which represented many of the Resistance organizations, anticipated this request by announcing that until its program was accomplished it would not disarm. La Nation Beige, one of the conservative newspapers of Brussels, was amused by General Eisenhower’s suggestion that the Resistance forces should surrender their arms on the ground that they were urgently needed for other purposes. It commented: “Others besides ourselves will catch the humor of the lecture; it is not for nothing that General Eisenhower is from Mark Twain’s country. It is absolutely American, and now we may expect the Belgians, who are supposed to have a sense of humor, will respond by deferring without delay to a bit of advice that is not the less imperative for having been given in a fatherly fashion.”30
Many Resistance elements retained their arms and remained outside regular Belgian police and military organizations. SHAEF representatives pressed the question of raising special battalions at a meeting in Brussels on 10 October with officers of the 12th Army Group and the Belgian Ministry of National Defense. The Belgians made a commitment to raise forty-four battalions for the Allied forces, and SHAEF agreed to request equipment from the War Office for the units which were to be enrolled in the Belgian National Army. Belgian representatives declared that the required number of men, some 62,000 in all, would be raised even if conscription had to be used. Of this number, approximately 35,200 were to go to the forty-four battalions, 17,000 into labor groups, and 10,000 to the gendarmerie.31
SHAEF Mission (Belgium) reported a noncooperative attitude on the part of the Resistance forces, adding that this reaction was a mixture of opposition to the government, resentment over food and coal shortages, and a feeling that they were not being properly rewarded for their efforts. Near the end of October, General Erskine warned the Supreme Commander that the continued existence of an armed Resistance force, now estimated at 70,000, as opposed to some 6,000 members of the police and gendarmerie, made possible serious rioting which would cause a breakdown of government. General Eisenhower, concerned over the possible effect of such a development on military operations, reminded the Belgian Premier that the carrying of arms, except by those specifically authorized to do so by army group commanders, could no longer be permitted in the zone of the armies. The Belgian Government now called on civilians to turn in their weapons to the nearest gendarmerie barracks and receive a disbanding indemnity. Resistance forces were also invited to enlist in the Regular Army.32
The Supreme Commander made a formal visit to Brussels on 9 November and spoke before the Belgian Parliament and at a ceremony honoring the Belgian unknown soldier. His appearance was believed to be helpful to the government.
Four days later the Ministry of National Defense set 18 November as the date for demobilizing the Resistance forces. The temporary permission of 13 September giving members of the Resistance groups the right to bear arms was withdrawn. In the meantime, anticipating possible trouble on 18 November, SHAEF officials drew up a directive which, while disavowing any desire to interfere in Belgian affairs, instructed General Erskine to take full precautions to secure Allied installations and lines of communications in Belgium. He was to intervene only if the Belgian Government called for aid, or if strikes, riots, and picketing made such action necessary to safeguard military operations. Independent action was to be taken only in an extreme emergency. Requests for military assistance from the Allies were to be in writing and, if possible, to have government approval.33
The Resistance representative and the two Communist members of the Pierlot cabinet resigned in protest against the government’s decree of 13 November. When this action was followed by a demonstration against the government, General Erskine conferred with the three former ministers and reminded them that the necessities of war and military operations required that no unauthorized person should bear arms. He requested formally that the Resistance forces turn their arms over to the government and avoid incidents which might bring conflicts with the Allied forces. He emphasized that the Allies would support the Ministry fully. The three former ministers now joined General Erskine in a statement designed to avoid clashes between the Resistance and Allied forces. Some Belgian newspapers expressed regret that Allied representatives had been called in to settle a problem which the Belgian Government should have handled. Shortly after the meeting of General Erskine with the disaffected ministers, the Resistance groups agreed to collect all arms and hand them in to the “inter-allied authorities.”34
Strong feeling against the government nevertheless persisted. On 25 November a demonstration was organized in the Rue de la Loi near the chief government building in Brussels. Anticipating trouble, British commanders in Brussels had ordered their forces to stand by to give aid to the Belgian Government. Allied armored vehicles were moved near the government buildings but took no part in breaking up the demonstration. The Communist press in Belgium quickly protested the government’s action against the demonstrators and reprinted with glee a London News Chronicle editorial saying that the incident showed the unpopularity of the Pierlot government, which was holding its authority with the support of the Allied high command. The London Times warned that it would be disastrous if the Allies exposed themselves to the charge of favoring or boycotting this or that ideology or of maintaining in power a group of ministers that had no substantial backing in popular opinion and would be likely to disappear once the army was withdrawn. General Erskine found it necessary to explain that he had ordered an alert of Allied forces in the city because of the possible effect a flare-up would have on the Allied lines of
communications. The Belgian episode, which coincided with British intervention in Greece, brought formal questions in the House of Commons as to Allied policy in liberated countries. Mr. Churchill made clear that General Erskine represented and was directly responsible to the Supreme Commander. He added, “I have no hesitation in saying not only did we obey General Eisenhower’s orders, but we thought these orders wise and sensible.”35
The demonstration of 25 November was followed by an attempt on the part of left-wing elements to organize a general strike. Before it made any progress the workers’ committee voted to return to work in order not to interfere with the Allied war effort. Attacks on the government continued until the German counteroffensive of mid-December 1944. At that point the Front de l’Independence offered the complete backing of the Resistance units to the Allied military authorities. The Allies preferred not to reactivate these forces, but rather to make use of the Belgian Regular Army. The immediate effect of the German attack was to bring demands from nearly all elements of the Belgian press for unified action against the Germans. It brought as well new problems such as the care of refugees from the Ardennes area, and increased damage to homes arising from the intensification of the flying-bomb attacks.
Civil Defense and Food
One of the tragedies of the war was that Belgium, which was liberated quickly and with comparatively little loss, later suffered heavily from German flying bombs and from the German counteroffensive of December 1944. Even before the port of Antwerp was cleared for traffic in late fall of 1944, the enemy had opened a V-bomb attack on it in the hope of making it unusable. Beginning 13 October 1944, the Germans turned on Belgium much of the fury they had once vented on England. These attacks continued until the end of March 1945, but seemed to be at their heaviest about the time of the German counteroffensive. In six months, more than 5,000 bombs fell in Belgium causing casualties of more than 8,000 dead and missing, and 23,584 wounded. The blow fell heaviest on the provinces of Antwerp and Liege. In Antwerp the bombs hit two thirds of the houses, seriously damaging or wholly destroying more than one fifth of them. In Liege the percentage of serious damage was even greater. The attacks laid a heavy burden on SHAEF civil and operational units. Besides keeping the port of Antwerp in operation, they had to aid the Belgians in maintaining civilian defense, in meeting fire-fighting emergencies, and in solving health problems.36
The SHAEF Mission (Belgium) and civil affairs authorities of the Allied forces were also troubled by the problem of supplying Belgium with food. From SHAEF’s standpoint, an adequate food supply was needed to prevent demonstrations, to get coal mined, and to maintain the ports in full operation. General Erskine in late November became particularly worried because of SHAEF statements that sufficient civil affairs supplies had been delivered in November for the rest of the year and no
more were available for Belgium in December. Food supplies were very short and he feared that the Allies would be charged with breaking their promises. At his urging, SHAEF on 6 December authorized a special allotment often thousand tons of supplies for December at the expense of other commitments.37
The German counteroffensive in the Ardennes made the shortage of food even more acute. This shortage was blamed for a strike of dock workers at Antwerp in January 1945, and General Erskine warned that additional troubles might follow. Not only were further strikes among dock workers and coal miners likely but a danger of disorders along the Allied lines of communications threatened. General Erskine reported in mid-February that the government recently formed by M. Achille van Acker might be seriously weakened if food shortages continued. The general urged, therefore, that a strenuous effort be made to replace Belgian losses in the Ardennes resulting from enemy action, that a reserve stockpile of one month’s imports be established, that plans be approved to increase supplementary rations for workers, and that the Belgian Government be pressed to the limit to carry out its part in the collection and distribution of food. Even before this report came in, General Eisenhower had informed the Combined Chiefs of Staff of the situation. Explaining that the arrival of supplies from the United States and the United Kingdom was failing behind schedule, he urged that 100,000 tons of civil affairs supplies be made available immediately from stocks in the United Kingdom to offset the shipping lag. The state of affairs created in Belgium and the Netherlands by the delay was “sufficiently serious to warrant Civil Affairs requirements being treated as a matter of operational urgency.” The Combined Chiefs of Staff met the emergency in Belgium by releasing 55,000 tons of supplies from stocks in the United Kingdom, and by assuring the Supreme Commander that part of the supplies from the United States would soon arrive. They reminded General Eisenhower, however, that the chief cause for the serious situation lay in SHAEF’s failure to present its requirements to the Combined Civil Affairs Committee until late in December. To prevent recurrence of similar crises, SHAEF now asked the Belgian Government to make estimates of requirements running into the following November. A special effort was made by SHAEF in March and April to insure that these would be met.38
Besides its other duties, the SHAEF Mission (Belgium) had the responsibility of representing the Supreme Commander in Luxembourg. SHAEF had initially planned to set up a separate mission for that country and had issued a directive to Brigadier S.O. Jones in September 1944 as head of the mission. When the Allied forces halted on the eastern borders of Luxembourg, thus leaving the country in the forward zone of operations, SHAEF decided to withdraw the mission. After 1 December 1944, SHAEF was represented through the Luxembourg Civil Affairs Detachment. In April 1945, General Erskine was directed to assume responsibility for Luxembourg, and Col. F.E. Fraser, head of the civil affairs detachment
in that country, was designated as deputy. In May 1945, in order to avoid confusion with other civil affairs detachments in Luxembourg, Colonel Fraser’s unit was redesignated SHAEF Mission (Luxembourg) with General Erskine as chief and Colonel Fraser as deputy.39
Relations With the Netherlands
The Supreme Commander issued a directive to Maj. Gen. J.K. Edwards (Br.) as head of the SHAEF Mission (Netherlands) in mid-September 1944, but the establishment of the mission was postponed as the clearing of the country was delayed. Brig. Gen. George P. Howell (U.S.) was appointed deputy chief of the mission at the end of September, and an advance detachment was sent to Brussels shortly thereafter. No formal accreditation of the SHAEF mission was made to the Netherlands Government until early December when an advance detachment of that government began to move to Dutch soil.40
Because the Netherlands Government was located in London during most of the fall of 1944, some of the most important issues affecting the Netherlands were brought directly to the British Foreign and War Offices instead of to SHAEF. The Netherlands Government intervened with the British in October when SHAEF proposed to bomb Vlissingen in preparation for an attack to clear the Schelde estuary. As a result of Dutch opposition, the British Government banned all bombing of the city unless it was authorized by the Combined Chiefs of Staff. General Eisenhower, when informed of this action, made clear his desire to spare the Dutch city, but added that it would be a serious matter to withhold this aid from the Canadian Army and thereby aid the enemy. This argument was enough to overcome the doubts of the British Chiefs of Staff. They now declared that, although every effort should be made to spare noncombatants, the view of the Supreme Commander in such matters must prevail. Despite this approval, the bombing scheduled for 1 November did not take place.41
In early October, Queen Wilhelmina of the Netherlands and her Prime Minister, P.S. Gerbrandy, appealed to the President and the Prime Minister to approve shipments of food and medical supplies through the Swedish Red Cross to occupied portions of the Netherlands. Both Mr. Churchill and Mr. Roosevelt held that the matter was a military responsibility. General Eisenhower voiced no objection to the proposal. Before it could be implemented, however, proposals were brought forward for sending a Red Cross ship from Lisbon, for air-dropping food on the three principal cities in occupied Netherlands, and for sending an International Red Cross ship from Basel down the Rhine to Arnhem and Rotterdam.
General Eisenhower, near the end of October, approved the sending of Swedish relief ships or a ship from Lisbon even at the risk that some of the supplies would be taken by the enemy. The air dropping of supplies he opposed, since there was no way of assuring that they would reach the civilian population. He ruled out the dispatching of a ship from Basel down the Rhine on operational grounds, agreeing with the British Chiefs of Staff that such action would interfere with Allied air attacks on German river traffic. The fact that the Germans readily accepted the latter plan was considered to be sufficient indication that it played into their hands.42
Arrangements made to move supplies from Sweden broke down soon afterward because the Netherlands Red Cross lacked sufficient transportation to distribute supplies. In December a new plan was worked out by which two Swedish ships would bring their cargoes from Goteborg to Delfzijl where barges would pick them up and take them to points of distribution. An arrangement was reached with the Germans in the third week of January for this movement. The ship from Lisbon was to move to Goteborg at this time but was to wait until there was evidence that the supplies of the first ship were delivered.43
The Dutch faced not only the problem of feeding the inhabitants of the occupied regions of their country, but also the burden of distributing civil affairs supplies for the liberated areas. They were forced to cut the daily ration below that in effect during the enemy occupation. As in France, complaints were voiced in the liberated areas that the Allied forces were feeding German prisoners and refugees better than they did the liberated peoples. In mid-December Prime Minister Gerbrandy proposed in a letter to the Supreme Commander that the relief of the Netherlands be given first priority—even over the slogan of “defeat the Germans first.” He asked that the Netherlands Government be permitted to handle those details of relief work which it could do best and that 21 Army Group be instructed to consult the Netherlands Government on matters relating to relief planning. General Eisenhower, who found the letter “quite moving,” directed that the Dutch be kept informed and be consulted on all matters relating to relief. By the close of the year, the Dutch Prime Minister believed that some progress had been made, but the head of the SHAEF mission reported that members of the Netherlands Government felt that they had little information of any practical progress since 21 Army Group had been made responsible for relief activities. He recommended that the Netherlands Government and its Navy and Military Administration be represented in all relief planning. Inasmuch as the greater part of the Netherlands remained in the hands of the enemy until the end of the war, it was not possible until then to find a satisfactory solution to the food problem. As a result, some of the
peoples of occupied regions of the Netherlands were near the point of starvation when the war came to a close.44
Allied Public Information Activities in the Liberated Countries
SHAEF attempted to improve relations with liberated countries and to encourage the spirit of resistance in occupied areas by means of a program of radio broadcasts, publication of newspapers, and distribution of Allied magazines and books. SHAEF’s Psychological Warfare Division devoted much of its effort to these public information activities.
The division used its facilities effectively in the early days of the invasion to give warnings to inhabitants living near the invasion coasts. Beginning on D Day, the Voice of SHAEF warned citizens near the Channel coasts to leave the area.45 In the days that followed, SHAEF broadcast evacuation warnings and frequently directed the dropping of leaflets shortly before heavy air raids. The warnings applied not only to areas subject to bombardment but also to the coastal waters of Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium, and France where action might take place. Announcements advising fishermen to stay in port were made until 10 August.
SHAEF’s Psychological Warfare Division also informed inhabitants in liberated countries of the way in which they could aid the Allied armies, countered rumors which might be spread, and rendered assistance to liberated governments in reconstituting their media of public information. The division entrusted these efforts to its Allied Information Service (AIS). The advance group of this agency landed in Cherbourg in early July 1944 and at the request of the First Army assumed part of the public information activities in the Normandy area. The AIS established civilian press and radio service in Cherbourg and aided the civilian radio program in Rennes. Representatives of the service entered Paris on 25 August and continued their work there until shortly before the end of the war, although some AIS functions were gradually transferred to civilian agencies. In the Low Countries and Denmark, three Psychological Warfare consolidation teams were established to work with the SHAEF missions and SHAEF coordinated their work. In Norway, civilian agencies handled most of the information activities with the aid of the Psychological Warfare Division.
The tasks of the Allied Information Service were also extended to displays of photographs and charts depicting the Allied war efforts, distribution of publications, photographs, and motion pictures, and the servicing of newspapers in the liberated area.
In an effort to acquaint the French people with Allied war efforts, civilian agencies prepared fifteen posters which the mayors of French cities were given to distribute as they saw fit. In Paris, the Allied Information Service opened an exhibit room at the Place de L’Opéra for the display of photographs, charts, and posters outlining the war activities of the United Nations. The exhibit attracted nearly a
quarter-million people between mid-October and mid-December 1944. The interest evinced by the Parisians induced the Allied Information Service to send similar exhibits to twenty-seven French cities between December 1944 and the end of the war. More than seven million people registered at the exhibits during this period.
Also effective in the liberated areas was the sale at low prices of both the English texts and French versions of American and British books. Two illustrated publications—Voir (American) and Cadran (British)—were prepared as well. Later, digest-type magazines made up of selections from British and American publications were put on sale. Between the distribution of the first publications in France on 10 July 1944 and the end of the war more than 15,570,000 copies were sold.
To provide information in France in June 1944, psychological warfare teams with the British and American armies printed news sheets at Bayeux and Isigny. Later a daily newspaper was printed at Cherbourg. The project, started by the First Army Psychological Warfare Team, was turned over to the Allied Information Service in July 1944. Wall news bulletins were printed and sent to the smaller towns for display. These activities proved unnecessary in Paris inasmuch as fourteen Resistance papers were in circulation there when the city was liberated. The number increased tremendously within a few weeks. The Allied Information Service aided these publications by distributing newsprint, special articles, and photographs.
The SHAEF Psychological Warfare Division and the Allied Information Service helped service strategic radio activities, operated mobile transmitters, assisted civilian radio broadcasting in the liberated areas, and ultimately operated the static transmitter at Luxembourg. Although the original work of mobile broadcasting was done by army group teams, the Psychological Warfare Division tended to take over this function in rear areas. In Cherbourg, the Psychological Warfare Division furnished the transmitter and ran a purely Allied station. In Rennes, Paris, and other cities where the transmitters were still available, the division supplied equipment to put them into operation and furnished material for broadcasts.
The most important work performed by the radio section of the Psychological Warfare Division during the war was that of operating Radio Luxembourg after its capture in September 1944. This station, which had a 150-kilowatt transmitter, had been damaged by the Germans before they left the city, but psychological warfare experts of 12th Army Group started repairs almost immediately after arriving in Luxembourg. On 3 October 1944, personnel from the SHAEF Psychological Warfare Division, acting under an agreement signed by the Allies and Luxembourg in May 1944, took over the station. The first daily SHAEF news program went on the air on 10 November 1944, and a complete program was gradually built up which ultimately ran twelve hours a day. The station was off the air from 20 to 30 December as a result of the German attack in the Ardennes.
Other Aid to Liberated Peoples
Assistance in re-establishing and maintaining public order, rearming of the gendarmerie and the equipping of security and line-of-communications troops, and the
restoration of public information facilities were only a few of the civil affairs activities in which SHAEF agencies participated. Much of the actual work was performed by civil affairs detachments with the army groups, armies, and corps, but SHAEF gave its full support to the speedy restoration of civil government by establishing uniform procedures and policies, by allocating transportation and scarce supplies, by coordinating military and civil requirements, and by acting as intermediary between the civilian governments and the subordinate military authorities.
Footnotes
Among the important sections of SHAEF Mission (France) and their chiefs were the following: G-5 Section, Brigadier S. S. Lee; Naval Division, Vice Adm. Alan G. Kirk; Air Division, Air Commodore Lord Arthur Forbes; and Rearmament Division, Brig. Gen. Harold F. Loomis. Later Brig. Gen. Jack W. Wood became head of the Air Division, retaining Air Commodore Forbes as his deputy. Brig. Gen. John A. Appleton, Director General, Military Railways, and Chief, Military Railways Branch, G-4 Division, SHAEF Mission (France), for consultation on railway matters. Stf Memo 16, SHAEF Mission (France), 14 Oct 44; Ramsay to Lewis, Ramsay to Kirk, 13 Oct 44; Organization, SHAEF Mission (France), Mar 45. All in SHAEF SGS 322.01/5 SHAEF Mission (France).