Double Standards in Belgian Air Space

[Kretschmer]

Though one of the least reliable and most strictly kosher sources on the earth when mentioning quite literally anything to do with the Big Lie, or any part of the Second World War that involves German politics, Wikipedia, as some have already mentioned, is undoubtedly a decent and occasionally very good introductory reading source into non-controversial and apolitical subjects.

As such, it is actually quite common for me to browse the site when reading about something that I had never before investigated, and one of the articles that I have read over the past few days was that on the Gloster Gladiator, the very last of the British biplane fighter aircraft.

Of course now, what does any of this have to do with the title of this topic? As has been covered many times on CODOH already, it was supposedly "neutral" Belgium that allowed British military aircraft to freely use its airspace in their attacks upon German civilian targets, violating the international standards of neutral conduct and therefore rendering Belgium's "neutrality" only theoretical.

Not yet mentioned on the Forum however is some revealing information found in the article on the Gloster Gladiator, sourced from John Weal's 2012 book He 111 Kampfgeschwader in the West. At the moment, I unfortunately do not own a physical copy of the book and cannot find any preview online to look over its individual footnotes, though this information below nonetheless displays just how honest Belgium really was in its "neutral" conduct.

During the preceding Phoney War, on April 24 1940 Belgian Gladiators on neutrality patrol shot down a German Heinkel He 111 bomber which subsequently crashed in the Netherlands. The bomber, V4+DA of Kampfgeschwader 1, had been damaged by French fighters at Maubage, France, and chased across the Belgian border.

Found under Belgium in section Operational History of Wikipedia article Gloster Gladiator

It's one thing to attack other nations' military aircraft passing over your territory during a time of hostilities or simply not interdict them at all, but it's another to attack and shoot down those of only one combatant deliberately while still having the audacity to claim "neutrality." How does such blatant deceit warrant that the "peaceful" Allies were on "the right side of history"? Simple answer: it doesn't.

[Mortimer]

Belgium was not a genuine neutral in the First World War either -
viewtopic.php?f=27&t=9846
And as you have demonstrated Belgium was not neutral in the Second World War. Neither was Holland for that matter.
viewtopic.php?f=20&t=12153

[Otium]

Ted O'Keefe makes the point in his introduction to Degrelle's 'Campaign in Russia' (1985) that Belgium was used by the Allies as a natural political barrier by the West against Germany to enforce the 'balance of power' policies it sought to impose on central Europe. This is very salient, for the Belgian political alignment with the West needn't have been overt. They simply needed to declare themselves neutral and then complain when their neutrality - inevitably - couldn't be maintained.

Belgium, an independent state bearing that name for the first time from 1830, drifted into increasing political and cultural stagnation. Its role as Britain's tripwire against French and German "aggression" was established definitively by the Belgian Guarantee Treaty, which in effect made the little country the strategic catspaw of the balance-of-power manipulators and imperialists in London.

Leon Degrelle, Campaign in Russia: The Waffen SS on the Eastern Front (Institute for Historical Review, 1985), Pp. viii

The British were really the only ones to gain from this of course. For if the Germans or French respected this myth of Belgian "neutrality" then it would give the British a militarily strategic advantage over what their enemies on the continent would or would not have been able to do in order to oppose them. Little wonder Hitler desired to be free from this geopolitical claptrap and expand into the East. It's also no wonder the British had no desire to accept this, for it would mean their western web of boobytraps would be null and void. So obviously war against Germany was their own viable option even though the aims of Germany's military had no consequence for the British. The Second World War was about Germany's valiant attempt at freeing herself from the stranglehold of the British and French warmongers.

[Otium]

The book you referenced Kretschmer I have uploaded here for you to view. It's only 100 pages, a very short read.

He 111 KAMPFGESCHWADER IN THE WEST

Link: https://pdfhost.io/v/DEfINWRKk_He_111_Kampfgeschwader_in_the_West.pdf
Archive: https://web.archive.org/web/20201122063351/https://pdfhost.io/v/DEfINWRKk_He_111_Kampfgeschwader_in_the_West.pdf

From the book.

The first He 111 to fall victim to an Allied fighter during the 'Phoney War' on the western front was an aircraft of the Geschwaderstab KG 4, sent out on an armed-reconnaissance sortie on 21 November. In fact, it was shot down over the Straits of Dover by a French-based Hurricane of the RAF. And almost exactly five months later, on 20 April 1940, the fifth and final Heinkel combat loss of the 'Phoney War' was another Geschwaderstab machine on a similar mission.

KG l's 'V4+DA' was caught and damaged by French Morane fighters near Maubeuge. It escaped across the border into neutral Belgium, only to be intercepted by Belgian Gladiators before finally crash-landing in Holland! The four-man crew escaped unharmed and were interned, but a war photographer aboard the machine was seriously wounded.

John Weal, He 111 Kampfgeschwader in the West (Osprey Publishing, 2012), Pp. 49

So, it appears that the RAF was attacking German planes during the Phoney war, BEFORE the German Blitz in the West. This might appear to be small, but it's nonetheless very interesting when the narrative is framed as if the Germans just blasted out into the West to launch their "next phase of aggression". Which of course is nonsense considering it was the British and French who declared war, initiating the war in the West officially before any fighting could take place. And of course, the French 'Saar Offensive' of 7th-16th of September 1939 is never mentioned, even though this event is truly the first aggressive incursion on the Western front. The French failed miserably, and I suppose the Allies just hoped nobody would notice, lest it make them look aggressive, but also incompetent.

Weal says further:

The defeat of Allied forces in Belgium and northeast France was only the first part of the Blitzkrieg, however. There still remained the bulk of the French armies to the south and west.

Ibid., p. 54

This sentence might mean nothing. But I couldn't help notice how convenient it is that the Allies could use Belgium as their battleground for the West after having provoked the Germans into a war that would inevitably lead to the destruction of Belgian neutrality. They seemed to have no scruples about using Belgium as long as they weren't seen as being responsible for getting that country involved in the conflict.