Horatio Prince, © 2012

This article is a continuation from part three. For the start of the series, click here.

Poison gas shells are a particular problem. Identifying them takes experience as the coloured paint markings used to differentiate the different types of shell have long since corroded away. Until the 1970s the Belgian authorities encased identified unexploded gas shells in concrete and dumped them at sea, but concerns that the concrete will eventually decay meant they changed to stockpiling them on land until a purpose-built chemical shell dismantling facility was created a few years ago. Here, suspected gas shells are x-rayed to determine if that is what they are and if they still contain liquefied poison gas. An automatic cutter opens them in a sealed room and the contents are pumped away before the empty case is retrieved by a man in full chemical warfare protective gear.

The contents are still dangerous even today. As shell cases rust, the contents can leak – known as ‘sweating.’ Even tiny drops of liquid mustard gas can cause massive blistering. During the War, just touching the clothing of a soldier exposed to mustard gas even hours after his evacuation was enough to bring about serious blistering. Touching the case of a sweating gas shell nowadays will still cause blisters inches across. I have heard of two collectors being gassed to death in their car when they took away a live gas shell that was leaking, though I do not have references to verify the word-of-mouth story.

As well as artillery shells, other sorts of munitions are also sometimes found, along with rifles (basically the barrel and mechanism – all wooden parts long since perished) and very occasionally a machinegun. One of the star finds on Varlet Farm was a German machinegun in slightly rusty but still easily recognisable state. Then there are non-weaponry metal finds such as the steel posts used to hold barbed wire in place.

Charlotte interspersed her talk with several horror stories of groups visiting her bed and breakfast accommodation who had brought with them a ‘find’ that was still live and which could have gone off being bounced in their bus. Really, better safe than sorry – don’t pick up anything which has the slightest possibility of being live. First World War munitions can kill, even after over 90 years in the ground.

It was a fascinating talk and I hope I’ve given enough of a flavour of it to whet your appetite without stealing her thunder if you ever do get a chance to hear her talk. And if you do plan to visit the battlefields of Ypres, Varlet Farm is the perfect base to stay at. The website is here, with info on the accommodation, prices, and contact details for booking. Personally, I think she should consider writing a book as her experiences living with the legacy of the First World War are fascinating and she is very good at getting them across.

This article is a continuation from part two. For the start of the series, click here.

There are plenty of rifle and machinegun bullets too, but those are too small to be noticed when ploughing and anyway are solid metal so do not need to be disposed of. In previous decades, a common sight around ploughing time in the old combat zone of western Belgium was a rusty shell leaning against the bottom of an electricity pole at the side of a field (or even placed in the holes that run through a common type of concrete electricity pole!). The Belgian Army bomb disposal vans would simply drive around continuously to spot and collect them, with no reporting being necessary. This practice has since been banned, partly for fear of electricity blackouts if there was an explosion and partly because it was far too tempting for collectors who would take the shells and risk an explosion due to careless handling (or worse still, when attempting to make the shell safe with workshop tools in their garages!).

Once unexploded shells have been collected by the Belgian Army, they are taken to a workshop where they are identified and then stacked in boxes to be taken out onto an Army range and exploded. This is by the simple means of burying them with a modern explosive charge on top then detonating the charge from a safe distance. During ploughing and harvest times several of these disposal detonations per day can be heard coming from the Belgian Army bomb disposal ranges. It is done in batches so that individual explosions can be kept relatively small (90 kilos of high explosive being the current maximum).

Continued in part four…

This article is a continuation from part one.

The majority of intact shells are ones that were fired but never exploded – most often due to the fuse not detonating in the quagmire that the Ypres Salient battlefields became. Sometimes there can be unfired rounds, most likely if the field was the site of an artillery battery. Very occasionally a large dump of unfired shells is found: a shell storage dump built underground to protect it from aerial observation and attack then forgotten as the fighting moved on. Luckily none of these large dumps have been found on Varlet Farm.

One can tell a fired from an unfired shell by whether the copper driving band is smooth or gouged. The driving band is a ring near the base of the shell that grips the twisted rifling grooves in the gun barrel to make the shell spin. The width and positioning of the driving band also helps tell apart otherwise quite similar British, German and French light artillery shells.

The most common shell type found on Varlet Farm is the British 18-pounder artillery shell, with some German 77mm shells too. The 18-pounder artillery piece (named for the weight of its shell) was the standard light field artillery gun equipping batteries near the front line and millions upon millions of 18-pounder shells were fired during the war so although most did go off there are still many unexploded ones left.

The 18-pounder shell is around 3½ inches in diameter by around 12 inches long. There were versions filled with shrapnel (small balls that would scatter out in front of the shell when a time fuse made it explode in the air, turning it into a sort of giant shotgun shell), high explosive (HE), smoke (for screening attacks) and gas.

Continued in part three…

Varlet Farm is a working farm near the infamous village of Passchendaele in the Ypres Salient of Belgium, the half circle around the east of Ypres where fighting was almost continuous for the four years of the First World War. The farm also offers bed and breakfast accommodation for visitors, particularly those who are exploring the battlefields. The proprietor, Charlotte Descamps, has over the years developed a deep interest and expertise in the First World War munitions and debris which her husband (like all farmers in the area) digs up year after year when ploughing and harvesting the fields. This spring (2012) she is travelling to give talks on the subject to various groups, including the Worcester branch of the Western Front Association which she talked to on Friday 17th February. This article gives an overview of what she told us.

As well as many hundreds of tons of fragments, around 140 tons of intact, unexploded, and potentially dangerous First World War shells are still dug up every year on farms across Belgium, creating a heavy workload for the Belgian Army bomb disposal unit. Usually, shells are moved by the farmer to a small dump and then collected by the Army by van to be taken away to workshops to be identified and then disposed of safely. Very few are actually detonated in-situ – the number found means that cordoning off every single find would bring agriculture to a standstill – and although they can still go off they can usually be moved carefully. It is a risk those working the land on the old battlefields just have to take, though there are surprisingly few deaths or injuries among farmers: the majority of those killed are collectors who take greater risks by moving them further and keeping them longer. All in all there are two to three unexpected explosions across Belgium per year due to First World War munitions.

Continued in part two …

The war at sea was very important however not as important as the western front. The highlights of the war at sea was that it brought America into the war as German U-boats sunk American ships. The coming of America brought 1 million infantry troops and equipment such as tanks and aeroplanes and morale for the British and French troops which played a decent role in breaching the Hindenburg line which was a key factor in the downfall of the German army. This is because it was a strategic defence point, in addition German morale was dead. Letters from home to the German troops stated that Germany was being starved out due to the blockade but now since most hope of winning the war was lost the German people were failing to find a reason to continue fighting and starving.  (A military disaster coincided with a food crisis at the time and by the summer of 1918 people were starving and were failing to find a reason for this sacrifice when victory was well out of the question).

The reason for this starvation was however because of the blockade and the war at sea by which point the Germans were losing. Proof of this is that near to the end of the war The German sailors refused to put to sea as ordered by the generals for the glory of the German army. This again relates to the war at sea as the German sailors believed such an action to be suicide and so mutinied. The German generals were failing to  find spare troops to stop the Mutiny. Not only did such defiance come from the sailors but also from the Admirals as they were indignant at having to call off submarine warfare, This was leading Germany to collapse and raised panic.  This was a very important role that was achieved through the war at sea because this than led Prince Max to try to bring the war to an end in order to stop the revolution. As seen from the examples above the War at sea played a key role in collapsing the German army which Haig believed was the way to destroy Germany.

The reasons why This was not as important as the crucial western front was because with America joining the war and bringing down German morale as they now knew that the small chance they had of winning the war was now completely lost. In addition despite aprox every 10 Americans dying for a single German and most casualties being caused by British troops the chances of Britain, France and America losing were extremely slim, especially with the extra equipment and a major boost in morale.

The war at sea was However the 2nd most important reason in the downfall of Germany due to e.g the blockade constantly decreasing Germany’s morale by starving them, furthermore their families wrote letters to them such as this one “We have nothing to eat, we are fed up with the war, come back as soon as possible” (Herbert Sulzbach 1918) This obviously helped to decrease the German army’s willingness to continue fighting.  Ludendorff described the blockade as “the strangling hunger” meaning it was surely strangling Germany to death through means of starvation.  In addition he also says that patriotism died and the germans were found in a receptive frame of mind” This once again shows the effectiveness of the blockade, furthermore since Ludendorff is admitting this disaster in one of his memoirs it is unlikely to be biased and based on my own knowledge seems pretty accurate, Another source by the German vice chancellor saying “all I see is starving people” backs up this one thus showing once again the importance of the fleet..

Overall it was a crucial factor in winning the world war and helped out the war at the western front which was the crucial and single most important factor for winning the war.

By Roman Korvyakov.   (Roman2011)

Britain had a strong navy because it was an island nation and because it had the world’s largest empire covering a sixth of the worlds land mass. Britain had territories all over the world and needed a large navy to protect them.

Germany’s Leader, Kaiser Wilhelm II, hoped to extend his empire and believed “Germany must have a powerful fleet to protect that trade and her interests in even the most distant seas”.  He hoped that he could have the strongest navy as well as the strongest army. For the two empires a large navy would prevent opposing nations from invasion and to grow and protect their empires.

In 1906 Britain released an advanced battleship named the HMS Dreadnought and it was far superior to any ship preceding it such as the HMS Dominion built the year before in 1905. In 1908 the Germans launched an equivalent battleship, the Nassau however Britain had more ship building sites and believed they could out build the Germans.

Over the next few years competed against each other in the “race” to have the most Dreadnoughts which caused rivalry and tension. By 1909, Britain had 8 dread noughts and Germany had 7. In 1912 Britain redeployed their navy into the North Sea out ling how serious Britain took Germany’s naval threat. It now seemed inevitable that there would be a war due to the naval race.

Wilfred Owen’s poem, “Dulce et Decorum est” displays the horrors of the First World War, which helps to illustrate the immorality of all conflict. Owen uses strong descriptions of battles taking place on the Western Front, clearly portraying his negative opinion. Gruesome descriptions in certain parts of the poem are some of the best examples of this. For example, in the second stanza, Owen describes the death of a fellow soldier by poison gas. First he speaks of the desperate struggle (”an ecstacy of fumbling”) that the soldiers take to quickly put on their protective masks in the wake of a gas attack. He graphically describes an unfortunate man drowning “under a green sea” without a mask, “floundering like a man in fire or lime”. This dual imagery is particlarly effective — the man, a symbol of all the casualities of the Great War, is both drowning, as though in the ocean, and burning to death, as though in “fire or lime”. Almost a microcosm for the war itself, the man lies in a poisoned ocean, just as the nations of the world battling off naval forces were at this time. As well as this, he is burning to death, as the countries of Europe were after extended conflict on their soil. What’s more, he was subjected to a harsh new technology — chemical warfare — which hadn’t been seen before this time. This is representative of much of the technology used in the First World War including, alongside chemical warfare, more powerful artillery, new kinds of trench warfare and, arguably the biggest advancement, the development of air-based conflict. The strong scene is further pushed into the reader’s mind with greater elaboration on the gruesome elements of the man’s death. As he dies, the man writhes on the ground with “froth corrupted lungs” until his dead body is “flung” onto a wagon with other dead soldiers. His face is captured in death “like a devil’s sick of sin”, while Owen later dreams of the “guttering, choking, drowning” dead man lunging at him “before [his] helpless sight”. This highlights not only the horrific nature of death in conflict, but also how helpless we are against it. In the poem, Owen is plagued by dreams of this particular dying man who he cannot help at all — the man who he watched die, “dim, through the misty panes and thick green light”. Owen suggests that, like him, we can all but only watch the unfolding of war from behind our own “misty panes” — protecting ourselves while remaining helpless to stop it. This is a clearly anti-war message. Far from just revealing graphic details of the death and destruction that he witnessed first hand, he questions the very nature of our being and our futility against widespread conflict. Since the First World War, there have been many other major conflicts. Most notably the Second World War, which took place twenty years later and involved nearly every country on the planet. This shows what Owen aimed to express alongside his anti-war sentiment — we could be powerless against the forces of conflict. Maybe, he suggests, war is inevitable. However, his dark conclusion to the poem quoting the “old lie: Dulce et decorum est, Pro patria Mori” (meaning “It is good and honourable to fight and die for one’s country”) clearly states his views — we cannot be naive; no matter its inevitability, war is terrible and should be avoided at all costs. 

On the other hand, Rupert Brooke glorified his version of the First World War in his poem “The Soldier“. Captured in this poem are old fashioned ideals such as the belief that fighting and dying for your country is honourable and desirable. In fact, through this poem, Brooke portrays this belief and justifies its validity, even to a twenty first century reader. Through the use of extreme personification of England as a mother, he claims that ’she’ needs protection. He begins by saying that “If [he] should die” he should only be thought of as a “part of England… in some foreign field”. This shows that he believes the cost of dying for one’s country is worth the protection acheived by it. He describes England as a kind and benevolent soul who “bore, shaped and made (him) aware” — in other words, ’she’ is his mother. As his mother, and the mother of all Britons, England is a metaphorical part of him so there is no cost involved in dying to protect ‘her’. As well as this, the use of positive language helps to sway the reader to a positive view point. For example, England is further described as a perfect land and Brooke speaks of being “washed by (England’s) rivers” and “blest” by ‘her’ suns. This gives the impression of a heaven-like nation, which helps to strengthen the idea that it should be protected at all costs, including one’s own life. In fact, any negative imagery of the war in this poem is non existent. However, this could be due to the fact that Brooke had not seen any actual fighting at the time of writing this poem. Even Wilfred Owen may have expressed similar sentiments before actually experiencing the horrors of the war first hand. Like other poets who lived further through the war, such as Sassoon and Rosenberg, Owen expressed what he had experienced. Brooke died of blood poisoning in the early days of the conflict. It has been suggested that it is unfair to catergorise Brooke’s works as sentimental and pro-war, as his opinions may have changed dramatically had he lived longer. Brooke is remembered as a war poet who inspired patriotism, but this is arguably a superficial judgement. 

The differences between the poetry of Rupert Brooke and Wilfred Owen are clearly evident in the poems “The Soldier” and “Dulce et Decorum est”. Both centred on the topic of the First World War, one poem (Owen’s “Dulce”) illustrates a horrific picture of fighting on the Western Front. It expresses a heavy anti-war sentiment and questions the morality of all conflict. The other poem, “The Soldier” by Rupert Brooke, sheds positive light on the war and glorifies fighting and dying as honourable. Despite this, the differing war experiences of the two poets clearly had an effect on their work. As well as this, Brooke’s poems may be superficially judged as enthusiastically pro-war. Because of these things, it is difficult to judge the true standpoint of both of the poems. In any case, however, the differences between the two and their opinions on the First World War are clear. 

This is the final part of a multi-part article. To begin at the first part, click here.

I hope that you have found this series of articles to be informative, and that they have given at least some idea of the complex nature of the forts and defences around Verdun, as well as the hellishness of the ten months of bitter fighting for them in 1916. It is right to remember the sacrifice of the thousands of men who died there, both for their sakes and also to remember the horrors of war thus making it a little less likely that we will resort to it lightly in the future. War is dreadful, and only to be taken up when the alternatives are even worse.

I thought that I should finish with a little note on the sources used in writing these articles and on my credentials. I do not claim to be a historian. All that I know of the First World War is gleaned from reading a good number of relatively popular books rather than diving into the primary sources. But I do like to understand the sites I visit properly and read up on them extensively before and after my visits as well as examining them thoroughly when I do visit, taking copious notes with lots of photographs. I would like to think of myself as a thoughtful and thorough history buff and history tourist, if not a proper historian, bringing my own thoughts to the places I visit and giving the reader some idea of the experience.

Information sources used in the creation of this series:

• Book ‘Walking Verdun’ by Christina Holstein – basically a series of walks across the battlefield taking in the main sites and defences, but including excellent explanations which make it a valuable reference in its own right, even for those not visiting the sites.
• Book ‘The Fortifications of Verdun 1874-1917’ by Clayton Donnell – a slim volume that gives a good introductory explanation of the forts and their components.
• Book ‘Major and Mrs Holt’s Battlefield Guide: the Western Front, South’ – the chapter on Verdun is an 88-mile driving tour which they optimistically claim might be squeezed into one long day. As with all Holt’s publications it is an excellent whistle-stop run through the main monuments and memorials (along with a selection of minor ones) at a battlefield, and makes a good starting point for planning what to see. Obviously since I was travelling by bicycle I could not use their tour route as written, but it was still a very useful resource and the more conventional car or bus tourist will undoubtedly find it invaluable.
• French IGN map 3112ET, 1:25000 (4cm to 1km) – a detailed modern map of the whole east bank area north of Verdun, showing paths, forts, monuments and the major bunkers. Invaluable if you intend to explore the area thoroughly.
• My own observations on visiting the sites personally in July 2011 and my photographs taken then.
• Explanatory panels at the main sites – most are in English as well as French but unfortunately many were hard to read due to damp and fungus getting in under the plastic covers and occasionally from vandalism (a sad indication of disrespect for those who fought and died there which I found very annoying).
• Fortiff Sere website, page on Froideterre (French language, but recommended for its photos of the interior of the fort and a clear map of the layout): http://www.fortiffsere.fr/verdun/index_fichiers/Page12509.htm.

The Osprey Fortifications series book on Fort Douaumont is probably worth a read, but unfortunately I cannot comment on it as my book fund has not yet stretched to buying a copy! There are also other books which go into considerable detail about the technicalities of the forts if the reader wants to concentrate on that (I only wanted to know enough to understand how they worked as defensive structures).

Thank you for following me on this journey around the forts of Verdun. I hope to write more articles based on my cycle tour of the Western Front, so look out for them!

This is part six of a multi-part article. To begin at the first part, click here.

Reading more about the fortlet of Froideterre on my return to the UK, one difference between it and the full forts became apparent, namely that Froideterre was a collection of unconnected blockhouses rather than a single structure. Not getting inside the main structures on my visit, I had assumed they were connected by galleries underground but that was not the case. There was the main barrack block with one machine gun turret atop it, an artillery block with the twin 75mm gun turret, a third block with the second machine gun turret on top and the Bourges casemate block. All four were built into the one horseshoe-shaped artificial hillock but the only way to get from one to the other was to exit and cross the courtyard in the open. Only after the Battle of Verdun was over, in 1917, did military engineers have the time to dig tunnels into the bedrock under the four blocks and connect them up.

So what combat did Froideterre see during the ten-month Battle of Verdun, and what was the outcome? The Germans had launched the Verdun offensive in February 1916 and Fort Douaumont, at the centre of the Thiaumont Ridge, had fallen soon after. A road led straight downhill from Douaumont, through Fleury village to the eastern edge of Verdun itself, but it was in plain view of Froideterre, with its observers and gun turret. The choice was therefore either to work west along the ridge to take Froideterre, or to ignore it and concentrate on Fort Vaux at the far east of the defences, the opposite end from Froideterre. That is what the Germans did and through April and May they worked closer to it and then launched an assault on 1st June that took the fort on 7th June after very bitter fighting.

The Germans were now in a position to sweep down towards Verdun on a broader front, from Douaumont in the centre to Vaux in the east, but the thrust from Douaumont would be in view of the guns of Froideterre so it could be ignored no longer. On 23rd June 1916 the Bavarian troops attacked eastwards along the Thiaumont Ridge, taking Thiaumont and then the command posts and troop shelters that will be covered in the next part of this article, before leading units attacked Froideterre itself.

Map 2: June 1916 attacks on Forts Vaux, Thiaumont and Froideterre (map by Bruce Officer)

The Bavarians expected Froideterre to be battered almost helpless but although one machine gun turret was jammed the other was working as was the artillery turret (firing canister shot – shell cases full of steel balls which effectively turned an artillery piece into a giant shotgun for close defence). The Germans got into the courtyard but were machine gunned and beat a hurried retreat up onto the top of the fort. There they were still under fire but could take cover in the shell craters atop the fort and started to throw grenades into the few holes that their bombardment in the days before had blasted through the earth and concrete roofs into the rooms of the fort below.

After one particular grenade, a cloud of thick smoke started to pour out from inside the fort. The grenade had set off a store of signalling rockets which threatened to create a fire. Knowing they would be blown to smithereens too if fire reached the main magazine, the Germans evacuated the top of the fort while the French rushed to put the fire out. But during the confusion they also managed to get the second machine gun turret working again so by the time the danger was over a renewed German attack was met by a hail of fire and repulsed.

The German spearhead here had been whittled down to a handful of men but a concerted attack by reinforcements might have taken the fort. The commander of the leading troops, only a lieutenant, sent for more men but by now the French artillery batteries in the valleys further back had recovered from the gas shell attack which had silenced them temporarily and were able to lay down a thick curtain of shellfire to stop German reinforcements getting through. Only 15 men remained of the German lead unit that had attacked the fort, now cut off by shellfire. They tried to get back to their lines after midnight, under cover of darkness, but ran into a French unit and were captured.

Froideterre had held out, and would now be an invaluable observation point to call down fire onto the road through Fleury as the Germans attacked there. It also acted as a front line command post, shelter for weary troops, communications centre and first aid post over the next weeks as the French started to push the Germans back.

This is how the forts around Verdun, and the lesser bunkers, often ended up being used in the fighting – a mix of roles and above all a harbour of relative safety amid the hellish landscape of a First World War battle, places that anchored the defence, supported and sustained the troops fighting in trenches and shell holes in between.

And a final macabre note: because of the fighting it saw, and its later use as a first aid post, a good number of French soldiers were buried under the courtyard of the fort. Whether they were later exhumed and moved to one of the main cemeteries, or whether they lie there still I know not.

That completed our visit to this small but important fort, so we mounted our bicycles again and rolled down to rejoin the road along the Thiaumont Ridge.

To be continued in part seven (still to be written), but for now please jump to the final part, about the sources used in writing these articles.