You are here:

Military History/Churchill & his allies May 1940


LIII1940 wrote at 2008-12-06 04:15:06
Although the British military establishment has never publicly acknowledged the King Leopold III and his army, by their prolonged resistance saved the BEF, the world famous military expert Liddell Hart saw no reason for such reticence.

In 1960 delivering a lecture to students and faculty at King College.

Liddell Hart bluntly declared “ The British army at Dunkirk was saved from destruction by King Leopold III of the Belgians.

Captain Liddell Hart said that Sir Arthur Bryant’s claim that the saving of the BEF was mainly due to Lord Alanbrooke did not stand up to examination.

Hart went on to say, “ the unfortunate Belgian Army absorbed the weight of the German frontal attack from the north. By the time the Belgian front had turned the BEF had slipped out of reach and were nearing Dunkirk.

Liddell Hart went further to say, “ if King Leopold III had left Belgium on May 25th as his ministers and Churchill had urged him to do so. The Belgian army would have surrendered immediately, instead of fighting on until early morning of May 28th.


LIII wrote at 2009-04-29 01:20:00
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Radio Interview !

Lord Keyes on the

"great lie", Churchill Version on King Leopold

III denied. Was Leopold Guilty ?  

Daniel Wybo wrote at 2009-09-16 12:43:24

Mr. Sutton

I have discovered this Radio Interview that proves without doubt that  that Churchill lied about the actions of the Belgian King and his

army leading up to the Dunkirk evacuation ?

Please admit your error !

Daniel wrote at 2009-10-29 23:51:26

Sir when you review the archives with the eye witness testimony for you to see in black and white, you know now that Churchill lied and there was a conspiracy to hide the truth.

Lord Keyes would, many years later, state (in his book: A sea of troubles”) that the references, made by Churchill in his book “The Second World War”, were in fact so unfair and misleading-due to omissions and distortions of the facts-that his son, Randolph Churchill, (according to the former archduke Otto von Habsburg) furiously said to him:

“What you have said and written about King Leopold and the Belgian Army, is nothing else but a heap of lies, as you very well know”.

The archduke who was present, describes in his book “Naissance d’un Continent” this heated discussion, which took place at Chequers, the official country house of the British prime minister.

He remembers how Churchill admitted, in a provocative way: “Of course these were lies, but you must not forget that the history of a period is determined by its best author. I am and will remain this author and therefore, whatever I wrote will have to be accepted as being the truth”.

Winston Churchill had, nevertheless, admitted in 1943 (!): …We went at war, unprepared and almost unarmed…”

Further, in his memoirs, he stated about the British Expeditionary Force: “…it was only a symbolic contribution...”

When Winston Churchill died, he took his shameful lies into his grave……..

The attack on the honour of King Leopold III and his army, continuous, until today, to throw a shadow of distrust and resentment in the heart of the Belgian people, certainly with the thousands of veterans and all Belgians who are still very well aware of what happened in May 1940.

Your comment that "Belgian King is not entirely blameless"

Does not take into consideration the series of international events that lead Belgium to adopt the policy of armed neutrality that was necessary when the Franco British Governments failed stop Hitler in the reoccupation of the Rhineland, that's when Belgium asked to be released from its obligations to the Lucarno Pact.

There after the Franco British failed to stop Hitler in Czechoslovakia, Poland, Norway and Denmark.

There was one opportunity in January 1940 for Belgium

to allow the allies entry after the Mechelin incident,Belgium was prepared to let the allies enter on the guarantee that her soverignty would be assured following an allied victory and that her colonies would remain Belgian.

You see during the WWI the allies had made ovatures to Germany to cease hostilities on the premise that the Belgian Congo would be handed over to Germany as a pawn to enter peace negotiations, but never, never was Belgium informed of this attempt.

The carnage in Flanders in WWI where big neihbours

fight out their differences on Belgian soil, was foremost in the mind of average Belgians.

In order to prove to all that Belgium was serious

in maintaining its independence ,from 1937-1940

She mobilized an army of 600,000 regulars with 200,000 in reserve. For Belgium a country of 8 million, 46% of the male population was in the army.

Had the British and French matched that effort, there is no way Hitler would have succeeded his zeal to take the Low Countries and France.

When the King of the Belgians takes the oath of office he swears

"I swear to observe the Constitution and the laws of the Belgian people, to preserve national independence and the integrity of the territory "

Leve de Koning Vive la Roi !  

Daniel wrote at 2016-09-07 21:04:44

The now given fact that it was not just the Panzer halt that allowed the British and some French to escape at Dunkirk.

Irrefutable evidence now points to the role of the Belgian army ,the Belgian Army had no means of escape and yet fought a 4 day battle(May 24-28,1940) along the river Lys covering the British retreat .

Radio Interview attached with the Younger Lord Keyes .

BBC Radio Kent interview with RGB KEYES  discussing Dunkirk and the role of King Leopold III of the Belgians and The Belgian Army

The Belgian King ( Leopold III) and his army were accused by the French and British of surrendering without notice thus allegedly exposing the British and causing their need for the escape at Dunkirk.

When in fact it was the other way around, it was the British who purposely failed to notify the French or Belgians that they were getting out.

The great lie was propagated by French Premier Renaud and backed up by Winston Churchill to appease the French .

The French and the British used the Belgian Surrender as their scapegoat and blamed  their defeats in the field on the Belgians.

We believe this is a once in a lifetime chance to finally dispel the lies written in the English history books.

Churchill said about the Belgian Army and its King that the Belgians

''Suddenly, without prior consultation, with the least possible notice''

''exposed our whole flank and means of retreat''

We Belgians call this THE GREAT LIE

Its all good and well to tell the story of the Dunkirk evacuation, however if the events leading up to the evacuation are not accurately told, it propagates the lies that have existed in the English history books on this event.

Namely the failed Weygand offensive and the fact that Operation Dynamo was kept from Britons allies namely the French and the Belgians.

The French who failed to stop the Germans in the region of Sedan, allowing the Germans to cut off the British and Belgian armies and the French 7th army in the north eventually leading to the encirclement and the necessity for evacuation. The failed Weygand offensive had the British looking to escape and get back to England      Churchill society comes clean

Daniel A Wybo


Royal League of Veterans of His Majesty King Leopold III

Koninklijk verbond der veteranen van Z.M. Koning Leopold III - Afdeling Kortrijk  

Military History

All Answers

Answers by Expert:

Ask Experts


Paul Sutton


I can answer questions on World War Two weapons, tactics, and strategy. I can answer questions on Weapons systems and their development. I can answer guestions on Space exploration history. I am a World War 2 expert. I study Military Weapons Systems and the usage of those systems.


I work for Saint Petersburg College as a TRS or Technology resources specialist. I read 10 to 15 books a year on World War 2 and weapon systems. I also have a BA in History from USF.

I have a BA in history from USF.

©2016 All rights reserved.