 |
| False Papers for Albert Mattens as 'Jean Jacques' |
 |
| The French village of Bachy |
 |
| Yvon Michiels |
After the liberation of Belgium, Holland and France, the
Allies began to look at making awards to patriots who had helped evaders, in
the form of citations, medals and reimbursement of expenses.
On 13 March 1945 the French Forces of the Interior (Resistance
Section W. O. O.F.A.C.M) issued a certification letter that Maurice Bricout had
worked for their organisation from October 1943 and had ceased active service
since 30 November 1944. Preceding
working for them they said he had been involved with another resistance group
and French partisans. It commended him
for his work. In a further report from the O.F.A.C.M, Bricout states that in
1940 he helped several Allied soldiers hide before rejoining their unit and
also a Polish officer. He adds that in April 1943 he liaised with resistance
groups and worked with Eugene Dallendre to create an escape passage for pilots
who had been shot down in occupied territory and used his home as a place of
shelter for them on their way back to England. He also helped in the
creation of two other escape routes and the evasion of more than 300 airmen
with proof of this. There are also some references to actual sabotage
operations he alleged he took part in.
The ‘Military Intelligence Service, United States Forces
European Theatre’ were responsible for making the awards and reimbursement of
expenses. In the case of escape lines, this would involve collecting written
evidence in the form of testimonies and statements from escape and resistance
operators and direct references to the person in evaders’ debriefing reports.
This was not a straightforward process. Few operators kept written evidence for
obvious reasons, but those that did were able to provide vital information. In
the Comete Escape Line some evaders wrote ‘thank you’ notes before they left to
cross into Spain.
In the case of one Belgian resistance operator, evaders wrote letters of
appreciation complete with their name and address in his a pocket book which he
then carried around with him!
In the escape lines, helpers often did not disclose their
real names, giving an alias, codename or nothing at all. For the evader it was
often easier to forget or not ask. If they were captured and interrogated, the
less they knew the better.
Maurice Bricout wrote a number of long letters to the
authorities around his work with evaders and the resistance. He also referred
to the unsuccessful claim for some material assistance to reset up his home
after it was sacked by the Gestapo. The numbers of evaders allegedly helped
vary on the documents he completed. He
mentions 80 American pilots being helped in the line, then 65 aviators being
sheltered; the statement to O.F.A.C.M says 300 with proof. On his initial
questionnaire for helpers, only two evaders names are noted: Charles Elwell and
Charles Carlson.
The file tells the story of how difficult the process for
award and reimbursement could be. On 4
September 1945 Major John White Awards Section summarises on a document.
‘Elwell
and Carson say that M. Bricout helped them. They are not specific about what he
did for them.
According
to the report of Yvon Michiels this gentleman with his brother Albert helped
Comete in the frontier passage at Rumes. M. Soetemondt’ (fellow operator Lille section –also
customs) ‘ states in his detailed report
on the Comete crossings that he started working with Albert Bricout and later
did considerable work with Maurice Bricout . He says that Maurice Bricout has
done the greater part of work. M. Bricout is mentioned by Odile de Vasselot.’ (guide – Rumes to Paris) Emilien Vifquin mentions him in connection
with Elwell and Carlson.
There
seems to be no indication of whether M Bricout was or was not paid for his
activities. Apparently his losses are due entirely to pillage for which we have
no responsibility.’
On 9 November 1945 Bricout visited the authorities in person
about a Lt Sarant’s refusal to reimburse him for expenses he and his wife
incurred in their work with the aviators.
He reported that he had been promised the money and burst into a tirade
against the ingratitude of the Allies, swearing that he did not care about the
money, but was upset that he had had no recognition for the great services
rendered to the Allied cause. He stated that he was the most active member of
the Comete line besides working for two other networks. He advised that the
authorities had paid several other people he knew who were not deportees and
who had not done as much work as he had. He himself had barely escaped arrest
and his wife had taken his place. Bricout said he would put an article in the
papers about the ingratitude of the Allies to the French sacrifice.
The Allies must have investigated the matter further as in
July 1946 documents show that an attestation had been received ‘in glowing
terms’ from main operator Albert Mattens (‘Jean-Jacques’) ( Bricout Post
1) and that they have ‘complete
confirmation of all work that the above has done.’
Bricout’s ‘Work Sheet’ for his ‘Expenses and Deportation
Case’ shows in addition to claims already made references to three other
evaders’ reports; they mention a French policeman, or staying at the home of a
policeman for one night. The sheet also mentions Bricout’s work on the creation of a second evasion
Line. No British and Commonwealth evasion reports are noted or appear to have
been considered, despite a number of clear references being made in them to a French or border policeman.
There is also a summary of how he helped
to create a new passage line through which it was alleged more than 300
aviators were convoyed.
Along with his wife, Bricout was eventually awarded The US
Medal of Freedom with Bronze Palm. On the final document, the note includes a
reference to Mme Elvire de Greef ‘Tante Go’ (one of the main Comete operators).
‘In
view of the above we propose that a payment of 10,000 francs be made to Mme
Bricout for imprisonment and expenses. Final settlement. On Mme de Greef’s
advice this payment should be made definitely to Mme Bricout for her
imprisonment, as M. Bricout , as a member of the Comet Line has made a
statement that he does not wish to be paid for expenses.’
The Allies were treading a difficult path with awards and
expenses. Working with claims, allegations, corroboration, difficulties around
facts and the political sensitivity of the time; reaching appropriate decisions
was a potential minefield. Maurice Bricout’s claims around the number of
evaders that he helped and the strength of his involvement in other lines
alongside the Bachy to Rumes route contain a number of inconsistencies. This
may have been what was behind Lt Sarant’s initial refusal to pay expenses.
Weighty testimonies around Bricout’s activities from some key players helped
shift the balance back towards him. But there is a suggestion of ill feeling
amongst some Comete operators who saw these claims as showing off and
forgetting fellow friends, who had worked for the same cause, took the same
risks and then withdrew into the background preferring not to publicise their
roles.
In the author’s view, Maurice Bricout operated successfully
from July to December 1943 on the Rumes to Bachy escape passage, taking similar
risks as others in escorting evaders over the fields and sheltering them at his
home overnight. After the arrest of ‘Jean Jacques’ in January 1944 he continued
to help several other airmen. Bricout is also likely to have had an input on
other lines along that stretch of the border whilst working with ‘Jean Jacques’
and Henri Soutemondt in the planning stages, his knowledge of the border being
useful. The level of involvement in those lines after that would be best
described as minimal. The number of evaders he actually helped is thought to be considerably less than the 300 alleged and more in line with the 65 noted on the later document. The former figure is far too high even if it was directly attributable to the lines.
Some sympathy lies with Bricout as he had almost lost his
home, narrowly avoided the Gestapo and seen his wife imprisoned and return from there in
very poor health. This must have been difficult when he knew of others that had
received recognition and compensation, and when across the liberated countries,
people were suddenly emerging to allege helping the cause, when they had done
little or nothing.
Unfortunately he went about lodging his claim in the wrong
way, but at conclusion the final award to Bricout and his wife may have reflected
at an appropriate level the valuable work that they both did.
No post next week as it is the Annual Comete Reunion in Brussels. I will be back
in a fortnight.
Sources – NARA file for Maurice Bricout
© Keith Morley
