The Revival of Rural after the Great War Author(s): Hugh D. Clout Reviewed work(s): Source: Geografiska Annaler. Series B, Human Geography, Vol. 75, No. 2 (1993), pp. 73-91 Published by: Wiley-Blackwell on behalf of the Swedish Society for Anthropology and Geography Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/490701 . Accessed: 16/10/2012 04:01

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Wiley-Blackwell and Swedish Society for Anthropology and Geography are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Geografiska Annaler. Series B, Human Geography.

http://www.jstor.org THE REVIVAL OF RURAL LORRAINE AFTER THE GREAT WAR

by Hugh D. Clout

Clout, H.D., 1993: The revival of rural Lorraine after the would have to be directed. Finally, came the desol- GreatWar. Geogr. Ann. 75 B (2): 73-91. ate and controversial 'red zone' whose 116,800 ha were so devastated that seemed ABSTRACT. The devastated regions of northern they beyond hope contained some of the most advanced farming and manu- of restoration. The German-occupied ddparte- facturingdistricts in France.Within a few years of the Armis- ments in Alsace and northern Lorraine, which tice virtually all the ravaged farmlandsof northern France were to be France at the conclusion of and ten regained by were bearingcrops within yearsvirtually all of its set- the were also but were to be re- tlements had been rebuilt.The spatial impactof devastation war, damaged they and subsequent recovery within French Lorrainewere very constructed according to different procedures and varied.The state'semergency serviceswere widely criticized they lie beyond the scope of the present discussion and were disbanded during 1920. Much permanent recon- of and (Picard, 1937). struction farms villages was undertakenby coopera- Within a few of the Armistice tive reconstructionsocieties, which were promoted by ad- just years virtually ministrators and socially-committed priests. -et- all the ravaged farmlands of northern France were provided an effective model that was followed bearing crops and within ten years virtually all its elsewhere in northernFrance. Lorrainealso pioneered post- settlements had been rebuilt. Once the land- war consolidation but this initiative was not emulated again plot became one of life but one that was widely in the devastated regions. By contrast with the re- scape ordinary mainder of northern France, large areas of seriously devas- marked by war memorials and military cemeteries tated land aroundVerdun in were not reclaimed for both great and small (Reynes, 1929). It now takes farmingbut were put under timber.The pattern of relative an to trace the of devasta- the inquisitive eye impact recoverydisplayed in early 1930sin Lorrainecould have tion and in the fabric of these been predicted from local economic trends duringthe quar- recovery placid ter century before 1914. northern countrysides (Becker, 1988; American Battle Monuments Commission, 1927). Legisla- tion for compensation, restoration and reconstruc- I. The RegionsDevastees tion applied throughout the regions divastees but Three-quarters of a century have elapsed since the subsequent achievements varied considerably, landscapes of northern France, from the Channel both within and between departements because of to the Swiss border, were devastated by the events differences in pre-war circumstances, in the inten- of World War I. No fewer than 4,726 communes in sity of destruction, and in organization and admin- ten departementswithin the nation's pre-war boun- istration once the Armistice had been signed daries were classified as forming the regions divas- (Michel, 1932). tees, whose 3,300,000 ha contained some of the The present discussion focuses on the dfparte- most advanced farming and manufacturing dis- ments of Meuse, Meurthe-et-Moselle and , tricts in France (Fridin, 1928; Ministere des which formed the greater part of the historic pro- Travaux Publics, 1929). Settlements in 620 com- vince of Lorraine that had been bisected by the in- munes were destroyed totally, with losses exceed- ternational boundary realigned at the conclusion ing 50% in a further 1,334. About 293,000 dwel- of the Franco-Prussian War (Figure la). The iron lings and farm buildings were destroyed, 149,000 mines and metallurgical works of Lorraine an- were gravely damaged and 352,000 partially so. nexde experienced massive investment by German An estimated 375,000,000 m2 needed to be purged industrial corporations and were mirrored by of barbed wire and 333,000,000 m3 of trenches re- similar developments in Meurthe-et-Moselle in quired filling and refilling as subsidence occurred. French Lorraine. Indeed, the and Orne Official surveyors identified 1,694,500 ha as basins and the environs of Nancy contained half forming the 'blue zone', which required only sim- the nation's blast furnaces in 1914 (Fiel, 1935; ple clearance. A further 1,495,000 ha made up the p. 23). Rural to urban migration and the arrival of 'yellow zone', where much more sustained effort workers from Italy and elsewhere boosted the d6-

GeografiskaAnnaler - 75 B (1993)- 2 73 HUGH D. CLOUT

Not damage International boundary I I

::::::::::::::::PA- - S-DE- .3 CALAIS Regional ligh boundary N i . i:::i- -ht~ag ...... daageNORD \ ~Much damage SOMME ASEARDENES STD 0 ilmereioer 2 0 AE RE ??C. ~ ~ ~Completely devastated IS Pads~~n MARNEEUSMEURTH E- ilJI?\ET-MOSELLE ?Charleville 0 ::::::~ rlrVOSGES

......

::`: ???::::'::'::::::A N?: ?",?:*?:?"?,::.B*,:*::-?:-:-,:.?::.R D N

...... ,, .: ?r~ ~ ~S:-?:?::~... :0:::.:?X..? ...... *d%,I ~::::::::::::::1!:~:~;:::::::::::::::::::: :t?;iX ...... ii~iiii ...... tz......

Aiiiii~:: ...... '*;~irii~li~ ?~, E s~ i?:...... ?iti.:~ ~I ~ ~f;::::::::.::~ ::::::::::::~i~M IX.M ::: ~ :::::::::::-~~~r

~T ;t a: K ~ ~ ~ ~ ??'??-?-'?`??'??.~i::: .-A~ -Xi 'x::"t~s ~ ...... XX r~tt:X-t? ~r?.??z?:eX:- ...... ke "'''':'~~'~~?~fiiiii~~tt-iliiiiiii~""MARNE'e"" ~ i Ti~' ';'55'.s::~~:~~:~::::::~: u ::::::: ...... ::: j~.. ttZe v -x...i'~S? ~ii-:~ **Fj N G X: NA '_ 'e ... .1...... ~~::~: ~xv ...... N~;i?'f. . NX,?. . . V1.1k- v ...... ~~ ...... ~ ::::~:~~:~:~~;.. 2 X-*.%*::*K -?::KNI-N. '55 ??:??::.::..;;%:! % . ~ ~ ~ ...... ~ ~ Aot~ ij. ~ ~ ~r2~~i::::: W.-W.'N-'.%%:~~~?~' r?1~ ?...1.r...M`''::'~`~':'''::''::''':???-????. ??? .?.rrr. TOUL?.. 5 I R:? t ~ ~A ~N ~ :~::~:~~:~::~:~~:~:? ~ ""5 :?:??:r:6.~ik.- --Xvtixk...... S t t ~ ? ~ :::r::::t::I~:::1I:::::::tS: 1 ~ 5?;~~:?::?:':?:??:.. .. ~...... ??: . .e ..N ------?ZC~f S~i~ ?:??:?::M. ~I ...... :::: X.: ;?:?::?...... - 5 ~r ~ ~~r~WM" ~ ~ ~ .*.,!.v

Figure 1. (a) The ddpartementsof Lorraine;(b) Degree of damage as a result of WorldWar I. Sources:Guicherd, J. and Matriot, C. (1921) op.cit., and Michel, E. (1932) op.cit.

partement's population from 444,150 in 1891 to but also contained broad stretches of countryside 564,730 twenty years later, with increases in the undergoing depopulation. The impact of four and arrondissements of (+ 87%) and Nancy (+ quarter years of war was to be etched into this ter- 26%) being the largest in the ten northern departe- ritorial mosaic. ments (Ministere de l'Int6rieur, 1892, 1912). By German forces entered French Lorraine in Au- contrast with these mining and manufacturing dis- gust 1914, advancing to Saint-Die in Vosges, and tricts, agricultural parts of the ddpartement were occupying the eastern fringe of Meurthe-et- undergoing depopulation and stretches of farm- Moselle and the northern arrondissement of Briey land were falling out of cultivation. Those trends (with its mines and blast furnaces), and broader had occurred more emphatically in Meuse, where stretches of northern Meuse to either side of Ver- many villages and small towns had lost population dun (Huber, 1931). Following the Battle of the during the half century preceding the Great War, Marne (11 September) the front line shifted north- land prices and agricultural yields were low by the wards in all three ddpartementsbut German troops standards of northern France, and some farmland occupied the environs of Saint-Mihiel. Thus, the had been abandoned to scrub and woodland on front line ran around Verdun, north of Pont-a- hilly terrain to either side of the Meuse valley Mousson, through the eastern part of Meurthe-et- (Schmitt, 1929). Finally, Vosges supported a range Moselle, and across the north-eastern fringe of of flourishing industries, some of which had been Vosges before entering Alsace. From the autumn relocated west of the international border of 1872, of 1914 to early 1916 the Lorraine front hardly

74 GeografiskaAnnaler - 75 B (1993) 2 ? THE REVIVAL OF RURAL LORRAINE AFTER THE GREAT WAR moved, although there were engagements for con- wards toward Bar-le-Duc. As MacDonald (1922) trol of the Butte de Vauquois in the Argonne and remarked: "Nowhere in France is there now to be of pieces of territory in the Vosges mountains. In seen a more vivid combination of rugged country total contrast with this relative tranquility, a major dotted with the remains of forts and military attack was launched on Verdun in February 1916 emplacements, of soil torn by trenches, shellholes with the surrounding countryside being com- and mine craters, and of forests shattered by pletely devastated in the subsequent six months shellfire, and towns and villages in ruins. From and the lives of over 500,000 French and German whatever quarter one approaches Verdun, the rav- soldiers being lost (Parisse, 1978; Roth, 1978; p. ages of war stand out on every hand" (p. 6). These 421). Thereafter, the war of attrition shifted west- districts, with their history of low agricultural ward to the Aisne and the Somme. No major yields and persistent depopulation, were so se- changes occurred in the configuration of the Lor- verely devastated that restoration seemed un- raine front line until American and French forces thinkable (Figure 2). Small nodes of land might be pushed north in September 1918 to take Saint- reclaimed for cultivation and the remainder left Mihiel, the Woevre and the remainder of Meuse for sheep grazing, or else the whole area might be (Aimond, 1922; Lanher, 1988). put under trees (Guicherd and Matriot, 1921; p. Unlike the broad stretches of devastation in 332). Picardy and Champagne, the ravages of war in By the time of the Armistice, 141 communes in eastern Lorraine were concentrated in a band of French Lorraine had been completely ruined, 161 partly wooded terrain, some 10-15 km in width, had experienced more than 50% destruction, and which extended from the Vosges mountains to 510 had been subjected to lesser degrees of dam- Saint-Mihiel (Figure lb). Forests in the two dozen age. Some 23,310 private dwellings and farm build- communes of Vosges which had been occupied by ings had been destroyed, 23,205 were gravely dam- the Germans throughout the war had experienced aged and 33,000 partially damaged (Ministere substantial clear felling and surrounding trees des R6gions Lib6r6es, 1923). In addition, 2,708 were exposed to wind damage (Rouvier, 1919; p. churches, schools and mairies had been destroyed 51). No regular cutting was undertaken in the nar- or damaged; 87 factories had been completely lost row combat zone (200-500 m) during the war and and a further 392 damaged; and 12,235 km of road- the landscape was scarred by trenches, shellholes way needed remaking. According to 'official' fi- and military installations (Magre, 1923; p. 103). gures, two-thirds of the devastated area of French Conditions were rather better behind the French Lorraine might be classified as 'blue zone (557,770 lines where felling had been done in a way that ha), a further 234,125 ha (28.2%) made up the 'yel- would not hamper regeneration. low zone', and 37,910 ha (4.6%) were damaged be- Thus, the eastern part of the front line was not yond hope of recovery (Ministere des R6gions the scene of long offensives, but serious destruc- Lib6r6es 1923). The controversial 'red zone', tion had been inflicted to the north and east of where rebuilding and recultivation seemed out of Nancy where, in the words of Prefect Mirman, the question, covered 17,000 ha in Meuse and groups of villages had been "assassinated" during 20,000 ha in Meurthe-et-Moselle. the early months of the war (Guillon, 1915; p. The majority of the population of French Lor- 631). By contrast, conditions were so calm in 1917 raine had been evacuated from the battle zone to a and 1918 that troops of the French Seventh Army wide variety of 'safe' locations in eastern France, undertook a range of agricultural tasks between Paris and elsewhere, in the French interior, but their spells in the trenches. From Blamont to Pont- some inhabitants of the northern parts of Meuse A-Mousson on the river Moselle a strip of land and Meurthe-et-Moselle had no alternative to some 3-4 km in width was left completely unculti- spending the duration of the war behind German vated all the way along the front line. In heavily lines. The population of French Lorraine had fallen wooded country between the rivers Moselle and from 481,950 recorded in the census of March 1911 Meuse the front was lined by major defensive to an estimated 165,620 in November 1918(-65%), works but little fighting took place. with particularly severe losses in the arrondisse- Further west, prolonged shellfire destroyed ments of Verdun (-91%), Montm6dy (-72%) and farming villages along an 8-15 km-wide strip Commercy (-47%) (Huber 1931; Ministbre de l'In- which extended northwards from Saint-Mihiel t6rieur, 1912). The cantons of Charny and Varennes through Commercy to Verdun and then south- were devoid of civilians and Verdun canton con-

GeografiskaAnnaler - 75 B (1993)- 2 75 HUGH D. CLOUT

Canton boundary O 10 20 30km - Department boundary Maximum German advance (Sept. 1914) 0 Front line 0 0 Percentage of buildings 0 00 destroby commune o 0 o o 25 o0 0 0 ----75 buildings 0 0 oO oo0 communewith<300 0 o oo Ocommune with >300 buildings

@ 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0

/ar ennes -en01 ** 0 0

00 00 Verdun0 0 00 Clermont-en- */ o0 t Argonne* o 0 % o *0 o o l 0 *•1 , 00o S 'o o o o 0 t 0 0 0 o S o o . -o ? P e 0 go 0o Saint-- o - o o

*o o Oooo 0 o o0ooo 0o 00 0 Figure2. Devastationin Meuse. ,O 0Mihieo Source: Grandveau, A. (1922) o 0 o o o Annuaire 0 o 0o administratifcommer- cial et industriel de la Meuse, Contant-Laguerre,Bar-le-Duc, p. 26. tained only 4% of its pre-war total (Archives household submitted to a local commission a tech- D6partementales, Meuse, 1002 Rp. 15). nically acceptable claim which evaluated items that had been damaged or destroyed (Michel, 1932). Sinistris who agreed to return to where they II. Emergency work had lived before the war, or to within a 50 km Following the proposition of Monsieur Marin, dg- radius of it (provided that place still fell within the putg for Meurthe-et-Moselle, the general principle regions divastges) would be entitled to compensa- of compensation for war damage had been enun- tion at an enhanced level which took into account ciated by the French government in December the severe inflation since 1914.Those who chose to 1914 but not until the-wide-ranging law of 17 April move further afield, and thus did not participate in 1919 were the details spelled out (Fiel, 1935; p. 1). the material reconstruction of the war zone, would. The government pledged to compensate all who be compensated at 1914 price levels. suffered material loss (sinistrds) provided each Attempts at rural recovery did not wait until the

76 GeografiskaAnnaler 75 B (1993) 2 ? ? THE REVIVAL OF RURAL LORRAINE AFTER THE GREAT WAR

Armisticeor the passageand lengthy implementa- mand in Parisand use of independentlocal mana- tion of the complicatedlaw of 17April 1919.Some gers causedfrustration among prefectsand other refugeesreturned to theirruined farms as soon as civilian administrators.In response to mounting possible in order to start workingthe land again. criticismfrom many quarters,the STPU was re- In so doing they soughtfinancial and materialas- placed by the Service des Travauxde l'Etat (STE) sistancefrom a rangeof officialand voluntaryor- in August 1919.This was little morethan a change ganizationsamong which the Quakers(Society of in namesince manystaff remained in post. Likeits Friends)are of particularinterest. Havingunder- predecessor,the STE dependedheavily on prison- taken relief and restorationwork in Marnesince ers of war,who accountedfor 20,000 of its work- the early days of the war, British and American force of 24,000in Meuse in late 1919and an equal Quakervolunteers moved into Meuse in 1917in number in its 30,000 workforcein Meurthe-et- order to plough up devastatedfarmland west of Moselle (Magny,1928; Prefecture de Meurthe-et- Verdun(Fry, 1943). At the end of the year they Moselle, 1920). Once this source of manpower were askedby the sous-prdfetto concentratetheir began to diminishas a resultof repatriationso the energies on 500 km2which had been fought over logic of the STE collapsed.This muchdisliked or- several times and where only 5% of the housing ganizationwas disbandedin each ddpartementof stock remained. Once the Armisticewas signed French Lorraineduring the spring of 1920 and about a hundredQuakers set up base at Grange- labourhad to be broughtin fromSpain and Poland le-Comteand employed over 500 local workerson to undertakeemergency work. emergencytasks, in particularinstalling prefabri- A similarfate affectedthe centralizedService de cated timber houses sent by rail from Franche- la Motoculturewhich had been establishedin con- Comt6 (Anon., 1918; Greenwood, 1975). The formitywith the law of 7 April 1917to bringaban- Quakersalso clearedfields, plantedand harvested doned farmlandback into cultivation.It was pro- crops, and operatedtravelling shops which were vided with tractorsand was chargedto undertake handedover to a local organizationearly in 1920, firstploughing in districtswhere land had not been by which time the Friendswere withdrawingto severelydisturbed or strewnwith shells but where workelsewhere. the real problemwas a lackof resourcesamong re- The Frenchstate set up a seriesof emergencyor- turningfarmers to resume workingthe land. To ganizationsto providepractical assistance in the overcomethis handicapessential tasks were to be ten northerndepartements during the desperate undertakenby groupsof Motoculturetractors dri- months after hostilities ceased. However, these ven by its own staff.The patternof Motocultureac- Serviceswere not to engagein permanentrebuild- tivityin northernFrance was conditionedby many ing, nor was the state attemptingto introduceits factors, including the degree of devastation in own comprehensive programmeof reconstruc- each area, the suitability of the terrain for tion. For example, the Services des Travauxde Pre- mechanizedwork, and the presenceor absenceof midreUrgence (STPU) was establishedin each de- complicating features such as hedgerows and partementof French Lorraineto provide labour other field boundaries.The flat and fertile open- for removingshells, patchinghousing, installing fields of Picardyproved far more suited to tractors temporary accommodation,clearing out wells, than the more fragmentedfarmlands of Lorraine, and levellingand restoringagricultural land prior where land values and crop yields were substan- to cultivation.It was the heir of the Servicedes tially lower than those furtherwest. The Service Travaux de l'Armement and retained much of its Aeronautique de l'Armie supplied groups of trac- militaryorganization. It operatedat the most dif- tors in Meuse and driverswere trainedat Bar-le- ficult of times, when roads and railwayswere in Duc, however, after unsuccessful attempts at ruins,vehicles few and far between, and manyes- working in hilly country, Motoculture was sentialmaterials virtually unobtainable. employedonly sparinglyacross small stretchesof The STPUreceived almost universal condemna- relativelyflat land in the Woevreand in the arron- tion fromreturning sinistris throughout the north- dissement of Commercy (Magny, 1928). Many ern ddpartements,who argued that its civilian landownersin Meurthe-et-Moselleopposed the workforcewas overpaid,thereby intensifying the whole idea of a state-runtractor service, nonethe- exodus from farm work, its prisoners-of-war less groupsof machineswere suppliedduring 1919 labour was poorly motivated, and its military to ploughdevastated farmlands that had been be- supervisors inefficient. Centralizationof com- hind enemy lines near Longuyonand to the north

GeografiskaAnnaler - 75 B (1993)- 2 77 HUGH D. CLOUT of Nancy (Archives Nationales, AJ 25/126). Un- 26% and 7% respectively of what would be ac- like the other eight ddpartements of northern Fr- complished by 1931. These results may be set in ance, the Service de la Motoculture does not seem context by referring to the 25,310 dwellings that to have operated on a formal basis in either had been destroyed and 23,205 gravely damaged Meurthe-et-Moselle or Vosges. in the province. Definitive reconstruction had, in- The state also placed faith in the Office de Re- deed, hardly begun. However, temporary accom- constitution Agricole (ORA) which was charged modation had been installed since the early with collecting and repairing abandoned farm months of 1915 and large numbers of huts and machinery and with distributing seeds, fertilizers wooden houses provided some kind of temporary and livestock. Farm equipment that had been shelter for the majority of those who returned to abandoned in the war zone was collected for repair restore their fields and farms (Hottenger, 1917; p. by a mixture of private and state-run workshops in 25). By October 1922, the emergency services had French Lorraine (Archives Nationales, AJ 25/1). erected 15,340 temporary dwellings and 8,840 pro- The ORA was also responsible for supervising the visional farm buildings (Ministere des Regions allocation of livestock that had been recovered Lib6r6es, 1923). The census of March 1921 showed from behind German lines in northern Lorraine, that French Lorraine contained 86% of its pre-war from Belgium and from Germany itself. Distribu- population, with the proportion falling notably tion of equipment, livestock and other com- below average in the arrondissements of Com- modities was undertaken by societis tiers man- mercy (70%) and Verdun (61%) in Meuse (Minis- dataires which acted as agents for the ORA in most tare de l'Int6rieur, 1922). Rates of recovery were northern ddpartements.The exception was Vosges particularly low in the cantons of Charny (50%), where agricultural recovery was considered too Varennes (47%) and Saint-Mihiel (39%). localized to require a special agency. By contrast, According to the agricultural returns for 1921 Meurthe-et-Moselle was provided with two agen- 87% of the pre-war arable surface was back in ag- cies at Nancy and Briey. Like the other emergency ricultural use across the total area of the three de- services, the socie'tes tiers mandataires provoked partements, with the graph of recovery being parti- severe criticism from returnees. cularly steep in Meurthe-et-Moselle but much less so in Vosges, which reflected the small proportion of the latter ddpartementthat had been devastated III. Achievements of the early phase (Ministere de l'Agriculture, 1922) (Figure 4). Contemporary statistics do not allow the results of Wheat output in Lorraine rose from 39% of the the state emergency services to be distinguished pre-war average in 1919 to an amazing 92% during from the achievements of sinistris, working as in- the hot, dry summer of 1921. In 1919 the three dg- dividuals or in groups, or of private contractors. partements contained only 62% of the number of By January 1921, just 25 months after the Armis- cattle recorded on the eve of the war, with herds tice, 479,680 ha in French Lorraine were declared being particularly depleted in Meuse. However, to have been cleared of shells, trenches and recovery of livestock that had been moved into barbed wire, which represented 63% of what 'safe' departementsfurther south and the arrival of would be accomplished ten years later (Ministere cattle from Germany enabled numbers through- des TravauxPublics, 1929; Michel, 1932). Achieve- out the province to reach three-quarters of their ments in Meurthe-et-Moselle, in both absolute pre-war total by 1921. For example, 13 trains of and relative (77%) terms were well ahead of the livestock had arrived from Germany in Meurthe- other two departements (Figure 3a). However, et-Moselle in the twelve months after July 1920, only 155,300 ha in French Lorraine had been re- bringing 3,600 cattle, 2,000 horses and 7,680 sheep turned to cultivation by that date, which was less (Matheu, 1921). During the first year of peace the than half (47%) of what would be achieved by province contained only one-third of its pre-war 1931. The largest absolute area had been ploughed number of sheep, with both Meuse and Meurthe- in Meuse but this was only 40% of what would be et-Moselle being particularly depleted, but by accomplished in that dfpartement over the next 1921 the figure had returned to half of what it had ten years. been between 1910 and 1913. Only 6,506 dwellings and 3,963 farm buildings had received permanent repairs or (more rarely) had been rebuilt by January 1921, representing

78 GeografiskaAnnaler 75 B (1993) 2 ? ? THE REVIVALOF RURAL LORRAINEAFTER THE GREATWAR

a b 500- 500-

400- 400-

300- 300-

cn

0 0

19202132223 24 2425 8 291930311920 25 26 27 28 29193031

1920 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 291930 31 1920 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 291930 31

c d 40- 40-

30- 30-

Figure 3. Aspects of ruralrecov- ery in the devastatedzone of the t- / three departementsof Lorraine, S20- 27 28 291930 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29193031 1920-31; (a) land cleared of shells, barbed wire and debris; (b) land returnedto cultivation; and re- (c) permanent repairs 10 Vosges Mehe-eMsee - - Meuse construction of dwellings; (d) 10- ...... permanent repairs and recon- structionof farm buildings. .. Sources: Ministere des Travaux Publics: Service des Regions 1920 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 291930 31 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 291930 31 Lib6r6es (1929) op.cit., and 21 1920 Michel, E. (1932) op.cit. - Vosges Meurthe-et-Moselle Meuse ...... ----.

IV. Principlesand practiceof reconstruction reconstruction offered an unprecedented opportu- Principles of settlement reconstruction were dis- nity for improving the arrangement and hygiene of cussed at length among French architects during villages in Lorraine, whose farmhouses were often and immediately after the war, with debates focus- damp, traditionally housed the farming popula- sing on the relative merits of traditional and mod- tion and their livestock under the same roof, and ern styles and building materials (Hottenger, 1917; were fronted by large heaps of manure piled along p. 16). A special journal, entitled La Reconstruc- the village street (Blache, 1938). By improving ag- tion Lorraine and published monthly from 1917 to ricultural housing, it was hoped that rural depopu- 1919, provided a distinctive forum for innovative lation might be halted once peace was restored ideas, especially with reference to Meurthe-et- (Hottenger, 1917; p. 19). In addition, reconstruc- Moselle. However, all agreed that the challenge of tion offered a chance for improving the layout of

GeografiskaAnnaler 75 B 2 79 ? (1993)? HUGH D. CLOUT

a b 100- 100- 6 .0... - - _ • __ 80- 80- ...•...% ,...... 860 60- - . , % % 40- 40-

20- 20-

0 0 1919 20 21 22 23 24 2 26 2727 8 1919 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

c d 100- .... 100-

......

...... ? "" -"60' 40- 40- i---"

20- 20-

1919 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1919 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 Vosges ...... Meurthe-et-Moselle --- Meuse

Figure 4. Agriculturalrecovery throughout the three departementsof Lorraine, 1919-28; (a) arable land; (b) wheat output; (c) cattle; (d) sheep. 100= averagefor 1910-13. Source: Ministerede l'Agriculture(1911-29) op.cit. highly-fragmented property units in the surround- Service de la Reconstitution Fonciere occupied it- ing openfields. self with the plans, the Ponts-et-Chaussees was Legislation of 14 March 1919 defined a series of concerned with roads, and the Genie Rural tackled regulations to govern the physical planning of the improvement of housing and farm buildings. damaged towns and villages in the rigions divas- In general terms, the settlement pattern was to be ties. Structure plans at the scale of 1:1,000 or 1: re-created much as before but with rather fewer 1,250 and detailed reports had to be drawn up for buildings, as a result of compensation being used approval by the prdfecture before permanent re- to replace two or three buildings by a single dwel- construction of settlements might begin (Archives ling, or to acquire a house in town (Gruet, 1937; p. Departementales, Meuse, 976 Rp. 2705). Costs of 273). In each departement the number of com- employing architects and surveyors to produce munes required to produce a reconstruction plan such documents were borne by the state. In fact, was revised downward. ambitious ideas were soon replaced by much sim- French Lorraine was, of course, subject to gene- pler and cheaper projects for rebuilding on or very ral legislation which affected the principles of close to existing sites but incorporating more spa- post-war recovery throughout northern France, cious street layout, improved housing, and new or however the province (and especially Meurthe-et- restored public buildings. The opportunity was Moselle) was to make a distinctive contribution re- often taken to relocate cemeteries and to provide garding how these principles might be turned into electricity and piped water supplies (Archives De- practice. The issue focused on the need to devise partementales, Meurthe-et-Moselle, W 1312). The procedures for encouraging highly independent

80 GeografiskaAnnaler 75 B (1993) 2 ? ? THE REVIVAL OF RURAL LORRAINE AFTER THE GREAT WAR family farmers to group together to rebuild their alizing departementof Meurthe-et-Moselle before ruined houses and reorganize their devastated turning to the welfare of wartime refugees (Fiel, fields. The first procedure involved the idea of 1935; p. 10; De Mahuet, 1927; p. 5). After a visit in cooperative reconstruction societies (societis January 1915 to his birthplace in the devastated vil- cooperatives de reconstruction) whereby groups of lage of Sainte-Genevieve (8 km south-east of villagers would pool the results of their compensa- Pont-a-Mousson) he became convinced of the po- tion claims and agree to rebuild whole settlements tential of general-purpose cooperatives for pro- in a logical sequence. The second built upon the moting reconstruction. Early in 1918 he joined process of plot consolidation (remembrement) with Abbe Fiel and Monsieur Dupan of the Genie which had been implemented in several parts of Rural in meetings with Prefect Mirman and local Lorraine in the 19th century and had its roots back mayors to advocate such organizations being set in the restoration of the province after the Thirty up in a handful of communes devastated by the Years War (1618-1648). In contrast with these im- Germans four years previously (Caraud, 1924). portant achievements, the western part of French Another Lorrainer, Albert Lebrun, then Ministre Lorraine earned the unwelcome distinction du Blocus et des Regions Liberies, advocated this among the regions divastees of failing to reclaim principle during the autumn of 1918 and presented large areas of red zone, whose woodlands form it to the Chamber of Deputies in January 1919, very distinctive elements in the landscape three- three months in advance of the compensation law. quarters of a century after the Armistice. Spurred on by the Minister's support, Abbe Thouvenin succeeded in founding the first recon- struction cooperative in Meurthe-et-Moselle at (i) Cooperative reconstruction societies. Norroy-les-Pont-a-Mousson in the following The compensation law of 17April 1919was fiercely month. He continued his campaign with the bles- individualistic in tone, requiring each sinistrg to sing of his bishop and the material assistance of a declare and evaluate his or her material losses in a car to travel to groups of sinistris who had re- form that would be acceptable to a local commis- turned to their ruins (Pr6aud and Fiel, 1922; p. 5). sion prior to receiving authorization to lodge a He carried with him a sheaf of documents which claim for compensation from the state. Richer provided specimen regulations for general-pur- property owners could employ lawyers and ac- pose cooperatives. His mission was successful and countants to steer their affairs through this during the next few months the number of bureaucratic morass but such assistance was un- cooperatives in the departementrose from 17 on 23 thinkable for the bulk of sinistris, many of whom March 1919 to 60 by early May (Caraud, 1924; Arc- were overwhelmed by the magnitude of the task. hives Nationales, AJ 25/47). Thereafter Thouve- The law of 17 April 1919 did, however, contain two nin's work and that of other advocates of coopera- articles which encouraged sinistris to group to- tion was greatly facilitated by the encouragement gether to face the task of reconstruction in a collec- of Minister Lebrun and by the compensation legis- tive fashion and to enable associations to obtain lation. By 1 January 1920 180 general-purpose more generous financial advances than those avail- cooperatives had been formed in Meurthe-et- able to individuals. Within a few days of the law Moselle, with smaller numbers elsewhere in Lor- being passed, the Ministre des Regions Liberees in- raine and in other parts of the regions devastges. structed prefects to encourage the formation of re- However, it soon became clear in this early construction cooperatives. phase that individual cooperatives needed to be The notion of the farm association for the mar- co-ordinated at a higher level if they were to be keting of agricultural goods or the purchase of fer- truly effective and overcome the handicap of often tilizers or machinery was well established in some being directed by men with insufficient time or parts of northern France but reconstruction whose competence failed to "live up to their good- cooperatives in Lorraine emerged along another will" (Caraud, 1924; p. 26). New organizations route which combined the initiative of socially- were needed to study the on-going tide of new laws committed clerics with the dynamism of staff of and decrees, to defend the interests of local the Genie Rural (Cleary, 1989). Abb6 Thouvenin cooperatives, and to facilitate dialogue among (1868-1934) was the main driving force, having them (Pr6aud and Fiel, 1922; p. 6). The first such been involved since 1898 in schemes to provide de- union was established by 54 cooperatives in cent housing for industrial workers in the industri- Meurthe-et-Moselle on 9 June 1919, with Abb6

Geografiska Annaler 75 B (1993) 2 81 ? HUGH D. CLOUT

Thouvenin as its president and enjoying the sup- exemplar of enthusiastic and relatively efficient port of the Bishop of Nancy (De Mahuet 1927; p. collaboration between administrators, architects 9). By the end of the year a hundred cooperatives and cooperatives which sinistris in other departe- had joined and similar unions were being set up ments would do well to emulate. The war-torn elsewhere in the northern departements. zone had become "a buzzing hive of activity", with Passage of the law of 17 April 1919 heralded the roads being rutted by the passage of heavy lorries arrival in the ruined villages of large numbers of ar- carrying essential building materials (De Mahuet, chitects and building contractors from Paris and 1927; p. 10). The delegation of the Confideration other regions. Experience had shown that local Generale du Travail, which made enquiries builders were willing to tackle repairs but were un- throughout northern France in January 1921, re- able to rise to the challenge of rebuilding whole commended the departement as a model for stub- settlements. In their desperation to have their born and individualistic sinistris in Aisne and homes rebuilt, sinistres were preyed upon by Somme to study (Conf6d6ration G6n6rale du unscrupulous businessmen and confidence Travail, 1921). Groups of administrators and far- tricksters. They needed the protection that, it was mers duly came to Meurthe-et-Moselle and were hoped, reconstruction cooperatives would pro- impressed by what they saw (Hanriot, 1923; p. 4). vide. However, the early organizations were sim- In April 1923 the Ministre des Regions Liberees, ply voluntary associations which were enabled to Monsieur Loucheur, encountered a spirit of op- receive, on behalf of their members, the advances timism and self-confidence among members of granted by the government for preparing claims' cooperatives in Meurthe-et-Moselle which were dossiers as well as the first 20% of the compensa- "growing from strength to strength" (Journal des tion allowance that was advanced toward the cost Regions Devastges, 10 April 1921). This was totally of rebuilding (MacDonald, 1922; p. 217). None of different from the complaints and despair that usu- the early cooperatives possessed any capital of its ally greeted him. Members were enthused by the own and immediate expenses had to be met from success of some of the early associations, such as members' pockets. The great inconvenience was the commune of Ancerviller which had straddled that members could leave at any time, even when the two front lines near Luneville (Journal des Re- the cooperative had entered into considerable fi- gions Devastees, 13 January 1921). A quarter of its nancial commitments. Their legal status was incon- 170 houses had been destroyed and the remainder sistent and some were poorly administered, with seriously damaged. Following the advice of Abb6 book-keeping being particularly rudimentary. Fiel, the sinistris had formed an association in Feb- Some architects failed to honour their agreements ruary 1919 and engaged a building contractor who by being slow to prepare plans and financial esti- brought in 200 workers. A proper cooperative was mates, by taking on too much work, making rare established in June 1919. By the autumn of 1921 and cursory visits to the reconstruction sites, and the village was well on the way to resurrection, failing to resolve problems when they did arrive. with 39 new houses, a new set of public buildings, Difficulties of this kind certainly hampered the and a piped water supply. The village population start of reconstruction in Meurthe-et-Moselle dur- (552) was larger than it had been before (513). All ing 1919 and 1920 (Pr6aud and Fiel, 1922). the surrounding meadow land had been restored The ambiguity that surrounded early coopera- and 90% of the village's arable was in cultivation, tive reconstruction societies was removed by the with the remainder being prepared for cropping in law of 15 August 1920 and subsequent decrees, 1922. The success of this pioneer venture was pub- which introduced the status of the 'approved licised widely and was crucial in convincing cooperative'. In order to gain government ap- neighbouring communes of the need to set up their proval, a cooperative needed to have statutes own cooperatives. which conformed to models prepared by the Abb6 Thouvenin introduced another innova- Ministere des Regions Liberies. Its architects and tion by taking advantage of the legislation of 31 contractors had to be selected from lists approved July 1920 which enabled groups of sinistres to raise by the local prefect. Its accounts had to be availa- special loans with state guarantees in order to as- ble for official audit. Existing cooperatives were sist reconstruction. In the autumn the conseil-gen- duly invited to reorganize themselves in order to dral of Meurthe-et-Moselle was duly convinced of acquire approved status. the need to obtain such a loan and was the first dd- Meurthe-et-Moselle was widely quoted as the partement to obtain this kind of support (Fiel,

82 Geografiska Annaler - 75 B (1993) 2 ? THE REVIVALOF RURAL LORRAINEAFTER THE GREATWAR

** .I'o a •Longwy

SLonuyon . .. .' CooperativeReconstruction

. - Stable Frontline 1914-18 .Societies - Maximumadvance of ?i- Germansin 1914 I . "?

Briey SBriey0 kilometres 20 t.

Thiaucourt.* @ .. "'•" N*-,o,,

I.'NANCY. * **Toul* I o. amo ? oLuno.ville** ? ~~~r -4L t~ ••e",

•'"• o ,• .,- i,,• --. .- ,- "xs., .,_,." L.,,) .,x,'s

Figure 5. Cooperativereconstruction societies in Meurthe-et-Moselle. Source: Pr6aud, R. and Fiel, P. (1922) op.cit.

1935; p. 16). This example was followed by Meuse Very little is known of the detail of their activity in 1932 and subsequently by departements and but it is clear from successive proceedings of the many individual communes throughout the re- conseils-gne'raux that the dynamism and success gions devastues. encountered in the devastated parts of Meurthe- By October 1922 465 approved cooperatives et-Moselle and Vosges was not parallelled through- were in existence in French Lorraine, representing out northern Meuse. Indeed, a great difference the interests of 24,648 sinistres in 576 communes existed between rapid rural reconstruction along (Ministere des R6gions Lib6r6es, 1923) (Figure 5). the Meuse valley and very slow and faltering recov-

GeografiskaAnnaler- 75 B (1993). 2 83 HUGH D. CLOUT ery in hilly country to either side, which contained the diocese of Nancy, 90 of which were directly at- large areas that remained classified as red zone tributed to the dynamism of Abbe Thouvenin (Emery, 1922). In contrast with reactions in other (Rolin, 1953; p. 165). In the adjacent diocese of parts of northern France, sinistrns were rather re- Verdun 123 churches were reconstructed in a simi- luctant to initiate rebuilding in the unrealistic hope lar way (Fiel, 1935; p 14; Archives D6partemen- that more generous compensation might be allo- tales, Meuse, 1008 Rp 1). cated in the future. Hence cooperatives were set The cooperative for schools and mairies in up only very slowly, with poor transport facilities Meurthe-et-Moselle worked closely with the chief and a long history of depopulation adding to the architect and other experts who commented on very understandable uncertainty in the minds of proposals for each set of public buildings. It was the sinistrns. To the amazement and regret of Pre- supervised by the inspector of education at fect Emery, 90% of the finance allocated to assist Luneville and was responsible for reconstructing rebuilding in the cantons of Clermont, Fresnes, these buildings in 135 communes. Its counterpart Montfaucon and Varennes had not been used by in Meuse rebuilt schools and mairies in 142 com- November 1921 (Emery, 1922). His response was munes (Fiel, 1935; p. 14). Thanks to such initia- to launch a personal campaign to promote cooper- tives, schools were operating in permanent build- ation and to allocate his very best staff to supervise ings in every part of Meuse for the start of the 1926 the task. Twelve months later 242 cooperatives school year. Achievements in Vosges were less had been established in the departementbut the re- numerous but specialist cooperatives were respon- storation of settlements in Meuse was set to occur sible for rebuilding 16 churches and 15 mairies- more slowly than in Meurthe-et-Moselle. ecoles (Fiel, 1935; p. 14). As well as providing a mechanism for rebuilding Tantalizingly little is known about the operation housing and farmsteads, the notion of cooperation of the general-purpose reconstruction coopera- could be applied to the reconstruction of churches tives during the 1920s, except that they suffered and other public buildings. In October 1920 the from recurrent shortages of building materials and idea of a special-purpose association covering a labour, as well as grave problems of cash flow. By group of communes in the Vezouze valley (east of January 1928 the number of cooperatives in Lun6ville) was submitted to Abbe Thouvenin French Lorraine had declined to 424, with 43 in (Fiel, 1935; p. 13). His response was to recom- Meurthe-et-Moselle and 3 in Vosges having com- mend instead two types of special-purpose pleted their activities (Ministere de Travaux Pub- cooperative which would take charge of compen- lics, 1929). By contrast, two new cooperatives, sation from the government and raise special loans with 2,400 members, had been founded in Meuse to speed activity. One would reconstruct churches since October 1922 bringing their total to 244. in the whole diocese of Nancy; the other would re- Many cooperatives finished their work in the late build schools and mairies throughout Meurthe-et- 1920s and early 1930s, with only 172 still in exist- Moselle. In each case, the cooperative would pay ence in January 1931,many of which were complet- particular attention to the design of the new build- ing their legal and financial affairs prior to comple- ings and the quality of work undertaken (Fiel, tion (Michel, 1932). 1927; p. 14). The idea received the support of the Prefect, the Bishop and local mayors and in March 1921 a spe- (ii) Plot Consolidation. cial diocesan cooperative was duly established, to The agrarian structure of north-eastern France on be followed in October by a cooperative for the eve of the war could be summarized as a pre- schools and mairies (Fiel, 1935; p. 14). Bishops in dominance of openfield, with meadows along val- other northern dioceses responded warmly to this leys and an array of wooded landscapes (Fr6caut, initiative and ecclesiastical cooperatives were set 1983). Much of Lorraine displayed considerable up throughout the regions devastees. under the fragmentation of landholding because of the tradi- general supervision of the Union des Cooperatives tion of each farmer cultivating a range of land par- de Reconstruction des Eglises Devastees de la Fr- cels with differing soil, exposure, drainage and ance. Special loans were raised and the first stone microclimate. This was accelerated by the custom was laid on the site of the new church at Ancervil- of landed property being divided among heirs and ler in November 1923 (De Mahuet, 1927; p. 119). the fact that traditional triennial rotations were By the early 1930s 107 churches had been rebuilt in still in operation (S6mme, 1930). By the end of the

84 Geografiska Annaler 75 8 (1993) 2 ? ? THE REVIVAL OF RURAL LORRAINE AFTER THE GREAT WAR war the disadvantages and costs of fragmentation By 1913 the Direction du Service des Ameliora- were understood by many agricultural experts and tions Agricoles in Meurthe-et-Moselle had carried market-oriented producers, who argued in favour out remembrement over a further 4,571 ha (nine of plot consolidation, but such matters were not communes) and work was underway in a further readily accepted by many traditional family far- eight when war broke out. The ddpartementhad a mers. unique team of experienced land surveyors but The impact of devastation offered an important this was disbanded as men were summoned for opportunity for remodelling the agricultural military service (Floremont, 1983; p. 117). Despite mosaic. Trenches, shellholes, military man- such activity, agricultural experts insisted that con- oeuvres, army camps and munitions depots had all solidation was still needed over four-fifths of disrupted the rural landscape, destroying visible Meurthe-et-Moselle, in perhaps a similar propor- boundaries and obliterating subtle indicators tion of Meuse (where 99 communes had already (such as particular bushes, lines of stones or track- undergone some kind of reorganization), and in ways) which distinguished one person's parcel half the communes of Vosges, where only one from those of neighbours in areas of openfield. In example of remembrement had occurred before addition, property boundaries had been erased in the war (Hottenger, 1914, 1917; Archives districts, such as north-eastern Lorraine, where Nationales F 12 8026). No other northern departe- German forces or French emergency services had ment had started to undertake land consolidation. used groups of tractors to work the soil. Under the auspices of Senator Chauveau na- Before the war Senator Chauveau of C6te-d'Or tion-wide legislation was passed on 27 November had argued the case for land consolidation and 1918 enabling landowners to establish two types of wartime devastation gave added impetus to his association to undertake plot consolidation and campaign. For example, some writers who contri- other land improvements. Two months later a buted to La Reconstruction Lorraine argued that proposal relating to the regions divastles was consolidation (remembrement) should form an es- placed before the Senate by Dr. Chauveau and be- sential element in any recovery programme and came law on 4 March 1919. The Service de la Re- should take place before cultivation was restarted constitution Foncidre in each northern departe- and farmsteads rebuilt (Chenevrier, 1917). For ment was authorised to explore two options in de- practical, financial and fundamentally cultural rea- vastated communes, namely re-establishing prop- sons this was not to be the case in the majority of erty boundaries that had been erased during the the regions devastees. war or undertaking plot consolidation. A special Unlike the German lands or southern Sweden, commission was constituted in each of these com- there had been very little plot consolidation in munes to explore the possibilities and reach a con- France prior to 1914. The main exception was Lor- clusion. By far the majority of communities in raine where reorganization had occurred around northern France opted to re-establish the old, many villages following the Thirty Years' War, dur- familiar rural mosaic, despite its inefficiencies at a ing the 18th century, and more especially in the sec- time when farm labour was in very short supply ond half of the 19th century. For example, the local and had become expensive. In French Lorraine agronomist Mathieu de Dombasle had argued in very few communes in Meuse (22) and Vosges (2) favour of remembrement in the first issue of the in- selected remembrement, in the latter case simply fluential Annales de Roville (1823), and after being in response to disruption caused by a milit- pioneer work by land surveyor Gorce in the 1850s, ary airfield (Mireur, 1924). However, farmers in no fewer than forty communes in Meurthe-et- Vosges were increasingly in favour of voluntary ex- Moselle had their landownership revised by ex- change of plots (Perette and Varney, 1925). Ag- changing plots and modifying the configuration of ricultural advisers in Meuse lamented that frag- irregularly shaped ones (Hottenger, 1914). In a mentation of holdings was impeding the introduc- score of these communes full-scale remembrement tion of machinery but "unfortunately, the mistrust took place, affecting 140,161 plots which covered and the individualism of the farmers presents an al- 31,517 ha and involved the installation of 568 km of most insurmountable barrier" (Samson, 1931; p. field track. The average reduction in the number 54). By contrast, almost one hundred communes of parcels was only 10% but the new tracks played in thed1partement pioneering of Meurthe-et- an important role in improving access to broad Moselle were to favour this improvement by the stretches of openfield (Peltre, 1979). mid 1930s (Peltre, 1979; p. 220) (Figure 6).

- 85 Geografiska Annaler 75 B (1993). 2 HUGH D. CLOUT

* I* * *

*

"*. SBrie Imc -. Verdun * ETZ

." MOSELLE

* MEUSE ,

MEURTHE ET-MOS7ELLE

BAR-LE-DUC ?? Toul NANCYNAN* * * * Luneville ? * * *G .. **t [Z

V OS GES EPINAL

Figure 6. Communes where re- be- 0 kilometres 20 membrement took place 1 1 tween the two wars. Sources: Floremont, G. (1983) op.cit., p. 122; Peltre, J. (1969) op.cit., p. 24.

Across the openfields of the departement prop- The Service de Reconstitution Fonciere was es- erty fragmentation had been "pushed to the ulti- tablished immediately after the law of 4 March mate limit" and was "an obstacle to any kind of 1919 and a training centre for young surveyors was economic cultivation" (Gruet, 1927; p. 244) There created by the Chambre de Commerce et d'Indus- were very few large holdings of more than 100 ha trie at Nancy to replace the pool of expertise that and these were composed of 700-800 plots apiece, had been lost (Gay, 1922). Work began early in which were intermixed with the parcels of 1920 and was concentrated in the battle zone, in neighbouring landowners. In many places tiny northern communes where German tractors had plots had been abandoned (champs perdus) by vir- erased property boundaries, and at sites disturbed tue of their inaccessibility and throughout the by airfields or munitions depots (Prefecture de openfields of Meurthe-et-Moselle cultivation Meurthe-et-Moselle, 1920, p. 34; Dietrich, 1954; could only operate with the agreement of adjacent Minella-Bochy, 1956). By the end of 1922, 74 com- farmers (Floremont, 1983; p. 114). Voluntary ex- munes had opted for remembrement, 33 wished to change of plots was quite common. establish the former rural mosaic, and 9 had not

86 Geografiska 75 B (1993) 2 Annaler. ? THE REVIVAL OF RURAL LORRAINE AFTER THE GREAT WAR reached a decision. Seven years later consolida- local inhabitants, mayors and agricultural organi- tion had been completed in those 74 communes, zations had to be consulted and the process proved embracing 36,502 ha, which were held by 12,500 both slow and contentious (Archives D6partemen- landowners. The average size of plot increased tales, Meuse, 976 Rp. 2706). from 0.26 ha to 0.89 ha and their number de- Agreements became increasingly rare but even- creased by 70%. Very often the old pattern of farm tually action was taken to expropriate two large roads was retained and, of course, remembrement areas to either side of the river Meuse, together had no impact on the organization of cultivation with four smaller ones (Argonne, Vauquois, Les practices, the size of farms, or the arrangement of Epargnes, and the Forest of Apremont). These six farming settlements (Peltre, 1969; p. 20; 1979). areas involved 46 communes, of which eleven Once again, Meurthe-et-Moselle provided a were expropriated in their entirety. In addition model for other northern ddpartements to follow there were numerous tiny fragments of red zone, but most sinistris rejected this opportunity, with covering a total of 3,018 ha scattered in 86 com- extensive remembrement taking place only across munes, that were too small to be acquired by the the battlefields of the Somme, and also in the Ar- state and were returned to their owners for recla- dennes which had been entirely behind German mation. lines and where heavy tractors had been used. By 1928 the future of the various components of the red zone was almost entirely decided. Some 3,980 ha had been returned to their owners, part of (iii) The Red Zone. the Butte de Montfaucon had been recognized as Once the Armistice had been signed most sinistris a vestige de guerre, and 13,404 ha in 41 communes pleaded with the authorities to be allowed to recul- had been transferred to the Service des Eaux et For- tivate their land and to rebuild their homes in ets, including two large stretches at Morthomme areas officially classified as red zone. In response, (3,103 ha) and near Verdun (9,270 ha) (Forget, prefects acknowledged that devastated soil might 1927, 1928). Very soon work began on removing be restored more effectively than they had previ- barbed wire and shells and starting afforestation ously believed. With the exception of a handful of on land that had either been rough grazing or sites in Picardy and Marne that were conserved as woodland before the war. By the spring of 1930 vestiges de guerre, the red zone was erased gradu- 2,500 ha had been planted and the transformation ally from the landscapes of most of northern Fr- of the remaining red zone of Lorraine was well un- ance, including Vosges and Meurthe-et-Moselle, derway (Amat, 1987). But, of course, the former where only 15 ha and 1,286 ha respectively re- villages in the red zone would never be rebuilt. mained in 1931 (Fiel, 1935; p. 21). The ddparte- ment of Meuse was to prove a sad exception. V. The During 1919 the Service de la Reconstitution balance sheet of recovery Foncidre surveyed 21,000 ha in 103 communes in A dozen or so years after the Armistice the task of the departement to define the red zone more accu- rural recovery had been essentially completed rately (Emery, 1923). At that stage, it was antici- throughout the regions divastees. In Meuse, and pated that the state would compulsorily purchase to a lesser extent in Vosges, very small areas were the whole of eleven communes, substantial parts still being purged of shells in the second half of the of a further thirty, and small portions elsewhere to 1920s, whereas land clearance had been com- ensure that this land would never be recultivated. pleted in Meurthe-et-Moselle by the end of 1925 Steps were taken to deposit compulsory purchase (Figure 3a). The process of arable restoration in orders in the relevant communes and to contact Meuse also continued into the second half of the the owner of each plot, but this proved impossible decade, having been completed by 1923 in the two since some were unknown and others failed to other ddpartements(Figure 3b). Of course, the ba- reply (Magny, 1928). Legislation of 24 April 1923 lance of land use was changing, with the remaining attempted to deal with the stalemate of the red red zone being placed under timber and the arable zone by permitting some areas to be restored to area in each of the three departements declining farming, others to be allocated to the Service des after 1922 (Figure 4a). This reduced the grazing re- Eaux et Forits as part of the state forestry domain, sources available for flocks of sheep and helps ex- and a third group to be conserved as vestiges de plain why sheep numbers in 1928 had not reached guerre or used as military camps. Nonetheless, three-quarters of their pre-war average. The rural

GeografiskaAnnaler- 75 B (1993). 2 87 HUGH D. CLOUT economy was becoming increasingly oriented to plans were particularly effective in improving vil- cattle husbandry, with numbers reaching 96% of lage layout around Verdun, on the Woevre plateau their pre-war total across the province and and in the Vezouze valley (Fiel, 1935; p. 8). Meurthe-et-Moselle virtually returning to the Fourth, although traditional styles were broadly total recorded fifteen years previously (Figure 4). respected, bricks, cement, factory-produced tiles Reconstruction of houses and farm buildings and other new materials were widely employed. slackened after 1927 as cooperative reconstruction Similarly, the layout of farmsteads was improved, societies settled their affairs. Those in Meurthe-et- especially by rearrangingground plans to separate Moselle had proceeded at a more rapid pace than the living quarters of livestock from those of the their neighbours during the early 1920s and made farming family, and to provide more air and nat- a major contribution to the reconstruction of a par- ural light in the new farm buildings (Brion, 1936; ticularly large number of farm buildings (38,536) Laurent, 1948; Gerard, 1981; p. 37). by January 1931. Of the 81,815 dwellings and farm Finally, the opportunity was taken to use com- buildings that had been destroyed or damaged in pensation funds to install electricity supplies, with the three departements, a total of 80,410 were re- 373 communes in the devastated zone of Lorraine corded in the statistics of the Service des Regions being served by 28 inter-commune associations in Librie'es as having been completely rebuilt or per- the early 1930s (Fiel, 1935, p. 8; Fromont, 1925; manently repaired by January 1931, implying an Pr6aud and Gilliard, 1928; Pr6aud, 1930). In a overall loss of only 1.7% (Michel, 1932). In reality, comparable way, the hydraulic service of the Ponts the situation was rather different, since more new et Chaussees used finance from the Ministre des and repaired buildings were listed in Meurthe-et- Regions Liberees and from the pari mutuel to pro- Moselle (+23%) and Vosges (+25%) than had vide piped water supplies. In Meurthe-et-Moselle been recorded as lost or damaged, whereas in alone, 181 communes were improved in this way by Meuse the total was 35% below the number lost or the early 1930s (Fiel, 1935; p. 8). However, bath- damaged. Too much reliance should not be placed rooms and sanitary facilities were not always in- on these figures, since new buildings as well as re- cluded in the reconstructed farmhouses (Peltre, placements had clearly been added in, while, on 1979; p. 213). the other hand, two or three ruined buildings According to the census of March 1931 the three might be replaced by a single one. Nonetheless, departements contained 1,186,430 inhabitants, the general trend is clear: the departement of some 7% fewer than in 1911 (Ministere de l'In- Meuse did not experience the same degree of phys- t6rieur, 1932). The population of Meurthe-et- ical reconstruction that affected other parts of Lor- Moselle had increased by 5% but growth was con- raine and, indeed, the regions devastges as a centrated in mining and industrial areas in the whole. northern arrondissement of Briey (+33%). By The rural settlement pattern of Lorraine was re- contrast, the Vosges contained 13% fewer resi- stored in its broad outline, although there were a dents than in 1911and Meuse recorded a decline of number of significant differences. First, nine vil- 22.5%, which was the lowest rate of recovery lages in the extensive red zone in the environs of among the ten devastated departements.The most Verdun and along the C6tes de Meuse were not re- severe losses were in its northern arrondissements built, nor were two communes in Meurthe-et- of Commercy (-32%) and Verdun plus Montm6dy Moselle (Blache, 1938; p. 267). Their sites were re- (-23%). Only two of its 28 cantons contained more corded by memorial chapels and commemorative people than before the war and eleven failed to stones but all that survived in the landscape were reach three-quarters of the pre-war figure. A fur- heaps of rubble concealed in scrub and woodland ther five cantons around Lun6ville and Nancy (Fiel, 1935; p. 21). Second, a handful of settle- shared that unwelcome distinction (Hinschberger, ments were not rebuilt precisely on their old foun- 1955). These results were not, of course, simply dations but were shifted a short distance away the expression of incomplete recovery but also re- from the rubble or to better drained land (Gerard flected a continuation of long-established trends and Peltre, 1979; p. 87) (Figure 7). of rural depopulation. The picture would have Third, reconstructed villages were arranged in a been even more bleak had the number of foreig- more spacious fashion with wider streets, rather ners in the three d6partements not risen from fewer buildings, and new or restored churches, 85,270 in 1911 to 124,120 in 1931, with marked in- schools and mairies (Millet, 1938). Reconstruction creases not only in the industrializing areas of

88 Geografiska Annaler- 75 B (1993) 2 THE REVIVALOF RURAL LORRAINEAFTER THE GREATWAR

I ,t

SII

/" /I 0 4 ,' 4

,' // *Station ?

I firey

FF 5' ) lire

'I~ - I ....-1 00? . /

SIi

\ F •uir ?'" ..of .he \: - • .. \\ ..-.. ,:...:i: . II..-

~ //"', I l ,?~...... iI

//\\ b Figure 7. The settlement of Flirey (Meurthe-et-Moselle)be- fore (a) and after (b) reconstruc- tion. Source: Blache, J. (1938) op.cit., p. 151.

Meurthe-et-Moselle (+33,070) but also in Meuse covery. With its 'lost villages', war cemeteries, (+8,855) (Ministere de l'Int6rieur, 1912, 1932). commemorative monuments and the great na- The net result of reconstruction in Lorraine dis- tional shrine at Douaumount (8 km north-east of played striking contrasts, most notably between Verdun), it functioned instead as a place of pil- the mining and industrial districts of Meurthe-et- grimage and melancholy reflection on the disas- Moselle, which played a vital role in the economic ters of war (Lanher, 1988). It is one of the tragic life of the nation, and the rural areas of Vosges and ironies of history that the heroic defence of Verdun more especially of Meuse, which had already ex- and the devastation of its surrounding countryside perienced prolonged depopulation and seemed to did nothing to halt the earlier trend of demog- be a relatively forgotten partner in the drive for re- raphic and economic decline in the d6partement.It

GeografiskaAnnaler - 75 B (1993) 2 89 HUGH D. CLOUT is almost as if the pattern of relative recovery dis- FRECAUT, R. (ed) (1983): Geographie de la Lorraine. played in Lorraine in 1931 could have been pre- Presses Universitairesde Nancy,Nancy. dicted, at least in its broad from the evi- FRODIN, J. (1928): 'Frankrikesekonomiska geografiefter features, Svensk Arsbok :117-145. dence of the virldskriget', Geografisk quarter century before the Great War. FROMONT,P. (1925): L'6lectrificationdes campagnesfran- gaises, Annales de Gdographie34: 385-397. H.D. Clout, Department of Geography, University FRY, A.R. (1943): A Quaker adventure:the story of nine 26 London years reliefand reconstructionin Europe. FriendsCoun- College London, Bedford Way, WCIH cil London. OA Service, PU.K. GAY,A. (1922): 'Le remembrementdans les r6gionsd6vas- t6es; r6sultatsobtenus en Meurthe-et-Moselle',Journal d'AgriculturePratique 37: 250-253, 296-299. GERARD, C. (1981): Lorraine: l'architecturerurale fran- References. gaise. Berger-Levrault,Paris. AIMOND,C. (1922): La guerre de 1914-18 dans la Meuse. GERARD, C. and PELTRE,J. (1979): Les villageslorrains. Verdunand Bar-le-Duc. Servicedes Publications, Universit6de Nancy II. AMAT, J.P. (1987): 'Guerre et milieux naturels: les forets GREENWOOD, J.O. (1975): Quaker encounters. Ebor meurtriesde 1'Estde la France,70 ans apresVerdun. Es- Press, York. pace Gdographique16: 217-233. GRUET, G. (1937): Monographieagricole du ddpartement AMERICAN BATTLE MONUMENTS COMMISSION de Meurthe-et-Moselle. Ministere de l'Agriculture, (1927): A guide to the American battlefieldsin Europe. Nancy. U.S. GovernmentPrinting Office, Washington. GUICHERD, J. and MATRIOT, C. (1921): 'La terre des ANON., (1918):The plan of the Societyof Friendsfor the re- r6gions devastees', Journald'Agriculture Pratique: 332- constructionof forty villages to the west of Verdun,Fr- 335. ance. FriendsWar Victims Relief Committee, London. GUILLON, J.M. (1915): 'Dans les regions d6vast6espar la BECKER, A. (1988): Les monumentsaux morts: mdmoire guerre',Journal d'Agriculture Pratique: 630-632. de la grandeguerre. Errance, Paris. HANRIOT, D. (1923): Groupementpour la reconstitution BLACHE, J. (ed) (1938): La gdographielorraine. Berger- immobiliere des communes de Meurthe-et- Moselle. Levrault,Nancy. Nancy. BRION, S. (1936): 'Les transformationsdu village rural HINSCHBERGER, E (1955): Un canton rural decadent: dans la zone d6vast6ede la Meuse', Annales de l'Est 49: Colombey-les-Belles, Meurthe-et-Moselle,Annales de 3-29. I'Est:59-71. CARAUD, P. (1924): L'oeuvredes socidtescooperatives de HOTTENGER, G. (1914):Morcellement et remembrement. reconstructiondans les regionsdivastges. Riviere, Paris. Bailliere, Paris. CHENEVRIER, P. (1917): 'Le rappel des cultivateursdans - (1917): 'La question de l'habitationet la reconstruction les campagnes d6vast6es', La ReconstructionLorraine, des villes et des villages lorraines', La Reconstruction 15 December 1917, 15-21. Lorraine, 15 July 1917:10-26. CLEARY, M. (1989): Peasants,politicians and producers: HUBER,M. (1931): La population de la Francependant la the organizationof agriculturein Francesince 1918.Cam- guerre. Presses Universitairesde France, Paris. bridge UniversityPress, Cambridge. LANHER,J. (1988): Les Americainsen Meuse, 1917-1919. CONFEDERATION GENERALE DU TRAVAIL(1921): Soci6t6 des Lettres, Sciences et Arts de Bar-le-Duc. Rapport de la commission d'enquete du Conseil JOURNAL DES REGIONS DEVASTEES (1921a) 'Mon- Economique du Travaildans les regions divastges. Con- sieur Loucheur et les cooperatives de Nancy', 10 April f6deration Ge6nrale du Travail, Villeneuve-Saint- 1921. Georges. - (1921b) 'Un succes coop6rateur',13 November 1921. DE MAHUET, A. (1927): Les socidtescooperatives de re- LAURENT, J. (1948): L'Argonneet ses bordures.Paris. construction du ddpartementde Meurthe-et-Moselle. MACDONALD,W. (1922): Reconstructionin France.Mac- Berger-Levrault,Nancy. millan, London. DIETRICH, G. (1954): 'UL'conomieagricole et vie rurale MAGNY, C. (1928): La reconstitutiondu ddpartementde la dans le canton nord de Lun6ville',Annales de l'Est : 77- Meuse. Comte-Jacquet,Bar-le-Duc. 92. MAGRE, A. (1923): Rapportsur la reconstructiondes rf- EMERY,M. (1922): Servicede reconstitutiondes regionsat- gions libgries. Epinal, ImprimerieAdministrative. teintespar les evenementsde la guerre. Comte-Jacquet, MATHEU, M. (1921):Rapport du directeurgendral ddparte- Bar-le-Duc. mental des services techniques de reconstitution, FIEL, P. (1927): L'oeuvrede la cooperationde reconstruction Meurthe-et-Moselle.Berger-Levrault, Nancy. des eglisesdu diocesede Nancyet de Toul.Vagner, Nancy. MICHEL, A. (1932): Les dommagesde guerrede la France - (1935): La reconstitutiondes regions devasteesen Lor- et leur reparation.Berger-Levrault, Paris. raine. Editions du Pays Lorrain,Nancy. MILLET,E. (1938): 'Traitspermanents de la vie rurale',pp. FLOREMONT, G. (1983): 'L'6conomie agricole en 140-163 in BLACHE, J. (ed): La gdographielorraine. Meurthe-et-Moselleentre les deux guerres'.Mdmoire de Berger-Levrault,Nancy. mattrise,FacultW des Lettres, Universitdde Nancy II. MINELLA-BOUCHY,M. (1956): 'Remembrement,recon- FORGET, J. (1927): 'La reconstitutionforesti&re et la zone structionet transformationdu paysage ruraldans le can- rouge dans la Meuse', Bulletin de la Socidtddes Lettres, ton de Nom6ny',Annales de l'Est: 39-54. ScienceetArts de Bar-le-Duc,3-4: 121-131. MINISTERE DE L'AGRICULTURE(1922): Statistique ag- - (1928): 'La reconstitution forestiere et la zone rouge ricoleannuelle, 1910-1928. Imprimerie Nationale, Paris. dans la Meuse'. Revue des Eaux et Forets,66: 336-339.

90 GeografiskaAnnaler - 75 B (1993)- 2 THE REVIVALOF RURAL LORRAINEAFTER THE GREATWAR

MINISTERE DE L'INTERIEUR (1892): Denombrement ROLIN, C. (1953): 'MonsieurThouvenin:pr6tre social et re- de la Population1891. Imprimerie Nationale, Paris. constructeur d'6glises.' Memoires de l'Acadimie de - (1912): Denombrement de la Population, 1911. Im- Stanislas38: 155-174. primerieNationale, Paris. ROTH, E, (1978) 'La premiere guerre mondiale', pp. 89- - (1922) Denombrement de la Population, 1921. Im- 105 in BONNEFONT, J.C. (ed): Histoirede la Lorraine primerieNationale, Paris. de 1900a& nos jours. Privat,Toulouse. - (1927): Denombrement de la Population, 1926. Im- ROUVIER, G. (1919): Riorganisationde la vie locale dans primerieNationale, Paris. les regions libdrdes.Epinal, ImprimerieAdministrative - (1932): Denombrement de la Population, 1931. Im- des Vosges. primerieNationale, Paris. SAMSON, E (1931): Agriculturedans le departementde la MINISTERE DES REGIONS LIBEREES (1923): Meuse en 1931.Paton, Troyes. L'oeuvrede la reconstitution.Paris. SCHMITT,A. (1929): La population du departementde la MINISTERE DES TRAVAUX PUBLICS: SERVICEDES Meuse depuis le debut du siecle. Annales de l'Est42-43: REGIONS LIBEREES. (1929): La reconstitutionde la 1-24. Francedivastie: statistiqueginerale. Paris. SOMME, A. (1930): La Lorraine metallurgique.Berger- PARISSE, M. (ed) (1978): Histoire de la Lorraine. Privat, Levrault,Paris. Toulouse. PELTRE, J. (1969): 'L'6volutiondes structuresfoncieres en Lorraine',Bulletin de la SocietMGeographique de Liege Archival Sources 5: 1-24. Archives de la Meuse - transformationdes Departementales (Bar-le-Duc) (1979): 'L'insuffisante campagnes', 976 Rp. 2705 Plans d'alignement. 210-237 in BONNEFONT, J.C. Histoirede la pp. (ed): 976 Rp. 2706 Proces-verbaux de de la zone Lorrainede 1900a nos jours. Privat,Toulouse. r6utilisation J. and M. dans rouge. PERETTE, VARNEY, (1925): L'agriculture 1002 15. Les liberees de la Meuse trois ans en 1925. Rp. regions apres les Vosges Rigot, Nancy. de reconstitution, 1922. PICARD, E. (1937): La reconstructionen Alsace. Alsace 'a 1008Rp. 1 Les cooperativesde reconstructiondes 6glises du l'Oeuvre, Strasbourg. diocese de Verdun. PREAUD, R. (1930): L'tablissementdes reseauxruraux de distribution dans la Lorraine. d'dlectricitg region Berger- Archives Departementalesde Meurthe-et-Moselle(Nancy) Levrault, Nancy. W 1312Plans d'amenagement. PREAUD, R. and FIEL, P (1922): Les cooperativesde re- construction du de Meurthe-et-Moselle. departement ArchivesNationales (Paris) Union des de Reconstructionde Meurthe- Cooperatives AJ 25/1 Office de ReconstitutionAgricole. Centresde repa- et-Moselle, Nancy. ration. R. and GILLIARD, Notes statis- PREAUD, G. (1928): AJ 25/47 Meurthe-et-Moselle: reconstitution des regions tiques sur les reseaux rurauxde distributiond''lectricitt de liberees, 25 April 1919. dans la region Lorraine. Office Agricole Regionale AJ 25/126 Service de la Motoculture.Reconstitution 1919. I'Est,Troyes. F 12 8026 faciliter le remembrementde la PREFECTURE DE MEURTHE-ET-MOSELLE(1920): Rapport pour ruralepar MonsieurChauveau, 15 May 1917. Reconstitutiondes regions liberies: rapport du pr4fet. propriet6 Rigot, Nancy. REYNES, L. (1929): Receuil officiel des sepultures militaires.Paris.

GeografiskaAnnaler - 75 B 2 91 (1993).