100 YEARS ON , we "MUST" remember them!

OUT OF HOURS BULLY'S TRUCKSTOP BAR (INTERACTIVE)
21

madmackem:

Carryfast:

cav551:

Carryfast:
bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-46124948

That is remarkably sad for Pte Ellison to be killed so near to the ceasefire. He was a member of the original British Expeditionary Force which went to France in 1914, better known as ‘The Old Contemptibles’, famous for fighting at Mons. By the end of that year they had virtually been wiped out.

The fact that people were being sent to their deaths ‘after’ the ‘ceasefire’ had been called just adds to my own reservations that WW1 was a big conspiracy to get rid of a surplus of working class people.Who the establishment had no intention of employing in well paid jobs and as a result creating the perception/panic among the class driven establishment of the day that they could potentially turn to revolutionary solutions along Bolshevik lines.

On that note in addition to the obvious pre planned cut off date and time,which I for one believe had been in place long before 05.00 on the morning of the 11/11/18,( probably either to give those behind all this some moral excuse if not just to make sure that they didn’t take out too many of the workforce ),we can also add to that examples of men being ordered to walk slowly into machine gun fire in ordered ranks and the unbelievable excuse given after the inevitable massacre that artillery couldn’t/didn’t manage to take out machine gun emplacements.IE was WW1 actually a deliberate act along the lines of a controlled kull ?.Also bearing in mind that all logic defies any attempt to explain why us and France actually needed to go to war with Germany over the Serbia v Austria argument.The result of the ensuing war always going to end up with a worse situation after it for Europe economically let alone societally than the choice of both us and France at least staying neutral and telling Russia to do one.

You need to cut down on the wacky backy. Think everything you’ve written here is a [zb] disgrace. You sit here spouting your [zb] on here, being able to because if the ultimate sacrifice paid by so many brave service personnel.

If you can’t say anything nice, do us all a favour and shut the [zb] up. Bell end!

Agreed in the case of WW2 which was actually the ongoing predictable result of WW1.

As for the casualties in WW1 it depends on your definition of ‘saying something nice’.In which case no I don’t consider the loss of life in WW1 had anything to do with the price of my freedom but everything to do with some ‘other’ unknown agenda in whatever form.While maybe you can provide a good explanation as to why 3,000 people had to die ‘after’ the ceasefire had been agreed let alone how a distant small scale argument between Austria and Serbia resulted in such a catastrophic war between us and Germany and how that wasn’t the result of France being the aggressor and Germany having no choice other than to defend itself at the unavoidable expense of Belgian neutrality.

22

CF, I don’t know whether your views are right or whether they are wrong, I freely admit that I’m not enough of a history buff to be able to argue them. I do know that I’m immensely grateful that you have a platform to air your views and I do know that the fact you have that luxury is down to someone else’s ultimate sacrifice.

I’ll also lightheartedly add that living inside your head must be a scary place.

23

CF is a bit ■■■■■■■ in a conspiracy theory (and not for the first time).

Germany deliberately provoked a war on two fronts. They hoped to finish France off before the Russian army could mobilise, and emerge as the largest power in Europe.

The quick way to do this was to sent the troops in through Belgium…an unprovoked attach on a small, neutral nation, whose security had been guaranteed by international treaty since the end of the Napoleonic wars.

The behaviour of elements of the German army in Belgium was instrumental in getting the UK into the war. The UK could not stand by to see a small neighbour being conquered by an aggressive militaristic power in this matter. Public opinion led the government on this occasion.

The German plan to knock the French out in a few weeks failed because a) The heavily-outnumbered British army in Belgium stood in their way (at the battle of Mons) and b) the French army was moved rapidly though Paris to head off a German attack in requisitioned motor taxis. This was the first recorded instance of motor transport winning a battle. It wasn’t to be the last!

24

the maoster:
CF, I don’t know whether your views are right or whether they are wrong, I freely admit that I’m not enough of a history buff to be able to argue them. I do know that I’m immensely grateful that you have a platform to air your views and I do know that the fact you have that luxury is down to someone else’s ultimate sacrifice.

I’ll also lightheartedly add that living inside your head must be a scary place.

How did ‘my freedom’ ever depend on Churchill backing unarguable French aggression towards Germany.All as part of an alliance with Russia which had decided to put its nose into a small localised argument over the secession of Serbia from the Austro Hungarian Federation.Or for that matter the suicidal casualty rates resulting from butcher Haig’s tactics.Let alone the losses caused by the pointless continuation of fighting after the ceasefire agreement had been reached.

As for the professionally offended taking offence at my questions in that regard.It’s all easily found history,such as the date and time of George Ellison’s death,and the mobilisation of French forces on the 1/8/1914 v the German invasion of Belgium on the 4/8/1914.Germany having already cancelled its previous moves west after supposed Brit ‘assurances’ of French neutrality,not what’s going on inside my head.

Also bearing in mind that the all too predictable economically and militarily weakened Britain caused by that pointless war did nothing to help freedom or peace in Europe when the justifiably ■■■■■■ off Germans equally all too predictably came back at us for the rematch.

25

GasGas:
CF is a bit ■■■■■■■ in a conspiracy theory (and not for the first time).

Germany deliberately provoked a war on two fronts. They hoped to finish France off before the Russian army could mobilise, and emerge as the largest power in Europe.

The quick way to do this was to sent the troops in through Belgium…an unprovoked attach on a small, neutral nation, whose security had been guaranteed by international treaty since the end of the Napoleonic wars.

The behaviour of elements of the German army in Belgium was instrumental in getting the UK into the war. The UK could not stand by to see a small neighbour being conquered by an aggressive militaristic power in this matter. Public opinion led the government on this occasion.

The German plan to knock the French out in a few weeks failed because a) The heavily-outnumbered British army in Belgium stood in their way (at the battle of Mons) and b) the French army was moved rapidly though Paris to head off a German attack in requisitioned motor taxis. This was the first recorded instance of motor transport winning a battle. It wasn’t to be the last!

Surely you’re not trying to suggest that Germany wanted/thought it could win a war on two fronts.While how could Germany have provoked anything with the aim of knocking out France before Russia on the Western Front when both France and Russia had mobilised their forces on 1/8/14 and 31/7/14 respectively,France clearly having done so based on its alliance with Russia,‘before’ Germany invaded Belgium on 4/8/14.In addition to the fact that Germany had already turned its forces East from a previously cancelled western invasion having apparently been given assurances of French neutrality by Gray which the French then refused to agree to and choosing instead to go on with their plan to back Russia against Germany.As for the German invasion of Belgium that was the only credible route which provided Germany with the means to defend itself against France in the time frame provided by the French mobilisation.On that note do you really think that Germany would have gone to war with France if we had declared neutrality on the grounds that Belgium’s neutrality obviously became untenable in the case of French aggression towards Germany and had never been agreed on that basis.

26

pierrot 14:
Just wanting to know, what will you all be doing this Sunday the 11th November.

Serious question !

As both an ex RN and currently pompier I shall be on parade and wearing my medals and poppy with pride. March around town (ok bimble) then ceremony at the monument des morts and afterwards in the cimitiere, followed by a verre d’amitie.

27

Interesting piece here about the wild parties that were held on 11/11

bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45641166

28

Visited many WW1 and WW2 cemetries in France, Belgium and Holland, very poignant places, well looked after and quite rightly so.
I buy a poppy every year and whenever I see a collection box thereafter I always put summet in, I also have a poppy on the front of my truck.
The absolute least that anybody can do for those that never came back and are still there after all those years.

One of the most maddening and disgraceful things I ever saw was at a British war cemetry in France about 15 years ago, some ■■■■ bags had scrawled the words… ‘‘Rosbeefs take your rubbish home’’ :open_mouth: how ■■■■ disrespectful is that eh?..■■■■ cretins.

29

Carryfast:

GasGas:
CF is a bit ■■■■■■■ in a conspiracy theory (and not for the first time).

Germany deliberately provoked a war on two fronts. They hoped to finish France off before the Russian army could mobilise, and emerge as the largest power in Europe.

The quick way to do this was to
Surely you’re not trying to suggest that Germany wanted/thought it could win a war on two fronts.While how could Germany have provoked anything with the aim of knocking out France before Russia on the Western Front when both France and Russia had mobilised their forces on 1/8/14 and 31/7/14 respectively,France clearly having done so based on its alliance with Russia,‘before’ Germany invaded Belgium on 4/8/14.In addition to the fact that Germany had already turned its forces East from a previously cancelled western invasion having apparently been given assurances of French neutrality by Gray which the French then refused to agree to and choosing instead to go on with their plan to back Russia against Germany.As for the German invasion of Belgium that was the only credible route which provided Germany with the means to defend itself against France in the time frame provided by the French mobilisation.On that note do you really think that Germany would have gone to war with France if we had declared neutrality on the grounds that Belgium’s neutrality obviously became untenable in the case of French aggression towards Germany and had never been agreed on that basis.

Yes that was Germany’s plan.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I

30

madmackem:

Carryfast:

GasGas:
CF is a bit ■■■■■■■ in a conspiracy theory (and not for the first time).

Germany deliberately provoked a war on two fronts. They hoped to finish France off before the Russian army could mobilise, and emerge as the largest power in Europe.

The quick way to do this was to
Surely you’re not trying to suggest that Germany wanted/thought it could win a war on two fronts.While how could Germany have provoked anything with the aim of knocking out France before Russia on the Western Front when both France and Russia had mobilised their forces on 1/8/14 and 31/7/14 respectively,France clearly having done so based on its alliance with Russia,‘before’ Germany invaded Belgium on 4/8/14.In addition to the fact that Germany had already turned its forces East from a previously cancelled western invasion having apparently been given assurances of French neutrality by Gray which the French then refused to agree to and choosing instead to go on with their plan to back Russia against Germany.As for the German invasion of Belgium that was the only credible route which provided Germany with the means to defend itself against France in the time frame provided by the French mobilisation.On that note do you really think that Germany would have gone to war with France if we had declared neutrality on the grounds that Belgium’s neutrality obviously became untenable in the case of French aggression towards Germany and had never been agreed on that basis.

Yes that was Germany’s plan.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I

How could that have been Germany’s ‘plan’ when the France and Russia had mobilised their forces for war with Germany ‘before’ Germany invaded Belgium.

If it wasn’t a case of French aggression against Germany in alliance with Russia how do you explain this.

Germany mobilised against Russia then France immediately mobilised against Germany.Not Germany mobilised against France.Britain up to that point had made it clear that it would not be dragged into a war between Russia and Germany on the basis of the Franco Russian alliance.While at the same time brokering a peace deal between France and Germany on that basis.To the point of German acceptance and reversal of its original invasion starting on 1/8/18.

The French then blamed us for selling them out clearly being hell bent on war with Germany in alliance with Russia as was Churchill.The warmonger then getting his way using the excuse of Belgian neutrality which was obviously untenable with France and Russia mobilising against Germany BEFORE Germany invaded Belgium on 4/8/18.

dailymotion.com/video/x208lju 46.00 -

Make no mistake WW1 on the western front was the result of French aggression not German.While still not explaining the need for us to get involved and changing our position from neutrality to stupidly joining France and Russia.On that note if the case for us joining France in that situation looks too stupid to believe it probably is leaving the only other possibility of conspiracy in throwing away the lives of British forces personnel for nothing and in doing so helping to propagate a war which could have been avoided or at least limited to the east between Germany and Russia.

31

Good documentary about ww1 youtu.be/Tr603L1hvB4

The old soldier at 41.00 says it as it was

32

CF…you are ignoring the time everyone knew it would take to mobilise the Russian army…huge country, huge, ill-trained army with many more soldiers than guns, few railways etc.

Russian soldiers were enlisted and told to ‘bring a pitchfork’ because they weren’t going to get a rifle until the man next to them who did have a rifle got shot.

33

How could that have been Germany’s ‘plan’ when the France and Russia had mobilised their forces for war with Germany ‘before’ Germany invaded Belgium.

If it wasn’t a case of French aggression against Germany in alliance with Russia how do you explain this.

Germany mobilised against Russia then France immediately mobilised against Germany.Not Germany mobilised against France.Britain up to that point had made it clear that it would not be dragged into a war between Russia and Germany on the basis of the Franco Russian alliance.While at the same time brokering a peace deal between France and Germany on that basis.To the point of German acceptance and reversal of its original invasion starting on 1/8/18.

The French then blamed us for selling them out clearly being hell bent on war with Germany in alliance with Russia as was Churchill.The warmonger then getting his way using the excuse of Belgian neutrality which was obviously untenable with France and Russia mobilising against Germany BEFORE Germany invaded Belgium on 4/8/18.

dailymotion.com/video/x208lju 46.00 -

Make no mistake WW1 on the western front was the result of French aggression not German.While still not explaining the need for us to get involved and changing our position from neutrality to stupidly joining France and Russia.On that note if the case for us joining France in that situation looks too stupid to believe it probably is leaving the only other possibility of conspiracy in throwing away the lives of British forces personnel for nothing and in doing so helping to propagate a war which could have been avoided or at least limited to the east between Germany and Russia.
[/quote]
German strategy for a war on two fronts against France and Russia was to concentrate the bulk of its army in the West to defeat France within four weeks, then shift forces to the East before Russia could fully mobilise; this was later known as the Schlieffen Plan.[20] On 2 August, Germany demanded free passage through Belgium, an essential element in achieving a quick victory over France.[21] When this was refused, German forces entered Belgium early on the morning of 3 August and declared war with France the same day; the Belgian government invoked the 1839 Treaty of London and in compliance with its obligations under this, Britain declared war on Germany on 4 August.

We didn’t declare war until AFTER Germany invaded Belgium, in support of a treaty between us and Belgium.

Are you really that naive, or stupid, to think that if we just sat there and riddled our collective thumbs that Germany would have stayed on the other side of the channel?

As for an earlier stupid question, troops may have died after the armistice was signed could have been down to die hard German troops refusing to surrender. Or were our troops just supposed to let them kill them instead.

For the United Kingdom and the British Empire, the state of war ceased under the provisions of the Termination of the Present War (Definition) Act 1918 with respect to:

Germany on 10 January 1920.

34

GasGas:
CF…you are ignoring the time everyone knew it would take to mobilise the Russian army…huge country, huge, ill-trained army with many more soldiers than guns, few railways etc.

Russian soldiers were enlisted and told to ‘bring a pitchfork’ because they weren’t going to get a rifle until the man next to them who did have a rifle got shot.

The point is the date of that mobilisation combined with the French not the logistics of it.It’s clear that France intended to go to war with Germany in alliance with Russia.Not that Germany ever intended to go to war against France over the issue of Serbia.

Did you watch the vid of part 2 of that bombshell docu drama 37 Days which I posted.The smoking gun ( pun intended ),showing that WW1 was caused by French and Brit aggression/stupidity,being the question how do explain the events shown at 55.00-56.34 if what you say is true concerning Germany’s supposed intent to take out France ■■?.That 1 and a half minutes says more than everything ever said by the Brit and French establishment to justify their actions in kicking off WW1 in the west.Just as George Ellison’s death does. :frowning:

While have to say if there is such a thing as karma that would explain perfectly how why Germany won the post war peace after WW2 and deservedly so.

35

madmackem:
German strategy for a war on two fronts against France and Russia was to concentrate the bulk of its army in the West to defeat France within four weeks, then shift forces to the East before Russia could fully mobilise; this was later known as the Schlieffen Plan.[20] On 2 August, Germany demanded free passage through Belgium, an essential element in achieving a quick victory over France.[21] When this was refused, German forces entered Belgium early on the morning of 3 August and declared war with France the same day; the Belgian government invoked the 1839 Treaty of London and in compliance with its obligations under this, Britain declared war on Germany on 4 August.

We didn’t declare war until AFTER Germany invaded Belgium, in support of a treaty between us and Belgium.

Are you really that naive, or stupid, to think that if we just sat there and riddled our collective thumbs that Germany would have stayed on the other side of the channel?

As for an earlier stupid question, troops may have died after the armistice was signed could have been down to die hard German troops refusing to surrender. Or were our troops just supposed to let them kill them instead.

For the United Kingdom and the British Empire, the state of war ceased under the provisions of the Termination of the Present War (Definition) Act 1918 with respect to:

Germany on 10 January 1920.

German ‘strategy’ for war on two fronts isn’t the same thing as a declaration/act of war.As for a so called ‘quick knock out’ of France the fact that the western front predictably descended into years of blood soaked stalemate shows that idea for what it is ( bs history written by the supposed victors ).Germany’s action on the western front was always at best going to be a defensive war of attrition in the unbelievable event that France and Britain decided to go to war against Germany in alliance with Russia.

On that note if you’d have bothered to watch the vid you’ll see that the Kaiser was obviously gambling on the logical idea that France would stay neutral in the war against Russia and then clearly acted accordingly in reversing and cancelling Germany’s opening of a western front before it had begun on 1/8/18.When he ‘thought’ that he’d been given that guarantee by the British government ( as opposed to warmonger Churchill and his even more stupid French allies ).IE if you want your argument to hold water how do you explain the fact that Germany’s move west was actually stopped and cancelled by the Kaiser on 1/8/18.It was only then restarted days later when it was obvious that France intended to attack Germany in support of Russia as shown at 37.02-38.56.In which case the demand for Belgium’s neutrality to be over ruled to open the way for the German defence was totally justified thereby also removing the pretext for Britain’s involvement.The real reasons for Britain’s involvement already having been confirmed at 34.42-34.06 and 42.13-43.23 and 46.00-46.58 for what it was being the support of France and by default Russia with the cabinet resistance and resignations to prove it.All eventually dressed up by Churchill under the bs pretext of unsustainable Belgian neutrality with a belligerent France at Germany’s throat.

As for thousands having to die after the ceasefire agreement supposedly to mop up a few die hard Germans.What was it that then suddenly stopped these so called die hards at 11.00 am on the dot which couldn’t stop them a few hours earlier.Including the need for the use of heavy artillery that then also suddenly stopped exactly on the allotted hour.

36

well i don’t know who’s fault it is we got involved…but i would imagine our dead soldiers will be turning in their graves seeing the ■■■■■■■■ this Country has turned into :frowning:
i will be at the Parade in our village tomorrow,and my daughter and grandson will be at the Service in her local church as well.

37

carryfast-yeti:
well i don’t know who’s fault it is we got involved…but i would imagine our dead soldiers will be turning in their graves seeing the [zb] this Country has turned into :frowning:
i will be at the Parade in our village tomorrow,and my daughter and grandson will be at the Service in her local church as well.

Was going to agree with you Yeti and add some more , but can’t be arsed seeing as , IMHO, such an important subject has been shoved into Bullies by the uncaring Mods. Well done Mods , you’ve answered my post by showing that you don’t give a s…t and have no respect for the heroes of WW1 :exclamation: :exclamation: :exclamation: :exclamation: :exclamation: :exclamation: :exclamation: :exclamation:

38

Peridot well done for starting a very worthy thread, to those who turned it into a hitching thread YOU DISGUST ME YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF YOURSELVES

39

knight2:
Peridot well done for starting a very worthy thread, to those who turned it into a hitching thread YOU DISGUST ME YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF YOURSELVES

^^^^^^^ DITTO THIS ^^^^^^^^

Thank you knight

40

pierrot 14:
Was going to agree with you Yeti and add some more , but can’t be arsed seeing as , IMHO, such an important subject has been shoved into Bullies by the uncaring Mods. Well done Mods , you’ve answered my post by showing that you don’t give a s…t and have no respect for the heroes of WW1 :exclamation: :exclamation: :exclamation: :exclamation: :exclamation: :exclamation: :exclamation: :exclamation:

It’s not truck related so where was it supposed to go. :confused:

viewtopic.php?f=15&t=138998&p=2185013