in

Boris Johnson is a LIAR and has no honour

In 1914 Britain wasn’t directly involved in the European power struggle which led to the First World War, and could have stayed out of the conflict.  However our Government chose to enter the War on a matter of principle and honour. 

Britain had been a co-signatory to the Treaty of London 1839 which guaranteed to join with other signatories including France, Austria, Germany, Russia and Belgium to uphold and protect the neutrality of Belgium. 

When in 1914 Germany invaded Belgium it was in direct violation of that Treaty, and this triggered a requirement for Britain to oppose Germany’s invasion if necessarily with military force. When Germany learnt that Britain would go to war with them over their violation of Belgium neutrality they were incredulous and could not believe that Britain and Germany would be going to war over a mere “scrap of paper”.

In those days Britain felt honour bound by the Treaty and believed that if she failed to follow international law, Britain’s international standing  would have been seriously and fatally compromised for the future.

Nearly 1 million British and Dominion soldiers were to pay the price with their lives, in the First World War, for upholding that principle. 

Boris Johnson’s cavalier threats to tear up parts of the Brexit Agreement with Europe are an insult to the memory of those men, and would be a stain on the Country’s honour. 

But as we know he is not a man of honour.

What do you think?

Written by vheadline

8 Comments

Leave a Reply
    • Why do you think Britain becoming embroiled in a war on mainland Europe would have furthered any imperialist ambitions? Britain’s imperial interest lay overseas. Britain had no imperial ambitions in Europe, and our army was tiny in comparison to the huge continental armies. We were not that interested in the squabbling between the other European powers, and in 1914 being allied to France were confident that the huge French Army was capable of withstanding a German onslaught. For similar reasons we had not become involved in the earlier Franco/Prussian War

      At the outset of the 1914 war there was no apparent need for us to become involved other than our obligation to Belgium. As things unfolded the situation changed but by then we were already at war.

      • I think we were interested, but I think our core interest lay further East around the Oil fields of Iran and Iraq and our position in India, and distracting Russia from them. Hugely complex and something I am trying to understand.

        About a million dying to protect our honour, Dulce Et Decorum Est, Pro patria Mori, do you really believe that?

        • “About a million dying to protect our honour, Dulce Et Decorum Est, Pro patria Mori, do you really believe that?”

          That’s a complex question, because the choice is rarely clear cut. There have always been martyrs to causes, and I suspect there always will be. I remember being very shocked and at the same time had admiration for the IRA hunger strikers who took it the whole way.

          Of course another factor is whether or not it’s the individual’s free and informed choice, or whether they are hoodwinked by their leaders.

          In 1914 casualties were expected, but no one had any real understanding of just how bad they were going to be with the new “modern” industrial scale killing machines, particularly artillery. The problem with the old lie is that once the killing starts, the cause changes because a feeling arises that you have to go on for the sake of “those who have died”, or their sacrifice will “be in vain” It’s a self feeding ideal of horror.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Boris Johnson is the worst Prime Minister EVER!