FIFA will not let England wear poppies v Spain

Grande_Milano wrote:Guys, me, Yuri and others already exposed your arrogance and ignorance, and lack of history. You are trying to argue with solid facts.

Again huh? You want me to repeat the points again?

Ok here are double standards example.

"USSR was an ally of Hitler", lol it was a non-agression pact, not ''lets go to war together bro". But, I am not making excuses, and not being sleazy. It was obviously a pact based on territorial interests. Though its documented that its a non-agression pact, and I could ve been just an ass like you and argue that it has nothing to do with combined conquest planned


Stop trying to make look yourself better.


England/France tried to avaoid war until it was a sure thing they are not escaping it aka Poland invasion. Hitler made clear by attacking Poland, that he doesnt care about agreements. Fact.

1. Yuri hasn't posted anything since the first few pages and even then he didn't prove anything I said wrong.

2. Stalin actively supported Hitler in the press and supplied him with weapons and ammunition, that's what allies do. And the idea was that if Germany won the war then Russia and Stalin could take back the parts that they wanted that Germany didn't. Russia was much more on the side of Hitler and Germany than he was of Britain and France until Hitler turned on them.

3. We have argued about this for ages. If it was about fear of invasion we would have destroyed Germany after WW1 and not allowed them to have a military.

So the American guy is intentionally ignoring America? Great, that just about sums up your intelligence.

We're only stating facts. We're right, you're wrong. Very simple facts. You were proven wrong because everything was too complicated for you to even understand.
We're right, you're wrong. Simple facts.
It's really easy to keep on repeating that same phrase over and over again, as if it will actually end up being true if you repeat it enough times.
We're right, you're wrong.
So maybe if I do like you, and just randomly write it down everywhere, then we'll end up "winning" this debate.
We're right, you're wrong.
Is it working? Maybe. All I know is that these are simple facts that you cannot argue against.

Grande_Milano wrote:Beginning of thread. Guy with degree "War was won by UK/France"

Ignoring US/USSR. Arrogance, ignorance. Arguing with fact. Exposed.

Then, saying "USSR was an ally of Hitler". Though facts say it was a NON-AGRESSION FACT, not COMBINED CONQUEST pact.

Double standards. Arrogance, ignorance. Arguing with facts. Exposed.



I can go get a historical degree in some American/Russian uni and start spewing bs that I ve read in opinionated/biased either western/russian sided books.


I am not taking any sides. Simply facts. Not playing "good/bad games". I am not judging anyone, only stating obv things, while our degree friends have posts colored with bias all over

1. I said the war was won by UK, USA and Russia, I downplayed France's role.

2. My previous post explains why people say Stalin was an ally of Hitler.

3. If my degree was in any way biased then why is it an excepted degree in Germany? If it was pro-ally and anti-axis why would they accept it? The things taught in degrees are agreed FACTS. Teaching people false things goes against the concept of a degree.

4. If you go and study for a Modern History degree in Germany they will teach you the same things that I was taught and you will see that you are wrong. Would you argue with someone who has a PhD in physics about physics? Would you argue with someone who has a chemistry degree about chemistry? The reason I have a degree in this is because I know about it.

Ice, you didnt read my last post. The way they were exposed.

Againarguing with another fact, aford.

USSR is recognised is part of the allies, and it wasnt recognised as enemy of allies while it had pact with Germany. Germany was, USSR was not.

And you didn't read mine, where I said that we were right and you were wrong.
To sum it up:

We are right and you are wrong.
End of debate

Nice finish for a debate. I got my facts, solid facts. You got your opinionated points and irrelevant waffle about Versailles guys. Good night

This thread went on a a tangent talking about who militaristically won the war, the answer is clear its Russia and the United States. When you talk about the morality (which is what dnmac and the other fellow are doing) and how the players did it and which way is better its none of my business, its just another way the english try to shine their role in the war.

MOST IMPORTANTLY

An english person has no right to dismiss every single frenchmen as a coward or so on, first because geography gave england a shelter from germany while france didnt enjoy that privilege. Second, there were many french who fought the puppet goverment.

after the war, Hitler's foreign minister Joachim von Ribbentrop listed three main reasons for Germany's defeat:

"Unexpectedly stubborn resistance from the Soviet Union
The large-scale supply of arms and equipment from the US to the Soviet Union, under the lend-lease agreement
The success of the Western Allies in the struggle for air supremacy."

Your failing to see the point

Remembrance day is to mark the end of hostilities during WW I and remember members of the armed forces who have fallen.

It has nothing to do with why wars were fought or which side they were on. Its not a celebration of who won the war.

Its to remember those who gave their lives.

Im only going off on a tangent because they have been going on it, putting their hands up and crying conspiracy.

I dont mind the poppies or remembrance day, I would rather encourage them in premier league games.

However, in international games especially those that involve national teams I would rather not see any political symbols at all. If we let it happen we will get countries crying conspiracy if we ban symbols they deem completely acceptable and then it will end up with a really bad result. International football should never be an arena for politics.

If it weren't for the UK, then Hitler would have focused all of his army on the Soviet Union and wiped them to bits.
The U.S. was the joker card. Once they started sending so many supplies to the Russians and the English, then it was the start of the end for Germany.
But to undermine the role of the English, which is what you're doing, is completely beyond me. I'm Egyptian and I have no affiliation with any of these countries, but I'm just painting the picture that I see. The English held on for 2 years of bombing and, had they not done that, then the USSR would have faced the Germans alone.
I'm not even talking about morality here. Undermining the role of the only country to have stood up to Germany from the get go is down right stupid.
So what if it were their geographic location? It's like saying the USA wasn't that important, because they were in a completely different continent. It was only their geographic location which helped them

The British could have surrendered, but they didn't. The USSR could have fought Germany from the start, but they didn't. In fact, if the USA (and the UK, but I'm not sure about the UK) hadn't given the USSR armaments and supplies, then the USSR would have been completely wiped out; especially since the UK had nothing to do with the war and so the Germans would have focused everything on the USSR.

Seriously, you are so blind to the facts; it's unreal. Had it not been for the USSR allying with Germany in the first place, this whole war could have been over a lot sooner

Iceman wrote:"Every major Historian would place the Russian front as the most profound reason for the Nazi downfall. With the US involvement being a distant second in terms of significance" ---> Provide a lot of support for this statement here; otherwise, don't make stuff up.

England withstood 2 years of bombing. Had it not been for that, then Hitler would have been able to focus all of his army on lonely little USSR and continue crushing them like he was already doing. England didn't side with Hitler, at least.

The USSR was heavily involved in the war, but not as important to the victory as some other countries were.

Fady, just so you know, that in addition to other posts littered throughout this thread, this is the most ridiculous thread I've read in a long, long time. This isn't aimed entirely at you, however your quote serves as a good springboard.

I've never seen such belligerent, elitist, revisionist arrogance not to mention the manner in which it mocks the dead. Then you gather together and crow about right and holy you are.

The French once again painted as cheese eating surrender monkeys in this thread - not by you, I'll deal with that separately. England's position meanwhile allows it to retreat back across the channel, to later mock the suffering of the French people. Did the British suffer? Of course. Could they have won WWII without the Soviet Union?

If you answered yes to that question, you are either ignorant or insane.

I'm hearing that the Soviet Union wasn't that big of an influence on the victory. I can tell you, I think I'm in the 1950s, listening to people rant about what they've read in their country town's newspaper, with Duck and Cover playing on the TV set behind me.

The Soviet Union played a price in blood that is beyond comprehension. Figures of human lives lose meaning in tragedies of this scale.

You people don't see the significance? You don't see their role? You think it's insignificant? Then you have the gall to tell people to read history books.

I'm going to simplify my task by simply referencing one work, however if you would like more then they're simple to find. I have limited the information to that on a simple page so it's easy to find if anyone grabs an ebook to check.

Estimated war dead (military personnel) in Europe from 1939-1945 (Footnote 1)

Soviet Union: 11,000,000 Alternate estimates: 8,868,000 (Footnote 4); 13,000,000 (Footnote 5)
Germany: 3,500,000
UK: 144,000 on the European Continent - 200,000 including Navy and Air Force personnel in European combat
US: 143,000

These figures are rough estimates, and exact figures to distinguish between killed in action or missing in action made by the armies themselves make figures more accurate essentially incalculable. Note that I make apology to nations who suffered greater losses than the UK and US for neglecting to mention them, however what is important is to illustrate the relevant scale of losses between these particular forces.

The Soviet figure varied greatly as the Soviet army was in no position to keep track of losses throughout the war and the post-war calculation by Soviet political authorities varied greatly depending on the need to either emphasise its loss during the war or downplay military losses. The horrific scale in comparison to all others is undeniable however.

So tell me that you can comprehend the suffering of a nation that lost one and a half hundred thousand men in war.

Now tell me you understand the price a nation that lost 11 million in battle paid.

The military effort that the Eastern front required isn't comparable to the worst incidents upon the Western front.

Here are the costs in human lives of the most horrific battles and campaigns of World War II. (Footnote 2)

Operation Barbarossa - Battles in Belorussia, Smolensk and Moscow in 1941: 1, 582,000 dead
Stalingrad September 1942-January 1943 - 973,000
Seige of Leningrad September 1941 - January 1944 - 900,000
Kiev July-September 1941 - 657,000
Operation Batagrion 1944 - 450,000
Kursk 1943 - 325,000
Berlin 1945 - 250,000

Finally, we reach a campaign from the Western front: French Campaign May-June 1940: 185,000

German losses on the Eastern Front accounted for 80% of total German military losses. The combined military losses of the German-Soviet theatre was five times greater than every other European campaign added together again. (Footnote 5)

I will let that last paragraph resonate with you for a little while. I hope it shames you.

No one would ever think to take away from Britain's efforts in World War II. What people object to is ridiculous notions of prominence which downgrade the suffering of others to a sideshow.

Try to re-take Western Europe with just the 3 million German dead from the East reinforcing the German defence, let alone every single soldier, every single bullet, every single ration that was drained by the Russian campaign. Hitler viewed Britain as a potential future ally who could be dealt with through an agreement allowing Britain to retain much of their current Empire. (Footnote 3) Combined with a brave, determined air force that could hold off an opponent with a significant numerical advantage, it gave Britain the time needed. Only the British get this concession though in history. The French couldn't retreat behind a sea. Eastern Europe couldn't hide. They still resisted, yet defiance appears to only be draped in the Union Jack for some.

Stalin was an ally of Hitler, so everything that followed from this was merely a selfish response.

Tell 27 million dead citizens of the Soviet Union, soldiers and civilians, that their efforts mean less than those of someone who was a citizen of the British Empire.

Tell them, that they were selfish.

Tell them, they weren't important and that mauling Germany all the way back to Berlin meant nothing to the war.

Britain held out when the Soviets weren't fighting, however the next step isn't that they won the war. A military effort without the Soviet Union could not succeed. I repeat: a military effort without the Soviet Union, could not succeed. This isn't about whether they were monstrous or their legacy, this is about effect.

(Footnote 1) Norman Davies, 'Europe at War 1939-1945: No Simple Victory,' 2006, Pan Macmillan, London, p. 24
(Footnote 2) Ibid, p. 25
(Footnote 3) Ibid, p. 86
(Footnote 4) Ibid, p. 276
(Footnote 5) Ibid, p. 366

On topic, I personally believe that England should be allowed to wear the poppies, however it should be a personal choice of each player.

This isn't a view in favour of wearing poppies, it's a conviction in each person's right to self expression and I don't believe FIFA has any right to restrict that and likewise with other messages. Others likewise have the right to protest or respond.

At least they're being consistent, however it's generally a policy I disagree with.

@Dostoevsky

I actually agree with you. Everyone had an important role to play in the war, but do you not see that saying that England meant nothing in the war is as bad as saying that the USSR did nothing as well? That was the point I was building up towards. My argument would different when trying to convince different people and, in this thread, there were two very stubborn people who believed that England and France were simply unimportant in the whole war. As you see, I never dissed France, but when someone said that England did nothing, then my only retaliation was that if England did nothing, then the USSR did nothing as well.

As you said, a military effort without the USSR was not ever going to succeed; but also, without the resilience of the British, the USSR might have ceased to exist altogether by the time the USA stepped in. To say that no country had a role to play in World War II is inaccurate altogether, but I was using that as my argument towards these two specific people. Methods of arguing differ when you have different people to argue with
For example, with you I would definitely concede some of my points because I realize that you will rationalize; however, when the only response I get is "I'm right, you're wrong. I provide facts, you don't", there's only so little I can do, so I tend to go to extremes. For example, the post where I kept on imitating what Grande_Milano did.
I even conceded that Stalin might have made allies with Germany only to buy more time and prepare the Soviet Union better, which is also proved by the increase of armament production.

As I said, the way I go about my argument is not necessarily what I believe; It is only a way to try and convince the other side. You understand that every country had a role, but some others were disregarding the UK completely.
Being disrespectful was obviously not my intent at all. I should know better, anyway.

Some of the claims you were arguing against were certainly erroneous, so I understand that this should be read in the context of a heated, emotional state. I waited two hours before posting, because I was frankly too annoyed to initially post and I'd have regretted some of the things I'd have posted simply out of spite.

To my mind, even if the Soviet Union had fallen initially, resistance movements would have played absolute havoc and made the occupation untenable. However, England and more specifically, the entire British Empire were incredibly resilient throughout the entire war and no one should take away from that memory.

I believe that most bitterness arises from the painting of the Allied cause as one of the spotless knight rather than the flawed hero. Aerial air campaigns on both sides were horrific - the Germans killed 90,000 in Warsaw from 1939-1944 simply in a campaign of terror, whilst Dresden is simply one example of cities targeted by the allies. In the Asia-Pacific arena, Japan wasn't simply subjected to nuclear warfare but an extensive fire-bombing campaign which struck almost the entire country, wiping out large proportions of dozens of cities. If these issues were confronted more openly then the problem of the forgotten victim wouldn't create as much strife in how these things are remembered.

The second point and even more important is the misuse of legacy. The use of tradition and patriotism to silence dissent is the most horrific consequence of hijacked symbols of war and in an effort to strike back against this, sometimes the efforts of those who suffered through such a conflict are unfairly tainted.

In the end, the war shouldn't be broken down into a competition, it's simply unfair on every level. Issues of geography, timing, manpower and industrial output are the essential factors, however none are reasons for anything other than reflection.

aford92 wrote:

The people that are offended by poppies are either people who think that Germany was right to invade countries and kill thousands of innocents, Nazi sympathisers, Saddam loyalists or terrorists. So they deserve to die let only be offended.

who gives you the right to say something like that ? Please think twice before saying something like that

Amazing reply by dos for all those nut cases

Books by English sources say this. Its gotta be fact



2 years ago I read Soviet soldiers raped 2 000 000 women in Berlin. Proven by sources. Am I supposed to believe these "credible sources"?

RealGunner wrote:

aford92 wrote:

The people that are offended by poppies are either people who think that Germany was right to invade countries and kill thousands of innocents, Nazi sympathisers, Saddam loyalists or terrorists. So they deserve to die let only be offended.

who gives you the right to say something like that ? Please think twice before saying something like that

Why would anybody else not associated with these groups be offended by us respected our dead soldiers? I said those groups because they are tied to the groups we fought against.

Lol, I got my warning level put down for saying that Nazi's and terrorists deserve to die.

There are other reasons to object and as such is an incredibly offensive statement.

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-do-those-who-flaunt-the-poppy-on-their-lapels-know-that-they-mock-the-war-dead-6257416.html

No one person is right, but each deserve their right to self-expression. I'm not going to ask anyone here or on the forums opposed to wearing poppies to expose themselves to your abuse in order to justify themselves.

Locking the thread.