FIFA will not let England wear poppies v Spain

Plus, trying to downgrade USSR achievements, when 18 in 20 Germans (Germany being major part of Tri-alliance) were killed by Soviets

Trying to make England look better. Nobody is taking it from you. It was in equal aaly win. But, I read on this thread its only USA/France/UK

And these ppl teach me about history

2.5 million indian troops were forced to fight in ww 2 for england even though they had no connection whatsoever with the war.. lets get poppies for them too..doubt that even that many englishmen fought

2.5 million indian troops were forced to fight in ww 2 for england even though they had no connection whatsoever with the war.. lets get poppies for them too..doubt that even that many englishmen fought

Grande_Milano wrote:U using facts right?

"Attacked Reich when he attacked Poland, on moral grounds/helping" Opinion, not a fact.

"He was already powerful" Wrong. He was weak pre-Czech attack, could ve been smashed. Documented fact.

Non agression pacts with him. Fact. The avoidance of war at any costs.

The first one is a fact you fool. Pre-Czech attack Germany had the greatest army in Western Europe, so the second was a fact too. Also, we did want to avoid war at all costs but he went too far when he attacked Poland. What point are you trying to make? You are making yourself look more stupid with every post.

diptiman wrote:2.5 million indian troops were forced to fight in ww 2 for england even though they had no connection whatsoever with the war.. lets get poppies for them too..doubt that even that many englishmen fought

The poppies are for them too, and Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders e.t.c., anyone who helped our country in conflict is respected by us when we wear the poppy, not just British soldiers.

Grande_Milano wrote:U using facts right?

"Attacked Reich when he attacked Poland, on moral grounds/helping" Opinion, not a fact.

"He was already powerful" Wrong. He was weak pre-Czech attack, could ve been smashed. Documented fact.

Non agression pacts with him. Fact. The avoidance of war at any costs.

Like someone already said, if they wanted to crush Germany then they would have done so with the Versailles Treaty; they didn't need to wait until Hitler takes over the Sudetenland to do so. So, it's obvious now that they did NOT want to destroy Germany completely.
They had also just gotten out of a World War and were trying to avoid another one. Thus, they tried to appease Germany and didn't make a fuss about the takeover of the Rhineland. They wanted peace, and didn't want to disturb it. Is that such a bad thing to want? Peace?
He was weak pre-Rhineland, not pre-Sudetenland. But it's true that he obviously became more powerful afterwards.

Grande_Milano wrote:LOL at ''need time for preparation"

Answering ya all:

1) its a well documented fact that Reich was weak pre-Sudeten attack, it could ve been smashed with French army alone. Why not to slaughter the enemy when he is weak? "need time for preparation" lol

2) It was obv, that before he attacked Poland, head to head war with him is unavoidable. Then an excuse "we are peacekeepers, u went too far". Nor England, nor France gave a sh about Poland, they were fighting for their future, not for the interest of some other countries.


Stop making yourself look like heroes and others like villains.

No country fights without having interests, only in Hollywood movies

OK, this quote proves you know nothing and are totally ignorant. I mean all your posts have pointed to this, but this one takes the cake.

Do you know that when the French army were mobilizing they had 1 rifle per 10 soldiers? Saying that the French army could have beaten the Nazi's at the start of the war is the dumbest thing I have ever witnessed on this forum.

As for your second point, no it was not obvious that head to head war was unavoidable. Information traveled a lot slower back then and it's really easy to look back and say the things you're saying. If you didn't know, Hitler was actually a very popular leader in Europe and was one of the best leaders Germany had ever seen. Before he got there there currency was so worthless you had to fill a wheel barrel with cash to go food shopping.

It was seen at that time that all he was doing was taking back land that Germany had lost in the first world war. People didn't really mind because the germans in those lands always wanted to be a part of Germany anyways, not to mention he was telling everyone he was going to do that and that's it.
NO ONE in Europe wanted another war even the Germans. Despite popular opinion the thought of another war in Europe was not what the German people wanted and were very against it.

Hitler had a lot to lose and other countries just thought he was restoring Germany to there rightful place in Europe. Germany had always been a power in Europe and it was only because of WW1 that they were a poor country. So no, no one thought he would go to the lenghts that he did. You are wrong.

aford92 wrote:

Grande_Milano wrote:U using facts right?

"Attacked Reich when he attacked Poland, on moral grounds/helping" Opinion, not a fact.

"He was already powerful" Wrong. He was weak pre-Czech attack, could ve been smashed. Documented fact.

Non agression pacts with him. Fact. The avoidance of war at any costs.

The first one is a fact you fool. Pre-Czech attack Germany had the greatest army in Western Europe, so the second was a fact too. Also, we did want to avoid war at all costs but he went too far when he attacked Poland. What point are you trying to make? You are making yourself look more stupid with every post.

You are just digging a bigger grave for yourself there.

"Moral grounds a fact". How you know? Is that what politicians said at that time? Or there was "feck its too late, he is going after us anyway"

Again, it was estimated Germany didnt have enough military power before Czech invasion.

You and other guys said, "try to avoid war", then you say ''there were no non-agression pacts", then you say "it wasnt obvious war is going to emerge on us". Contradiction after contradiction, after contradiction.

You attacked me on personal grounds aka lost a debate

I proved you and your friend with historical degree wrong, exposed your double standards, and showed you the contadictions you made.




I am unbiased on this topic, you esp with personal assaults, seem to me no

dnmac4 wrote:

Grande_Milano wrote:LOL at ''need time for preparation"

Answering ya all:

1) its a well documented fact that Reich was weak pre-Sudeten attack, it could ve been smashed with French army alone. Why not to slaughter the enemy when he is weak? "need time for preparation" lol

2) It was obv, that before he attacked Poland, head to head war with him is unavoidable. Then an excuse "we are peacekeepers, u went too far". Nor England, nor France gave a sh about Poland, they were fighting for their future, not for the interest of some other countries.


Stop making yourself look like heroes and others like villains.

No country fights without having interests, only in Hollywood movies

OK, this quote proves you know nothing and are totally ignorant. I mean all your posts have pointed to this, but this one takes the cake.

Do you know that when the French army were mobilizing they had 1 rifle per 10 soldiers? Saying that the French army could have beaten the Nazi's at the start of the war is the dumbest thing I have ever witnessed on this forum.

As for your second point, no it was not obvious that head to head war was unavoidable. Information traveled a lot slower back then and it's really easy to look back and say the things you're saying. If you didn't know, Hitler was actually a very popular leader in Europe and was one of the best leaders Germany had ever seen. Before he got there there currency was so worthless you had to fill a wheel barrel with cash to go food shopping.

It was seen at that time that all he was doing was taking back land that Germany had lost in the first world war. People didn't really mind because the germans in those lands always wanted to be a part of Germany anyways, not to mention he was telling everyone he was going to do that and that's it.
NO ONE in Europe wanted another war even the Germans. Despite popular opinion the thought of another war in Europe was not what the German people wanted and were very against it.

Hitler had a lot to lose and other countries just thought he was restoring Germany to there rightful place in Europe. Germany had always been a power in Europe and it was only because of WW1 that they were a poor country. So no, no one thought he would go to the lenghts that he did. You are wrong.

I didnt say it was a sure thing he is going to attack pre or after Czech invasion. But, it was absolutely obv, that he is going into war with everybody after he attacked Poland. England and France simply covered their interests in stopping the threat to themselves under "Save Poland charade".

This is called the sleazy, snake-like politics.

No, stop mixing up the Rhineland with the Sudeteneland FFS! Germany did not have enough power before they took back the Rhineland! By the time they got to Czechoslovakia, they were already more powerful.

When Hitler first took the Rhineland, nobody minded because the general feeling was that Germany was raped by the Treat of Versailles and so it was only fair that they'd get their land back. At the time, nobody wanted another war and Hitler's intentions weren't as clear as they are now, so nobody saw a war coming. Thus, they didn't prepare for one.
Later on, it started to become clear that they were heading for one. So, they started preparing but by that time Germany was ahead of both England and France.

Grande_Milano wrote:

aford92 wrote:

Grande_Milano wrote:U using facts right?

"Attacked Reich when he attacked Poland, on moral grounds/helping" Opinion, not a fact.

"He was already powerful" Wrong. He was weak pre-Czech attack, could ve been smashed. Documented fact.

Non agression pacts with him. Fact. The avoidance of war at any costs.

The first one is a fact you fool. Pre-Czech attack Germany had the greatest army in Western Europe, so the second was a fact too. Also, we did want to avoid war at all costs but he went too far when he attacked Poland. What point are you trying to make? You are making yourself look more stupid with every post.

You are just digging a bigger grave for yourself there.

"Moral grounds a fact". How you know? Is that what politicians said at that time? Or there was "feck its too late, he is going after us anyway"

Again, it was estimated Germany didnt have enough military power before Czech invasion.

You and other guys said, "try to avoid war", then you say ''there were no non-agression pacts", then you say "it wasnt obvious war is going to emerge on us". Contradiction after contradiction, after contradiction.

You attacked me on personal grounds aka lost a debate

I proved you and your friend with historical degree wrong, exposed your double standards, and showed you the contadictions you made.




I am unbiased on this topic, you esp with personal assaults, seem to me no

Dude, just stop. Take some good advice and step away from the keyboard. You don't know what your talking about, I'm not going to call you names anymore but you are just wrong about almost everything. To sit here and say you proved everyone wrong is just not true dude. I don't know what your trying to prove but all your doing is making yourself look really bad.

Take a look, no one agrees with you, it's dangerous to make up your own history so just stop.

Grande_Milano wrote:

aford92 wrote:

Grande_Milano wrote:U using facts right?

"Attacked Reich when he attacked Poland, on moral grounds/helping" Opinion, not a fact.

"He was already powerful" Wrong. He was weak pre-Czech attack, could ve been smashed. Documented fact.

Non agression pacts with him. Fact. The avoidance of war at any costs.

The first one is a fact you fool. Pre-Czech attack Germany had the greatest army in Western Europe, so the second was a fact too. Also, we did want to avoid war at all costs but he went too far when he attacked Poland. What point are you trying to make? You are making yourself look more stupid with every post.

You are just digging a bigger grave for yourself there.

"Moral grounds a fact". How you know? Is that what politicians said at that time? Or there was "feck its too late, he is going after us anyway"

Again, it was estimated Germany didnt have enough military power before Czech invasion.

You and other guys said, "try to avoid war", then you say ''there were no non-agression pacts", then you say "it wasnt obvious war is going to emerge on us". Contradiction after contradiction, after contradiction.

You attacked me on personal grounds aka lost a debate

I proved you and your friend with historical degree wrong, exposed your double standards, and showed you the contadictions you made.




I am unbiased on this topic, you esp with personal assaults, seem to me no

Is there an official rulebook for Internet debates? I don't think so, who decided that an insult means you lost?

I never said there weren't any pacts, the non-aggression pacts were a precaution after WWI. Also, moral grounds is the reason as we clearly said that if he attacked Poland that we declare war as he had no claim to Poland, if we wanted to protect ourselves we would've destroyed Germany with clauses in the Versailles treaty.

After WW1 all the countries de-militarised and as such had basically no army to speak of. Germany was the first to re-militarise as had a few years head start on the rest of Europe and so clearly would've had the greater army, it's common sense. It's also clear when you look at the beginning of the war, they Germany's army was greater before and early on, they were very successful early on hence the defeat of France.

Well, on the thread listing thing I was wondering "5 pages and counting about poppies, wtf???"... Should've guessed it's actually something like this ^^

Art Morte wrote:Well, on the thread listing thing I was wondering "5 pages and counting about poppies, wtf???"... Should've guessed it's actually something like this ^^

It wouldn't be like this if Grande_Milano would stop spouting sh*t about something he knows nothing about. Alot of the posts are people replying to his idiocy.

To highlight and conclude on points in the debate:

1) England and France had interests. No heroics or moral grounds. They went to war, because they were threatened as well. Stop contradicting and pulling opinions.

2) Hitler was fed. Whether he was thought "unite Germany" or "take world". He was fed, he was let to do things. Again, doesnt make England/France look better. Stop making excuses.

3) They had pacts with Hitler, and as you said tried to avoid the war at all costs, feeding him in process. Stupid, cowardice politics. Dont blame me for their decisions

4) Czech, not Rhineland. He was weak before Czech dammit. He still could ve been stopped before Czech without major losses

/End of debates

Grande_Milano wrote:

dnmac4 wrote:

Grande_Milano wrote:LOL at ''need time for preparation"

Answering ya all:

1) its a well documented fact that Reich was weak pre-Sudeten attack, it could ve been smashed with French army alone. Why not to slaughter the enemy when he is weak? "need time for preparation" lol

2) It was obv, that before he attacked Poland, head to head war with him is unavoidable. Then an excuse "we are peacekeepers, u went too far". Nor England, nor France gave a sh about Poland, they were fighting for their future, not for the interest of some other countries.


Stop making yourself look like heroes and others like villains.

No country fights without having interests, only in Hollywood movies

OK, this quote proves you know nothing and are totally ignorant. I mean all your posts have pointed to this, but this one takes the cake.

Do you know that when the French army were mobilizing they had 1 rifle per 10 soldiers? Saying that the French army could have beaten the Nazi's at the start of the war is the dumbest thing I have ever witnessed on this forum.

As for your second point, no it was not obvious that head to head war was unavoidable. Information traveled a lot slower back then and it's really easy to look back and say the things you're saying. If you didn't know, Hitler was actually a very popular leader in Europe and was one of the best leaders Germany had ever seen. Before he got there there currency was so worthless you had to fill a wheel barrel with cash to go food shopping.

It was seen at that time that all he was doing was taking back land that Germany had lost in the first world war. People didn't really mind because the germans in those lands always wanted to be a part of Germany anyways, not to mention he was telling everyone he was going to do that and that's it.
NO ONE in Europe wanted another war even the Germans. Despite popular opinion the thought of another war in Europe was not what the German people wanted and were very against it.

Hitler had a lot to lose and other countries just thought he was restoring Germany to there rightful place in Europe. Germany had always been a power in Europe and it was only because of WW1 that they were a poor country. So no, no one thought he would go to the lenghts that he did. You are wrong.

I didnt say it was a sure thing he is going to attack pre or after Czech invasion. But, it was absolutely obv, that he is going into war with everybody after he attacked Poland. England and France simply covered their interests in stopping the threat to themselves under "Save Poland charade".

This is called the sleazy, snake-like politics.

Now your just telling flat out LIES. You just said,

"But, it was absolutely obv, that he is going into war with everybody after he attacked Poland."

Under here is what you said in the post before,

"2) It was obv, that BEFORE he attacked Poland, head to head war with him is unavoidable. "

STOP your LIES. If you want to LIE about football that's fine but these are serious topics and you are contradicting yourself with every post.

JUST STOP, PLEASE.

Lol, BEFORE, means DAYS before Poland invasion

Just stop man

dnmac4 wrote:Just stop man

I stop when before you " The Damiao>Neymar man". You disagreed, your English friend. "Everybody disagrees".


Stop learning history from American/English sources only, boy

Grande_Milano wrote:To highlight and conclude on points in the debate:

1) England and France had interests. No heroics or moral grounds. They went to war, because they were threatened as well. Stop contradicting and pulling opinions.

2) Hitler was fed. Whether he was thought "unite Germany" or "take world". He was fed, he was let to do things. Again, doesnt make England/France look better. Stop making excuses.

3) They had pacts with Hitler, and as you said tried to avoid the war at all costs, feeding him in process. Stupid, cowardice politics. Dont blame me for their decisions



/End of debates

This is not the end of the debate, these are your un-educated opinions AGAIN.

1. How many times must we tell you that if we wanted to prevent Germany from attacking us, we would've put clauses in the Versailles treaty and crippled them after WWI and punished them when they broke a clause. The fact that we didn't clearly shows that the declaration of war wasn't brought about by fear.

2. We didn't feed him anything, his claim to the Sudetenland was feasible. It's not like we helped him or stopped the Czech's from defending themselves. The taking of an area that wants to be taken in exchange for not starting a world war seems pretty fair to me.

3. Us having pacts does not feed him. We should not have been expected to help the Czech's, they have their own military and we didn't intervene because his claim to it was just. His claim to Poland wasn't just so we broke the pact.

Grande_Milano wrote:

dnmac4 wrote:Just stop man

I stop when before you " The Damiao>Neymar man". You disagreed, your English friend. "Everybody disagrees".


Stop learning history from American/English sources only, boy

Do you think we could earn degrees using only one sided sources? Of course not, I used a ridiculous amount of sources from all over the world. Where did you learn history from?

More Lies, cool. I said Damiao was better prepared right now to start producing in Europe then Neymar, I never said he was better, in fact I said over and over that Neymar was the better overall player.

You should change topics though because you are looking just idiotic on this post.

Also, don't call me boy you moron. It's pretty obvious I'm older then you with the garbage you have been saying on this thread. Only some 15 year old fool would be dumb enough to say some of the just stupid things you have been saying not to mention young enough to not have any respect to not lie about WW2 and all the people who died and suffered through it.

Also, It's obvious you didn't read any books about WW2 because no one would be dumb enough to print what your saying. So I will read what I want to read and you can continue to count your pubes.

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.

Nobody exposed anything. In fact, everything the three of us have stated has proven you wrong in every single thing that you have written in this thread. We just don't like to gloat. We know that we are right and that you are wrong, so it's pointless to try and convince those who are not smart enough to get it from the first time.

We're right, you're wrong.
End of debate

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

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.