you are giving assessments of the situation as if you were playing Risk, the situation was a tad more complicated than that.
ah ok, so you're confirming what I was saying: the killing of civilians before 1949 was ok, so you're implying that the killing of Jews was right? All in all the Nazis considered them their enemy, and to pursue their cause they wanted to eliminate them.. Do you realise the nonsense you're saying to justify the killing of civilians perpetrated by the Allies?
hey, I was going on topic, your friends then start changing topic and then blame me for going off topic. Read my comments re. the BoB, I've exposed them more than once.
you're summing it up on assumptions, not on facts.
apart for the scar thing which I didn't get, you're making assumptions again. The Germans fought until 1945 even when they really were doing it against all odds, do you reckon that the situation in 1940 was such a blow for morale? Who's delusional now?
yeah, you already said that killing kids is fine, if it's a good cause. I don't see how this puts you in a better position than Nazis frankly.
one thing is
collateral damage, another is intentional attack of civilian targets. Do you know that the Americans refused to bomb Germany civilian targets when Harris asked for help?
you might have heard that there were secret meetings and tentative agreements between Germany and some of your political and royal family members. Germany was hoping to find another Quisling in the UK, and occupy it like they did with Norway.
Saving the life of 300k soldiers was a huge sign of wanting a truce: the Stukas could have made a slaughterhouse of Dunkirk.
you obviously aren't capable of a sober view on the matters. Calling historical character names or disputing renown theories and possible scenarios is just banter, you have no idea how close you were to a very different scenario in the end of 1940.