The Atlas Asylum of absurd/ignorant posts IX

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

In response to a post saying that Britain’s government was never in serious threat during WW2:

Pseudohistorical nonsense. An invasion was planned in great and exhaustive detail and would have occurred had the Battle of Britain not ended in decisive defeat. Why don't you f**ck off and read some actual history for a change?

The idea that Operation Sea Lion had a >0% chance of succeeding is probably the dumbest historical take I’ve ever seen on this whole site, and certainly the dumbest about WW2.

Have to agree here.
I'm shocked at how out of depth Al is on this specific facet, in an area he's rather knowledgeable on. And I'm saying this as someone who has learned more about Russian history because of him.
On AH.com, I learned that Sealion was a silly invasion that had no chance of succeeding. From people who knew what they were talking about. Every so often people would make threads asking "what if Nazis invaded Britain" and thinking it could happen, only to get schooled by people who knew better than them.
By no means am I putting any judgement on Al's overall postings, just looking at this in isolation. This little thing here is just utterly silly and is beneath his usual standards.

I was going to dunk on TheReckoning for being an obvious ah.com poster, but this is just too good. If that "Thande" guy wasn't a prolific poster a decade ago, this wouldn't even be a thing.

There were (still are, most likely) many people who can just pick apart World War I/II timelines on the Post-1900 Board by aiming for a high realism standard. It can get quite technical. Details about ship gun length and rounds, where X commander was in Y time with Z number of troops, all sorts of little stuff. If you are inexperienced, it can feel tough.
"Bbbbbut the Nazis would have invaded Britain" sounds like pop history you'd find on History Channel.

[Devout Centrist]

In response to a post saying that Britain’s government was never in serious threat during WW2:

Pseudohistorical nonsense. An invasion was planned in great and exhaustive detail and would have occurred had the Battle of Britain not ended in decisive defeat. Why don't you f**ck off and read some actual history for a change?

The idea that Operation Sea Lion had a >0% chance of succeeding is probably the dumbest historical take I’ve ever seen on this whole site, and certainly the dumbest about WW2.

You claim that Britain was never under 'any real threat'. Irrespective of Sea Lion's odds of strategic success, this is bonkers.

[TheReckoning]

In response to a post saying that Britain’s government was never in serious threat during WW2:

Pseudohistorical nonsense. An invasion was planned in great and exhaustive detail and would have occurred had the Battle of Britain not ended in decisive defeat. Why don't you f**ck off and read some actual history for a change?

The idea that Operation Sea Lion had a >0% chance of succeeding is probably the dumbest historical take I’ve ever seen on this whole site, and certainly the dumbest about WW2.

You claim that Britain was never under 'any real threat'. Irrespective of Sea Lion's odds of strategic success, this is bonkers.

I said that the government was never under any real threat. They never had to worry about the possibility of losing their power to the Nazis. I clarified that British citizens of course had to worry about bombing campaigns/rockets.

[Devout Centrist]

I said that the government was never under any real threat. They never had to worry about the possibility of losing their power to the Nazis. I clarified that British citizens of course had to worry about bombing campaigns/rockets.

If you mean the possibility of full blown Nazi occupation, sure, that was quite unlikely.

Beyond that, there were many threats to the British effort to prosecute the war and by extension, the British government. Certainly in 1940 there was a distinct possibility that Britain would conclude a humiliating armistice with the Axis powers.* If the Atlantic war had gone differently, that could have threatened the supply of basic goods on the homefront. I wouldn't totally discount the potential of domestic unrest were things to get dire enough on that front.

Bottom line: I don't know how you can conclude there was no real threat to Britain during the war. Total victory for the Allies and the United Nations was not inevitable.

*Your post mentioned the mentality of 'if threatened, surrender without fighting'; surely an armistice or further appeasement would qualify as something along those lines

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

In response to a post saying that Britain’s government was never in serious threat during WW2:

Pseudohistorical nonsense. An invasion was planned in great and exhaustive detail and would have occurred had the Battle of Britain not ended in decisive defeat. Why don't you f**ck off and read some actual history for a change?

The idea that Operation Sea Lion had a >0% chance of succeeding is probably the dumbest historical take I’ve ever seen on this whole site, and certainly the dumbest about WW2.

You claim that Britain was never under 'any real threat'. Irrespective of Sea Lion's odds of strategic success, this is bonkers.

I said that the government was never under any real threat. They never had to worry about the possibility of losing their power to the Nazis. I clarified that British citizens of course had to worry about bombing campaigns/rockets.

There are statements of yours I have disagreed with. But this is a case of people jumping on you for a basically correct statement.

[brucejoel99]

TheReckoning, you're blind or just a bad-faith poster. TimTurner, you're naive for not confirming TheReckoning's claim by clicking the OP & looking at the context of what was fully said (which TheReckoning conveniently chose to omit ITT), this:

And Britain’s government during WW2 was never under any real threat (the people are of course a different story) because an invasion/overthrow of them was logistically impossible, and everyone was aware of that. But that is of course a topic of another time.

Pseudohistorical nonsense. An invasion was planned in great and exhaustive detail and would have occurred had the Battle of Britain not ended in decisive defeat. Why don't you f**ck off and read some actual history for a change?

In light of the full context, the only absurdity posted in any of the last few quotes ITT is TheReckoning's misrepresentation of what it is that Al, y'know, actually even said to begin with. Literally all that he said is that Operation Sea Lion plans existed - which they did, or else we really wouldn't know about "Sea Lion," now would we? - & could've been successful "had the Battle of Britain not ended in decisive defeat," which is a pretty freakin' important qualifier there, given that it's literally called the Battle of Britain since, had the RAF lost it & allowed the Luftwaffe to gain air superiority over the Channel, the door would've then been open for Sea Lion to successfully be initiated, at which point, who knows, but Britain may very well have fallen, not least since a Nazi victory in the Battle of Britain, an attempted Sea Lion thereafter, & the resultant increased focus on the British Isles could very well have completely butterflied how Barbarossa ever occurs (if at all) & stretches the Nazis thin. I can't think of a legit WW2 historian who'd disagree with that analysis, & I say that because I literally just did my senior seminar on WW2 turning points, so TheReckoning really needs to open a history book or two.

[H. Ross Peron]

In response to a post saying that Britain’s government was never in serious threat during WW2:

Pseudohistorical nonsense. An invasion was planned in great and exhaustive detail and would have occurred had the Battle of Britain not ended in decisive defeat. Why don't you f**ck off and read some actual history for a change?

The idea that Operation Sea Lion had a >0% chance of succeeding is probably the dumbest historical take I’ve ever seen on this whole site, and certainly the dumbest about WW2.

You claim that Britain was never under 'any real threat'. Irrespective of Sea Lion's odds of strategic success, this is bonkers.

I said that the government was never under any real threat. They never had to worry about the possibility of losing their power to the Nazis. I clarified that British citizens of course had to worry about bombing campaigns/rockets.

There are statements of yours I have disagreed with. But this is a case of people jumping on you for a basically correct statement.

I would be more sympathetic if it didn't happen in the context of TheReckoning giving pseudointellectual pontificating on Danish culture, a post which belongs in this thread and also betrays massive ignorance of geography and history.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

TheReckoning, you're blind or just a bad-faith poster. TimTurner, you're naive for not confirming TheReckoning's claim by clicking the OP & looking at the context of what was fully said (which TheReckoning conveniently chose to omit ITT), this:

And Britain’s government during WW2 was never under any real threat (the people are of course a different story) because an invasion/overthrow of them was logistically impossible, and everyone was aware of that. But that is of course a topic of another time.

Pseudohistorical nonsense. An invasion was planned in great and exhaustive detail and would have occurred had the Battle of Britain not ended in decisive defeat. Why don't you f**ck off and read some actual history for a change?

In light of the full context, the only absurdity posted in any of the last few quotes ITT is TheReckoning's misrepresentation of what it is that Al, y'know, actually even said to begin with. Literally all that he said is that Operation Sea Lion plans existed - which they did, or else we really wouldn't know about "Sea Lion," now would we? - & could've been successful "had the Battle of Britain not ended in decisive defeat," which is a pretty freakin' important qualifier there, given that it's literally called the Battle of Britain since, had the RAF lost it & allowed the Luftwaffe to gain air superiority over the Channel, the door would've then been open for Sea Lion to successfully be initiated, at which point, who knows, but Britain may very well have fallen, not least since a Nazi victory in the Battle of Britain, an attempted Sea Lion thereafter, & the resultant increased focus on the British Isles could very well have completely butterflied how Barbarossa ever occurs (if at all) & stretches the Nazis thin. I can't think of a legit WW2 historian who'd disagree with that analysis, & I say that because I literally just did my senior seminar on WW2 turning points, so TheReckoning really needs to open a history book or two.

I'm aware of the broader post. My comments pertain only to the Sea Lion part, which is only a portion. I do believe that  it did not have any real chance to succeed. And the implication that just because plans existed is a sign that it could very well had happened is dumb because militaries have plans for even the most implausible eventualities.

You could create a scenario in which Sea Lion has a decent chance of success, but it would need a POD (Point of Divergence) that goes back many, many years earlier. But that would also, very likely, butterfly away WW2 as we know it.

The possibility of unrest toppling the government is something I would not have considered and is the only real argument here. I admit it has some credence, and gives me some pause.
P.S. Al didn't say "could happen", which is wording I'd agree with. He said "would happen".
Could happen is even my kind of language! We don't know how the Nazis act if the Battle of Britain is a Nazi victory, so "could", being open about what directions things could go, makes a lot of sense.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

In response to a post saying that Britain’s government was never in serious threat during WW2:

Pseudohistorical nonsense. An invasion was planned in great and exhaustive detail and would have occurred had the Battle of Britain not ended in decisive defeat. Why don't you f**ck off and read some actual history for a change?

The idea that Operation Sea Lion had a >0% chance of succeeding is probably the dumbest historical take I’ve ever seen on this whole site, and certainly the dumbest about WW2.

You claim that Britain was never under 'any real threat'. Irrespective of Sea Lion's odds of strategic success, this is bonkers.

I said that the government was never under any real threat. They never had to worry about the possibility of losing their power to the Nazis. I clarified that British citizens of course had to worry about bombing campaigns/rockets.

There are statements of yours I have disagreed with. But this is a case of people jumping on you for a basically correct statement.

I would be more sympathetic if it didn't happen in the context of TheReckoning giving pseudointellectual pontificating on Danish culture, a post which belongs in this thread and also betrays massive ignorance of geography and history.

That's understandable.

[brucejoel99]

[snip]

P.S. Al didn't say "could happen", which is wording I'd agree with. He said "would happen".
Could happen is even my kind of language! We don't know how the Nazis act if the Battle of Britain is a Nazi victory, so "could", being open about what directions things could go, makes a lot of sense.

We disagree about the earliest necessary PoD, then, because if we're operating on the basis of TTL suggested by Al in which the RAF go down to the Luftwaffe, then the initiation of Sea Lion thereafter - which, no, does seem a given - triggers an invasion that would've definitionally threatened the British government insofar as any military invasion & attempted occupation of domestic soil does so, let alone one which would've seen the full arsenal of Nazi man- & war-power converging upon Britain. Sea Lion need not have ultimately been a successful venture insofar as occupying Britain was concerned for everything that Al said to nevertheless still be 100% true.

[TheReckoning]

I said that the government was never under any real threat. They never had to worry about the possibility of losing their power to the Nazis. I clarified that British citizens of course had to worry about bombing campaigns/rockets.

If you mean the possibility of full blown Nazi occupation, sure, that was quite unlikely.

Beyond that, there were many threats to the British effort to prosecute the war and by extension, the British government. Certainly in 1940 there was a distinct possibility that Britain would conclude a humiliating armistice with the Axis powers.* If the Atlantic war had gone differently, that could have threatened the supply of basic goods on the homefront. I wouldn't totally discount the potential of domestic unrest were things to get dire enough on that front.

Bottom line: I don't know how you can conclude there was no real threat to Britain during the war. Total victory for the Allies and the United Nations was not inevitable.

*Your post mentioned the mentality of 'if threatened, surrender without fighting'; surely an armistice or further appeasement would qualify as something along those lines

Al’s post, which is the one posted in this thread, implied that Sea Lion was a credible threat to the UK during WW2, as his post claimed that the UK was being threatened due to plans of invasion. You are talking about a totally different thing.

[brucejoel99]

I said that the government was never under any real threat. They never had to worry about the possibility of losing their power to the Nazis. I clarified that British citizens of course had to worry about bombing campaigns/rockets.

If you mean the possibility of full blown Nazi occupation, sure, that was quite unlikely.

Beyond that, there were many threats to the British effort to prosecute the war and by extension, the British government. Certainly in 1940 there was a distinct possibility that Britain would conclude a humiliating armistice with the Axis powers.* If the Atlantic war had gone differently, that could have threatened the supply of basic goods on the homefront. I wouldn't totally discount the potential of domestic unrest were things to get dire enough on that front.

Bottom line: I don't know how you can conclude there was no real threat to Britain during the war. Total victory for the Allies and the United Nations was not inevitable.

*Your post mentioned the mentality of 'if threatened, surrender without fighting'; surely an armistice or further appeasement would qualify as something along those lines

Al’s post, which is the one posted in this thread, implied that Sea Lion was a credible threat to the UK during WW2, as his post claimed that the UK was being threatened due to plans of invasion. You are talking about a totally different thing.

Again, Al's post was predicated upon Nazi victory in the Battle of Britain, so the prospect of a Sea Lion did obviously present a threat to Britain & its government, or do you think the RAF put up a fight therein just 'cause?

[TheReckoning]

[snip]

P.S. Al didn't say "could happen", which is wording I'd agree with. He said "would happen".
Could happen is even my kind of language! We don't know how the Nazis act if the Battle of Britain is a Nazi victory, so "could", being open about what directions things could go, makes a lot of sense.

We disagree about the earliest necessary PoD, then, because if we're operating on the basis of TTL suggested by Al in which the RAF go down to the Luftwaffe, then the initiation of Sea Lion thereafter - which, no, does seem a given - triggers an invasion that would've definitionally threatened the British government insofar as any military invasion & attempted occupation of domestic soil does so, let alone one which would've seen the full arsenal of Nazi man- & war-power converging upon Britain. Sea Lion need not have ultimately been a successful venture insofar as occupying Britain was concerned for everything that Al said to nevertheless still be 100% true.

Even if the RAF was utterly destroyed and the Luftwaffe had captured total, uncontested air superiority over the British Isles (which itself has a near-zero chance of happening), Sea Lion still couldn’t have succeeded because of supremacy of the RN over the Kreigsmarine- most important thing to have when invading an island is a stronger navy, which the Nazis didn’t have-not even close.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

P.S. Al didn't say "could happen", which is wording I'd agree with. He said "would happen".

We disagree about the earliest necessary PoD, then, because if we're operating on the basis of TTL suggested by Al in which the RAF go down to the Luftwaffe, then the initiation of Sea Lion thereafter triggers an invasion that would've definitionally threatened the British government insofar as any military invasion & attempted occupation of domestic soil does so, let alone one which would've seen the full arsenal of Nazi man- & war-power converging upon Britain. Sea Lion need not have ultimately been a successful venture insofar as occupying Britain was concerned for everything that Al said to nevertheless still be 100% true.

Well, an invasion might have been attempted, definitely, but it would largely fail for much the same reasons the Mongol invasion of Japan failed - defender advantage on an island, logistics, and all the other things that a foreign invader has to contend with. (All the more reason why D-Day emphasized taking the beaches so much, why Gallipoli focused on expanding beyond beaches, etc.) The people who do this sort of military planning generally understand basic principles of how you hold ground and all that stuff. Of course, the Nazis would also have done the same thing. But the Nazis would face an enemy that, just as the Japanese knew in 1274 and 1281, it's do or die. The British were just too attuned to this reality to actually be at serious risk from a Nazi invasion.

There's also the whole British maintain naval superiority thing as well...how are they suppose to land the troops?

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

[snip]

P.S. Al didn't say "could happen", which is wording I'd agree with. He said "would happen".
Could happen is even my kind of language! We don't know how the Nazis act if the Battle of Britain is a Nazi victory, so "could", being open about what directions things could go, makes a lot of sense.

We disagree about the earliest necessary PoD, then, because if we're operating on the basis of TTL suggested by Al in which the RAF go down to the Luftwaffe, then the initiation of Sea Lion thereafter - which, no, does seem a given - triggers an invasion that would've definitionally threatened the British government insofar as any military invasion & attempted occupation of domestic soil does so, let alone one which would've seen the full arsenal of Nazi man- & war-power converging upon Britain. Sea Lion need not have ultimately been a successful venture insofar as occupying Britain was concerned for everything that Al said to nevertheless still be 100% true.

Even if the RAF was utterly destroyed and the Luftwaffe had captured total, uncontested air superiority over the British Isles (which itself has a near-zero chance of happening), Sea Lion still couldn’t have succeeded because of supremacy of the RN over the Kreigsmarine- most important thing to have when invading an island is a stronger navy, which the Nazis didn’t have-not even close.

This I'm not so sure of.  What happens if we have total Luftwaffe superiority in the sky vs total RN supremacy on the water?

[Badger]

In response to a post saying that Britain’s government was never in serious threat during WW2:

Pseudohistorical nonsense. An invasion was planned in great and exhaustive detail and would have occurred had the Battle of Britain not ended in decisive defeat. Why don't you f**ck off and read some actual history for a change?

The idea that Operation Sea Lion had a >0% chance of succeeding is probably the dumbest historical take I’ve ever seen on this whole site, and certainly the dumbest about WW2.

Once again Reckoning proves himself to be one of the lowest quality and overall dimmest posters on the site. A complete embarrassment if he had any self-realization capacity whatsoever

[brucejoel99]

One might presume that a TL involving a victorious Nazi performance in the Battle of Britain is also one in which the German Navy wasn't in shambles after Norway, but granted, perhaps that ought not to be taken as a given. Nevertheless, paratroopers exist (see: Crete, after all) & Britain was vulnerable from multiple fronts, Scotland being just a sea away from Norway. I really don't think anybody is claiming that occupation would've ultimately been successful, but in a TL involving a better Nazi military, it really stretches the imagination for TheReckoning's claim that started all of this & infuriated Al - that the British government was never under any real threat  - to somehow still remain agreeable, especially when you consider a point of my last post: that Britain was definitionally at threat by virtue of just being engaged in the war. Seriously, Churchill didn't order the RAF to defend the skies of London just 'cause, & even as they did, 10 Downing Street was still a target that was threatened.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

One might presume that a TL involving a victorious Nazi performance in the Battle of Britain is also one in which the German Navy wasn't in shambles after Norway, but granted, perhaps that ought not to be taken as a given. Nevertheless, paratroopers exist (see: Crete, after all) & Britain was vulnerable from multiple fronts, Scotland being just a sea away from Norway. I really don't think anybody is claiming that occupation would've ultimately been successful, but in a TL involving a better Nazi military, it really stretches the imagination for TheReckoning's claim that started all of this & infuriated Al - that the British government was never under any real threat  - to somehow still remain agreeable, especially when you consider a point of my last post: that Britain was definitionally at threat by virtue of just being engaged in the war. Seriously, Churchill didn't order the RAF to defend the skies of London just 'cause, & even as they did, 10 Downing Street was still a target that was threatened.

All in all, it would be a very high stakes, high-reward, high-risk, situation for both parties. If the Germans roll the dice and fail, it's pretty terrible for them on a number of fronts. The biggest issue with "better German military" is that countries have only finite resources they can spend on military things, and then you in turn have to decide to spend that in the army, air, sea, etc. And Germany in particular had to deal with the fact it got years upon years of having been demilitarized. Perhaps that is also a contributor to them using foreign things in the war.
A distinction needs to be made between a serious threat to the government's existence (which is how I interpreted TheReckoning's point) and a serious threat to the government's overall strategic interests.
Overall though, this is something of a mix-up with things lost in translation. The most we have to go by are two quotes from two posters who don't really get along, in a thread where  fleshing out precisely what one means could be somewhat difficult.
I actually considered setting up a thread in the History subforum to hear more from Al about this, but decided against it pretty quickly. I felt he wouldn't want to be bothered, though it would be nice to hear his perspective on this.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

As always Kissinger is right.

Such a short sentence, and yet every single word is incorrect.

We must defend Ukraine at all costs because Putin bad because orange man, because media told me Putin is bad. Because orange man. Because tax dollars must be spent on Ukraine. Because spreading democracy. Because orange man bad.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Will maybe engage in more detail when properly awake, but a plan being stupid and unlikely to succeed does not mean that a government as fundamentally irrational and as utterly delusional as that of the Nazis never intended to go ahead with it, or that such a plan did not amount to a credible threat to the target. Sea Lion was a completely mad idea and would likely have ended very badly, yes: how does this differ from Barbarossa, exactly? The idea that Britain was never under serious threat of invasion during the Second World War is utterly risible and not something that anyone who ever knew anyone who lived through the period could believe.

[TheReckoning]

Will maybe engage in more detail when properly awake, but a plan being stupid and unlikely to succeed does not mean that a government as fundamentally irrational and as utterly delusional as that of the Nazis never intended to go ahead with it, or that such a plan did not amount to a credible threat to the target. Sea Lion was a completely mad idea and would likely have ended very badly, yes: how does this differ from Barbarossa, exactly? The idea that Britain was never under serious threat of invasion during the Second World War is utterly risible and not something that anyone who ever knew anyone who lived through the period could believe.

Churchill himself told his war Cabinet July 10, 1940 that the threat of Sea Lion being launched could be ignored because it was so obviously suicidal that no one could ever seriously consider launching it.

Also, while Barbarossa had a 0% chance of occurring successfully, the idea of Nazi Germany raising it’s flag over the Kremlin didn’t. Of course, that’s not true of Sea Lion. Even the most generous Historian analysis’ of Sea Lion don’t even see Germany reaching London.

[Sol]

Some of y'all need to get off of AH.com.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Some of y'all need to get off of AH.com.

FTFY

[Sol]

Some of y'all need to get off of AH.com.

FTFY

??

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Some of y'all need to get off of AH.com.

FTFY

??

I edited the title to jokingly call this the "AH.com Asylum" as opposed to "Atlas Asylum". As if this arguing about alternate history scenarios and all that, it was actually AH.com that we were posting on. I was piggybacking off (and contributing to) what you were posting, because I laughed at it.