The Atlas Asylum of absurd/ignorant posts IX

[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.

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?

Britain will probably get more harshly bombed in this scenario, which would make a peace agreement between Germany and the UK more likely, drastically reducing the scale of conflict on the Western Front. Although you don’t even need a decisive Luftwaffe victory for this possibility to emerge, this might’ve even happened if Operation Dynamo had failed, or never been attempted due to Nazi capture of those stranded at Dunkirk.

But a successful invasion and overthrow of the British government? Impossible. Even if Germany has initial success in their first waves (a massive if), subsequent waves would be prevented from even getting on to the island- iirc, one German general described the scenario as “feeding men into a meat grinder.” The initial waves would quickly be defeated via attrition.

[KaiserDave]

Every time TheReckoning opens his mouth about history he makes himself sound like an idiot. Sometimes its harmless stupidity, sometimes its dangerous pseudo-history, and sometimes its insulting garbage like these insults against the Danish people, and insult to the thousands of Danes who died fighting the Nazis and at the hand of Nazi oppression. Horrible, and there should be sanctions for this. And somehow this came up in a thread about murdered children.

[TheReckoning]

Every time TheReckoning opens his mouth about history he makes himself sound like an idiot. Sometimes its harmless stupidity, sometimes its dangerous pseudo-history, and sometimes its insulting garbage like these insults against the Danish people, and insult to the thousands of Danes who died fighting the Nazis and at the hand of Nazi oppression. Horrible, and there should be sanctions for this. And somehow this came up in a thread about murdered children.

You’re making yourself sound stupid because you aren’t reading my posts. I made it clear my post about Danish people weren’t insults. The Danish government probably made the right choice given the circumstances. And many Danes did try to fight the Nazis. But if you can’t see the massive differences between how Finns reacted to being invaded and how Danes reacted to being invaded…

All my posts about Sea Lion are objectively correct by all historian analysis.

[KaiserDave]

Every time TheReckoning opens his mouth about history he makes himself sound like an idiot. Sometimes its harmless stupidity, sometimes its dangerous pseudo-history, and sometimes its insulting garbage like these insults against the Danish people, and insult to the thousands of Danes who died fighting the Nazis and at the hand of Nazi oppression. Horrible, and there should be sanctions for this. And somehow this came up in a thread about murdered children.

You’re making yourself sound stupid because you aren’t reading my posts. I made it clear my post about Danish people weren’t insults. The Danish government probably made the right choice given the circumstances. And many Danes did try to fight the Nazis. But if you can’t see the massive differences between how Finns reacted to being invaded and how Danes reacted to being invaded…

All my posts about Sea Lion are objectively correct by all historian analysis.

Yes....I'm making myself sound stupid.

[KaiserDave]

I mean really, I'm the stupid person, not the one who in a thread about a massacre of children tried to make hideously broad, insulting, and historically ignorant generalizations about Northern European nationalities.

[Badger]

Every time TheReckoning opens his mouth about history he makes himself sound like an idiot. Sometimes its harmless stupidity, sometimes its dangerous pseudo-history, and sometimes its insulting garbage like these insults against the Danish people, and insult to the thousands of Danes who died fighting the Nazis and at the hand of Nazi oppression. Horrible, and there should be sanctions for this. And somehow this came up in a thread about murdered children.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I don't know what this exchange is about, but I am absolutely cracking up over the authoritative citation of AlternateHistory.com's collective account of Operation Sealion as a "silly invasion." The final Python-esque touch would involve a 16-ton weight.

Do tell, precisely what do you find objectionable about it, and are there informed arguments against it? Because the more I learn about military history and all that stuff, it only looks more proven, not less.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

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.

A month earlier he was convinced that an invasion was going to happen and that he would likely die during it. He had also been the first member of the Cabinet to suggest that an invasion was possible in the first place, this back in 1939. Preparations for a possible invasion (which were quite extensive: lines of fortifications were built all over the place and just about every Channel beach had, at least, a pillbox overlooking it. You think governments spend massive amounts of money on things like that just for the sheer hell of it?) and the general mobilisation of the population had both gone very well, and there are only a few months of the year in which an invasion of Britain is ever anything more than monstrously risky because the Channel is a very dangerous body of water. The optimistic view (which turned out to be correct) by the early Summer of 1940 was that if there were no signs of imminent invasion, then the bullet would have been dodged as by the next time an invasion was physically plausible, then the fortification of Britain and the mobilisation and arming of its population would have reached the point where an invasion could be repulsed with confidence. This was not the case in the first half of 1940 and it is worth noting that even a completely catastrophic invasion would have completely devastated a substantial part of the South of England, particularly Kent and Sussex. The general view of the British public throughout most of 1940 was that an invasion was probably going to happen, but that if it did it would be unsuccessful: the will to fight was extraordinary, a rather relevant point given the nasty and stupid argument of yours that kicked all of this off.

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.

The critical difference is that Stalin was convinced that his new best friend would not invade, refused to prepare for an invasion and had any intelligence officer that suggested that an invasion was imminent shot. Had the Soviet Union been as prepared in 1941 as Britain was by the end of 1940, then there is no way that the invasion force would have penetrated as far into the Soviet Union as it actually did and millions of lives would have been saved.

Even the most generous Historian analysis’ of Sea Lion don’t even see Germany reaching London.

Real historians (and I ought to know as I am one) generally don't concern themselves with hypotheticals, not professionally anyway. The classic view is that the Historian should be concerned to discover only 'what actually happened' (and the reasons for this), not what might have been, and to the extent that this position has been challenged it is only because of the view that it is often not possible to know 'what actually happened' with iron certainty.

A famous Sandhurst wargame (designed largely by the great Paddy Griffith) conducted in 1974 concluded that an invasion in September 1940 would have ended in a catastrophic defeat for the invaders, and this is about as far as we can go in terms of certainties: a well-designed and meticulously executed simulation. Does it supply us with facts, as such? No, merely probabilities. Does it supply us with the full range of probabilities in response to all possible events during 1940? Certainly not and it was not designed to do so. Does the likelihood that an invasion would have been comprehensively repulsed mean that there was no threat posed to Britain or to its government by an invasion? The suggestion is self-evidently absurd. Does the likelihood that an invasion would have been comprehensively repulsed due to well-planned defences and a highly motivated population suggest that the British people of the time were somehow lacking in martial spirit or 'toughness' or whatever other nonsense you were drooling on about in the other thread? Only if you are hallucinating.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

It's now a 303 map, it's not a 413 or an R nut map Biden is at 45/54 Favs in Rassy and Pbower already said the 45 is the new 50% and Biden already win 50/45 so we're exactly where we were in 2020 no difference

But, AZ, GA may split their votes for Gov and Sen Lake and Kemp winning and Kelly and Warnock winning and Betsy Johnson is gonna absolutely win the OR Gov they say the Knute voters are supporting her in a VBM Election she will beat Tina K by 500 votes

Schumer and Warren aren't going to IA, OH and FL they are going to campaign for Barnes but OH, NC, IA or FL can be won in Oct but as of now it's a 303 map, and Pritzker is gonna win by 5 not 11 he is favored but it's gonna be close

Biden already won 24 Casey, Stabenow, Klobuchar, Baldwin, Kaine and Sinema or Gallego are gonna win, Stabenow is very popular in MI

Brown is most likely gonna lose to Josh Mandel in 24 but Tester and Manchin being blue dogs can hold on and keep the S MT and WVA split their votes in 2012 where Romney easily wom WV and MT and  if we narrowly lose the H it can be won back in 24, it's not gonna be 25/60 seat R H gain

Schumer has talked to Manchin he isn't retired in 24 and Collins is gone in 26, once the Ukraine war started it went from a 413 map to 303 Biden was at 50 before Ukraine at start of SOTU but that the 60% chance that Nate Silver gives D's as he did Hillary Rs have to win blue not red states

[GeorgiaModerate]

As interesting as the Sealion discussion is, it's taken on a life of its own and would be better served in a separate thread.

[The Dowager Mod]

As interesting as the Sealion discussion is, it's taken on a life of its own and would be better served in a separate thread.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

As interesting as the Sealion discussion is, it's taken on a life of its own and would be better served in a separate thread.

I'll make such a thread if I get notification from at least two people involved in this discussion through PM that they desire such a thread being made. I will then notify them by PM of the link to it.
That is all for now.

[TheReckoning]

-snip-

Absolutely none of what you wrote changes the fact than a successful invasion/occupation of the UK, and subsequent overthrow of the British government, was impossible. Hence, no, the British Government was never at any threat by the Nazis.

End of discussion.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

-snip-

Absolutely none of what you wrote changes the fact than a successful invasion/occupation of the UK, and subsequent overthrow of the British government, was impossible. Hence, no, the British Government was never at any threat by the Nazis.

End of discussion.

No, that is not correct. If you wish to argue that there was never any threat and that a successful invasion at any point was impossible and that everyone who 'mattered' knew this, then you have to provide some actual evidence, which thusfar you have failed to do. An invasion being unlikely to succeed from the summer of 1940 onwards and extremely unlikely to do so from the autumn of 1940 onwards does not mean that there was never a realistic threat of invasion and does not mean that the British government was not deeply concerned at the prospect for a significant and frightening length of time. And of course the issue here was:

Handguns were banned in Great Britain after the Dunblane Massacre and I do not think you can accuse Britain of having a 'if threatened, surrender without fighting' mentality (see: WW2).

Which means that what matters is the attitude of the people. And that, as I say, is clear enough and well known: most thought that there would be an invasion and that when it came they would beat it off comfortably. People who favoured suing for peace were routinely lambasted as traitors and Nazi-sympathisers.

You do not get to decide what other people are arguing and use your dishonest mischaracterisation of their arguments as proof that you are correct. Doing so does not make you look like an intellectual titan, it makes you look pathetic and dishonest, which, by the way, is how nearly everyone here sees you.

[TheReckoning]

-snip-

Absolutely none of what you wrote changes the fact than a successful invasion/occupation of the UK, and subsequent overthrow of the British government, was impossible. Hence, no, the British Government was never at any threat by the Nazis.

End of discussion.

No, that is not correct. If you wish to argue that there was never any threat and that a successful invasion at any point was impossible and that everyone who 'mattered' knew this, then you have to provide some actual evidence, which thusfar you have failed to do. An invasion being unlikely to succeed from the summer of 1940 onwards and extremely unlikely to do so from the autumn of 1940 onwards does not mean that there was never a realistic threat of invasion and does not mean that the British government was not deeply concerned at the prospect for a significant and frightening length of time. And of course the issue here was:

This is intensely off topic, but I will make my position clear: Operation Sea Lion had a 0% chance, all throughout the war, of accomplishing its objectives, had it ever been launched. There was never any chance of Nazi occupiers overthrowing the government of Britain, because Nazi Germany was incapable of successfully invading Britain. I say this because this is what all historian analysis’ on the subject agree upon. Not a single reputable historian has ever alleged that Sea Lion even had a chance at being successful. It was not “unlikely” to succeed, it was impossible.

In some alternate reality where things went better for Germany, could they have become crazy enough to launch the invasion? Maybe. But it would’ve gone absolutely no where for them. At best, they suffer significant losses and a humiliating defeat, at worst, they lose the entire war from it.

There are plenty of resources available to show all of the above to be the case.

[TheReckoning]

I say this because this is what all historian analysis’ on the subject agree upon. Not a single reputable historian has ever alleged that Sea Lion even had a chance at being successful. It was not “unlikely” to succeed, it was impossible.

Which historians? What are the best books you've read on the subject?

There are plenty of resources available to show all of the above to be the case.

Can you provide these resources?

https://books.google.com/books?id=A81zQGMykeUC&pg=PT42#v=onepage&q&f=false

Here’s a book on the history of Sea-based invasion of territory. It has a quote from a German historian on the subject.

Stephen Bungay’s book, The Most Dangerous Enemy: A History of the Battle of Britain makes clear that Hermann Göring, leader of the German Luftwaffe, himself knew that Operation Sea Lion was unfeasible.

David Shears book Operation Sea Lion – The German Invasion Plans also states that German military official Gerd van Rundstedt was actually convinced that whole plan was a bluff and that Hitler never actually seriously intended to invade Britain.

There’s plenty more written on the subject, which I’m sure you can find online. In my opinion, it’s a rather boring question because of how obvious the answer is. Alternate possibilities in Operation Barbarossa are a much more interesting (and disturbing) thing to think about.

[brucejoel99]

Even the most generous Historian analysis’ of Sea Lion don’t even see Germany reaching London.

Real historians (and I ought to know as I am one) generally don't concern themselves with hypotheticals, not professionally anyway. The classic view is that the Historian should be concerned to discover only 'what actually happened' (and the reasons for this), not what might have been, and to the extent that this position has been challenged it is only because of the view that it is often not possible to know 'what actually happened' with iron certainty.

Not to take the thread even more off-topic than it already is, but I'll say purely anecdotally that some historians are real people too & can definitely be interested in such hypotheticals, at least the ones that I interacted with in classes taught by them while pursuing my undergraduate degree (& in my aforementioned WW2 seminar especially, no less, hence why I brought it up earlier, as my professor therein has published a few books on the war in his time), not least when connecting it to something being taught about, say like ITT's example, plans of something that existed but weren't ultimately capable of being initiated, but it's admittedly possible that a few of them don't care for it at all beyond indulging student questions.

[Politician]

Florida Democrats tried to use the Parkland shooting in 2018 to try and humiliate DeSantis, Scott, and Republicans across the state as well. This is not going to work.

The GOP could detonate a nuke in Milwaukee and ElectionsGuy would be out here like "look how out of touch these elitist liberals are, there's no way this is going to play well with voters." Not everything is campaigning, man! Many people are just distraught that we keep sacrificing schoolchildren as a matter of state policy!

[Torie]

-snip-

Absolutely none of what you wrote changes the fact than a successful invasion/occupation of the UK, and subsequent overthrow of the British government, was impossible. Hence, no, the British Government was never at any threat by the Nazis.

End of discussion.

No, that is not correct. If you wish to argue that there was never any threat and that a successful invasion at any point was impossible and that everyone who 'mattered' knew this, then you have to provide some actual evidence, which thusfar you have failed to do. An invasion being unlikely to succeed from the summer of 1940 onwards and extremely unlikely to do so from the autumn of 1940 onwards does not mean that there was never a realistic threat of invasion and does not mean that the British government was not deeply concerned at the prospect for a significant and frightening length of time. And of course the issue here was:

This is intensely off topic, but I will make my position clear: Operation Sea Lion had a 0% chance, all throughout the war, of accomplishing its objectives, had it ever been launched. There was never any chance of Nazi occupiers overthrowing the government of Britain, because Nazi Germany was incapable of successfully invading Britain. I say this because this is what all historian analysis’ on the subject agree upon. Not a single reputable historian has ever alleged that Sea Lion even had a chance at being successful. It was not “unlikely” to succeed, it was impossible.

In some alternate reality where things went better for Germany, could they have become crazy enough to launch the invasion? Maybe. But it would’ve gone absolutely no where for them. At best, they suffer significant losses and a humiliating defeat, at worst, they lose the entire war from it.

There are plenty of resources available to show all of the above to be the case.

The issue is whether the Nazi's could have starved the UK into submission by focusing single mindedly on bombing the ports, instead of getting deflected into bombing other targets. And of course not invading Russia, declaring war on the US and so forth.

https://gizmodo.com/could-the-nazis-have-starved-britain-into-submission-1377975000

[TheReckoning]

-snip-

Absolutely none of what you wrote changes the fact than a successful invasion/occupation of the UK, and subsequent overthrow of the British government, was impossible. Hence, no, the British Government was never at any threat by the Nazis.

End of discussion.

No, that is not correct. If you wish to argue that there was never any threat and that a successful invasion at any point was impossible and that everyone who 'mattered' knew this, then you have to provide some actual evidence, which thusfar you have failed to do. An invasion being unlikely to succeed from the summer of 1940 onwards and extremely unlikely to do so from the autumn of 1940 onwards does not mean that there was never a realistic threat of invasion and does not mean that the British government was not deeply concerned at the prospect for a significant and frightening length of time. And of course the issue here was:

This is intensely off topic, but I will make my position clear: Operation Sea Lion had a 0% chance, all throughout the war, of accomplishing its objectives, had it ever been launched. There was never any chance of Nazi occupiers overthrowing the government of Britain, because Nazi Germany was incapable of successfully invading Britain. I say this because this is what all historian analysis’ on the subject agree upon. Not a single reputable historian has ever alleged that Sea Lion even had a chance at being successful. It was not “unlikely” to succeed, it was impossible.

In some alternate reality where things went better for Germany, could they have become crazy enough to launch the invasion? Maybe. But it would’ve gone absolutely no where for them. At best, they suffer significant losses and a humiliating defeat, at worst, they lose the entire war from it.

There are plenty of resources available to show all of the above to be the case.

The issue is whether the Nazi's could have starved the UK into submission by focusing single mindedly on bombing the ports, instead of getting deflected into bombing other targets. And of course not invading Russia, declaring war on the US and so forth.

No, Al’s post directly referenced the plans for invasion of the UK.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

https://books.google.com/books?id=A81zQGMykeUC&pg=PT42#v=onepage&q&f=false

Here’s a book on the history of Sea-based invasion of territory. It has a quote from a German historian on the subject.

You might, perhaps, consider in future actually reading things that you cite to back up your arguments, as the general position taken by that book is essentially the one that I have argued for in this thread.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

As I've previously explained, the filibuster is the only thing keeping any semblance of bipartisanship in Washington. Without the filibuster, the House and Senate majorities of any party, assuming both were of the same party, would have no reason whatsoever to ever involve the minority in anything. There would never be another bipartisan deal again. No one would ever work with the other party on anything again. There would no collegiality in Washington at all. I don't even think the Majority would allow the Minority to even have committee seats anymore. Perhaps things would lighten up for a bit whenever the House and Senate were of different parties, but as soon as a bifecta was resumed, there would be no influence whatsoever for the Minority - whether that be Ds or Rs. The filibuster is the whole glue keeping Washington barely functional.

Plus we would get the most extreme policies from either side every 2-8 years. A constantly swinging pendulum of the extremes, and no stability for the country. Just utter Tyranny of the Majority, the very thing the founders warned us about. There would even be nothing to stop the parties from abolishing entitlement programs, packing the supreme court to their own partisan desires every 2-8 years in total abandonment of the rule of law, or stripping away voting rights from those who have a different political ideology.

Thankfully, Manchin, Sinema, and McConnell get this, even if many senators don't.

[TheReckoning]

https://books.google.com/books?id=A81zQGMykeUC&pg=PT42#v=onepage&q&f=false

Here’s a book on the history of Sea-based invasion of territory. It has a quote from a German historian on the subject.

You might, perhaps, consider in future actually reading things that you cite to back up your arguments, as the general position taken by that book is essentially the one that I have argued for in this thread.

The quote from the German Admiral makes clear that even if Germany had won the Battle of Britain, the invasion would’ve still been a total failure.

Seriously, why are you even still doing this? Arguing that Sea Lion had a >0% of success just makes you look like a complete moron.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

https://books.google.com/books?id=A81zQGMykeUC&pg=PT42#v=onepage&q&f=false

Here’s a book on the history of Sea-based invasion of territory. It has a quote from a German historian on the subject.

You might, perhaps, consider in future actually reading things that you cite to back up your arguments, as the general position taken by that book is essentially the one that I have argued for in this thread.

The quote from the German Admiral makes clear that even if Germany had won the Battle of Britain, the invasion would’ve still been a total failure.

Seriously, why are you even still doing this? Arguing that Sea Lion had a >0% of success just makes you look like a complete moron.

People at the time would have found the idea of it not being possibly a success risible, but that doesn't mean it is such in reality; the human brain plans for the worst and works out worst-case scenarios, regardless of whether they are actually feasible, and that is what many, perhaps most, of the British public of 1940 did.
Overall I can't say I have been impressed by Al's argumentation here. A lot of it still has a "pop history" vibe to it.
One may as well argue that Japan could have landed a substantial invading force on the West Coast.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The quote from the German Admiral makes clear that even if Germany had won the Battle of Britain, the invasion would’ve still been a total failure.

Seriously, why are you even still doing this? Arguing that Sea Lion had a >0% of success just makes you look like a complete moron.

As you insist on being serially dishonest, this is the critical paragraph from the section of the book that you have just cited:

_{'At the end of the campaign in France in 1940, both sides found themselves unready for an invasion of Britain. The Germans were unprepared to conduct an amphibious operation, and the British were not ready to defend against one. As ill-prepared as the Germans might have been, their chances for success were greatest right after Dunkirk when the British were still in a state of shock and at their weakest in terms  of material preparedness. The British realized that any delay would work to their advantage. As General Ironside noted on 17 June regarding the German failure to act, "They will be very stupid if they delay much longer".'}

This view, which is not the one that you have been espousing, is essentially the historical consensus on the matter, to the extent that there is one, and is the position that I have been consistently advocating since this absurd 'debate' began as anyone with the intellectual capacity of Winnie the Pooh can see from my posts.

The book then goes on to note the opinion of Vice Admiral Assmann that had the Battle of Britain been successful, an invasion would have followed and would have been, in his words, 'smashed', and indicates agreement with his assessment. Which, as you should note from my earlier citation of the 1974 Sandhurst war game, I actually agree with: an autumn invasion would almost certainly have ended very badly for the invaders. This does not mean that it would still not have constituted a severe threat to the British state* and this does not mean that a hypothetical earlier invasion would not have been quite so hopeless an assault, as the book notes in the quoted paragraph above. I am uncertain whether your misunderstandings here stem from dishonesty, poor reading comprehension or simply not reading the material that you have chosen to cite.

_{*And if the British people had the sort of 'surrender mentality' you suggested in the other thread to explain the fact that hand guns were banned after the Dunblane massacre (a suggestion that remains grotesquely offensive in a remarkable number of different ways), then the response to that would have been to surrender anyway.}