The Atlas Asylum of absurd/ignorant posts IX

[TheReckoning]

21 people need to get their head checked

I bet you would’ve said the same thing about Zapata in 2016.

New annoying hack
[/quote]

Do you actually have a rebuttal?

In all seriousness, I made that post just to show how trollish this forum has become.

[TheReckoning]

21 people need to get their head checked

I bet you would’ve said the same thing about Zapata in 2016.

New annoying hack

Do you actually have a rebuttal?

In all seriousness, I made that post just to show how trollish this forum has become.

"Has become"? You've been here for less than a month, lol.
[/quote]

You’re telling me it’s always been this trollish?

[TheReckoning]

The fact that there are three Nazis on this forum is disturbing.

Fascism isn’t the same thing as Nazism. And let’s not act like Stalinism or Maoism is honestly much better than Nazism.

Stalinism and Maoism are infinitely better than Nazism. And while Nazism is literally just German fascism, Stalin and Mao were corrupt leaders who did not follow the teaching of Karl Marx in any way.

Anyways, face the facts. Unless you believe that a form of far-right, authoritarian ultranationalism characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and strong regimentation of society and of the economy is better than mere the abolition of class and private ownership, communism is objectively better than fascism. Period, full stop.

You simply have dressed up authoritarian communism in more desirable language than fascism. That doesn’t change the fact that Augusto’s Pinochet was waaaaaaaaayyyyyy better than Stalin’s USSR and Mao’s PRC.

Apparently the worst , most murderous Latin American dictator in history was insanely preferable to the big communist regimes.

The first part isn’t even true, but even if it was, yes.

[TheReckoning]

The fact that there are three Nazis on this forum is disturbing.

Fascism isn’t the same thing as Nazism. And let’s not act like Stalinism or Maoism is honestly much better than Nazism.

Stalinism and Maoism are infinitely better than Nazism. And while Nazism is literally just German fascism, Stalin and Mao were corrupt leaders who did not follow the teaching of Karl Marx in any way.

Anyways, face the facts. Unless you believe that a form of far-right, authoritarian ultranationalism characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and strong regimentation of society and of the economy is better than mere the abolition of class and private ownership, communism is objectively better than fascism. Period, full stop.

You simply have dressed up authoritarian communism in more desirable language than fascism. That doesn’t change the fact that Augusto’s Pinochet was waaaaaaaaayyyyyy better than Stalin’s USSR and Mao’s PRC.

Apparently the worst , most murderous Latin American dictator in history was insanely preferable to the big communist regimes.

The first part isn’t even true, but even if it was, yes.

It's good to know you put dictators that committed widespread killings, kidnappings, shut down to makhraj see in the Free Press all higher pedestal so long as they removed a leftist to come to power.

Reading between the lines  your argument implies the standard conservative gospel that  installing Pinochet to get rid of Allende was ultimately for the greater good. However, if your point is " better than Hitler or Stalin", you've lost the argument before it began.

I said Pinochet was better than Stalin and Mao. He was. Period.

[TheReckoning]

The fact that there are three Nazis on this forum is disturbing.

Fascism isn’t the same thing as Nazism. And let’s not act like Stalinism or Maoism is honestly much better than Nazism.

Stalinism and Maoism are infinitely better than Nazism. And while Nazism is literally just German fascism, Stalin and Mao were corrupt leaders who did not follow the teaching of Karl Marx in any way.

Anyways, face the facts. Unless you believe that a form of far-right, authoritarian ultranationalism characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and strong regimentation of society and of the economy is better than mere the abolition of class and private ownership, communism is objectively better than fascism. Period, full stop.

You simply have dressed up authoritarian communism in more desirable language than fascism. That doesn’t change the fact that Augusto’s Pinochet was waaaaaaaaayyyyyy better than Stalin’s USSR and Mao’s PRC.

Apparently the worst , most murderous Latin American dictator in history was insanely preferable to the big communist regimes.

The first part isn’t even true, but even if it was, yes.

It's good to know you put dictators that committed widespread killings, kidnappings, shut down to makhraj see in the Free Press all higher pedestal so long as they removed a leftist to come to power.

Reading between the lines  your argument implies the standard conservative gospel that  installing Pinochet to get rid of Allende was ultimately for the greater good. However, if your point is " better than Hitler or Stalin", you've lost the argument before it began.

I said Pinochet was better than Stalin and Mao. He was. Period.

Yes, and so were literally over 99.99% of humanity. So what's your point? The real measurement of Pinochet was whether or not America should have installed him in order to get rid of Salvador Allende at the behest of AT&T and other interests.

If having any comprehension of the subsequent Decades of pinochet's bloody repressive rule still results in an answer of anything close to "Yes, because Allende was a Marxist you see", then you have failed. And trust me, "better than Stalin or Mao" doesn't aid that argument literally one iota.

I wasn’t arguing that the USA should’ve assisted in the coup. I was arguing that communism isn’t always better than fascism.

It’s pretty obvious that you haven’t read the thread and instead just want to find a reason to criticize whatever I post.

[TheReckoning]

Putting aside that the post is false, this comparison is so peak Atlas:

I obviously wouldn’t go that far, but the fact that we are even considering deifying someone like George Floyd is a disturbing sign.

What is disturbing is that conservatives have such hatred and animosity towards a dead person who didn't personally harm them.

“What is disturbing is that young Jews have such hatred and animosity towards a dead person who didn’t personally harm them.”

Don’t think I have to name said dead person for you to understand how stupid of a line this is.

Not to mention, conservatives don’t “hate” George Floyd, they just don’t think he should be honored.

Hitler wanted the Jews exterminated.

And George Floyd threatened to murder a pregnant woman and her child. So let’s not pretend either were particularly good people.

I recant the pregnant part, but the rest is true.

[TheReckoning]

Putting aside that the post is false, this comparison is so peak Atlas:

I obviously wouldn’t go that far, but the fact that we are even considering deifying someone like George Floyd is a disturbing sign.

What is disturbing is that conservatives have such hatred and animosity towards a dead person who didn't personally harm them.

“What is disturbing is that young Jews have such hatred and animosity towards a dead person who didn’t personally harm them.”

Don’t think I have to name said dead person for you to understand how stupid of a line this is.

Not to mention, conservatives don’t “hate” George Floyd, they just don’t think he should be honored.

Hitler wanted the Jews exterminated.

And George Floyd threatened to murder a pregnant woman and her child. So let’s not pretend either were particularly good people.

I recant the pregnant part, but the rest is true.

George Floyd never instigated a genocide, to my knowledge.

No he did not, and obviously Jews have way, way more of a reason to have animosity towards Hitler than conservatives have towards Floyd. But most conservatives don’t necessarily hate Floyd- they just think he shouldn’t be perceived as a martyr.

[TheReckoning]

A new study conducted by the Mayo Clinic indicates that the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine has substantially reduced protection against Delta, down to 42%, while Moderna has held up better, at 76%. One can choose to take the viewpoint that breakthrough infections are nothing to worry about as long as it doesn't result in hospitalization, but it now must be acknowledged that breakthrough infections are not rare fluke events and that the vaccines do not make one safe against COVID-19 infection.

In July, vaccine effectiveness against hospitalization has remained high (mRNA-1273: 81%, 95% CI: 33-96.3%; BNT162b2: 75%, 95% CI: 24-93.9%), but effectiveness against infection was lower for both vaccines (mRNA-1273: 76%, 95% CI: 58-87%; BNT162b2: 42%, 95% CI: 13-62%), with a more pronounced reduction for BNT162b2.

Here mRNA-1273 = Moderna, BNT162b2 = Pfizer/BioNTech.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.06.21261707v2

Which is why masks need to be mandated for the time being.  The vaccines are great, but their effectiveness is waning with more variants popping up.  We need more measures, besides just vaccines, to combat this virus.

[TheReckoning]

They will increase because Americans are extremely selfish people who would rather spend money here than spend it abroad helping Afghans.

Are we supposed to ignore American citizens in favor of Afghan citizens? What country puts other countries first?

Honestly my answer to this is yes. I'm an internationalist, who views the world as one community, and Americans are already very privileged compared to the rest of the world. Foreign aid spent in the third world is much more morally superior than money spent here.

[TheReckoning]

Because the extreme on the left if it has a weakness, is that it’s too idealistic and optimistic, and compassionate.

[TheReckoning]

If you voted for Trump in 2020, you're a fascist.

[TheReckoning]

Russia is even more authoritarian than it was in 1980. Putin is a fascist in the same league as Adolf Hitler and needs to be decisively dealt with before he conquers all of Europe to use as a staging ground for an invasion of the US.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[TheReckoning]

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.

How would an invasion be a threat to the British state if it was bound to fail? The point is that Britain didn’t have to worry about losing its sovereignty at any point during the war because of a supposed invasion. You seem to be claiming that Sea Lion, if launched at the right time, had a >0% of success, which is an analysis I am in complete disagreement with. And plenty of historians, and generals from the time period, would agree with me. So yeah, I did “f**k off and read some history” and I didn’t see anything to indicate that Germany ever had a chance of invading and occupying Britain successfully.