What would happen if Operation Sea Lion (the German invasion of Britain) happened?

All aspects including lead-in to hostilities and results.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
aa1874
Posts: 4
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2019 7:38 am

What would happen if Operation Sea Lion (the German invasion of Britain) happened?

Postby aa1874 » 2 months 4 days ago (Sun Nov 24, 2019 7:40 am)

Because, they said that if the Operation succeeded,

According to captured German documents, the commander-in-chief of the German Army, Walther von Brauchitsch, directed that "The able-bodied male population between the ages of 17 and 45 will, unless the local situation calls for an exceptional ruling, be interned and dispatched to the Continent". The UK was then to be plundered for anything of financial, military, industrial or cultural value,[145] and the remaining population terrorised. Civilian hostages would be taken, and the death penalty immediately imposed for even the most trivial acts of resistance.[146]

The deported male population would have most likely been used as industrial slave labour in areas of the Reich such as the factories and mines of the Ruhr and Upper Silesia. Although they might have been treated less brutally than slaves from the East (whom the Nazis regarded as sub-humans, fit only to be worked to death), living and working conditions would still have been severe.[147]

In late February 1943, Otto Bräutigam of the Reich Ministry for the Occupied Eastern Territories claimed he had the opportunity to read a personal report by General Eduard Wagner about a discussion with Heinrich Himmler, in which Himmler had expressed the intention for special forces of the SS to kill about 80% of the populations of France and England after the German victory.[148] In an unrelated event, Hitler had on one occasion called the English lower classes "racially inferior".[149]


I don't think this scenario above would run. The scenario above would be simply hilarious. Your opinions on above scenario? Are there any other speculations on what would happen if Operation Sea Lion happened?

User avatar
HMSendeavour
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 154
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2018 3:12 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: What would happen if Operation Sea Lion (the German invasion of Britain) happened?

Postby HMSendeavour » 2 months 3 days ago (Mon Nov 25, 2019 1:23 pm)

aa1874 wrote:Because, they said that if the Operation succeeded,

According to captured German documents, the commander-in-chief of the German Army, Walther von Brauchitsch, directed that "The able-bodied male population between the ages of 17 and 45 will, unless the local situation calls for an exceptional ruling, be interned and dispatched to the Continent". The UK was then to be plundered for anything of financial, military, industrial or cultural value,[145] and the remaining population terrorised. Civilian hostages would be taken, and the death penalty immediately imposed for even the most trivial acts of resistance.[146]

The deported male population would have most likely been used as industrial slave labour in areas of the Reich such as the factories and mines of the Ruhr and Upper Silesia. Although they might have been treated less brutally than slaves from the East (whom the Nazis regarded as sub-humans, fit only to be worked to death), living and working conditions would still have been severe.[147]

In late February 1943, Otto Bräutigam of the Reich Ministry for the Occupied Eastern Territories claimed he had the opportunity to read a personal report by General Eduard Wagner about a discussion with Heinrich Himmler, in which Himmler had expressed the intention for special forces of the SS to kill about 80% of the populations of France and England after the German victory.[148]
In an unrelated event, Hitler had on one occasion called the English lower classes "racially inferior".[149]


I don't think this scenario above would run. The scenario above would be simply hilarious. Your opinions on above scenario? Are there any other speculations on what would happen if Operation Sea Lion happened?


God all of this is just so typical. It's rubbish. And btw you need to provide a source for where you got these claims. I can trace these quotes verbatim to wiki pages but the footnotes aren't this long.

To begin I find this all to be extraordinarily suspect considering the German occupation of the Channel Islands which are considered a 'Model Occupation'

An author called "Madeleine Bunting" wrote a book with that very title:
9781784707163.jpg


And the topic of the book covers how the Channel Island were occupied with how Britain itself would've been occupied.

The problem with this kind of thing is the post-war myths created. All these formerly occupied countries and populations would never want to admit that they were totally fine and even actively co-operated. Myths like this arose in Austria after 1945 where the whole situation there was distorted as some kind of aggressive German scheme forced upon unwilling Austrians etc. so historiography reflected these views of heroic nationalism in the face of the German enemy! But this just isn't the case below the surface.

The wiki page on this chapter of occupation re enforces this false history:

The Model Occupation: The Channel Islands under German Rule, 1940–1945 by Madeleine Bunting. Language such as the title of one chapter, "Resistance? What Resistance?" incited islander ire.[23] The issue of collaboration was further inflamed by the fictional television programme Island at War (2004), which featured a romance between a German soldier and an island woman and favourably portrayed the German military commander of the occupation. Bunting's point was that the Channel Islanders did not act in a Churchillian manner, they "did not fight on the beaches, in the fields or in the streets. They did not commit suicide, and they did not kill any Germans. Instead they settled down, with few overt signs of resistance, to a hard, dull but relatively peaceful five years of occupation, in which more than half the population was working for the Germans."[24]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_occupation_of_the_Channel_Islands#Administration

And of course as the war went on life deteriorated

As for this:

In late February 1943, Otto Bräutigam of the Reich Ministry for the Occupied Eastern Territories claimed he had the opportunity to read a personal report by General Eduard Wagner about a discussion with Heinrich Himmler, in which Himmler had expressed the intention for special forces of the SS to kill about 80% of the populations of France and England after the German victory.

Source: Bräutigam, Otto (1968). So hat es sich zugetragen... Germany: Holzner Verlag. p. 590.


It's nothing but conjecture, a guy who claims to have seen a report by someone else about an alleged discussion with Himmler. Just a discussion. This document likely doesn't exist, will never be found and cannot be evaluated for it's truth or misinterpretation by Otto, unless he just made it up? Who knows. Utterly worthless as 'evidence' in fact the facts we do have should utterly dismiss this garbage. Those facts go hand in hand with the next claim:

In an unrelated event, Hitler had on one occasion called the English lower classes "racially inferior".[149]


Funnily enough the Wiki page in which I read this doesn't list a page number which is more than a bit suspicious. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eduard_Wagner.

He says on the Evening of November 5th 1941:

In England, the masses are unaware of the state of servitude in which they live. But it's a class that ought to be ruled, for it's racially inferior. And England couldn't live if its ruling class were to disappear. Things would go utterly wrong for the common people. They can't even feed themselves. Where would one try to find a peasantry? In the working class? The English are engaged in the most idiotic war they could wage! If it turns out badly, anti-Semitism will break out amongst them—at present it's dormant. It'll break out with unimaginable violence.


I don't even think I know what he's saying here. "Racial" when used by Hitler and other National Socialists could mean many things, from relating to the body, soul, or even groups of people and how they act even if they're European. Being "Racially Inferior" however that was defined was generally by a sense of character which is the essence I gain from Hitler's quote here as he subsequently talks about (rightly or wrongly) the subservient and dependant nature of the English lower classes which he sees as "sick". This to me is the logical point of connection making them 'racially inferior'.

The whole context of the situation is Hitler talking about foods, and how they're being chemicalised. He starts talking about peasants and how different groups behaved and appeared in specific regions where some were idiots and others were great human specimens. Very mundane talk I have to say, nothing very interesting. The context of the evening is all kind of cut off by Bormann and his ex post facto recollections of that evenings discussions. This is apparent because each section of what Hitler's talking about is cut off and he moves onto something else that doesn't appear to be related. And if it is related it's only loosely. The part I quote about the inferior race of the english lower classes doesn't have context at all, that's the entire next paragraph where he suddenly comes out with it with no real context.

Of course anyone would find it hard to believe that he literally thinks they're "racially inferior" in the modern sense, but because there's no context it's hard to piece together the way in which Hitler meant this.

However Hitler in 1942 might give us a clue:

Table Talks, January 27th 1942:

Class prejudices can't be maintained in a socially advanced State like ours, in which the proletariat produces men of such superiority. Every reasonably conducted organisation is bound to favour the development of beings of worth. It has been my wish that the educative organisations of the Party should enable the poorest child to lay claim to the highest functions, if he has enough talent. The Party must see to it, on the other hand, that society is not compartmentalised, so that everyone can quickly assert his gifts. Otherwise discontent raises its head, and the Jew finds himself in just the right situation to exploit it. It's essential that a balance should be struck, in such a way that dyed-in-the-wool Conservatives may be abolished as well as Jewish and Bolshevik anarchists. The English people is composed of races that are very different from one another and have not been blended together as in many other countries. There lies the danger that amongst them a class war may be transformed into a racial war. The English could escape this risk by ceasing to judge their fellow citizens in accordance with their outward aspects and paying attention, instead, to their real qualities. One can be the son of a good family and have no talent. If the English behaved as we behave in the Party, they would give advancement only to the most deserving. It's good that the professions should be organised, but on condition that each man finds his place. It's folly to have a man build roads who would at best be capable of sweeping them, just as it is scandalous to make a road-sweeper of a man who has the stuff of an engineer.


Basically the idea isn't "racial" in any modern sense, he's just talking about different races of shitty people, dregs on society. Hitler isn't calling a race of people anything, he's just saying there are groups (races) of shit people and the English throughout their history have bolstered a system built on class steeped in it's conflict and to rid themselves of it they should throw off their class identities and embrace the racial one of National Socialism in which the individual is judged on his merits for the betterment of his people:

National Socialism has introduced into daily life the idea that one should choose an occupation because one is predisposed to it by one's aptitudes, and not because one is predestined for it by birth. Thus National Socialism exercises a calming effect. It reconciles men instead of setting them against one another. It's ridiculous that a child should ever feel obliged to take up his father's profession. Only his aptitudes and gifts should be taken into consideration. Why shouldn't a child have propensities that his parents didn't have? Isn't everyone in Germany sprung from the peasantry? One must not put a curb on individuals. On the contrary, one must avoid whatever might prevent them from rising. If one systematically encourages the selection of the fittest, the time will come when talents will again be, in a sort of way, the privilege of an élite. I got this impression especially strongly on the occasion of the launching of the Tirpitz* The workers gathered for that ceremony gave an extraordinary impression of nobility.

Evolution usually occurs in one direction—that is to say, in the direction of the development of intellectuality. One has a
tendency to forget what the potential of energy to be found in the people means for the nation's life. For the maintenance of social order, it's important that room should be found not only for the intellect but also for strength. Otherwise the day comes when strength, having divorced the intellect, rebels against it and crushes it. The duel between intellect and strength will always be decided to the advantage of strength. A social class made up solely of intellectuals feels a sort of bad conscience. When a revolution occurs, this class is afraid to assert itself; it sits on its sacks of coin; it plays the coward. My own conscience is clean. If I am told that somewhere there exists a young man who has talent, I myself will do what I can for him. Nothing could be more agreeable to me than to be told, when somebody is introduced to me: "Here's a man of rare talent. Perhaps one day he'll be the Fuehrer of the nation."

Precisely because I favour a maximum of equity in the established social order, for that very reason I feel myself entitled to rage with pitiless severity against whoever might try to undermine that order. The order I'm building must be solid enough to withstand all trials, and that's why we shall drown in blood any attempt to subvert that order. But in this National Socialist society nothing will be left undone to find their proper place for competence and talent. We really want every man to have his chance. Let those who have an aptitude for commanding, command, and let the others be the agents who carry these commands out. It's important to appreciate, without prejudice, everyone's aptitudes and faults—so that everyone can occupy the place that suits him, for the greatest good of the community.

On the day when the English set free their nine thousand Fascists, these men will tear the guts out of the plutocrats, and the problem will be solved. In my view, when there are nine thousand men in a country who are capable of facing prison from loyalty to an idea, this idea remains a living one. And as long as a man is left to carry the flag, nothing is lost. Faith moves mountains.

In that respect, I see things with the coldest objectivity. If the German people lost its faith, if the German people were no
longer inclined to give itself body and soul in order to survive— then the German people would have nothing to do but disappear !


This last section is the continuation and ending of the January 27th 1941 conversation. Basically, if England wants to live they must become "Fascists" or die in a class war, between the inferior races which hold down society unless they can pull themselves up and support each other to "blend together".

And isn't that odd? Hitler talks of races "blending together" you'd think if he seriously though the English were different RACES as in not biologically the same instead of "racially" different in temperament he'd be against this. But again, I have no clue in what context the word was used.

It's worth noting also that the Table Talks themselves are to be taken with a grain of salt, there's many problems with them and the multiple editions. Most mainstream historians from what i've seen totally reject the translation that I've quoted, that being the published English. The problem with that is it was translated from the French not the original German, and definitely not the original handwritten notes of Bormann which we do not have at all IIRC. Historians like to use the 1980 German edition which from what I know is actually incomplete, but their is a "complete" one in German called the 'Picker' edition. It's very complicated.

On this topic I would recommend:

https://inconvenienthistory.com/9/3/4880
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0022009415619689
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1432747?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler%27s_Table_Talk

For the Journals use Sci-Hub.tw and insert the DOI to gain free access to the papers.

It's most likely that this was one example of Hitler's negative comments about Britain which Trevor-Roper does warn of in the preface by mentioning how he had this weird love-hate relationship with them particularly influenced by his mood. And this could be just that, we don't know the context nor Hitler's mood so it's hard to make conclusions.

Lastly I want to note on this how it contradicts much more solid evidence that everyones knows, Hitler's admiration of the British, his strong desire since the 1920s to ally with them and secure the British Empire and even saying:

“The blood of every single Englishman is too valuable to be shed. Our two people belong together, racially and traditionally—this is and always has been my aim even if our generals can’t grasp it.”

Source: https://www.inconvenienthistory.com/11/3/6814


And on the night of the 22nd-23rd of July 1941 Hitler said:

I believe that the end of this war will mark the beginning of a durable friendship with England. But first we must give her the k.o.—for only so can we live at peace with her, and the Englishman can only respect someone who has first knocked him out


Now. The truth is that Operation Sea Lion was never meant to succeed. The entire 'plan' was made to trick the Soviets into thinking Germany was going to target and invade Britain when they were actually gearing up for Operation Barbarossa, Sea Lion hid this fact from Soviet eyes.

The idea was to beat the Soviets quickly thus destroying Britain's hope that the Soviets would back them up which would force a peaceful conclusion with Germany. Sea Lion was never mean't to work and even Liddell Hart IIRC pointed out it's absurdity in his book on the Second World War.

Hitler arrived at the Berghof in time for lunch on July 26. Here over the next few days he held a series of meetings with Balkan potentates. One morning after the regular war conference in the Berghof’s Great Hall, Hitler asked General Jodl to stay behind and questioned him on the possibility of launching a lightning attack on Russia before winter set in. This question was unquestionably an echo of the mocking tone adopted by Soviet leaders in their conversations with Balkan diplomats. Hitler himself referred to ‘intercepted conversations’ in this connection on July 31. He explained that he was perfectly aware that Stalin had only signed his 1939 pact with Germany to open the floodgates of war in Europe; what Stalin had not bargained for was that Hitler would finish off France so soon – this explained Russia’s headlong occupation of the Baltic states and the Romanian provinces in the latter part of June. It was clear from the increasing Soviet military strength along the eastern frontier, on which Germany still had only five divisions stationed, that Russia had further acquisitions in mind. Hitler feared that Stalin planned to bomb or invade the Romanian oil fields that autumn. Russia’s aims, he said, had not changed since Peter the Great: she wanted the whole of Poland and the political absorption of Bulgaria, then Finland, and finally the Dardanelles. War with Russia was inevitable, argued Hitler; such being the case, it was better to attack now – this autumn. He would make one last political attempt to explore Stalin’s intentions before finally making up his mind.

When the Führer called his OKW, army, and navy chiefs to the Berghof on July 31, 1940, his reluctance to reach a firm decision on an invasion of Britain contrasted strongly with his powerful arguments in favour of attacking Russia.

[...]

Hitler commented to Brauchitsch and Halder that he doubted the technical practicability of an invasion. He was impressed by Britain’s naval supremacy and saw no real reason to take ‘such a risk for so little.’ The war was already all but won.

With more marked enthusiasm the Führer turned to the other means of dashing Britain’s hopes. Submarine and air war would take up to two years to defeat Britain. Britain still had high hopes of the United States, and she was clutching at Russia like a drowning man: if Russia were to drop out of the picture, then the United States must too, because with the USSR eliminated Japan would be released as a threatening force in the Far East. That was the beauty of attacking Russia. ‘If Russia is laid low, then Britain’s last hope is wiped out, and Germany will be master of Europe and the Balkans.’

Source: David Irving, Hitler's War and the War Path, (Focal Point Publications, 2002), pp. 321-22


And

The OKW issued an order camouflaging the build-up of German strength in the east, and transparently, or perhaps super-cunningly, code-named it ‘Eastern Build-up.’

Admiral Raeder however was informed by Hitler during August in the opposite sense – that these growing troop movements to the eastern front were just an outsize camouflage to distract from the imminent invasion of Britain.

[...]

Göring told Hitler he needed three days of good weather to begin the air attack on the British fighter defences. On August 12, he announced that the attack would begin the next day. Hitler left for Berlin. When Raeder warned on the thirteenth that the invasion was a last resort, not to be undertaken lightly, Hitler reassured him that he would first see what results the Luftwaffe obtained. But those who knew him realised the invasion would never take place. ‘Whatever his final decision, the Führer wants the threat of invasion of Britain to persist,’ the naval staff’s war diary noted on August 14. ‘That is why the preparations, whatever the final decision, must continue.’ The newly created field marshals assembled in the chancellery on August 14 to receive their bejewelled batons from Hitler’s hands. There are two surviving records written by field marshals. Hitler referred to Germany’s greatest strength as her national unity. Since Britain had rejected Hitler’s offer, a conflict was inevitable but would be initially restricted to Luftwaffe operations. ‘Whether the army will have to be employed can’t be predicted. In any case it would only be used if we were absolutely forced to.’ Leeb’s account is important enough to quote at length:

[...]

But Germany is not striving to smash Britain because the beneficiaries will not be Germany, but Japan in the east, Russia in India, Italy in the Mediterranean, and America in world trade. This is why peace is possible with Britain – but not so long as Churchill is prime minister. Thus we must see what the Luftwaffe can do, and await a possible general election. (still from Leebs account)

Source: Ibid, pp. 325,326-7
Now what does it mean for the independent expert witness Van Pelt? In his eyes he had two possibilities. Either to confirm the Holocaust story, or to go insane. - Germar Rudolf, 13th IHR Conference

aa1874
Posts: 4
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2019 7:38 am

Re: What would happen if Operation Sea Lion (the German invasion of Britain) happened?

Postby aa1874 » 2 months 2 days ago (Mon Nov 25, 2019 10:23 pm)

HMSendeavour wrote:And btw you need to provide a source for where you got these claims. I can trace these quotes verbatim to wiki pages but the footnotes aren't this long.


all the claims on the original post referenced William Shirer's Rise and Fall of the Third Reich which I'll quote here

The Nazi German occupation of Britain would not have been a gentle affair. The captured German papers leave no doubt of that. On September 9 Brauchitsch, the Commander in Chief of the Army, signed a directive providing that ”the able-bodied male population between the ages of seventeen and fortyfive [in Britain] will, unless the local situation calls for an exceptional ruling, be interned and dispatched to the Continent.” Orders to this effect were sent out a few days later by the Quartermaster General, in OKH, to the Ninth and Sixteenth armies, which were assembled for the invasion. In no other conquered country, not even in Poland, had the Germans begun with such a drastic step. Brauchitsch’s instructions were headed ”Orders Concerning the Organization and Function of Military Government in England” and went into considerable detail. They seem designed to ensure the systematic plunder of the island and the terrorization of its inhabitants. A special ”Military Economic Staff England” was set up on July 27 to achieve the first aim. Everything but normal household stocks was to be confiscated at once. Hostages would be taken. Anybody posting a placard the Germans didn’t like would be liable to immediate execution, and a similar penalty was provided for those who failed to turn in firearms or radio sets within twenty-four hours.

But the real terror was to be meted out by Himmler and the S.S. For this the dreaded R.S.H.A.,∗ under Heydrich, was put in charge. The man who was designated to direct its activities on the spot from London was a certain S.S. colonel, Professor Dr. Franz Six, another of the peculiar intellectual gangsters who in the Nazi time were somehow attracted to the service of Himmler’s secret police. Professor Six had left his post as dean of the economic faculty of Berlin University to join Heydrich’s S.D., where he specialized in ”scientific matters,” the weirder side of which cast such a spell over the bespectacled Heinrich Himmler and his fellow thugs. What the British people missed by not having Dr. Six in their presence may be judged by his later career in Russia, where he was active in the S.S. Einsatzgruppen, which distinguished themselves in wholesale
massacres there, one of the professor’s specialties being to ferret out captured Soviet political commissars for execution.

On August 1, the R.S.H.A. captured archives reveal, Goering told Heydrichto get busy. The S.S. Security Police and the S.D. (Security Service) were to
commence their activities simultaneously with the military invasionin order to seize and combat effectively the numerous important organizations and societies in England which are hostile to Germany.


On September 17, which, ironically, was the date on which Hitler postponed the invasion indefinitely, Professor Six was formally appointed to his new post in England by Heydrich and told:
Your task is to combat, with the requisite means, all anti-German organizations, institutions, and opposition groups which can be seized in England, to prevent the removal of all available material and to centralize and safeguard it for future exploitation. I designate London as the location of your headquarters . . . and I authorize you to set up small Einsatzgruppen in other parts of Great Britain as the situation dictates and the necessity arises



But since NS germany is known for documenting everything, why there are no archives of any Wehrmacht docs proving the bolded text?

User avatar
HMSendeavour
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 154
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2018 3:12 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: What would happen if Operation Sea Lion (the German invasion of Britain) happened?

Postby HMSendeavour » 2 months 2 days ago (Tue Nov 26, 2019 9:49 am)

aa1874 wrote:But since NS germany is known for documenting everything, why there are no archives of any Wehrmacht docs proving the bolded text?


Proving what bolded text? What are you referring to and why would any of these be Wehrmacht documents? I have never been under the impression that NS Germany "documented everything" since many of the documents which have been shredded on this forum, and there are many, have been poor in quality or useless/unverifiable.

all the claims on the original post referenced William Shirer's Rise and Fall of the Third Reich which I'll quote here


Shirer's book is worthless garbage (See: https://redpillaction.wordpress.com/2019/04/20/my-review-of-william-l-shirers-the-rise-and-fall-of-the-third-reich-a-history-of-nazi-germany/). He's a liar and his documentation is all related to Nuremberg documents which are hardly reliable. He also misinterprets documents or simply lies about them by abridging their contents to fit his preconceived narrative. Shirer will not allow inconvenience to impede his narrative.

In your section of the book did you omit the footnotes? If there are none that's not going to allow any kind of investigation even if it would be very limited anyway.

What the British people missed by not having Dr. Six in their presence may be judged by his later career in Russia, where he was active in the S.S. Einsatzgruppen, which distinguished themselves in wholesale massacres there,


This is a rubbish statement based on no evidence at all. German occupation wasn't one size fits all, it was brutal when it needed to be but not because it had to be. It wasn't even preconceived because no such occupation plans or preparatory work for administration was ever devised. In fact the general sense you get from reading about this stuff is really how muddled and confused the administrations were in the polycratic occupational governments.

Mark Weber reviewing and quoting a book by German historian Ernst Nolte has said:

a frustrated Joseph Goebbels confided to his diary in 1942: "Everyone does and permits whatever he wants because there's no strong authority anywhere ... The Party does its own thing, and won't permit itself to be influenced by anyone." Entire Third Reich government ministries remained practically "Nazi free," notes Nolte, and while many younger officers were dedicated National Socialists, the German armed forces remained largely free of NS party influence.

Source: http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v14/v14n1p37_Nolte.html


And another mainstream German historian H.W. Koch who I find to be a surprisingly balanced historian, has said:

Finally, the manner of planning 'Barbarossa' shows again the absence of a relationship between blueprint and execution. Between July 1940 and March 1941 planning was entirely military. Economic planning did not really begin until 1941, civilian administration not before April, while it was only towards the end of August 1941 that the form and character of the civil government was decided.

Source: H.W. Koch, Hitler and the Origins of the Second World War. Second Thoughts on the Status of Some of the Documents, (The Historical Journal, Vol. 11, No 1 (1968), pp. 130-1


And like I pointed out earlier, none of this can be replicated to any real state of events that closely reflect the UK'S situation, such as that of the Channel Islands. Those people weren't taken hostage, they were not deported to the continent wholesale. Hell, Hitler refused the terror bombing of civilians for the longest time, even Shirer admits it:

Hitler Denied the Bombing of London Shirer.JPG


So this idea that for no reason at all the Germans would've taken a particularly brutal or even Genocidal approach to occupying Britain just seems foolish. Why didn't evil Hitler use Chemical weapons that they had to win the war and bomb the Brits with them? None of this adds up because Hitler didn't plan for that and occupation wouldn't have been horrible at all for anyone except partisans, Jews, Communists or resistance people as per usual, as per war.

Brauchitsch’s instructions were headed ”Orders Concerning the Organization and Function of Military Government in England” and went into considerable detail. They seem designed to ensure the systematic plunder of the island and the terrorization of its inhabitants.


I wonder what this "terror" would be? Guess I won't know because I have no clue what Nuremberg document he's referring to, but my guess is that it's rather lackluster and falls into the "possibility" category as many of these documents often do.

Another fault of these "historians" is to take whatever document they feel like, regardless of its intent or context and display it like dirty laundry for all to see. If it's a document for anti-partisan activity which the Einsatzgruppen was apart of then it's "terrorising the populace" or "wholesale killing of innocents" when it's not.

In anycase, all of this can be dismissed, because as I pointed out, there was no real intention for Sea Lion to ever be implemented. Nor could it have been.
Now what does it mean for the independent expert witness Van Pelt? In his eyes he had two possibilities. Either to confirm the Holocaust story, or to go insane. - Germar Rudolf, 13th IHR Conference

User avatar
HMSendeavour
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 154
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2018 3:12 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: What would happen if Operation Sea Lion (the German invasion of Britain) happened?

Postby HMSendeavour » 2 months 2 days ago (Tue Nov 26, 2019 11:51 am)

HMSendeavour wrote:
He says on the Evening of November 5th 1941:

In England, the masses are unaware of the state of servitude in which they live. But it's a class that ought to be ruled, for it's racially inferior. And England couldn't live if its ruling class were to disappear. Things would go utterly wrong for the common people. They can't even feed themselves. Where would one try to find a peasantry? In the working class? The English are engaged in the most idiotic war they could wage! If it turns out badly, anti-Semitism will break out amongst them—at present it's dormant. It'll break out with unimaginable violence.


I don't even think I know what he's saying here. "Racial" when used by Hitler and other National Socialists could mean many things, from relating to the body, soul, or even groups of people and how they act even if they're European. Being "Racially Inferior" however that was defined was generally by a sense of character which is the essence I gain from Hitler's quote here as he subsequently talks about (rightly or wrongly) the subservient and dependant nature of the English lower classes which he sees as "sick". This to me is the logical point of connection making them 'racially inferior'.

The whole context of the situation is Hitler talking about foods, and how they're being chemicalised. He starts talking about peasants and how different groups behaved and appeared in specific regions where some were idiots and others were great human specimens. Very mundane talk I have to say, nothing very interesting. The context of the evening is all kind of cut off by Bormann and his ex post facto recollections of that evenings discussions. This is apparent because each section of what Hitler's talking about is cut off and he moves onto something else that doesn't appear to be related. And if it is related it's only loosely. The part I quote about the inferior race of the english lower classes doesn't have context at all, that's the entire next paragraph where he suddenly comes out with it with no real context.

Of course anyone would find it hard to believe that he literally thinks they're "racially inferior" in the modern sense, but because there's no context it's hard to piece together the way in which Hitler meant this.


I also think it's worth noting that Hitler's influence on making such a statement linking the classes of England to servitute would be the fact they followed their leaders into war. They obeyed those upper class men when Britain declared war, even though Hitler had made it clear to everyone he wanted nothing from the British whatsoever. The very fact they continued to fight and the English people follow their corrupt establishment would certainly lead Hitler to anguish over them. I could see this remark being seen in this context.
Now what does it mean for the independent expert witness Van Pelt? In his eyes he had two possibilities. Either to confirm the Holocaust story, or to go insane. - Germar Rudolf, 13th IHR Conference


Return to “WWII Europe / Atlantic Theater Revisionist Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests