XPost: soc.history.what-if, alt.history.what-if   
   From: SolomonW@citi.com   
      
   On Sun, 17 Nov 2019 16:35:11 +1100, Phil McGregor wrote:   
      
   > On Sun, 17 Nov 2019 15:15:35 +1100, SolomonW    
   > wrote:   
   >   
   >>On Sun, 17 Nov 2019 12:47:08 +1100, Phil McGregor wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> and Goering didn't   
   >>> know that they were falling further and further behind the RAF *at the   
   >>> time*   
   >>   
   >>Hermann Göring would not have known these figures, but he did know that   
   >>something was going wrong. At Nuremberg, he stated that the losses were   
   >>sustainable and he could have kept going but what mucked up the NAZIs was   
   >>the lack of shipping for Sealion. If so, the question is, what was the   
   >>point of this air war?   
   >   
   > He wouldn't have known the RAF figures, sure, but he knew the   
   > Luftwaffe figures weren't sustainable ...   
      
   If so, he did not say it in Nuremberg.   
      
   > but afaict he believed the   
   > RAF losses were equally unsustainable,   
      
      
   If so, then Göring would have though his losses were high it could be   
   justified.   
      
   ...   
      
      
   > Hitler certainly didn't seem to believe the losses were sustainable in   
   > the face of prep for Barbarossa.   
   >   
   > What was the point of the BoB from the Nazi PoV?   
      
      
   *****   
   This is the critical point, if Barbarossa goes ahead, then the air war in   
   the battle of Britain is pointless for Germany, as it was conducted if   
   Britain refuses to surrender.   
   *****   
      
   >   
   > I am not entirely sure the Nazis had a clear agenda, or not a clear   
   > single agenda.   
      
   Agreed.   
      
   >   
   > I *think* there is evidence that Hitler suffered a version of 'victory   
   > disease' and believed that he could actually stage Sealion ... which   
   > the Kriegsmarine, at least, had a pretty good idea they couldn't, and   
   > tried repeatedly to tell High Command and Hitler, who completely   
   > ignored them.   
      
   At the start maybe but Hitler pretty soon decided that it was not worth the   
   distraction for Barbarossa. He called off Sealion.   
      
   >   
   > I *think* that there is also evidence that Hitler believed that the   
   > BoB and the threat of Sealion would force the UK to negotiate a peace   
   > favourable to Germany   
      
   At first agreed but later on, Hitler came to your view at (a) below.   
      
   > even though there isn't any real evidence that   
   > the UK would ever have considered such   
      
   It was considered in the UK and rejected.   
      
      
   > and a lot of historical   
   > evidence to suggest the exact opposite.   
      
   What Hitler wanted was time for his war in the East, there was considerable   
   historical evidence from the Napoleonic era that Britain might make peace   
   for a time which is all Hitler needed. A year or so of a cease-fire with   
   Britain.   
      
      
   >   
      
   (a)   
   > I am pretty sure that Hitler had some inkling that leaving an   
   > unconquered or at least unemasculated UK at his rear for Barbarossa   
   > was not a good idea ... after all, the reason for the attack in the   
   > West was because he believed that a two front European war was largely   
   > what had led to Germany's defeat in WW1. Of course, this notion was   
   > impacted by the 'victory disease' and by the fact that the BoB wasn't   
   > seen to be a clear German defeat *at the time* so he eventually seems   
   > to have convinced himself that leaving an unconquered UK in his rear   
   > was no biggie ... an unfortunate delusion.   
   >   
      
   I agree with this too. The other issue is that time was not he felt on his   
   side, the longer he waited, the more powerful the USSR would be.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)