Re: Germany Still Loses BB if Not Bombing London?

responding to Spiv's comments to what I (Werner) had posted
>>>...the analyses I've read all [concluded] that it was wartime
>>> propaganda that the battle was a "close run thing"...
>>...the invasion and defeat of Britain was not a Nazi war goal; rather
>> [they hoped and expected to end hostilities and] that Britain would
>> become an ally. [if only the] Churchill government fell [after some
>> military disaster] others [would] face the facts and new realities of
>> the Nazi-dominated European mainland. Realpolitik for Britain would
>> mean trying to lure the Nazis away from their Russian ally, Communists
>> being arch-enemies both of Britain and the Nazis, historically...
>> Nobody expected the Nazis to turn on the USSR all on their own...
>> Operation Barbarossa was just an outgrowth born from Nazi frustration
^^^^^^^^^^
"Seeloewe" (Sea Lion) is what I meant to write here
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Seelowe>
i.e. the invasion attempt across the British channel..
rather than Barbarossa, the invasion planned for the USSR...
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barbarossa>


>> Hitler's hopes for [a supportive accomodation with] Britain] faltered
>> on Winston Churchill's choice of "obstinant resistance" as his favored
>> political posturing...
>> the BoB was kind of a side show put on by Goering, for lack of a
>> better idea and for self-aggrandisement and promotion...
> Hitler did not want the British empire falling into the hands of others:
> USSR into India, Japan the far east, the USA dominating world trade, etc.

no doubt Hitler wanted as much for "himself" as he could amass, and
Britain
was, if I'm not mistaken, the only one candidate country he viewed as
a
desirable and potential ally (of any true importance to him; ignore
Italy,
Japan, Hungary, Romania, Spain, etc.), the only natural candidate of
any
importance (due to his views on race and history)...

but Britain was, arguably, the world's number one power still:
at the beginning of the 20th century, Britain was the "Empire where
the
Sun Never Sets" and even though GB ended ww1 'reduced in stature' they
did seem to recover from the horrendous expense in wealth and blood at
least as well as any other nation. Especially after the crash of 1929
had left a blemished (and reduced in stature) US (whose isolationist
tendencies were, in any case, keeping the US from aspiring and filling

he "bigger shoes" that were there for the taking after the end of ww1)
a certain potential for a raproachment between GB and Germany may has
existed; the British certainly did not view the French and Polish
vengeful policies towards Germany and Germans favorably, and if there
had been "smart, modern-thinking" politicians at the help in Germany,
something might have come of it. But Hitler was, of course, anything
but a smart and smooth operator, when it came to diplomacy, his aura
and power as an orator and demagogue rather hurt than helped him
there.
I don't recall reports of Hitler having been unpleasant or less than
courteous in his interactions with "personalities" that were allowed
into his presence, I kind of doubt it, in fact (no matter that he may
have talked about them with his cronies in private without any respect
and appreciation whatsoever). So, in that sense, Hitler was his own
worst enemy, and the only alliance he achieved (and deserves much of
the credit for) was with Mussolini -- one which started with Hitler
(voluntarily) taking on the posture of an adoring pupil to a master
whose example he wished to emulate and follow. Only after failures
of the Italians in Africa and the Balkans did Hitler have reason to
view Mussolini as "the lesser man" (tough I can't recall ever reading
how he viewed and talked about Mussolini towards the end of their
lifes and careers).


> When the Brits did not respond [favorably] to him and his [offers]
> of German troop assistance to suppress any uprising in India, he
> became frustrated. This is not how he [thought] things should be.
> Then he considered splitting up the British empire. He wanted
> Gibraltar to be German, Spain and Italy to have North African
> territory, Soviets in India, Japan take the far east territories...

can you support this with direct quotes and references?
I can't say that I recall reading these details...


> Hitler had meetings with Franco (went bad as Franco was an idiot)
> and Mussolini and eventually Molotov went to Berlin. Molotov was
> having a meeting with Ribbentrop being given a pre-brief of the
> proposals in a bunker as the RAF were bombing Berlin above. Molotov
> wanted A Soviet base in Denmark to guarantee Baltic access and
> Finland back in Russian hands. For this co-operation Ribbentrop
> reminded Molotov the gains to the USSR of the dismemberment of the
> British empire, whose defeat was imminent. Molotov replied "if that
> is so, why are we in this shelter and whose are those bombs...?!?".
> Molotov considered the Germans in cloud cuckoo land, wasn't particularly
> interested in the German proposals.
> [so] Molotov went back to Moscow and then Barbarossa was definitely on.

interesting. you were citing this information found in which
source(s) ?!?


> 1. Hitler wanted Britain on his side, or not agressive towards him -
> they said no.

well, Churchill did. A change of government could have meant all the
difference in the world. Certainly that minority-leading chancellor
getting to power in Germany in 1933 was a heck of a change of
directions
pursued by previous Weimar-era governments, in fact ending the Weimar
republic phase of Germany...


> 2. He then attempted to force a British peace with threats using the
> BofB and Sealion

well, not just threats, but "action" too... I'm sure Hitler would have
prefered
it if an outright victory had been achieved, but crossing that water
obstacle
simply wasn't doable "on (such) short notice" -- if ever...


> 3. He then gave up on the Brits and decided to try splitting up the
> British Empire (the Tripartite pact would achieve that)
> 4. The Soviets were not interested in his Tripartite pact.
> 5. He ignores Britain as he could make no effect on them and attacks
> the USSR
> Hitler had no master plan, he made it up as events unfolded.

hmm, well, I think if anyone had verbalized a master plan it was
Hitler
with his plans for a thousand-year Reich, but, yes, once things
started
not working out, Hitler reacted that way (as you describe) -- but
there
weren't any alternatives possible, really, were there? His plan was a
one-man dream castle, not based on "planning" in our conventional
thinking,
but he surely did get German planners, industry, society, people
hopping
in the general direction toward his fantasy future, he was
"spectacular"
both in his successful ascent as well as in his descent "in flames"...
in that he is nearly unique.

<brrr> horrible, how that one man shaped events in the middle of the
20th
century, scary to think that the beginning of the 21st century we are
having
to wonder what is going on in this world of ours, once again, why
things
seem to heading for "hell in a hand-basket" no matter where one cares
to
look... <sigh>

translating the lessons of history into "not repeating it" sure sounds
deceptively easy, yet seems frustratingly difficult, if not
impossible...


--
._. ASCII... ._.
/v\ on Usenet /v\
/( )\ ANYTHING ELSE /( )\
^^ ^^ IS BLOAT !! ^^ ^^

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: why did Hitler Kill jews ?
    ... >happy to engage in with Germany, ... the reality is the more Hitler tries to defeat Britain the more ... were over estimated pre war, ...
    (soc.history.war.world-war-ii)
  • Re: Why did Britain call Stalin Uncle Joe?
    ... irrelevant and Hitler would have been Uncle Adolf? ... Nazi Germany was ... to anyone not bent on defending communism. ... If they were generous why did the Nazis demand for more? ...
    (uk.politics.misc)
  • Re: why did Hitler Kill jews ?
    ... Hitler seems to have planned on ... >>attacks on France and Britain. ... That particular propaganda line was dead after ... usual balance of power reasons that before Germany attacked the SU, ...
    (soc.history.war.world-war-ii)
  • Re: Bach Aristocrat Bb Flugelhorn
    ... "Hitler was elected into power ... These two myths - that Hitler was elected into power and that Germany ... beating up, and torturing their opponents; 50,000 Nazis joined the ... the other workers' party did nothing to stop Hitler. ...
    (rec.music.makers.trumpet)
  • Re: Blood Feuds Hold Kosovo Families in Thrall
    ... > out-producing Germany, had better aircraft and was bombing the fuck out ... And just and only coz Hitler was stupid and attacked SSSR, ... Britain in the 1920s and 1930s could have gone lots of different ... It so happened that Churchill picked the wrong issue when he supported the ...
    (soc.culture.yugoslavia)
Loading