[oronozopiy]

I see the problem. I know the Germans could not launch an invasion of Britain in 1940 for any number of reasons, including the complete lack of proper bases of all sorts in France. But this does not argue that Germany should have given up and diverted its resources elsewhere so that it could no longer invade Britain even if it wanted to, it argue for the buildup, the kind of buildup that the allies actually did from 1942-44 in order to invade itself.

The German airforce may not have had the ability to dominate even Southern England, but it had enough, I suspect, to dominate Northern France to cover the buildup. Over time, the balance of power would have swung in Germany's favor just as it did later in the allies' favor.

The attack in Africa that they actually conducted was just as difficult, if not more so, than waging war over Britain. There they faces long supply lines and the British navy, two problems for which they had no solution.

Finally, taking on Russia while the first two fronts were unresolved could not have been a sane choice as well. Only if the USSR is knocked out very quickly does it make sense. But, given the shear size of Russia, that was hardly possible.

So given the alternatives, the only sane choice for Germany was to build up for an invasion of Britain.

Try to imagine this as a war game. I have played several where you can take Germany or Britain, etc. The one thing they all have in common is the assumption that Germany does invade the USSR and the US gets into the war. Even under these circumstances, Germany is strong enough to do well, if not win. But everyone knows that if Germany can keep both the USSR and the US out of the war, it wins by invading England.

In real life, it just could not do so immediately. It had to be patient just like the allies were patient.