If Germany Won The Battle Of Britain... Nazis Launch Operation Sea Lion & Rule The British Empire

On this week's History Undone, James Hanson is joined by Dr Chris Parry and Chris Copson as they discuss the Battle of Britain and what would have happened if Germany won.
Welcome to History Undone with James Hanson, a channel that looks back at pivotal moments and asks 'What if?'. We'll be looking at key battles, strategic decisions and political outcomes with leading historians and current military experts and tacticians to see what might have happened differently, and more importantly, what impact those differences might have had on the world today.
#ww2 #worldwar2 #battleofbritain

[@sandhopper99]

After WW2, Sandhurst ran an exercise assuming there was an invasion. The result was that the invasion failed because the Royal Navy came down the North Sea and destroyed the invasion fleet.

[@TheBods666]

IMHO Seelöwe would have ended with a massive Wehrmacht defeat. Consider: Operation Overlord was conducted with the combined resources of the British Empire and the US in 1944 and was touch and go. Seelöwe was under resourced and the Wehrmacht had little to no experience with amphibious operations. Furthermore the Royal Navy was pretty much at full strength. Even with air superiority, the Royal Navy would have surged everything to contest the invasion-to which the Kriegsmarine had few heavy units and almost no light units after Norway. What would most likely have happened, is the Wehrmacht launches, then the Royal Navy rampages through their fleet, despite losses from air strikes, and slaughters the invasion.

[@DelAoc]

Transporting panzers on river barges across the Channel with the Royal Navy awaiting, even a madman like Hitler thought the idea was just too crazy for him.

[@stunitech]

Best new history show on KZbin this. I've recommended it to about a dozen people and we've all binged it. Good job lads 👍

[@falcon642]

Simpler what if, what if the Battle of Britain doesn't happen at all? What if Hitler completely ignores Britain after the fall of France and the Luftwaffe doesn't lose 2,000 aircraft and has those aircraft for Barbarossa. The Luftwaffe was weaker for Barbarossa than it was for the invasion of France. If the Luftwaffe had had all the aircraft it lost during the Battle of Britain in June 1941, Barbarossa succeeds.

[@ducthman4737]

What about Greece and Crete? Of Course if Barbarossa can start earlier and with more fuel and aircraft Moscow, Leningrad, Arkhangelsk and Murmansk could have been taken. But remember that most of the German army move with horses and therefore the speed of a horse.

[@panzerdeal8727]

More importantly, that 64.625 percent pilot casualties. An aircraft can be replaced a lot faster that a man.

[@jasonmussett2129]

Getting horses across the channel would have been interesting

[@drstrangelove4998]

Why? The Romans and the Normans both managed to ship horses across the channel perfectly well in quite primitive boats.

[@jasonmussett2129]

@@drstrangelove4998 sixty percent of the German Army was reliant on horses. Since Sealion never happened, we' ll never know

[@sandgrownun66]

And the Germans thought they could win with horses and carts.

[@johnmichaelson9173]

@@drstrangelove4998 That'll be before the Royal Navy, yeah?

[@johnmichaelson9173]

Interviews with German soldier's after D-day & many remarked that they were shocked that everything was motorised & that the Allies didn't use any horse's at all.

[@Acer-4Js]

I very much enjoy the series, 1 opportunity for improvement is better camera work on the maps. Too often one of the historians is pointing to the map, but the video is showing an image or not aiming at the map. The areas being pointed out by the historians is valuable information and it is frustrating to miss. I am particularly impressed with Dr. Perry, who shares super information and appears well versed in so many battles. Thanks for the videos.

[@Anaguma79]

2:26 The Mk. I Spitfire was armed with eight rifle caliber (.303) machine guns. Cannons came on later marks.

[@jonathannowak3649]

I love the channel and Times Radio, name change makes sense to me! Keep up the good work.

[@flashgordon6670]

Who would win a game of Axis & Allies G40 2nd, between Chris Cobson and Chris Parry? Low luck on, Low luck for bombing and AAA. Technology on with low luck. Allies start with extra 15 credits, including 1 Anzac inf on New Guinea and typically an extra destroyer with the Cruiser by Gibraltar, (Sea zone 90/91?) and an extra artillery in Sudan. I’d love to see a video with them playing Axis and Allies G40 2nd, with the TripleA game site.

[@flashgordon6670]

Perhaps a Xmas special?? Pleeeease!

[@haggis884]

This might seem a bit pedantic but, at 20:48, the spec of an ME109 is accompanied by a picture of an FW190 - that Messeschmitt's a Focke (so to speak)!

[@getinthevantim]

Not nearly as pedantic as insisting that there is a distinct difference betwixt Mr. Fokker and Prof. Focke !

[@haggis884]

@@getinthevantim 🤣 I think the predictive text chose Fokker 🤣 🤣🤣 Thanks for bringing that to my attention. What a name!

[@chrisfletcher86]

Spotted the same thing, suspect the experts on camera didn't get to review the final version!

[@bwilsondomain]

Pretty sure there were no FW190s in the Battle of Britain

[@haggis884]

@@bwilsondomain Thank goodness there weren't!

[@LarsRyeJeppesen]

Did the channel change name? I loved "History Undone"

[@mikael5938]

to few subs

[@pakkazull8370]

It kinda makes sense to me. When I first found this channel it was kind of confusing because it was so well produced, yet so new and with so few subscribers. I had to google around just to infer which company was behind it. This is much more transparent.

[@stunitech]

​@pakkazull8370 Yeah the low subs to production value threw me off initially too. James and Chris x2 are easily putting out History Channel levels of work here. It's very good stuff

[@mudcrab3420]

@@mikael5938 Well they shouldn't have committed so much of their industry into building battleships...

[@bidenator9760]

@@mudcrab3420 LOL

[@ThePsiclone]

the discussion side of these is good, but the graphics department really need to up their game.

[@Vandelberger]

Still an underrated channel! I’ll wait to judge as usual, but I never believed a Sea Lion was ever possible.

[@FelixstoweFoamForge]

Nope. Even with Luftwaffe air supremacy the Germans cannot carry out a SUSTAINABLE invasion. Their navy is in a real mess. They don't have any real invasion craft, so have to tug barges across behind destroyers etc. NO Capitol ships. ONE British battle ship firing it's massive guns would've caused havoc. And even if they do get across, every round of rifle ammo, every tank shell, every thing they need logistically has to be brought across a very narrow stretch of water, with the Royal Navy sending anything that floats and can carry a gun into the fight. Plus Bomber Command using their mainly obsolete aircraft to hit anything they can. The Wehrmacht might have got across, but they couldn't have kept it up. This is pointed out in the novel "piece of cake" by a pilot seconded from the FAA.

[@markkirby9531]

It wouldn't have taken a battleship to sink the barges being towed across, a destroyer's wake could have sunk them. River barges have a freeboard of a foot or two, when fully loaded. so any significant waves would have put water inside them and if they got enough water, they'd have sunk.

[@davids560]

Very true but the Royal Navy would have been fighting under a German controlled sky. We have seen how vulnerable capital ships were to air attack, just think of the RN losses in the wake of Pearl Harbor when the Japanese sank Repulse and Prince of Wales on Dec 10, 1941. What sort of havoc could the Ju87s and 88s have wrought on the Royal Navy in the confines of the channel under a protective umbrella of Me109s?

[@miketogwell1000]

Except Germany hadn't trained any of there pilots on attacking shipping, And 100+ destroyers sipping around through invasion barges are a lot harder to hit than battleships HMS Warspite and it's destroyers taking out so much of the kreigsmarine in the Norway campaign really killed sealion no matter how the air battle went

[@markkirby9531]

@@davids560 True, but the Japanese were essentially attacking two targets, I suspect the RN would have sortied all assets they had available to attack the invasion fleet. That would have provided far more targets for them to attack. It wouldn't take many ships to get through to ravage those barges. In addition, "victory" for the Luftwaffe would have meant the elimination of 11 Group , or at least their withdrawal out of range of Luftwaffe attacks. Just as they described for the Channel dash for the Luftwaffe to surge and establish a limited air superiority, the RAF, could have attempted a similar surge from 12 Group, or other assets based deeper in the UK, to contest the air fight over the channel.

[@dovetonsturdee7033]

@@davids560 Prince of Wales and Repulse were sunk by torpedo bombers. The Luftwaffe lacked such an aircraft until mid 1942. The Ju87 and Ju88, He111, and Do17 had all failed miserably at Dunkirk, when attacking ships, even merchantmen, which were either stopped or moving slowly in restricted waters, with their defensive equipment hindered by large numbers of troops aboard. What do you seriously think that same Luftwaffe could have done to large numbers of light cruisers & destroyers, able to move at 30+ knots and to manoeuvre freely, three months later? By 'large numbers' I mean around 70 such vessels within five hours of Dover, supported by some five hundred smaller warships, by the way. You ask 'What sort of havoc could the Ju87s and 88s have wrought on the Royal Navy' Statistics provide a better clue than simple claims of what the Luftwaffe 'would have' done. In the whole of WW2, the Luftwaffe sank 31 RN destroyers, and no RN warship at all larger than a large cruiser.

[@Wilkse1]

I do believe the picture of the Spitfires behind James is the Number 10 group , the squadron that was based in Bristol.

[@robertjoy4846]

A well moderated discussion.

[@marcelgroen6256]

The problem for the British at the end of the Battle of Britain was not so much the number of available planes, but the number of available pilots. I do not hear that in the analysis. Furthermore: keep up the good work. Very interesting analyses, especially the geopolitical considerations.

[@simonprince987]

Would it be possible for the two Chris’s to smile sometime…….? Apart from that fantastic shows

[@hermesshkurti396]

thats rear admiral dr chris perry to you my friend.....

[@hermesshkurti396]

for the record, he has smiled before and he smiles with his eyes. But given the topic, smiling and posing for the camera, not exactly appropriate

[@jonathannowak3649]

@@hermesshkurti396 Look out for James Hanson's eyebrow, that is all the expression I want from these shows. Let's not get carried away lads!

[@davids560]

Good to hear the 2 experts say they did not agree with the myth that turning on London on 7 September saved the RAF. It certainly made the job of Fighter Command easier but there is no statistical evidence to show the RAF as being on its knees prior to that. Hard pressed yes, but still massively capable - absolutely.

[@markkirby9531]

Regarding if Japan would have attacked Siberia or Pearl Harbor, and the rest of the southern attacks, had Britain been "neutralized", the answer is the latter. Siberia didn't, at that time, have the oil resources Japan needed. The Dutch East Indies did. So they would still have gone south. Once you decide to do that, you have to eliminate the US presence in the Philippines, since that straddles the shipping routes from Indonesia to Japan, and the US could easily interdict that shipping should they wish to. Once you decide to invade the Philippines, Pearl Harbor happens.

[@alt7488]

but japan and germany are in effect trading partners, with the gluttony of oil germany controls (don't forget it now has access to the supplies from the middle east to add to the supplies it controls in russia) does japan really need to go south?

[@BobGeogeo]

The Hurricane should have been mentioned more. More kills than Spitfires and other defenses combined, 32 squadrons compared to 19 for Spitfires, more stable when firing, faster turnaround after landing, etc.

[@brentinnes5151]

yeah, the unsung aircraft

[@hermesshkurti396]

no england as an aircraft carrier for the US and the US would have had to make some tough choices, and Russia falls in 1941 because northern sup[ly is cut off

[@user-vk6tn1ie7k]

yep, giant enemy logistics hub of your coast.

[@gumdeo]

Could the US have used Iceland?

[@SmashPhysical]

Enjoying the channel, but the title is misleading. Germany would not have 'ruled the British Empire' as it was too far flung. The British Empire would have fought on.

[@walterkronkitesleftshoe6684]

Then why do you think after the fall of France the Germans negotiated as part of the Franco-German armistice of June 1940 a rump French Vichy state? It was to enable then to have a puppet French govt that still exerted sovereignty & control over the rest of the also far flung French empire. That its the reason why Japanese forces were permitted into French Indo-China unopposed in Sept 1940.

[@robertmoyse4414]

This was very interesting and well-informed speculation, but whoever did your background/pop-up images was historically clueless and need binning.

[@AFGuidesHD]

The allies needed a pipe to France because they were fighting against 100+ divisions across a continent. The Germans would have only faced 11 lightly equipped divisions in England. It is a fascinating scenario because both sides were massively handicapped.

[@mikael5938]

140 vs 11 in 1941. also german troops better morale training and xp.

[@dovetonsturdee7033]

Were do you get the idea of '11 lightly equipped divisions in England,' from? By September, the British had 34.5 divisions in Britain, 20 of which were on Coastal Defence duties. Moreover, the Germans would have needed to find a way past the Royal Navy in their hastily converted barges. In fact, so confident were the British that on 22 August they felt able to send a large tank convoy to North Africa, which resulted in the victory that was Operation Compass.

[@dovetonsturdee7033]

@@mikael5938 The British had 34.5 divisions in Britain by September, 1940, in fact. By the way, did the training of German troops include the ability to swim large distances wearing full equipment?

[@AFGuidesHD]

Sigh, looks like my long comment got removed again. I got the figure from Sir Alan Brooke's Diaries.

[@DavidSmith-fs5qj]

The invasion of Britain was never a realistic proposition for Hitler. Like you say, they would have had to contend with the Royal Navy, the most powerful on the world. The German army would have had to be carried over in barges, along with their horses, slow moving and unstable, the weather would have had to have been perfect. The reality is that the Germans were a land power and Hitler was going east.

[@TimMelloy-lc5nz]

Would you consider the battle of Yorktown that lead to American independence ?

[@alt7488]

raider had it right, the battle of the atlantic was rumored to have lowered the reserves of food down to a mere 2 weeks

[@Ross-e9o]

Spitfire weaponry 20mm cannons? You’ve got to better than that. Try 8x.303 machine guns.

[@alt7488]

later spitfires had cannons, but yes the ones going into battle in 1940 had 8 vickers .303's

[@matthewgreenfield360]

Well 19 Squadron did have cannon armed Spitfires for a time in the Battle of Britain, and hated them because they kept jamming. There was one experimental cannon-armed Hurricane too. Maybe they got the info on cannon armament from the photo of the Mk.XII Spitfires in the background?

[@SuperKevin57]

Why didn’t the RAF fit browning 50 cal instead of 303 to their planes?

[@tomaskoupil5994]

1. It wouldn't fit in the wing of mk.1 spit 2. Logistics and supply chain

[@kets4443]

What if Germany went ahead with their plans to annex Vichy France and have ports with U-Boat pens on the Mediterranean coast of the south of France, but before the Operation Torch landings in North Africa?

[@dovetonsturdee7033]

There were no such plans.

[@alt7488]

another twist, if germany controls the oil from russia and the middle east, does japan need to go into the pacific to obtain it's oil supplies? the germans can always trade oil with japan and italy

[@yaldabaoth2]

And why would the Germans do that? They were only allied out of convenience. If Germany doesn't need Japan anymore to threaten British possessions in Asia, then the alliance is over. Japan had nothing the Germans wanted except their fleet to threaten Singapore, Hong Kong and India.

[@georgecrumb9099]

You might want to use an image of a ME109 instead of a Focke Wulf ( which didn't exist in 1940) which you have. Experts?!

[@turrican4d599]

Please do something about the undefeatable logo. I don't want to have burn in.

[@Suchtel10]

Burn in after under one hour?

[@daniellastuart3145]

{'am amazed that all these historian forget the British Army was still fighting in North Africa at the time

[@steveswitzer4353]

Sack the researcher for the images fw190 not me109 spitfire NOT armed with cannons in 1940

[@walterkronkitesleftshoe6684]

There WERE a handful of Spitfires that WERE armed with 20mm cannons during the battle, specifically a number fielded by 19 Sqd which was issued with a few Spitfire Ib's that were armed with the Hispano 20mm autocannon, but the installation and use of those early variants proved troublesome.

[@Farweasel]

Oh COME ON - At least get people on the production side who know what images they're handling OK Early in the video its a bit esoteric to know the two cannon wing shown firing wasn't from any Battle of Britain aeroplane But 20:42 - Spiel about an ME 109 pops up along with a dinky picture of a Luftwaffe Fighter Only its not an Me 109 - Its an FW 190 which never took part in the Battle of Britain

[@pbryan1967]

The British contribution to the USSR in 1941 was “useful” but I wouldn’t go so far as to suggest it was the difference between victory and defeat of Barbarossa.

[@michaelrowsell1160]

have you seen the scale of armaments sent .

[@DanBeech-ht7sw]

2 million pairs of boots. No boots, no army

[@MichaelDeutschman]

Barbarassa looks completely different. The Russians are in a defensive posture instead of an offensive one as in otl.

[@dovetonsturdee7033]

You think that Barbarossa was a Soviet offensive? Remarkable.

[@davidlauder-qi5zv]

Operation Barbarossa was the German invasion of the Soviet Unio, which began on 22nd June 1941. Of course the Soviets were in a defensive posture. 3 and a half million German troops had just crossed their Border.

[@MichaelDeutschman]

@@dovetonsturdee7033 Facts are remarkable and pretty cool

[@MichaelDeutschman]

AH was an anglophile

[@whya2ndaccount]

I guess the first half is OK for people without a clue, but I just fast forward to about halfway to see the "what if" part. These could be reduced to about 20min vignettes.

[@drstrangelove4998]

If you think about it, logically Hitler made it perfectly clear repeatedly that he had no beaf with the ‘English!’ It was a feint, hoping we might see sense. He admired the British as ‘cousins.’ Do you really think he was going to invade Britain when he had to invade Russia within a few months, it was impossible, the Kriegsmarine had only existed for a few years and knew perfectly well it was no match for the Royal Navy, the worlds biggest and most powerful. Good programme though guys.

[@dovetonsturdee7033]

So, requisitioning and converting 2000+ barges, over 200 freighters, 1200+ motor boats and 400 tugs, as well as losing 1200 aircraft and 1500 aircrew, was all a cunning idea to show that no invasion was ever intended. Oh well!

[@gumdeo]

German high command never took the invasion plan seriously.

[@dovetonsturdee7033]

@@gumdeo Read my previous answer. Do you suggest that they did all that simply because they were bored one afternoon.

[@robingallagher8605]

The usual victory lap stuff, endlessly repeated by Brits in whose mind it's always 1940 - because things have been in a power dive ever since.

[@longbeforenow3130]

Well the video is set on the Battle of Britain which was in 1940. Sooo…

[@gumdeo]

It's the last time they were relevant...

[@johnmichaelson9173]

Go play with your toy models robin, smh.