Hitler's England: What if Germany had invaded Britain in May 1940?

In Niall Ferguson’s book Virtual History, we are exposed to counterfactual ideas of “What Ifs” in history, but first we must ask ourselves what is “Counterfactual History”? Some historians refer to it as the conjected root of what might have happened when referring to past events in history to understand what did happen. Applying “What Ifs” to history is known by academics as counterfactual history, a compelling strand of historical perspective thinking and well outlined in Ferguson’s Virtual History. The “What If” factor is introduced during a questioning phrase, revealing endless possibilities and outcomes to certain scenarios. Applying these factors to historical thinking with evidential claims of factual belief makes the study of history every more thought provoking. We will look closely into what historians refer to as counterfactual history and its effectiveness addressing the question of what could have potentially happened if Germany had invaded Britain in May 1940 while also referring to a number of what if events that could have occurred and made Nazi Britain a reality and why Hitler and the collapse of the Third Reich could have not become inevitable as we thought. We will discuss problems within Germany’s Kriegsmarine fleet, the prospect of peace and German plans for expansion.

Alternative History seems to have adapted into profitable television series as one of them known as “The Man in the High Castle” depicts the United States under German and Japanese Rule. These developing series will question us to envision a horrible new world order. Both scenarios may seem absurd, but the questioning of whether the “Swastika” could have flown above the Thames and Wehrmacht officers marching in columns towards Buckingham Palace is much more than a Hollywood fantasy as Robert Harris suggests in his book “Fatherland”.[1] Remembrance of the Allied victory is seen as inevitable but not all military advancements in war can be seen as inevitable as radical discourse can occur from unlikely pressures put on resilient leadership during circumstances in war must be taken into account. Could Britain have resisted the onslaught of Germany for longer due to the weakness of their military capability without Soviet and American interference, the outcome of this event is far from predestined and rightfully questioned as a “What If” matter within the spectrum of Virtual History.

What if Britain had given into Germany’s demands, they would be stripped of their self-determination in which would have led to fears of a united German Reich resulting in a larger entity of radical nationalist power. We can assume that if it wasn’t for Chamberlain’s persuasive negotiations in frustrating Hitler that possibly the Germans would have gone to war with the Czechs, this factor can also be formatted in the debate of alternative history suggesting that Britain’s bluff could have easily been counterproductive. What if Hitler had judged the signing of the Munich Conference as a victory rather than a need for radical violent solution of war. Chamberlain effectively forced the Czechs into surrendering to avert the crisis of war.[2]

An even scarier thought is that what if Germany had invaded London before Paris. It may seem like a simple question but what were the objectives of a British invasion? Invasion for the sake of invasion adding to Germany’s Reich territory perhaps but Hitler most definitely wanted the British to surrender once the Nazi occupation of France was secured. Operation Seelion wasn’t an invasion of conquest but perhaps an invasion of desperation from the German High Command. The German’s never came close towards achieving the naval capabilities of the British Navy and the closing of the British Channel proved a logistical nightmare for the Germans. Hitler knew the scale of the Kriegsmarine wasn’t of the capacity to even compete with the British naval forces, as they suffered catastrophic losses in the invasion of Norway and Denmark[3]. Due to the limitations of German’s Kriegsmarine we can assume that if Operation Sealion had of happened that it would have been a total mess. Hitler had the foresight to envision that Germany would lose to Britain and possible American interference. Just because it’s predicted Germany would lose it is almost inevitable that there would have been a battle or two. Ferguson highlights that the Wehrmacht knew an amphibious invasion of Britain wasn’t as easy as it sounds. Germany’s air superiority would have seen expensive maintenance in upholding the standard of the German air force, but it must be highlighted that Britain’s aircraft production was increasing.

As Joseph Alexander suggests in his book Storm Landings, “momentum is the essence of any amphibious assault against a defended shoreline”[4]. He highlights that even under the best conditions a prominent commander faces formidable challenges when met with a fortified enemy. This suggests that even if Germany were to have invaded Britain in May 1940 or Operation Seelion that Britain would have had a tactical advantage due to already being on land. As well Ferguson highlights different circumstances which display thoughts of, what if the weather was good, what if German’s Kriegsmarine was more efficient. All these indicate that counterfactualism is effective in its laws of thought.

As Burleigh predicts the Germans encountered an unpleasant mission in May 1940 if they eliminate Britain from the war efforts and plans on the Eastern Front. Since the 12th century, Britain had never been invaded by a foreign authority although resisting all subsequent endeavours to invade the island. The British dominant force came from their staggering British Armed Forces but particularly their commanding Royal Navy unit who would evidently protect the nation from any foreign attacks that may have occurred[5]. Ferguson highlights that, Germany realised that Britain was a shadow of its former empire after World War I due to set backs in economic stability whilst trying to restore its previous glory and the value of the pound. These factors would suggest economic weakness for Britain’s need to invest money in defence and social security as they were faced with a burden of economic inflation and a stained reputation. The desire of Britain’s hierarchy to avoid war was an understatement, they had enough of imperialist wars and were not equipped to withstand attack due to less than 5% of the supplementary budget being invest on defence. The foundations of fortified concrete structures and weapons the British needed were not implemented until mid-June 1940, leaving the British with a make shift defence of their home soil. This example shows the effectiveness of counterfactual history as if Germany had tried to invade the island than we could be looking at an alternative scenario in history today.[6]

The German Bundeswehr were sufficiently armed, battle hardened and in large numbers compared to the British Army. The Luftwaffe also well-balanced to the threat of RAF which knowledgeable experience in tactical warfare operations having done so in Poland, France and Belgium in previous air field battles. Compared to the Luftwaffe and Bundeswehr, the Kriegsmarine lead by the Großadmiral, Karl Dönitz was subsequently lacking in the qualities possessed by their British counterparts. They presented powerful military vessels like Scharnhorst, Bismarck and Gneisenau but these were more operational crafts. These vessels powerful as they were designed, were less for the use of thin confined passages along the English Channel than Destroyers and Cruisers. The question could be posed to argue why Hitler and the Nazi Party not invest necessary manufacturing into the lacking Kriegsmarine to exhibit sea forces as the strongest military based sea unit. If Admiral Dönitz had received the 300 U-Boots which he recommended than maybe Britain would have been brought to their knees. It has to be portrayed that naval strategy is a built strategy and Germany had limited ship building capacities as well as only one Fallschirmjäger division.[7]

The Kriegsmarine had previously been operating on a similar project known as “heavy landing bridge” to the Battle of Britain. A number of prototypes had been manufactured and successfully tested on the Channel Islands and most definitely been utilized during Operation Seelion. These proven prototypes were affluent, and so well manufactured that they remained on the Channel Islands until the mid-1970s. Ports were secured and the seizure of an airfield at RAF Lympne with the establishment for a beachhead would have meant an advancement of Hitler’s troops. A British retaliation would have been led by the Territorial Reserves and remaining army evacuated from Dunkirk months earlier. It has to also be interpreted that the British had men and women trained in ambushes, guerrilla warfare and explosives so would have certainly put up a resistant fight to any German invasion in May 1940.[8]

We can imagine that if British counter manoeuvres had subsequently deteriorated that the Germans may have secured all the objectives that they were commanded to achieve. London may have potentially collapsed under the Nazi Regime. By doing so potentially Hitler could have established a military government during London occupation and disassemble any local British army or Home Guard military units and possibly convert Churchill’s ancestral home of Blenheim Palace into a German Occupation Government headquarters. A major question that needs to be asked is why the German forces didn’t rout the remaining stranded ducks at Dunkirk. The fortunate event of the Blitzkrieg occurring one day before the evacuation of troops had a major factor to play in the German cause. Historians such as Overy, suggest the German army needed to consolidate their forces with rest before manoeuvring a final attack on the allies in the sea.[9] It may seem ambiguous, but weather conditions proved tremendously difficult for aerial bombing and they were worried their tanks wouldn’t withstand the attack.

The fall of Britain would have catastrophically equipped German armaments production as British Armaments Factories would have been diversified to facility German production of munitions, tanks and aircrafts. Britain’s ship building facilities would have proven utilitarian for future Kriegsmarine operations in the Atlantic Sea. If Hitler dreamt of potentially invading the United States, the Kriegsmarine would have to be sufficiently developed to withstand the US Naval Force. It can be then determined that the invasion of Britain would have been a step towards Nazi domination of Europe and possibly further nations. Can it be determined that the British could have co-existed peacefully alongside a victorious Germany. The British population would not have responded during an occupation any different to what the French and other nations would have. Their British values and virtues would have been under stress from German occupation of their territory. The sheer fact that a lot of nuclear scientists were also situated in Britain suggests that if an invasion was successful that the German’s would have had a greater access nuclear capacity making the 1940s a bleak new world order. In this event the world would have went to war possible post-invasion Britain resulting in a different outlook of historical memory today as Ferguson and Harris suggests.[10] It can also be determined that, die Endlösung der Judenfrage (Final Solution), would have possibly became a greater reality in counterfactual history, as Jews from all corners of Europe would have been transported to resettle in the eastern Polish concentration camps. This scenario suggesting that no outcome in history is inevitable. It is portrayed by Ferguson that if a Nazi Britain became real, that an attempt to liberate the British Empire would have been made by the United States or a New World help as the Nazi Reich would have been overstretched on the Eastern Front.

Hitler’s aspirations for the Third Reich extended far beyond the borders of Europe. To the Germans ‘Lebensraum’ had been a central occupant of Hitler’s objectives and the Soviet Union where sub-humans known as ‘Untermensch’ (Jews and Slavs) could be dislodged to facilitate the Reich’s expansion. Regardless of an invasion, Germany’s aim was a final military defeat in the West. The invasion could have been a step to conquering Russia and the United States, if Germany had invaded Britain and succeed then preparation to expand their air force and navy strength could have been possible to invading Russia and further forces in the foreseeable future[11]. The use of Goebbels and his means of propaganda would have been promoted and influenced anything that would dilute the British sense of national identity. The Nazi Regime wished to strip Britain completely of their identity by establishing a New Order of architecture, Hitler with Speer would seek to establish reconstruction programmes of reshaping London, Berlin and other cities which would be implemented once the war was won. These insights to reshape Britain with symbolic German Reich architecture would humiliate the Nelson Column, but instead of it displaying Britain’s greatest, it would represent Germany’s victory and world domination.[12]

The above issues make the effectiveness of counterfactual history quite thought-provoking and reshapes the way we view history from the point of what potentially Germany could have achieved if they invaded Britain in May 1940. The use of counterfactualism embraces the thought of imagination, Ferguson wishes us to continue the presence of “What If” in arguments and discussion while applying rationality, reasoning and analysis to past events in history[13]. The question we have consider fortunately never happened, but it can be concluded that Hitler indefinitely adjourned an invasion and Operation Seelion in 1940, having realised a maritime invasion of Britain not feasible. The RAF resisted the Luftwaffe efforts in the Battle of Britain. If the Kriegsmarine had not taken calamitous losses to cruisers and destroyers during Germany’s invasion of Norway and Denmark, then maybe they would have considered invading Britain. We can agree that before the Norway mission that the Kriegsmarine barely had the resources to take on the Royal Navy to support an invasion fleet on Britain. The British with the assistance of Allied nations during a bleak outlook of the world in 1940 were able to reverse the wave of war that may have occurred in May 1940. We can conclude that if Britain had been invaded by Germany that they would have had to hold a strong quantity of troops to control Britain, this may have not been feasible due to Hitler’s ambitions of invading the Soviet Union. While an invasion of Britain would have put Germany in a profitable position, it would not have particularly made victory over the Soviet Union inevitable. Ferguson wishes us when reviewing counterfactual history to consider its relative importance to a specific event, figure or outcome in history and if Germany did invade Britain in May 1940, however ruthless would have been met with difficult tasks and it could have possible shaped the way we interpret history.

Bibliography

Alexander, Joseph H. Storm landings: epic amphibious battles in the Central Pacific. Naval Institute Press, 2013.

Booth, Charles, and Michael Rowlinson. "Management and organizational history: Prospects." Management & organizational history 1, no. 1 (2006): 5-30.

Bunzl, Martin. "Counterfactual history: a user's guide." The American historical review 109, no. 3 (2004): 845-858.

Ferguson, Niall. Virtual history: Alternatives and counterfactuals. Hachette UK, 2008.

Harris, Robert. Fatherland. Random House, 1993.

Kaye, Simon T. "Challenging certainty: The utility and history of counterfactualism." History and Theory 49, no. 1 (2010): 38-57.

Keegan, John. "How Hitler could have won the war." What If (1999): 295-305.

Macksey, Kenneth. Invasion: The German Invasion of England, July 1940. Arms and Armour Press, 1980.

Overy, Richard, and R. J. Overy. Why the Allies won. WW Norton & Company, 1997.

Roberts, Andrew, and Niall Ferguson. "Hitler’s England. What if Germany had invaded Britain in May 1940?’." Virtual history: Alternatives and counterfactuals (1998): 281-320.

Tetlock, Philip Eyrikson, and Geoffrey Parker. Unmaking the West:" what-if" scenarios that rewrite world history. University of Michigan Press, 2006.

Waldron, Arthur, and Robert Cowley. "What If? The World's Foremost Military Historians Imagine What Might Have Been." (1999): 377.

[1] Harris, Robert. Fatherland. Random House, 1993.

[2] Ferguson, Niall. Virtual history: Alternatives and counterfactuals. Hachette UK, 2008.

[3] Dildy, Doug. Denmark and Norway 1940: Hitler's Boldest Operation. Vol. 183. Osprey Publishing, 2007.

[4] Alexander, Joseph H. Storm landings: epic amphibious battles in the Central Pacific. Naval Institute Press, 2013.

[5] Ferguson, Niall. Virtual history: Alternatives and counterfactuals. Hachette UK, 2008.

[6] Ferguson, Niall. Virtual history: Alternatives and counterfactuals. Hachette UK, 2008.

[7]

[8] Ferguson, Niall. Virtual history: Alternatives and counterfactuals. Hachette UK, 2008.

[9] Overy, Richard, and R. J. Overy. Why the Allies won. WW Norton & Company, 1997.

[10] Ferguson, Niall. Virtual history: Alternatives and counterfactuals. Hachette UK, 2008.

[11] Waldron, Arthur, and Robert Cowley. "What If? The World's Foremost Military Historians Imagine What Might Have Been." (1999): 377.

[12] Ferguson, Niall. Virtual history: Alternatives and counterfactuals. Hachette UK, 2008.

[13] Kaye, Simon T. "Challenging certainty: The utility and history of counterfactualism." History and Theory 49, no. 1 (2010): 38-57.