Please don't bring Evan Mawdsley on the show ever again. I couldn't stand his constant "ahhs" and nervous stammering. You would think he would have learned how to speak calmly and confidently in professional settings by now.
I think this was much better than the D-Day show. In that episode, there was a lot of explaining what the Allies did, then what the Axis did, and very little speculation at the end. In this episode, they covered what happened, then the whole second half was speculation on the cascading effects and the alternate history. Very well done.
Completely agree. For whatever reason the discussion of alternative history has been discouraged for decades by professional historians. Fortunately historians such as Niall Ferguson are pushing back and pointing out how important it is.
These are a great combination of analysing actual events and a sliding doors what-if situations that could come from the kind of alternative history questions we all love to think about....
I am loving this channel so much, thank you. I have to commend you on the proffesionalism of all the people involved, the camera quality is amazing, I love the studio and the effort that has gone into the maps and video footage and the music adds to the feel as well. A brilliant job and I love the twist in the videos where you consider alternative directions and consequences if the battles had gone in a different path. I've watched about 5 videos now and plan to watch all of them. If you are looking for ideas for more battles I believe the biggest battle to shape the known world has to be the battle of Gaugamela. All the best, Wes.
Love this James! Made for you; after following you on Frontline for updates on Ukraine. As with all you present, its educational in a way that makes it easy to interact.
Great content, thoroughly enjoyed this episode. What about one of the battles in North Africa, say if the Axis had managed to push through and capture Cairo then Suez?
@@crhu319 Exactly, that's why I suggested it. The Axis also had a plan to swing down through the Middle East and meet up with North Africa forces in a pincer, had they been successful at Stalingrad.
I just discovered this channel this evening watch 3 at the Subscribe and it's nice since my favorite mid-80s comic book was what if this would be an alignment as I sit back and watch
Funny enough, as soon as I saw Arras, I comprehensively disregarded every other single word in the title, and immediately thought, "Awesome, let's hear about WWI." Oops on me there. Would love some more WWI discussion, if that wasn't obvious already. Great discussion and commentary though. Very well done. Definitely appreciate it.
Gents, Fantastic video! Not enough attention given to this very short part of the war which could have precluded the 20 odd million deaths that followed. However, I would love you to elaborate a bit more on why the British and French lost the battle of Arras. Unless I missed it, I only picked up on the presence of the Luftwaffe, and the use of the 88’s as antitank guns. (- And you forgot to mention the am_phetamines the Panzer crew were using - suspect they may have assisted the audacious attitude of the crews and their commanders. Does that explain Gudarian’s approach here 😊… and, come to think of it, Rommel’s later risky aggression in North Africa? Just a thought. ) Anyway, can you add a bit more detail to what happened in those 4-5 hours at Arrass? Great job though.
from my reading the german units got swept aside but the AA guns were in a location and able to respond and they effectively halted the attack with the Luftwaffe arriving and able to tear up the british artillery and supply columns if they had 1 division of armour with its divisonal artillery train + its supporting infantry and the scratch unit from the durhams it could well have been a totally different situation it was the inability to deal with the 88s that caused the undoing of the RTR with an entire regiments worth of guns if not 2 those 88s could have been silenced everyone forgets how effective the royal artillery was with that silenced defeat of 7th and 5th panzer could have really been on the cards but 2 armoured regiments 2 infantry battlions and not even a regiments worth of guns was never going to do that
This episode is a great hypothetical and a high probability that the aftermath would have occurred. Churchill could have gone and been replaced by Lord Halifax. A non-aggression pact signed in exchange for the defeated British Army being returned. Certainly favourable trading arrangements for Germany and resources flowing from the British Empire. Moscow and western Russia could have been occupied. USA could have become isolationist and focused their attention on the Pacific and Asia. Interesting if Pearl Harbour did not happen and the Philippines were not attacked.
Quite right. French tanks lacked radios so, while Guderian came from transmissions, they still relied on flag signals. They also missed jerrycans (a jerry's innovation, right?) and had to return to their rear and refuel from big 200 L barrels with slow hand pumps. By the way, except for colonel De Gaulle (armoured forces theorist) far away at Montcornet, the tanks here are commanded by Guderian, who was from communications, Rommel whom I learnt from you was an infantryman, and Churchill, a cavalry man. So, do not leave tanks (nor a fleet) to a hussar 😅
"Vichy Britain" is a Titanic stretch . Sea Lion was impossible. Britain still has her navy. And, maybe most importantly, Germany desperately did not want to fight England (not for some moral reasons, but because her navy) So how do we get to "Vichy Britain?
"if we don't dictate our terms then we're basically surrendering and becoming a vassal". A mantra which is highly ironic given that Churchill surrendered the Empire and vassalized us to America, a state which hated the Empire, unlike Germany.
It was an informative and wonderful historical coverage video about ARRAS River strikes during the early days of Nazism regime. Armies penetrated french territory in 1940 in WW2 .
I think leaving a comment is good for the algorithm so I’ll comment. Great show very interesting. You should all check out Times Radio James does a show called Frontline, he has great guests and is a talented interviewer, his coverage of the conflict in Ukraine is first rate.
An interesting concept but let down a bit by some poor choices in the selection of archival footage and a transposition error in the tank comparison graphics. The blocks as representations of force understandably suffer from grouping in comparison to the mapping that depicted the German thrust as quite strung out laterally. Sorry to be nit picking but standards in this field are now very high. Keep at it though because hypothetical exploration is a rich vein.
"hypothetical exploration is a rich vein" - absolutely agree. Its importance has been underrated or I suspect from a snobbish point of view, as 'unacademic' for tooo long. However the context it provides is far too important to ignore, and AI will soon improve the accuracy of the endeavor.
I'd thought that this was going to be a broader discussion of potential events that would have had the results in the first half of the title, and I admit to a bit of disappointment that it was not. But Arras is a fascinating battle that is grossly overlooked even among military historians. Had the combined Allied forces (though mainly French if I remember correctly) had not fought such a valiant and doomed (and they knew it was to be so) rear-guard action, I don't think there is any chance Hitler gives the stop order to his troops that allowed Dynamo to be the success it was.
Yes. Germany needed the resources of Russia. What Hitler tried to avoid was conflict with the West. However the west brought conflict with Germany before it was possible for Germany to resist an attack from the West (after conquering Russia).
The biggest missed opportunity for the Axis that strikes me is Vichy France. Handle them better and you get a foothold in Syria, the long Moroccan and Algerian coast to attack Med convoys, and a massive navy to challenge the RN. Although given how mismanaged the Axis naval resources were in the Med, the advantage provided by a captured fully intact French navy might be limited.
"hyperpower"? Sounds like that's what "superpower" used to mean. But now superpower is so overused and applied to even bit players in niche regions, that now we need a new word to mean what superpower used to mean.
I'm curious as to how Germany knew their plans were found , I would think they counted him as shot and the plane in Pieces but they changed the plan even though it was probably a lot of effort. Does anyone know if they knew for sure the UK had the plans or was it something like a contingency move on their part.
Finally, some realistic predictions. Another thing to consider is if the UK sues for peace, Germany industry doesn't have to deal with strategic bombing. Even if Barbarossa does peter out in the brutal winter of 41-42, with remnants of the Red Army east of the Urals, Germany is in a much better place in the spring of 1942 economically, tactically, and strategically. Also, kudos for what was said about the New Deal. Because history is written by the victors, in the US, schoolchildren are taught how great it and all of Roosevelt's other progressive policies were, and that he saved the US economy. In reality, Roosevelt's policies prolonged and exasperated the Great Depression, and gave birth to the mentality of entitlement and government dependence that curses America today.
LOL. Maritime alliances always defeating continental alliances? How about industrialized powers with strong domestic industry and resource extraction always crush hapless fouls who don't have either? How about countries with military industrial complexes that can handle mass and with large populations always defeat those who don't?
As the situation is today, I agree with you. In 1940 however, those maritime powers are the British Empire and the unmobilized USA neither of which Germany was able to defeat.
So, why did Germany still attack Britain with the Luftwaffe, and only half heartedly create an invasion force, which by your reckoning, wouldn’t have stood a chance crossing the Channel? Something doesn’t add up with this argument!
what doesn't stack up is that they're comparing what was needed to invade UK by what was needed for D-Day. Europe was a fortress, the UK was a coconut shy. There was bugger all to stop them landing in the UK save for a few fixed fortifications of varying but mostly low quality and a few divisions that were properly equipped. Cant really equate the two. (and the RAF of course)
The Royal navy against the river barges they were talking about would have been a nonstarter. The battle of Britain was initiated because Britain wouldn't surrender and Hitler didn't want 2 fronts while invading the Soviet union which was his plan all along. I think part of the reason why Stalin was so paralysed with shock over Barbarossa is because he was planning to invade Germany himself the next summer when his forces were more prepared. Hitler probably knew this and is why he pushed on after the Greece delay
It was a mistake. Germany should have ceased attacking Britain after the Fall of France which would have made it much more politically difficult for Britain.
Battle of Arras (21 May 1940) All very interesting, thanks! Just saying as a Canadian... What's the implication for Canada? Seems huge if the UK is knocked out. Canada along with the U.S. is one of the few countries that actually prospered from WWII. Just a few bullet points to consider: • Canada enters WWII in September 1939 like the UK • Navy plays a significant role in the North Atlantic, escorts, merchants ships, etc. • Air Force squadrons are pretty much born in the UK • Natural resources sent to Europe, pilot training in Canada, etc. • No Juno beach in France or Canadians landing in Italy? • Does Canada focus on the Pacific instead? • Don't see German U-boats disappearing from eastern Canadian waters • Does the U.S and Canada island hop in the Atlantic instead? • Does D-day happen in the UK instead? • Does the Royal family escape to Canada? All pretty crazy, LOL
It's better than D-Day episode but I'm so not a fan at all of Chris Copson. His speech pattern makes it hard for me to follow what he's saying and he goes onto side tangents, and I think he struggles to imagine the what if of history. He's just very hard for me to pay attention to.
Remember to subscribe to History Undone with James Hanson: www.youtube.com/@HistoryUndonewithJamesHanson?sub_confirmation=1
Please don't bring Evan Mawdsley on the show ever again. I couldn't stand his constant "ahhs" and nervous stammering. You would think he would have learned how to speak calmly and confidently in professional settings by now.
I think this was much better than the D-Day show. In that episode, there was a lot of explaining what the Allies did, then what the Axis did, and very little speculation at the end. In this episode, they covered what happened, then the whole second half was speculation on the cascading effects and the alternate history. Very well done.
Completely agree. For whatever reason the discussion of alternative history has been discouraged for decades by professional historians. Fortunately historians such as Niall Ferguson are pushing back and pointing out how important it is.
Thanks, RB; we listened to the comments and tweaked the approach for show two.
I hope this channel becomes popular, it's great
Thank you Lucas. If you have any ideas for battles, please let us know. Warmest regards. HU
@@HistoryUndonewithJamesHanson I think the battle of Stalingrad and what would have happened if the Soviets lost would be a good one.
Really enjoying this channel. The expert analyses from Admiral Parry and other guests is what makes this so informative and fun to watch.
Another great episode. Great format and presentation
These are a great combination of analysing actual events and a sliding doors what-if situations that could come from the kind of alternative history questions we all love to think about....
I am loving this channel so much, thank you. I have to commend you on the proffesionalism of all the people involved, the camera quality is amazing, I love the studio and the effort that has gone into the maps and video footage and the music adds to the feel as well. A brilliant job and I love the twist in the videos where you consider alternative directions and consequences if the battles had gone in a different path. I've watched about 5 videos now and plan to watch all of them. If you are looking for ideas for more battles I believe the biggest battle to shape the known world has to be the battle of Gaugamela. All the best, Wes.
This is great information!!
Amazing show
Fuel!
At 25:35 you put up a still of King Tigers; why? Weren't there any photos around this date?
The BEF sprinting for the beaches at Dunkirk:
Tommy 1: "What's happening ?"
Tommy 2: "Jerry's kicked Arras !"
Booo. 😀
BZ well done
Great show guys. I love this stuff
Love this James! Made for you; after following you on Frontline for updates on Ukraine. As with all you present, its educational in a way that makes it easy to interact.
Great content, thoroughly enjoyed this episode. What about one of the battles in North Africa, say if the Axis had managed to push through and capture Cairo then Suez?
Without Suez, Britain gets nothing to and from India or Burma or Australia without a radically longer route around Africa. That has a huge impact.
@@crhu319 Exactly, that's why I suggested it. The Axis also had a plan to swing down through the Middle East and meet up with North Africa forces in a pincer, had they been successful at Stalingrad.
I just discovered this channel this evening watch 3 at the Subscribe and it's nice since my favorite mid-80s comic book was what if this would be an alignment as I sit back and watch
This is awesome
Funny enough, as soon as I saw Arras, I comprehensively disregarded every other single word in the title, and immediately thought, "Awesome, let's hear about WWI." Oops on me there. Would love some more WWI discussion, if that wasn't obvious already.
Great discussion and commentary though. Very well done. Definitely appreciate it.
25.35 how did the germans get the panthers to arras so quickly?
Hahaah. I was thinking the same! Except! Those are Tiger II's!!!! :)
Rundstedt and Kleist wanted the stop order too... but not Halder, so he said in his memoirs...
The problem with memoirs is that everyone who are writing them at the time are trying to make themselves look better than they actually were.
Gents,
Fantastic video! Not enough attention given to this very short part of the war which could have precluded the 20 odd million deaths that followed.
However, I would love you to elaborate a bit more on why the British and French lost the battle of Arras. Unless I missed it, I only picked up on the presence of the Luftwaffe, and the use of the 88’s as antitank guns.
(- And you forgot to mention the am_phetamines the Panzer crew were using - suspect they may have assisted the audacious attitude of the crews and their commanders. Does that explain Gudarian’s approach here 😊… and, come to think of it, Rommel’s later risky aggression in North Africa? Just a thought. )
Anyway, can you add a bit more detail to what happened in those 4-5 hours at Arrass?
Great job though.
from my reading the german units got swept aside but the AA guns were in a location and able to respond and they effectively halted the attack with the Luftwaffe arriving and able to tear up the british artillery and supply columns if they had 1 division of armour with its divisonal artillery train + its supporting infantry and the scratch unit from the durhams it could well have been a totally different situation it was the inability to deal with the 88s that caused the undoing of the RTR with an entire regiments worth of guns if not 2 those 88s could have been silenced everyone forgets how effective the royal artillery was with that silenced defeat of 7th and 5th panzer could have really been on the cards but 2 armoured regiments 2 infantry battlions and not even a regiments worth of guns was never going to do that
Fuel! Peace with Britain meant full access to oil--from the U.S. even.
This episode is a great hypothetical and a high probability that the aftermath would have occurred. Churchill could have gone and been replaced by Lord Halifax. A non-aggression pact signed in exchange for the defeated British Army being returned. Certainly favourable trading arrangements for Germany and resources flowing from the British Empire. Moscow and western Russia could have been occupied. USA could have become isolationist and focused their attention on the Pacific and Asia. Interesting if Pearl Harbour did not happen and the Philippines were not attacked.
What if the Anglo-French forces launched a major offensive against Germany in September 1939?
Great Channel, but would The Battle of Hannut, not qualify as the first Major Tank Battle of WW2 ?
Quite right. French tanks lacked radios so, while Guderian came from transmissions, they still relied on flag signals. They also missed jerrycans (a jerry's innovation, right?) and had to return to their rear and refuel from big 200 L barrels with slow hand pumps.
By the way, except for colonel De Gaulle (armoured forces theorist) far away at Montcornet, the tanks here are commanded by Guderian, who was from communications, Rommel whom I learnt from you was an infantryman, and Churchill, a cavalry man. So, do not leave tanks (nor a fleet) to a hussar 😅
"Vichy Britain" is a Titanic stretch . Sea Lion was impossible. Britain still has her navy. And, maybe most importantly, Germany desperately did not want to fight England (not for some moral reasons, but because her navy)
So how do we get to "Vichy Britain?
"if we don't dictate our terms then we're basically surrendering and becoming a vassal". A mantra which is highly ironic given that Churchill surrendered the Empire and vassalized us to America, a state which hated the Empire, unlike Germany.
It was an informative and wonderful historical coverage video about ARRAS River strikes during the early days of Nazism regime. Armies penetrated french territory in 1940 in WW2 .
I think leaving a comment is good for the algorithm so I’ll comment.
Great show very interesting. You should all check out Times Radio James does a show called Frontline, he has great guests and is a talented interviewer, his coverage of the conflict in Ukraine is first rate.
An interesting concept but let down a bit by some poor choices in the selection of archival footage and a transposition error in the tank comparison graphics. The blocks as representations of force understandably suffer from grouping in comparison to the mapping that depicted the German thrust as quite strung out laterally.
Sorry to be nit picking but standards in this field are now very high. Keep at it though because hypothetical exploration is a rich vein.
"hypothetical exploration is a rich vein" - absolutely agree. Its importance has been underrated or I suspect from a snobbish point of view, as 'unacademic' for tooo long. However the context it provides is far too important to ignore, and AI will soon improve the accuracy of the endeavor.
I'd thought that this was going to be a broader discussion of potential events that would have had the results in the first half of the title, and I admit to a bit of disappointment that it was not. But Arras is a fascinating battle that is grossly overlooked even among military historians. Had the combined Allied forces (though mainly French if I remember correctly) had not fought such a valiant and doomed (and they knew it was to be so) rear-guard action, I don't think there is any chance Hitler gives the stop order to his troops that allowed Dynamo to be the success it was.
The conclusions were jumped to quite liberally for sure...
Really enjoyed that. My question is if Hitler conquered Europe, made peace with Britain so no American involvement. Did he have to attack Russia 🤔
Yes. Germany needed the resources of Russia. What Hitler tried to avoid was conflict with the West. However the west brought conflict with Germany before it was possible for Germany to resist an attack from the West (after conquering Russia).
Yes. From day one, Hitler wanted to destroy Rusia.
Peace with Britain means mideast oil could be imported
Mideast oil was minor at the time. US & the rest of the Americas were the main suppliers followed by USSR oil.
The biggest missed opportunity for the Axis that strikes me is Vichy France. Handle them better and you get a foothold in Syria, the long Moroccan and Algerian coast to attack Med convoys, and a massive navy to challenge the RN. Although given how mismanaged the Axis naval resources were in the Med, the advantage provided by a captured fully intact French navy might be limited.
"hyperpower"? Sounds like that's what "superpower" used to mean.
But now superpower is so overused and applied to even bit players in niche regions, that now we need a new word to mean what superpower used to mean.
I'm curious as to how Germany knew their plans were found , I would think they counted him as shot and the plane in Pieces but they changed the plan even though it was probably a lot of effort. Does anyone know if they knew for sure the UK had the plans or was it something like a contingency move on their part.
Net result of the captured plan was the adoption of the Manstein plan instead of the replay of the Schiefflen plan of WW1
Really weird choices of stock footage in this one. Valentines? Tiger II's? None of these were in the battle of France!
Finally, some realistic predictions. Another thing to consider is if the UK sues for peace, Germany industry doesn't have to deal with strategic bombing. Even if Barbarossa does peter out in the brutal winter of 41-42, with remnants of the Red Army east of the Urals, Germany is in a much better place in the spring of 1942 economically, tactically, and strategically.
Also, kudos for what was said about the New Deal. Because history is written by the victors, in the US, schoolchildren are taught how great it and all of Roosevelt's other progressive policies were, and that he saved the US economy. In reality, Roosevelt's policies prolonged and exasperated the Great Depression, and gave birth to the mentality of entitlement and government dependence that curses America today.
LOL. Maritime alliances always defeating continental alliances? How about industrialized powers with strong domestic industry and resource extraction always crush hapless fouls who don't have either? How about countries with military industrial complexes that can handle mass and with large populations always defeat those who don't?
As the situation is today, I agree with you. In 1940 however, those maritime powers are the British Empire and the unmobilized USA neither of which Germany was able to defeat.
So, why did Germany still attack Britain with the Luftwaffe, and only half heartedly create an invasion force, which by your reckoning, wouldn’t have stood a chance crossing the Channel? Something doesn’t add up with this argument!
what doesn't stack up is that they're comparing what was needed to invade UK by what was needed for D-Day. Europe was a fortress, the UK was a coconut shy. There was bugger all to stop them landing in the UK save for a few fixed fortifications of varying but mostly low quality and a few divisions that were properly equipped. Cant really equate the two.
(and the RAF of course)
The Royal navy against the river barges they were talking about would have been a nonstarter. The battle of Britain was initiated because Britain wouldn't surrender and Hitler didn't want 2 fronts while invading the Soviet union which was his plan all along.
I think part of the reason why Stalin was so paralysed with shock over Barbarossa is because he was planning to invade Germany himself the next summer when his forces were more prepared. Hitler probably knew this and is why he pushed on after the Greece delay
It was a mistake. Germany should have ceased attacking Britain after the Fall of France which would have made it much more politically difficult for Britain.
fantastic... but what if... i mean... why does hitler attack russia if not attacked first?
He wouldn't as he would have Mideast oil.
Still wants lebensraum. That and oil were the reasons for invasion of the Soviet union
Hitler ALWAYS intended to attack Russia. It was his secondary goal from day one.
Arras was nothing more than a handful of Matilda Is that got seen off.
Battle of Arras (21 May 1940)
All very interesting, thanks!
Just saying as a Canadian... What's the implication for Canada? Seems huge if the UK is knocked out. Canada along with the U.S. is one of the few countries that actually prospered from WWII. Just a few bullet points to consider:
• Canada enters WWII in September 1939 like the UK
• Navy plays a significant role in the North Atlantic, escorts, merchants ships, etc.
• Air Force squadrons are pretty much born in the UK
• Natural resources sent to Europe, pilot training in Canada, etc.
• No Juno beach in France or Canadians landing in Italy?
• Does Canada focus on the Pacific instead?
• Don't see German U-boats disappearing from eastern Canadian waters
• Does the U.S and Canada island hop in the Atlantic instead?
• Does D-day happen in the UK instead?
• Does the Royal family escape to Canada?
All pretty crazy, LOL
Get out of WWII for one of these. Waterloo or Zama might be a nice change.
Great lnformation!
❤
It's better than D-Day episode but I'm so not a fan at all of Chris Copson. His speech pattern makes it hard for me to follow what he's saying and he goes onto side tangents, and I think he struggles to imagine the what if of history. He's just very hard for me to pay attention to.
FEAR NAUGHT gentlemen.
Battle idea? Germany wins at Kursk?
Brings to mind Hannibal defeating Rome
DRC'd.
Pervertin?