Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Germany decides to finish the British

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by ljadw View Post
    Two other problems :

    from Berlin to New York and returning was 12800 km,with a cruise speed of 350km per hour this means a flight of 38 hours : no crew could pilot an aircraft during 38 hours .


    the problem of air superiority : an aircraft going from Berlin to New York should have to fly over the Northsea, UK, the Atlantic Ocean, without fighter protection ,and would be defenceless to allied air defence .It would never pass Britain .
    Who said bomb New York?

    I'd think London or Moscow would be better targets. Moscow has virtually zero night defense against air attack. The radar system is rather primitive compared to London / England's. If you wanted to ensure your Moscow attack was accurate, you arrive on target just after sunrise. You then fly West towards home still in the nautical twilight or even night staying ahead of sunrise.

    In the case of London use an He 177 or Do 217 the way the Luftwaffe came to in the mini-blitz. You climb to near maximum altitude then go into a shallow dive headed towards London. As soon as you release, you turn South and continue your dive out into the Bay of Biscay before turning back towards France.

    Comment


    • Gooner wrote:

      The UK alone spent £23.7 billion or $96 billion on the war so $2 billion is pretty cheap.
      The reason that the Manhattan Project was so expensive was that the US went for both uranium and plutonium bombs and tried all the various methods of enriching uranium, whereas Britain was only planning to build uranium bombs and, by luck or judgement, had hit on the most efficient method of enriching the fissile material. As a result I suspect that a British bomb would only have cost about 10% of what it cost the Americans.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Mycroft Holmes View Post
        Gooner wrote:



        The reason that the Manhattan Project was so expensive was that the US went for both uranium and plutonium bombs and tried all the various methods of enriching uranium, whereas Britain was only planning to build uranium bombs and, by luck or judgement, had hit on the most efficient method of enriching the fissile material. As a result I suspect that a British bomb would only have cost about 10% of what it cost the Americans.
        I might buy 50%, that is a billion dollars. The British would still have to build a massive number of centrifuges, would have to build power stations to run them, and then go through the process of enrichment on a massive scale to get enough material for a bomb. The cost of research would be much lower as they could piggy back off the US's research.

        Also, just building uranium bombs means that Britain would have just a handful at most available for use. You need plutonium to mass produce bombs. That's why the US and then everybody else built cheap (relatively speaking) graphite moderated fast fission reactors to make the stuff.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
          . The cost of research would be much lower as they could piggy back off the US's research.
          You seem to be forgetting that the US piggy backed off the original British research (Tube Alloys). You also seem to be ignoring that a lot of the materials for the bomb were sourced in Canada. A British weapon program would have had access to Canadian resources and facilities.

          When the US screwed over the UK by refusing to honour its agreements about nuclear weapons, the UK started its own program from scratch in 1946. They had a bomb by early 1952.

          If the UK had continued their own program in 1942, I think they would have a a bomb by 1947 or 1948.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by AdrianE View Post
            You seem to be forgetting that the US piggy backed off the original British research (Tube Alloys). You also seem to be ignoring that a lot of the materials for the bomb were sourced in Canada. A British weapon program would have had access to Canadian resources and facilities.
            It was hardly one-sided. Both nations contributed to the development of a bomb. Even cursory research shows that.

            The British and Americans exchanged nuclear information but did not initially combine their efforts. Britain rebuffed attempts by Bush and Conant in 1941 to strengthen cooperation with its own project, codenamed Tube Alloys, because it was reluctant to share its technological lead and help the United States develop its own atomic bomb.[54] An American scientist who brought a personal letter from Roosevelt to Churchill offering to pay for all research and development in an Anglo-American project was poorly treated, and Churchill did not reply to the letter. The United States as a result decided as early as April 1942 that if its offer was rejected, they should proceed alone.[55] The British, who had made significant contributions early in the war, did not have the resources to carry through such a research program while fighting for their survival. As a result, Tube Alloys soon fell behind its American counterpart.[56] and on 30 July 1942, Sir John Anderson, the minister responsible for Tube Alloys, advised Churchill that: "We must face the fact that*... [our] pioneering work*... is a dwindling asset and that, unless we capitalise it quickly, we shall be outstripped. We now have a real contribution to make to a 'merger.' Soon we shall have little or none."[57] That month Churchill and Roosevelt made an informal, unwritten agreement for atomic collaboration.[58]
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Project

            When the US screwed over the UK by refusing to honour its agreements about nuclear weapons, the UK started its own program from scratch in 1946. They had a bomb by early 1952.
            It was hardly one-sided. So that really doesn't fly either.

            The opportunity for an equal partnership no longer existed, however, as shown in August 1942 when the British unsuccessfully demanded substantial control over the project while paying none of the costs. By 1943 the roles of the two countries had reversed from late 1941;[55] in January Conant notified the British that they would no longer receive atomic information except in certain areas. While the British were shocked by the abrogation of the Churchill-Roosevelt agreement, head of the Canadian National Research Council C. J. Mackenzie was less surprised, writing "I can't help feeling that the United Kingdom group [over] emphasizes the importance of their contribution as compared with the Americans."[58] As Conant and Bush told the British, the order came "from the top".[59]
            The British bargaining position had worsened; the American scientists had decided that the United States no longer needed outside help, and they wanted to prevent Britain exploiting post-war commercial applications of atomic energy. The committee supported, and Roosevelt agreed to, restricting the flow of information to what Britain could use during the war—especially not bomb design—even if doing so slowed down the American project. By early 1943 the British stopped sending research and scientists to America, and as a result the Americans stopped all information sharing. The British considered ending the supply of Canadian uranium and heavy water to force the Americans to again share, but Canada needed American supplies to produce them.[60] They investigated the possibility of an independent nuclear program, but determined that it could not be ready in time to affect the outcome of the war in Europe.[61]
            Same basic source.

            If the UK had continued their own program in 1942, I think they would have a a bomb by 1947 or 1948.
            Wartime conditions were different. Britain couldn't devote anywhere near the resources they could post war to this project, and history shows that. 1952 is probably still a good number. That's still likely 10 + years ahead of Germany. That's how bad the German program was.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
              Depending on when it happened, I could variously see:

              Germany returns Norway, the Netherlands, Denmark, Luxembourg, and Belgium to self-rule and neutrality.

              Possible. I think that a sweetener would be to make some minor financial concession to rebuilding bridges etc. damaged. At this phase of the war those wouldn't be wrecked totally and some 'restoration' of the neutrals would be positively viewed.

              Germany holds the Alsace and other border regions of France they lost after WW 1.

              Agreed. Kind of a 'restoration' of the pre-Versailles stuff. I think the Brits wouldn't see that as unreasonable.

              France is allowed to return to self-rule with reparations made to Germany.

              Agreed. And a return of the majority of their lands minus the aforementioned bits. Maybe a clause on the French Military to require lower funding until reparations are made.....something to ensure French neutrality for the next several years.

              In the Middle East, things would be more complicated. What would Britain want versus Italian goals? Maybe much of the Middle East is given over to self-rule rather than remaining under colonial control.

              I don't think the Brits would agree to that. Maybe the French would agree to giving up some of their colonial possessions in return for not losing Paris and all their European possessions of note? The Italians might be contented with Algeria for instance? Or Algeria and Morocco, with the Germans holding North Morocco and therefore one half of the control to entering the Med? The Brits might really bitch about Morocco as it would put Gibraltar in a tight spot, but they certainly wouldn't be as upset about Algeria, as that would turn Italian attentions AWAY from their own possessions.

              Britain might also want Germany to end all aid to Japan if the Pacific War were going.

              Considering that Germany has no dog in that fight, and nothing to lose vice Japan, I'd go for that if I were them. Offer to put Diplomatic Pressure on Japan to terminate hostilities, and refuse to provide them with further support?

              Poland would certainly remain divided under German and Soviet control. I can't see either nation giving up their portion in a negotiated peace.
              It might be possible that a Jewish state is carved out somewhere to let Jews in Europe leave rather than be slaughtered.
              possibly
              Tacitos, Satrap of Kyrene

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
                Good points. I think that is why the core question before any others is if peace is possible, and if so, what would it look like?

                Lets ignore real-life personality issues and consider just what peace settlement would/could look like if Germany was determined to settle the issue before going to war elsewhere.

                If Germany's goal is to secure peace with the U.K. while maintaining certain non-negotiable territorial gains (Danzig, Czechoslovakia) while strongly desiring other gains (parts of Poland, Alsace-Lorraine), then how would they go about doing it?

                One imagines that if after the Fall of France, Germany went defensive (no BoB, no talk about invasion, strong peace feelers and concessions made to the Vichy French government) then the U.K. would struggle to maintain a war footing.

                After all, in 1940 there was no promise of eventual victory. Germany was allied with the USSR, Europe had been conquered with a speed never before seen, and the U.K. was on the back foot. An actual offer of peace - one that left the U.K. essentially unmolesed - would be enticing.

                In the end I think the U.K. would have certain mandatory requirements, such as the restoration of independence to Western Europe, with perhaps some concessions to areas with "German" populations. But the U.K. wouldn't accept peace where France was left as a German puppet, with German military units occupying major French ports and utilizing their economy for Germany's benefit.

                All of that makes sense and is quite doable in my opinion. As long as Germany was magnanimous - doing nothing worse than, say, dismantling French fortifications and implementing a DMZ on the French border for some years - but left those nations alone, then peace could break out.

                Except for Poland. That is the biggest sticking point. I imagine the U.K. would be quite adamant that Poland would have to remain independent, even if Germany demanded Danzig.

                What makes that even more difficult to overcome is the fact that half of Poland was taken by the Soviets. The best case scenario for the Allies would be a diminished Poland left behind, landlocked and trapped between Germany and the USSR.

                Likewise, German ideology and a focus on living space in the east means Germany would probably not look upon giving back Poland as easily as they would for Belgium.

                I think Poland would be able be one of the biggest sticking points for negotiations.
                It was only later in the war that the full horror of the holocaust emerged. In the early phases, Hitler could have attempted the moral high ground, Germany was wronged and bullied by its WWI surrender terms. It probably needs Churchill gone in some internal British power struggle, but potentially a 'peace movement' gains the upper hand and will negotiate.

                Historically, Britain has not tolerated an opponent who can menace the Channel and nearby Atlantic facing ports. Potentially Germany could have got Alsace, Austria, Poland and Czecholovakia in such a deal, depending on the personalities involved. Humiliation of France by disarmament, financial penalties etc might also have been acceptable, so long as France, less territorial concessions, Belgium, Holland was freed. Such a deal might have been sellable to a British public still raw from the loss of life a generation earlier.

                It's not a likley scenario and it would be a highly unstable situation going forwards, but possible with the right twists of fate.
                Last edited by Escape2Victory; 26 Oct 16, 15:42.
                Ne Obliviscaris, Sans Peur

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Escape2Victory View Post

                  Historically, Britain has not tolerated an opponent who can menace the Channel and nearby Atlantic facing ports. Potentially Germany could have got Alsace, Austria, Poland and Czecholovakia in such a deal, depending on the personalities involved. Humiliation of France by disarmament, financial penalties etc might also have been acceptable, so long as France, less territorial concessions, Belgium, Holland was freed. Such a deal might have been sellable to a British public still raw from the loss of life a generation earlier.
                  Does anyone seriously think that someone like Hitler would have even considered these conditions.

                  Comment

                  Latest Topics

                  Collapse

                  Working...
                  X