We probably would have used processes rather more economical as the Manhattan project.
As others have noted, we had access to plenty.
Remember that I’m postulating a longer war, with consequent rapid development.
If we extend the time of the war without US being involved here are some changes.
Battle of the Alantic gets won by Germany. Britian did not have the destroyers to protect the convoys. In 1940 and 41 Germany was sinking merchant ships faster than they could be launched. I was watching this on the History chanel this morning. The British were giving little new equipment to the coastal comand. And without as many subs being sunk the number of ocean going subs increases more ships get sunk. If war supplies are sent to England in US bottoms they would be sunk thus bring the US into the war. So no US ships.
With out the massive bombing that the US and England were doing in Germany more of the jet fighters get built, and they were fully operational. Eliminate the fighter escorts from the bombers then eliminate the bombers. And more bombers will be able to reach England because of the ptotection.
By 1941 England had been fighting the war two years. She had put a lot of her existing supplies into the battle. Germany had been expanding her boarders gaining supplies.
But if you change one thing then other things can change besides. Germany under Hitler made many mistakes. and then there would have been a different set of mistakes which could have lead to the same end.
A longer war probably would have delayed the development of a British atomic bomb. You have to remember that nuclear weapons were seen as a long shot. It was the kind of program that would normally be shut down during wartime so that money could be spent on more immediate needs like building battleships and planes and tanks. The United States was pretty much the only country that could afford to work on a pie-in-the-sky project like atom bombs while also fighting a war. (To get a sense of perspective, the entire American spending for WWII was two hundred and eighty-eight billion dollars. Of that, twenty billion was spent on the Manhattan Project.) The United Kingdom couldn’t so they shut down their nuclear program for the duration. The Germans and the Soviets had nuclear programs but they were really research programs. The Germans were defeated without coming close to building a bomb and the Soviets only got serious about their developemt program after Hiroshima.
Indeed, that certainly is a distinct possibility.
In general, I agree. GB would have lost the Battle of the Atlantic by itself.
I think you are very much underestimating the role played by the Canadian Navy in the war.It expanded massively and by the end of the war was the third largest navy in the world and had more vessels on convoy duties in the North Atlantic than the British Navy.
Further, it has been argued (unfortunately I no longer have the book) that the losses in the Battle of the Atlantic were not as devastating to the UK as widely believed- that the merchant vessel losses remained a small percentage of shipping available. Basically, Churchill was exaggerating the effect to obtain as much help from the USA as possible. That may be the subject of a different thread though.
They did remain a small percentage of shipping available because of the Liberty ships, Victory ships and other replacements. I do not know how many ship yards Canada had. I do know that Canada later in the war did recieve some of the Fletcher DDs. How many jeep carriers did Canada have?
Bit of a strange question as the jeep carriers were used in a variety of roles apart from convoy protection.
The snark was recognised btw.
But I believe they were the only carriers that were assigned convoy duty.
Let me rephase. How many Canadian carriers were there?
I think you already know that the Canadian Navy didn’t operate carriers until after the war. Perhaps you could be asking "How many u-boats did jeep carriers sink as opposed to corvettes, destroyers and similar escort carriers?
( I realise that question is very simplistic as you can’t calculate deterence factors or how many u-boats were forced away).
Jeep carriers were not the only carriers assigned to convoy duty. Fleet carriers were used to cover convoys- particularly in the relief of Malta and in the Arctic.
Err… no. Rommel drove the British army back across the north African desert twice - once in early 1941, once in June 1942. Monty took charge of 8th Army in August 1942, so it’s a bit unfair to blame him for this.
And in any case, one could argue that Rommel himself suffered an equal number of “lightning fast” strikes in the other direction, but that’s probably a hijack.
My opinion on the OP? Would have been touch and go, but it was touch and go anyway. ISTR Alan Clark’s book Barbarossa claimed that the critical decision on the east front was in August/September 1941 when Hitler diverted Army Group Centre south, away from Moscow, in order to complete the encirclement at Kiev. This led to a mass-surrender (600,000?) of Soviet troops but saved Moscow, at least according to Clark.
Good way of putting it.
And its not just “money”. The whole atomic bomb development thing was exeedingly material and ENERGY intensive (IIRC the program also ate up a surprising amount of America’s total energy production as well). Its not like you just pay a bunch of smart people who werent doing anything else productive for the war effort to just think about it really hard and you’d have the answer after awhile.
Then there is the fact that Britian would have all these massive, expensive, high tech, and delicate facilities exposed to bombings. You would need to maintian very good air superioty to keep those things running. Without any kind of American support for their war effort, I don’t see Britian keeping near total air superiority over their homeland either.
I wouldnt go so far as to say German or British development of the bomb would be impossible, but IMO they just didnt have the very favorable conditions, resources, or massive ability to “spend” like America did at the time. It certainly wouldnt be in the range of “trying a little harder and taking a little longer”.
There are couple good books on the development of the bomb. Makes for some amazing reading.
Any development would have likely been in Canada.
The technology which defeated the u-boats was almost all British-driven. Only if Doenitz was more prescient than he was historically, and got electroboats on the fast track did he have a chance of changing the course of the ocean war, extra US escorts or not.
With reference to the development of the bomb, I would imagine the UK and Germany had a slight problem about space for a testing ground as well. I suppose as an A Bomb wasn’t needed to defeat Germany it is a moot point. (as history stands)
Yes I know that was the point I was making. Durring the “Happy times” the sinkings were mainly in the area with no air cover.
Fair point. But if America wasnt in WW2, would Canada have been?
And what were the GDPs and populations of Canada and Britian compared to America at the time?
If it took 15 percent or so of the total American war effort, imagine what the percentage would have been for Britian (who is struggling mightly to stay ahead of the game) or Canada, (which is more like one of America’s more populated states).
Compared to all the other countries, America was big, rich, high tech, highly industrialized, and had near peacetime conditions back home and even then I consider the Manhatten project to be a near miracle.
You can say “it would just take longer”, but in an all out war, you are burning through your resources, abilities, and moral like a drunk redneck who just won the lottery. You may well not HAVE that extra time to develop the bomb before you are out of those in a war that last years longer than the real WW2 did.
I forget the model number but Germany got one Walter Boat on patrol. It found a convoy just after Germany surendered. The Captial wanted to know how good his boat really was. He managed to get into the center of the convoy preformed a mock attack, then surfaced next to a ship and surrendered. So extend the war and more of the new Walter Boats. Another factor.
Canada declared war on Germany on the 10th September 1939, so yes.
Ummm- Billfish, I am not sure I am completely understanding you so forgive me if I have it wrong, but Canada was in WW2 (and WW1) long before the USA.
Snipe, long range aircraft such as Liberators also were instrumental in narrowing the gap so I doubt whether the credit can be solely given to jeep carriers.
And Baron Greenback beat me to it!
Fair enough (and true enough 
). But how much of that decision could be attributed to them hoping the Americans would be along eventually and would they have stayed or keep up their level of involvement without US involvement as the thing dragged on and on?
Don’t get me wrong, Canadians did a lot, and maybe even more than “their fair share” so to speak based on GDP/population/vested interest…
But, you can’t really say America’s involvement wasnt that big a deal and then turn around and say “thank gawd for the Canadians”. IMO the basic numbers don’t support such thinking.