The hope that the Americans would be along eventually wasn’t confined to the Canadians - it was one of Churchill’s main political objectives, and one of the things that kept morale in Britain high. There was by all accounts a collective sigh of relief when America fully joined the war. The famous “We shall fight on the beaches” speech is usually quoted with the last part left off (bolding mine)
I agree that Britain would not have had the Bomb in 1945, but I don’t believe that it would have been long after. But the decision was made that the atom bomb was feasible within the scope of the war - the opposite decision was made in Germany. You may find this Wiki article of interest.
As for test sites, Britain had no shortage: Canada and Australia both come to mind.
Even worse. Monty went into it with eyes open and plenty of evidence of German tactics, yet continued to try to play the game his own way. Even after Monty’s arrival on the scene, Rommel continued to anticipate his every move and wreak havoc with his defenses/offenses. This continued into the European Campaign after Africa was secured; it’s the opinion of many (not all) that Monty’s foot-dragging unnecessarily prolonged the war. Rommels equal was Patton, who should probably have been let off the leash earlier and more often. The Germans were very nervous about Patton and respected his abilities as a tactician and warrior. Ike saw him as a bit of a loose canon, of course. But this digresses from the OP once again. 
has anyone defined “won” yet?
clearly there’s a wide spectrum of possibilities of what could have happened, with the Nazis being closed in on both fronts until convergence/unconditional surrender of Japan on one end of the spectrum and utter Fascist domination on the other end.
is “winning” qualified only by the joining of the easter/western fronts and an unconditional surrender? is a mutual peace treaty considered “winning” ?
isn’t it obvious that without US support the pacific theater would have been lost no matter how splendidly Russia, UK, and Canada performed?
As I’ve written in other threads of this ilk…
I think people underestimate the strength of the UK…and to a lesser extent the Soviet Union.
I agree with the poster that if U.S. had stayed completely neutral (and was allowed to by Japan) then the war would have ended in 1949 or so with Soviet domination over Europe and England would never have fallen.
I think that it’s mistaken to consider these arguments as you do. The stakes weren’t higher for the Allies-Germany also was considering their own homeland. The Germans knew blamed well that they’d lose their freedom, as the Treaty of Versailles clearly illustrated. The whole of the nation wasn’t planning on winning the war so that they could kill Jews. If Hitler had not had the additional burden of fighting the Americans, he may not have had the mental pressures that he did. I, also, don’t put too much stock in his being portrayed as irrational (except for attacking the USSR, but, hey…). He was clearly irrational in the last week of his life, at times, but other than that, it may only have been a reaction to bad events that make his judgement look bad. If 5 guys are kicking the crap out of you, any decision that you make is going to be looked upon as irrational, because you will lose. Point being, if he wasn’t fighting Americans, Operation Walkure wouldn’t have happened, because they would probably have been winning. The generals, instead of plotting against Hitler, could be doing a good job in the East, and may have won the war for the Germans by that time.
Best wishes,
hh
So that whole genocide thing Hitler had going on back into the thirties doesn’t strike you as sign he was one schnitzel short of a happy meal?
Not too much to add on the OP-- I’m in the camp that U.S. aid was essential to victory. Without it, Britain and the USSR are unlikely to survive, let alone win. Britain might hold off to a standstill, whatever that looked like, but the USSR can’t survive past 1942 without the tremendous (and really, it was tremendous) amount of assistance given by the U.S. and other allies.
No denigration of national capabilities or contributions involved; facts only.
That said, one point barely touched on in this thread but also important to the discussion: if we assume complete U.S. neutrality, than we also have to ask what the Japanese are doing at this time. How would U.S. neutrality affect Japanese plans in Siberia? If the Japanese were emboldened to be more threatening than they really were-- or even willing to risk war-- the Soviets suffer a DOUBLE whammy: no U.S. assistance, AND their reserves in Siberia are kept east when they were needed the most during the Battle of Moscow.
Obviously, luck and fortune could have saved Britain and/or the USSR. But even with U.S. aid, luck and fortune DID save them… without U.S. involvement, they’re left hoping to draw an inside straight flush.
Twice in a row 
Germany would have never been able to take USSR, never.
IMO thats just totally wishful thinking. Not fantasy, but headed in that direction.
Well, without the impetus of war the first UK bomb was in 1952, and that was after a good few years of hugely expensive non-war social infrastructure rebuilding and retrenchment. A uranium injection bomb doesn’t strike me as being impossible by the very late 1940’s or very early 1950s given an empire on a war footing. Remember that the Manhattan project was developing two technologies at the same time, only one of which needed testing before deployment. We’d only need to be better than Germany after all.
What facts are those?
The war used up a lot more money than postwar social spending did. So if the lesser spending of social programs delayed them until 1952, the greater spending of fighting a war would have delayed them further.
Nobody knew at the time which method was going to work. The British would have felt pretty silly if they spend ten billion pounds working on the wrong one.
Nobody at the time knew if EITHER method would work.
Thats a hell of a lot of work to put into something that very well may not work, be practical, or remotely cost effective when you are spending all you can on conventional warfare to stay alive or at least even with your enemy.
No, sorry, that’s just nonsense. Wars only mean more money for military research.
I’ve been trying for a few minutes now to find a map showing the industrial output of the nations involved, but I can’t find any. The bigger industry will defeat the smaller (although in the case of the USSR it makes quite a difference if it is captured).
Country 1938 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945
USA 800 869 943 1094 1235 1399 1499 1474
UK 284 287 316 344 353 361 346 331
France 186 199 164 130 116 110 93 101
Italy 141 151 147 144 145 137 117 92
USSR 359 366 417 359 274 305 362 343
Germany 351 384 387 412 417 426 437 310
Austria 24 27 27 29 27 28 29 12
Japan 169 184 192 196 197 194 189 144
Anyone still think anyone other than the US could afford to make the atomic bomb?
War means more money for immediate military needs. When Britain was fighting Germany, it was spending all the money it had on building ariplanes and warships and tanks. Research money was spent on ideas like radar, jet engines, and code breaking - projects which had the prospect of significant benefits in the near future. But a research project that would consume a tenth of your entire budget and, at best, might produce a weapon in five years? No way in hell.
Well, for beginners, I’m a semi-holocaust denier. (NO, I can’t explain what the semi-Holocaust was…I just have my doubts that the Genocide thing occurred the way we’ve been told) But, that aside, if there was a Holocaust, I believe that it was Himmler inspired, and Hitler may never have known about it.
*If *there was a Holocaust, and *if *Hitler did know about it, it’s my understanding that German genocide (by actual definition of ‘-cide,’ not the UN version) against the Jews wasn’t codified until the 40s.
Point being, he wasn’t irrational. Maybe mean, but, not irrational, given his own standards of morality.
Best wishes,
hh
If the Holocaust happened? If Hitler knew about it? Killing Jews was one of the pillars of Hitler’s political platform.
It’s not like there’s any serious argument to be made on these issues. The only people who are questioning them are those who haven’t learned enough history and those who have an agenda. I’m hoping you’re in the former group, “hh”, because ignorance is more readily curable.
Of course there was a Holocaust. All sides at the time were in agreement, even the Germans. Doubting this is like doubting that WWII happened at all, or that Harry Truman ever existed, just because you were born later.
Of course Hitler knew about it. He’d advocated it. He actually used the term “the Final Solution.” He funded it. His last words included a wish that it be completed.
No idea what that means. It kind of sounds like an agenda is buried in there somewhere.
Okay, now you’re onto something. The Wannsee Conference was in January 1942. It can legitimately be argued that before the Conference the policy toward the Jews had been haphazard and uncoordinated, and thus “not codified.”
A policy of hatred against the Jews does date back to the very first stirrings of Nazism (Nazi doctrine called for revoking Jewish citizenship as early as 1926), and laws and regulations followed as soon as the Nazis had the power to implement them without worrying about offending moderates, at least as early as 1933.
But you could make a reasonable case that Nazi antisemitic policy reached its ultimate culmination at Wannsee.
Not 100%, no, but the US was certainly confident enough in the uranium design to test it over Hiroshima.