Allies getting the Atomic Bomb Before Dday

nbcman

Donor
270,000+ dead inflicted by the Allies
by one secondary source. Anyone have any reliable sources for French civilians killed directly in WWII?
According to the Wiki page for WWII Casualties for France, they cite the following:
Civilian losses of 390,000 include:(60,000 killed in bombardments, 60,000 in land fighting, 30,000 murdered in executions, 60,000 political deportees, 40,000 workers in Germany, 100,000 victims of Nazi genocide (Jews & Roma) and 40,000 French nationals in the German Armed forces who were conscripted in Alsace-Lorraine

The citation listed at the end of the line is Gregory Frumkin, Population Changes in Europe Since 1939, Geneva 1951. pp. 60–65. The book can be accessed here if anyone is a member of the Oxford Academic International Affairs site:

https://academic.oup.com/ia/article-abstract/30/4/500/2709752

EDIT: added missing link to WWII Casualties wiki page.
 
Last edited:
581px-Charnwood.svg.png

A important logistics center for 7th Army was distributed around Falise. Detonate it over those supply dumps and service units, plus any replenishing combat units. That's likely to aggravate the already bad supply situation.

I can't recall where the 7th army HQ was. I can say that when I was paid to plan such things HQ were at the top of our Target priority. Logistics were high on the list. Combat units usually near the bottom.
 
The easiest way to get a speed up of six months or so is to NOT have the MAUD reports sit in Lyman Briggs' desk drawer from March to August, but instead have the US start work immediately.
 
The easiest way to get a speed up of six months or so is to NOT have the MAUD reports sit in Lyman Briggs' desk drawer from March to August, but instead have the US start work immediately.

More or less what I was getting at. The Brits 1939-1941 made the stillborn French research look like a model of speed & focus. I don't accuse the Brits of incompetence in this. The concept was at the far edge of hypothetical & attention was directed at other clearly possible things, like the radar projects. Perhaps had the RN done like the USN & started a nuclear power research project in 1939 a sense of focus & urgency might have been gained. A different goal certainly, but much of the laboratory work overlapped & the overall principles were the same, only differing in the scale or volume of energy release over time.
 
More or less what I was getting at. The Brits 1939-1941 made the stillborn French research look like a model of speed & focus. I don't accuse the Brits of incompetence in this. The concept was at the far edge of hypothetical & attention was directed at other clearly possible things, like the radar projects. Perhaps had the RN done like the USN & started a nuclear power research project in 1939 a sense of focus & urgency might have been gained. A different goal certainly, but much of the laboratory work overlapped & the overall principles were the same, only differing in the scale or volume of energy release over time.
The trouble is that the RN was preoccupied with more immediate concerns, so it's asking a bit to have them put any effort into developing nuclear power sources for submarines that probably won't be useful for the current war. It might be easier if you move the fundamental physics development (the discovery of fission) up a bit, which is relatively easy, so that people start thinking about nuclear energy in, say, 1937 instead of 1939. Then the RN probably would have a nuclear reactor program, because it wouldn't be obvious in 1937 that they would have a war before they could develop something useful.
 
... people start thinking about nuclear energy in, say, 1937 instead of 1939. Then the RN probably would have a nuclear reactor program, because it wouldn't be obvious in 1937 that they would have a war before they could develop something useful.

A test power device aboard a experimental ship circa 1944....
 
Top