See post 35, where I state my thinking and agree that the time-scale is too aggressive.I see a lot of problems here. For one, I don't think it's terribly realistic for the first man on the moon to land in 1956. Spaceflight required a lot of technological leaps, not in the least computers, and AFAIK most of them weren't available in the '50s.
This TL postulates an isolationist and economically much less powerful USA, the British take the role against the Nazis that the OTL USA took vs the USSR.Furthermore, I can't see the USA sitting idly by, watching the Nazis reach space first. IMHO I imagine a space race similar to OTL with the Americans winning, mostly because of the emigration of Jewish scientists and America's pure economic might.
Sorry but you are incorrect, I was describing a sub-orbital space-plane which is theoretically more than capable of that performance.I'll admit that I don't know a whole lot about Avro. However, I cannot imagine any plane reaching a place that far away in three hours. Something going that speed inside the atmosphere would run into so many problems, from air resistance to control issues to a pure lack of safety. IMHO this is pure ASB.
Again see post 35.Mars? Again, I can't imagine such a massive technological leap forward in this TL that would be required. Hell, NASA is having issues getting a manned mission to Mars in 2000s. Unless technology in this TL grows at an ASB rate, there's no way a mission to Mars, never mind colonization, could happen.
All quite correct IIRC, however, becasue of lend-lease, the British turned more of their industrial capacity over to the war than any other nation, abandoning many export markets etc. This had a more long-term disasterous effect on the British economy than the near bankruptcy. I'm also suggesting that some of the cash and carry purchases could have been cancelled, although that is speculation on my part.If I correctly recall, Lend Lease only started when ALL of Britain's foreign investments in the Americas (and I think this meant both North and South America, not just in the USA) had been liquidated.
I've read somewhere that the US administration believed Britain had a considerably greater pool of investments to draw on than was in fact the case. The period whilst these assets were being used was known as the 'Cash and Carry' period as Britain was still effectively paying for its war material as and when purchased.
So at the POD, being two months after the start of Lend Lease, Britain is effectively already bankrupt and its war fighting capacity exists solely as a result of the USA financial life support.
Again all quite correct, however none of that would necessarily happen in this scenario as there has been no lend-lease there shouldn't be a crisis caused by coming off lend-lease. BTW IIRC lend-lease goods in transit at the end of hostilities were paid for, although at bargain prices.Also the last repayment made in December 2007 did not relate to Lend Lease (in which, apart from the 'Destroyers for bases' swap, war material was supplied on a use or return basis) but was the final installment of the loan made by the USA at the request of Clement Atlee's post war UK government to provide liquidity as a result of the financial crisis that occurred immediately Lend Lease was stopped at the end of WWII. Ironically, one of the conditions that the USA insisted upon was Sterling Convertability - this triggered an immediate drastic fall in the value of Sterling which immediately consumed much of the value of the loan!
Might these crises, though not as severe, be expected to occur in late 1941 ITL?.
The British were clearly in deep, deep financial trouble in 1941, I must admit I rather hand-waved that away with the statement that "the economy quickly recovers from the short war".