Anglo-German Peace Treaty in 1941

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.
See post 35, where I state my thinking and agree that the time-scale is too aggressive.
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.
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.
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.
Sorry but you are incorrect, I was describing a sub-orbital space-plane which is theoretically more than capable of that performance.

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.
Again see post 35.
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.
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.

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?.
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.

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".
 
Anglo German Peace Treaty

Thankfully it didn't happen as the consequences would not have been those in the scenario. Britain would on the surface have a good dealin that the Empire would have been preserved minus a few former German Colonies. Reamrament in the United States was well advanced and on projected expenditure, the United States was heading towards overtaking Britain by 1942/3 which she actually did and the Japanese would probably have done the same. Britain would soon have to fact the problem of hanging on to India which given the size of the population would have meant a long war of attrition which Britain couldn't win in the long run. Any government would be right wing although not as bad as Vichy and may well have looked forward to the Soviet Union being beaten. Hitler could have built up the U-boat arm with electroboats, hydrogen peroxide submarines and schnorkel craft to seal the Atlantic to neutralise the Royal Navy.

Ultimately there would be war between the nuclear superpowers of the United States and Nazi Germany. Nazi Germany was aggressive and expansionist Russia prior to being invaded was defensive and isolationist. John Lukacs has pointed out the flaws in the revisionist approach. An interesting but ratherv tendencious scenario is found in Newt Gingrich and William Forschens 1946 but I think it would take more than Sergeant York raising a posse to save the day.

As things turned out at least Britain effectively ceased to be an major power in what was a good cause rather than ignomoniously and being kicked out of various colonies after long wars as happened to France in Alegria and Indo China
 
I'd say that it is a question of will not just technology. Wernher von Braun started planning a Mars mission in the 1940's, using extrapolated V2 level technology. Before and after the Apollo moon landings, NASA made plans to go to Mars, pencilling the first mission in for the 70's/80's. The issues weren't technological, the money/political will wasn't there.

You know, saying "The issues were not technical" is not proof that the issue was not technical.

I'm postulating the rocket program being the top priority of the German state in the same way it was for the USSR, but in a far richer country with a far better technological base, and without the dislocation caused by losing the war.

And a state which thinks physics is a Jewish science.
 
Thankfully it didn't happen as the consequences would not have been those in the scenario. Britain would on the surface have a good dealin that the Empire would have been preserved minus a few former German Colonies. Reamrament in the United States was well advanced and on projected expenditure, the United States was heading towards overtaking Britain by 1942/3 which she actually did and the Japanese would probably have done the same.
I'm postulating a much worse great depression in the USA. However I've already accepted that the USA would not be as weak as I originally suggested.
Britain would soon have to fact the problem of hanging on to India which given the size of the population would have meant a long war of attrition which Britain couldn't win in the long run.
I'm postulating no humiliating defeats (e.g. Singapore), Dominion Status and Home Rule reduce the pressure for independence.
Any government would be right wing although not as bad as Vichy and may well have looked forward to the Soviet Union being beaten.
I can't see how Britain could be right wing for long if there were elections, the population was heading leftwards and Labour would be in government by the late forties if not sooner IMO.
Hitler could have built up the U-boat arm with electroboats, hydrogen peroxide submarines and schnorkel craft to seal the Atlantic to neutralise the Royal Navy.
Quite possibly, not something I cover in the scenario though.
Ultimately there would be war between the nuclear superpowers of the United States and Nazi Germany.
I've been working on a more detailed scenario for the British bomb and surprisingly enough, I think it's doable, for two reasons: the American project was geared towards power generation until the British pointed out that a bomb was feasible, and most of the Uranium and Heavy Water are in Canada. ITTL less US vs Canadian/British cooperation would slow the US project and speed the British one.
Nazi Germany was aggressive and expansionist Russia prior to being invaded was defensive and isolationist. John Lukacs has pointed out the flaws in the revisionist approach.
The last thing I want to be accused of is being a any kind of right-wing revisionist. I'm not remotely pro-nazi, I'm not even a conservative. This is just an interesting scenario for me.
An interesting but ratherv tendencious scenario is found in Newt Gingrich and William Forschens 1946 but I think it would take more than Sergeant York raising a posse to save the day.
That's a 'Japan wins' scenario isn't it? They're not very popular here.;)
As things turned out at least Britain effectively ceased to be an major power in what was a good cause rather than ignomoniously and being kicked out of various colonies after long wars as happened to France in Alegria and Indo China
I agree with this.

You know, saying "The issues were not technical" is not proof that the issue was not technical.
True, but it seems pretty clear to me that there was no technological barrier to, for example, NASA's Mars plans given enough political will and funding. What issues do you feel there would have been?

And a state which thinks physics is a Jewish science.
IIRC the so called 'Deutsche Physik' was opposed to Relativity and to some extent Quantum Physics, not Physics in general. However, the loss of the Jewish scientists would most definitely impact Nazi science, as it did in OTL.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_physics
 
Top