How would the Far East be diffrent if no war in the Pacific

[Wendell]

So, would Japan be a more traditional society today, maybe with a thriving Jewish minority? Will Hitler still declare war against the U.S. without Japan?

 

[gaijin]

Japan

More traditional definately. But I have difficulty seeing where this Jewish minority would come from???

 

[Ward]

Wasn't the original question about what if Japan basically withdrew from China in 1941 rather than face war with the USA? They might not withdraw from Manchuria, but even in that case they don't have a very big "Chinese quagmire" to get bogged down in. If Japan remains neutral throughout WWII, they could marshal their resources and maybe develop better tanks to face a potential Soviet attack. In any case, in this ATL the Japanese might actually get help from the US if the Soviets went to war with them.

I never said they pulled out of Manchuria Just China .

 

[B_Munro]

It was very good at taking what others did, imitating it, then doing it better sometimes, or at least as well. That is how it industrialised - that is the pattern for eg with its battleships and naval air arm
Grey Wolf

"The Japanese are good at imitating other people, but lack the ability to create new stuff" is an old, old, bit of racist horseshit. Drop it.

The Japanese simply didn't have a big enough economy -yet - or enough trained scientists - yet - to build a bomb. Same thing with, say, Italy. But the scientists and engineers they _did_ have compared quite favorably with ones anywhere else in the world. If a Japan which had stayed out of WWII had decided it really, really wanted the bomb it almost certainly would have it before 1960. If such technological titans as Maoist China and Idira Ghandi's India could build the bomb, the Japanese certainly could do so.

As for the scenario: you can't get the Japanese to pull out of China in 1941 with a 1941 POD, the military were just too committed to some sort of victory and would never stand for the loss of face. You can have an _earlier_ POD: say, an assasination of Chiang Kai-Shek, leading to a fresh outbreak of Chinese civil war. Perhaps a brief Japanese intervention to prevent the Communists from consolidating their position in the north, and a withdrawl in 1941 as chaos deepens. As long as the Chinese keep fighting each other, the Japanese have nothing to worry about...

http://groups.google.com/group/soc....838?q="the+ishiwara"&rnum=56#58252d1d6bf1f838

http://groups.google.com/group/soc....ra+option"&qt_g=1&searchnow=Search+this+group

As for a couple of other points raised:

a US-German war even sans Pearl harbour is likely: there was pretty much an undeclared naval war going on by late 1941, thank to US lend-lease, which could easily boil over into actual warfare if Hitler wasn't very cautious - and that's not really typical of Hitler in 1941...

Hard to say what happens in China. If the Japanese play a good game of playing local rulers off against eachother, and supporting anti-Communist warlords when the Communists get too strong, there's a good chance they can keep China divided for a long time - if nobody interferes. However, the US, fresh from a victory against the fascists, will not be happy with such blatant interference in Chinese affairs, and will bring pressure against the Japanese.

Probably economic rather than military, though: the Cold war will be getting started, and the Japanese look like potential allies against the Soviets: the Japanese, meanwhile, can argue they are working to keep the Communists out of China. Stalin will probaby be very critical, but facing off with the US in central Europe, he's unlikely to start another war as long as Japan isn't getting much benefit out of it's meddling in China, and a weak, divided China is not something Stalin will particularly mind.

Will have to think on this a while longer. China will almost certainly be united by _someone_ eventually, but when this will happen, and whether this someone will be a communist, a hard-leftist of a different stripe, or a right-wing type is hard to say. Does Japan decide it can affort to let China go to hell it's own way? Does it intervene militarily to prevent a Communist takeover, perhaps with some US support? (Potentially very nasty for the Japanese, especially with the USSR smuggling tons of weapons over that thousands of miles long border) Does it try to sponsor a "friendly" warlord for the top spot?

There will not be a three-sided cold war, at least not at first: the Japanese are not strong enough to be a third player, and need trade and raw materials from the West and their colonies. Their economy in WWII was really hardly bigger than Italy's, although they made much better use of what they had. Even if the Japanese are fairly successful in modernizing their territories and don't lose Manchuria to a reunited China, they're unlikely to be in a position to compete with the big boys till the 1970's at least, and that's if the Japanese don't end up being undermined econmically by bleeding sores of colonial revolt or the suggested fresh swing into the Chinese quagmire to prevent a Communist takeover.

Cold war may be milder than OTL, and the US may miss out on Mcarthyism: no Korean war, and if China is "lost" by anyone, it will be by the Japanese. Also, Vietnam is quite likely avoided by the US: without the Japanese occupation, Vichy forces remain in control, and the Communists don't have the opportunities afforded by the chaos of war and it's aftermath. The French, however, won't be able to hold onto the place in the long run: they will face a nasty insurgence even without the territorial base the Vietmihn held in 1945, and colonialsm is on the way out even without the Japanese humiliation of European colonialists. At best they will be able to impose a semi-friendly government and get out semi-gracefully, at worst they will be driven out. A US less fixated on East Asia probably won't care, and will probably lack a seperate "south Vietnam" to support anyway.

Hmm - thought - the Japanese join the Allies in declaring war on the Germans as soon as it is clear the D-day landings have succeeded, so they can get a place at the victor's table...if there is a UN established, will there even _be_ a security council? It was OTL a "victors club" of WWII, but in this TL one of the "victorious" big powers is a late arrival which didn't do much to beat the Nazis, and looks a bit fascistic itself.


Bruce

 

[Derek Jackson]

I suspect that avoiding the Pacific War requires a POD from 1930 or earlier. I do not know Japanese internal politics well enough to be sure.

However there is another issue. Without Pearl Harbor the US involvement in WW2 would be later.

At the extreme end it is possible that Germany will conclude it is better to let America stay as it was. (By the way the US was acting in the best interests of humanity in the ways it was acting but frankly it is hard to argue that it was a genuine neutral by October 1941)

In that event the only nation able to really take on the Nazis would be the Soviet Union. It would have taken longer and been still bloodier but there is a real risk that Stalin would have all of Germany, Austria and Italy.

 

[Grey Wolf]

Oh sod it, I clearly don't know fuck so I'll butt out of these discussions

Grey Wolf

 

[jolo]

Afaik, the Kuomintang was a pretty stable government uniting the Chinese against the Japanese, at least during the war. That's why they were able to keep fighting against the Japanese even after loosing all of their coast line, Manchuria, and more.

Besides not declaring war against the US, Japan would have needed sth. else to win: full integration of the Chinese, without (most of) the racism and crimes they pursued in OTL. Otherwise, they'd have had to give up China after a few more years, and the Chinese would surely have liberated Manchuria and Korea after winning in the mainland.

My TL for a larger Japan:

- Avoiding the war against Russia in 1939 (maybe due to better coordination with Germany), and not attacking colonial possessions in Asia yet. Only the ones they can basically get for free (like Indochina, afaik) are taken. I suppose, if the Japanese had left British positions untouched, there would not be war between them over French or Dutch possessions. Concentrating on China, which should give Japan quite a few successes, considering what they achieved against far better equipped colonies.

- Better integration of the Chinese: A bilingual central government and parliament (with little actual decision making at the beginning), consisting of Japanese, Chinese, and others, to give their uniting-of-East-Asia propaganda some credibility. A Chinese army and Chinese in parts of the Imperial Army (I don't know to what extent that actually happened). Chinese scientists, workers and other valuable people given more opportunities in Japan. And so on.

- Less money and material for the fleet, more for tanks and guns. Would help both against China and in any war against surrounding nations.

After these changes in decision-making (a PoD to achieve that might involve some more civilian control over the military), the Japanese should progress far better in China, despite support for China by Russia (until 1941) and the US. Once they have the former Dutch and French colonies in South East Asia, oil should also not be that much of a problem. I suppose if the Japanese stick to a few rules in their war in China, the US will also not interfere.

Only when China is completely conquered (I suppose that would be possible by 1943) can other targets be aimed at. Russia might be possible, as it is getting in a better situation, and loosing Germany as an ally would make Asia pretty unsafe for Japan. British colonies in SE-Asia might also be worth it, though that means war with all of India and might mean war with the US.

I suppose Russia is the more likely choice. They are at their limits, they are a bigger future danger, they won't dismantle by themselves (as appeared to be possible with the British Empire at that time), and so on. So Russia is attacked at the end of 1943.

The US still gets into the war, as her help for GB and Russia has gotten so intense that Germany doesn't see any other way to win the war. But Japan doesn't declare war against the US (despite the Phillippines) to concentrate on Russia.

The Japanese will have some more problems when they expected, but they will also help slow down the retreat of the Germans. In the middle of 1944, the German-Russian frontier has stabilized, the Japanese have made some advances in the area around Mandchuria and a stable frontier around western China. Russia makes a separate peace with Germany and Japan, in which the Ukraine gets independent and lots of oil and other ressources have to be delivered to Germany and Japan.

After that, the Japanese attack the British colonies in SE-Asia. They are about as successful as IOTL, so the British are quickly out of the area. The US declares war on Japan, Japan frees the Phillippines and some other Asian-Pacific isles.

Italy has been taken by the Allies a year later than in OTL. D-Day happens pretty much on schedule. The better oil supply of the Axis means, their resistance is much tougher.

Still, by the end of 44, it is clear that the Axis cannot win. Japan decides to turn her Empire into some kind of Federation ruled by the Japanese Emperor, but with representation by population numbers in the parliament. The former Chinese Emperor happens to die by an "unfortunate car accident". A lot of investments are made to improve the lives of the people in the whole empire, and to convince the people of the union. Also, the people are given more and more civilian self rule. The new government lets the population of each state decide by popular vote whether to be part of that federation. The people overwhelmingly vote yes. At the same time, this Japanese-Chinese federation makes a little show out of "toppling" the Japanese military leadership, which is made responsible for the war, and asks for peace under the status quo. As the Germans are still a big problem and the Japanese are pretty successful at the time, the Allies agree.

Today, "Chipan" is the #1 superpower, with the US closely following after loosing her top position in the 70s.

 

[DuQuense]

?Wasn't there a Demand from the US that Japan withdraw from China? just before the Embargo was put in effect. The Japanese interpreted it to include Manchuria, and rejected it. If the translation was Clearer. so that Manchuria was excluded,
The Japanese arrange a Peace Treaty, that give them control of several of the Coastal Cities [aka Hong Kong]

Their military has the Coastal enclaves to show for the war, the Civilians talk about regaining control of the Military, and Japan continues to develop it's Korean and Manchurian Colonies. It withdraws from the Axis, loudly condemning Germany , and the Camps.
In the late forties it over take France, then Britain in the Fifties. By the late sixties. It's economy is larger than any European Country being # 3 or 4 in the world.

 

[Straha]

WHY would japan be worse off than OTL? IOTL it has the second largest economy... in the ATL I see it as being much better off than OTL...

 

[David S Poepoe]

Oh sod it, I clearly don't know fuck so I'll butt out of these discussions

Grey Wolf

If you are talking about the:

"It was very good at taking what others did, imitating it, then doing it better sometimes, or at least as well. That is how it industrialised - that is the pattern for eg with its battleships and naval air arm."

the thing is that you are right. That is undoubtedly what happened with alot of ideas, techniques, and later machines - and automobiles. Its historically proven that they adopted and adapted - as well as created anew - what they need to advance.

Regarding the development of an atomic bomb, I would recommend a recent History Channel show about the Japanese atom bomb project - or actually projects. Supposedly a nuclear device was detonated in what is modern day North Korea in the closing days of the Second World War. I guess we won't really know until North Korea decides to open its borders.

One of the good things about V-J Day has been the recent explosion of shows about the ending of the Pacific War.

 

[miketr]

"The Japanese are good at imitating other people, but lack the ability to create new stuff" is an old, old, bit of racist horseshit. Drop it.

Its not a question of racism if the Japanese of the time just didn't have enough engineers, scientists and the like to build stuff on their own. You yourself point this fact out! Did Japan come up with some very inventive and innovative things? Sure but a lot of stuff the Japanese had was built under licenses from foreign designs. The cold hard reality of Japans situation is not only did they have an industrial base smaller than Italy’s but far more of their population were farmers. Making the above statement is not racist if its fact especially if viewed within context of the statement.

The Japanese simply didn't have a big enough economy -yet - or enough trained scientists - yet - to build a bomb. Same thing with, say, Italy. But the scientists and engineers they _did_ have compared quite favorably with ones anywhere else in the world. If a Japan which had stayed out of WWII had decided it really, really wanted the bomb it almost certainly would have it before 1960. If such technological titans as Maoist China and Idira Ghandi's India could build the bomb, the Japanese certainly could do so.

China was given a reactor and unlimted access to Soviet research on the subject. India working mostly on its own took longer to catch up and even so they still doen't look to have the ability to produce an H Bomb.

Could Japan of today have nukes? Sure they have a good deal of the technical and industrial know-how in place. Could Japan of the 1940's have built one? The answer is a big fat NO. The problem is not in bomb design itself any university student with a few courses in physics can understand how a bomb works. That’s not the hard part, the hard part is coming up with the couple of pounds of Uranium or Plutonium. There is a reason that the Manhattan Project cost over a billion dollars in 1940’s money.

Absent a war and assuming no outside help at all for Japan? They have to do the entire fuel stage and separation themselves from scratch… 1970 maybe mid 60’s for a simple impulsion or gun weapon, add on 5 more years or so each for a boosted yield weapon and then finally a thermonuclear device.


Michael

 

[NapoleonXIV]

I don't think the Japanese would have tried to make a bomb. If they concluded a peace with China in 1941 (and they probably could have done so on rather favorable terms to themselves) they would have been far too busy getting filthy rich by selling weapons to both sides in WWII.

East Asia would end up looking fairly much as it does today, but Japan would be the main and undisputed power in the area. Far fewer governments outside of China would have strong revolutionary movements that Japan disapproved of. Taiwan would be an ally, maybe even province of Japan and so would Korea. Manchuria would exist as a rump China and another Japanese ally. China would have little to say about it but would certainly try. The US and Russia would be put in the odd position of mitigating an ongoing Cold war between the two.

 

[Matthew Craw]

The Japanese in the 1930s actually had an industrial base about twice the size of Italy's, without taking into account the industrial productiojn of Japanese controlled Korea aand Manchuria. Of course they didn't have an engineering base on the same level as Germany or America, but they were on the same level as france, unquestionably ahead of Italy and with fewer, but generally better trained, engineers than the Soviet Union. It's simply absurd to argue that they wouldn't have been able to build a bomb by the end of the fifties.

 

[B_Munro]

Its not a question of racism if the Japanese of the time just didn't have enough engineers, scientists and the like to build stuff on their own. You yourself point this fact out! Did Japan come up with some very inventive and innovative things? Sure but a lot of stuff the Japanese had was built under licenses from foreign designs.

It's called catching up. Of course you imitate and adopt foreign technology if you're building from an intial position a century or two behind the competition. The japanese copied foreign imports until they mastered the technology, and then moved on to building their own, often improving upon foreign designs.

The cold hard reality of Japans situation is not only did they have an industrial base smaller than Italy’s but far more of their population were farmers. Making the above statement is not racist if its fact especially if viewed within context of the statement.

Well, this line certainly sounds like racism to me.

"Never, if they don't get the help from Germany"

Perhaps he simply meant "not in the 1940's", but saying the Japanese are ineffective innovators - as in contrast with, say, the British or the French - is a distinctly dubious statement.

And the Japanese were innovative enought to create a far more effective military machine than the Italians.

China was given a reactor and unlimted access to Soviet research on the subject. India working mostly on its own took longer to catch up and even so they still doen't look to have the ability to produce an H Bomb.

Ah, I know I would get this argument. "Well, they had help! Nobody but our superior American scientists could have developed it on their own without decades of effort! Other people we either helped or they stole stuff from us!" The trouble with this argument is that after somebody invents the bomb, everyone else who wants one is going to try to get their hands on other people's work: it is therefore allways easy to make this argument, since, by golly, everyone else _will_ probably persuade someone to help them or steal info.

I'll spot you the Chinese, who did get quite a bit of help before 1959, but India had a plutonium plant in operation by 1964, and although they set off their first bomb in 1974, they probably could have done it earlier if they'd had enough incentive. Neither the Chinese or the Indians were plugging steadily away on an atom bomb from 1945 onward. And the Japanese were a bit more technologically and economically advanced than the Chinese or Indians, even in 1940-odd.

Could Japan of today have nukes? Sure they have a good deal of the technical and industrial know-how in place. Could Japan of the 1940's have built one? The answer is a big fat NO.

And I wasn't arguing that. I was pointing out that a lot can be accomplished by, say, the late 50's.

The problem is not in bomb design itself any university student with a few courses in physics can understand how a bomb works. That’s not the hard part, the hard part is coming up with the couple of pounds of Uranium or Plutonium. There is a reason that the Manhattan Project cost over a billion dollars in 1940’s money.

Absent a war and assuming no outside help at all for Japan?
They have to do the entire fuel stage and separation themselves from scratch…

A few things:
you can build a bomb a lot cheaper if you don't insist on having the project done in 4 years time, and don't try to attack the problem every way simultaneoulsy. And the Japanese, unless they're some sort of North-Korea type hermit state, are not going to be "without help." ANY state, post-1945, is going to look for outside help, and will find it. If the normal experience of international trade and scientific intellectual exchange exists, japan is getting help. Japanese students abroad. Unclassified work on nuclear power availiable in libraries. Access to new technological developments in industry, chemical engineering, etc through the normal channels of commerce. Espionage and bribery. Possible joint projects with the French...and the engineering problems involved in isotope separation or plutonium processing, although tough for someone in the 1930's, are hardly going to remain insoluble all the way until the 1960's for a country which is keeping up technologically.

Bruce

 

[B_Munro]

I don't think the Japanese would have tried to make a bomb. If they concluded a peace with China in 1941 (and they probably could have done so on rather favorable terms to themselves) they would have been far too busy getting filthy rich by selling weapons to both sides in WWII.

Yes, but _after_ WWII they have an unfriendly USSR and, eventually, China as neighbors, and likely a prickly relationship with the US. A little nuclear deterrent looks pretty good under the circumstances.

East Asia would end up looking fairly much as it does today, but Japan would be the main and undisputed power in the area.

By 2005, probably still "main", but probably not "undisputed", unless China has fragmented badly. Possibly a unified Indochina, depending on how the end of French rule went.

Far fewer governments outside of China would have strong revolutionary movements that Japan disapproved of.

Not sure what you mean here: do you mean "revolutionary government ideologies"?

Taiwan would be an ally, maybe even province of Japan

Province in 1941, likely to remain one.

and so would Korea. Manchuria would exist as a rump China and another Japanese ally.

Depends on how screwed up China is. A strong and fairly democratic China would be a magnet for Manchurian revolutionaries: a China which is North Korea writ large might make Manchurians happy to retain a military alliance with Japan. OTL Japan did a good job of seriously alienating the local population, but the situation might still be somewhat redeemable.

 

[Grey Wolf]

I suppose it depends on how one views the question, and what one believes was being asked

I assumed we were talking 1940s Japan here

If we are postulating extrapolations into the 1950s and 1960s then yeah, all options become open because who is to know what circumstances will open up

No, I don't subscribe to racism. I looked at Japan's path to industrialisation and the examples I knew most about - battleships and naval aviation - and posted accordingly

I also understood that Japan's progress during the war on both things such as jet-powered aircraft, and its nuclear programme depended on help from Germany, eg plans and a dismantled Me262 sent by submarine and at VE Day a cargo in transit of uranium that Japan could have used which was seized by the USA

To me, that spoke of Japan being unable in that timeframe to achieve the nuclear bomb itself

If one is supposed to be talking about the 1950s or 1960s without a war, well I missed that inference

Grey Wolf

 

[zoomar]

Glad you didn't butt out completely Grey Wolf...but calling the Japanese merely imitators was just so...wrong. I almost expected "clever monkeys" in the next sentence.

But overall you are right about the level of Japanese technology. Although pre WW2 Japan had a thin veneer of very high and creative technological sophistication, much of the country was virtually preindustrial. Japanese physicists could imagine and theorize about nucler fission, but the nation completely lacked the ability to put theory and complex engineering into wide practice. Japanese engineers could come up with the Long Lance torpedo, great heavy cruisers, and fully modern aircraft but once any pressure was put on the industrial infrastructure needed to maintain and produce more of these weapons, things tended to fall apart.

My guess is no Pacific War (and no US occupation of Japan) means a Japan which stays as a middling producer of cheap consumer goods and with the only real innovation going into the military.

 

[Grey Wolf]

I will quote myself

It was very good at taking what others did, imitating it, then doing it better sometimes, or at least as well.

How is this demeaning or racist ???

They start off by imitating and end up sometimes doing it better ?

Grey Wolf

 

[miketr]

The Japanese in the 1930s actually had an industrial base about twice the size of Italy's, without taking into account the industrial productiojn of Japanese controlled Korea aand Manchuria. Of course they didn't have an engineering base on the same level as Germany or America, but they were on the same level as france, unquestionably ahead of Italy and with fewer, but generally better trained, engineers than the Soviet Union. It's simply absurd to argue that they wouldn't have been able to build a bomb by the end of the fifties.

Checking my notes I was wrong on the industrial numbers...

2.73% for Italy as of 1938
5.22% for Japan as of 1938
% is of total world industry.

Why is it absurd to think that Japan would take longer than the Soviets? If you note what I said, totaly on their own with NO outside help. The soviets from their moles in the US and UK programs had access to all of the critical data and can avoid the dead ends. In addition the soviets industrial base is just short of double Japans in 1938.

9.02%

After WW2 who is going to help Japan? Who is going to provide them with the key data or a working reactor and the most important thing how to handle the separation process? Even if Japan sits out WW2 its still a pariah. Certain things can be found from the general information but even then there is a BIG step from paper knowledge and a working reactor and an even bigger jump to the bomb. Perhaps France would help them but that’s not till after France figures things out on its own which is 1960. A country even more advanced industrially and scientifically than Japan. Look at the UK they figured it out in 1952. A nation that has an even bigger lead over Japan yet still took 7 years to get a working design, the material for it and its test. So no mid 1960’s to 1970 is VERY reasonable.

Michael

 

[miketr]

It's called catching up. Of course you imitate and adopt foreign technology if you're building from an intial position a century or two behind the competition. The japanese copied foreign imports until they mastered the technology, and then moved on to building their own, often improving upon foreign designs.

Well, this line certainly sounds like racism to me.

"Never, if they don't get the help from Germany"

Perhaps he simply meant "not in the 1940's", but saying the Japanese are ineffective innovators - as in contrast with, say, the British or the French - is a distinctly dubious statement.

You read what you want into it but the context to me clearly is the war and right after.

And the Japanese were innovative enought to create a far more effective military machine than the Italians.

Both nations had + and - to them. The reason for the difference in performance of the two nations militaries was not technical but rather proffesional.

Ah, I know I would get this argument. "Well, they had help! Nobody but our superior American scientists could have developed it on their own without decades of effort! Other people we either helped or they stole stuff from us!" The trouble with this argument is that after somebody invents the bomb, everyone else who wants one is going to try to get their hands on other people's work: it is therefore allways easy to make this argument, since, by golly, everyone else _will_ probably persuade someone to help them or steal info.

I'll spot you the Chinese, who did get quite a bit of help before 1959, but India had a plutonium plant in operation by 1964, and although they set off their first bomb in 1974, they probably could have done it earlier if they'd had enough incentive. Neither the Chinese or the Indians were plugging steadily away on an atom bomb from 1945 onward. And the Japanese were a bit more technologically and economically advanced than the Chinese or Indians, even in 1940-odd.

And I wasn't arguing that. I was pointing out that a lot can be accomplished by, say, the late 50's.

Please look at the dates for the French and British tests. Why would Japan do as well as the UK(1952 first succesful test) and better than France (1960 first successful test)?

I have no problem with Japan getting the bomb and if you look at my dates I am spotting them and edge over India. Mid 1960's to 1970. I do have a problem with Japan being able to beat nations that are more advanced than it and or have access to the technical details. Without said access Japan has to reinvent the wheel. That path is difficult, time consuming and will take huge amounts of money. If Japan gets outside help the date of course moves up. The problem for that is its just the USA or USSR right after the war and later the UK. Why are any of these 3 going to help Japan get the bomb?

The edge the US had was that thanks to the fighting in Europe it had access to a very large percentage of the worlds key physicists and enough money to brute force the problem by trying multiple solutions at once. Japan lacks the money and skills to match this achievement in anything less than a decades time scale even knowing that it can be done at all which is a big bonus.

A few things:
you can build a bomb a lot cheaper if you don't insist on having the project done in 4 years time, and don't try to attack the problem every way simultaneoulsy. And the Japanese, unless they're some sort of North-Korea type hermit state, are not going to be "without help." ANY state, post-1945, is going to look for outside help, and will find it. If the normal experience of international trade and scientific intellectual exchange exists, japan is getting help. Japanese students abroad. Unclassified work on nuclear power availiable in libraries. Access to new technological developments in industry, chemical engineering, etc through the normal channels of commerce. Espionage and bribery. Possible joint projects with the French...and the engineering problems involved in isotope separation or plutonium processing, although tough for someone in the 1930's, are hardly going to remain insoluble all the way until the 1960's for a country which is keeping up technologically.

Bruce

Look at the dates again and my orginial statement, NO OUTSIDE HELP.

1945 Just the USA can help with finished data
1949 Add the USSR to the list
1952 Add the UK to the list
1960 Add the French to the list

Might France be willing to do a joint project? Sure perhaps it is something of a loner in world politics.

Michael